Cities in Latin America, Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe are being virtually transformed by inflows of capital in ways that urban land use planners never thought possible. These cities desperately need to develop and implement urban land management systems to maximize the social as well as private benefits of globalization. This article looks at globalization trends, identifies urban land management issues and opportunities, and discusses how Buenos Aires, as a case example, could strengthen its urban land management systems to better accommodate globalization-induced economic growth.

Globalization Trends

Over the past 20 years the world economy has become more and more integrated. International trade and investment have increased and the spatial distribution of industrial activities has become more diffused. Advances in communications, computer technology and logistics have revolutionized how business is conducted and how financial capital is invested. Many cities and regions that were once off the beaten track are now on the world’s main street, and those that once dominated certain markets, such as Glasgow in shipbuilding, Birmingham in textiles and Pittsburgh in steel, have lost ground.

Globalization, that is the international integration of product, service and financial markets, poses enormous opportunities and challenges. In the best of circumstances, globalization can lead to significant increases in non-agricultural employment, increasing wages, improved living conditions and better environmental quality. In other cases it may mean plant closures, unemployment, declining incomes and worsened living conditions

Because globalization requires foreign direct investment in plants and facilities, the internationalization of industrial activities is profoundly altering the world’s urban economic landscape. Over the past two decades, cities benefiting from global structuring have grown rapidly, while less economically competitive cities have stagnated. Given their plentiful supplies of cheap labor and permissive regulatory environments, cities in developing countries have become important actors in global manufacturing.

Multinational manufacturing corporations have been the principal driving force of globalization. These firms have increasingly shifted production from developed to developing countries to exploit the advantages of inexpensive labor. As they restructure their networks of production, they invest in plants and equipment in the host countries and generate significant increases in employment. According to the World Bank, five of the eight million jobs created by multinationals between 1985 and 1992 were generated in developing countries. The total number of jobs created by multinationals in developing countries stands at 12 million, but when subcontracting is included the true total is likely to be 24 million jobs. Multinationals account for more than 20 percent of the total manufacturing employment in such countries as Argentina, Barbados, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore and Sri Lanka.

Urban Land Management Issues and Opportunities

As cities strive to become centers of global production, trade and development, they are increasingly concerned with improving their attractiveness for foreign direct investment and employment generation. For example, cities must have efficient spatial structures, adequate infrastructure and urban services, affordable housing and healthy environments. Effective urban land management is required to promote urban regeneration and development of new industrial and commercial districts, investments to upgrade and expand critical infrastructure systems, programs to enhance and protect the environment, and initiatives to upgrade social overhead capital (housing, education, healthcare).

To implement these initiatives globalizing cities need to develop urban land management strategies to provide land for industrial and commercial development, to facilitate the formation of public-private partnerships, and to finance the provision of infrastructure and social overhead capital investments. Unfortunately, in many cities around the world such strategies do not exist and foreign investment is either stifled or, if it does take place, causes significant adverse side effects. Several examples highlight the consequences of poor urban land management.

In Ho Chi Minh City, planners have not carefully assessed the land use and transportation impacts of foreign investment. The city administration has approved dozens of high-rise office projects in the Central District but they have not adequately assessed the traffic and infrastructure impacts of these projects. As a result traffic congestion and infrastructure problems with the water supply and sewerage treatment are mounting. To make matters worse, planners have approved the development of Saigon South, a massive 3,000-hectare commercial, industrial and residential project, without assessing its impacts on the city’s transportation system.

Getting access to land for factories and commercial facilities is problematic, particularly in the transition economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Decades of inefficient allocation of land for industrial uses have literally blighted inner-city areas in Warsaw, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Derelict industrial belts that desperately need regeneration surround these cities. Unfortunately, a lack of clarity over land rights, corruption and bureaucratic inertia are impeding redevelopment. To compound matters, land use plans in many transition economy cities have not been adjusted to reflect the new land use requirements necessary to support post-industrial development.

The globalization of economic activity is literally transforming the urban landscapes of developing countries. To effectively exploit the benefits of inward investment flows and to insure that social and environmental goals are met, the public sector needs to take the lead in planning and formulating urban land management strategies to promote sustainable urban economic development.

The Case of Buenos Aires

A recent Lincoln Institute seminar in Buenos Aires offered some ideas on what actions are needed to more effectively manage the challenges of globalization-induced investment and urban economic development in that city. Participants agreed that Buenos Aires needs to strengthen its land management and economic development capabilities. The city should foster the formation of agglomeration economies and define and strengthen its comparative advantage in the global marketplace. The public sector should also foster the formation of social overhead capital and facilitate the development of critical infrastructure, social services and other investments that cannot be provided by the private sector.

Government needs to remove market imperfections and internalize externalities so that the social benefits of urban development are maximized and social costs minimized. This requires having in place sound and appropriate land use and environmental planning controls and regulations. Government should also provide information about the city’s demographic and economic projections and its land and property market so that developers and investors are well informed about urban development trends. This effort includes developing an inventory and assessment of public land holdings that can be used to foster strategic planning objectives.

At the same time, government should work with community and business leaders to improve social equity in real estate market transactions by increasing the supply of affordable housing and seeing that infrastructure and urban services are provided to all neighborhoods regardless of social or economic status. This may include preparing a capital budget for critical infrastructure and real estate development projects, as well as strategies for financing these investments.

The private sector is challenged with developing the city by providing businesses and residents with shops, offices, factories and housing. To the fullest extent possible, the government should enable the private sector to develop real estate to match the changing requirements of households and businesses. In some cases, such activities require partnerships between the public and private sector. For its part, the private sector needs to be more cautious and systematic about the formation and promotion of real estate projects by paying more attention to land market research on occupancy demand and supply for offices, retail, industrial and residential sectors.

To facilitate the implementation of these actions, the seminar participants encouraged Buenos Aires officials to build awareness about the linkages between globalization, urban land management and economic development. One important step would be to form a partnership with the private sector to develop a land market database of real estate transactions in the city. In addition, the participants identified the need for training courses on such topics as strategic planning; public-private partnerships; financing urban development and infrastructure; developing affordable housing; linking urban land management with economic development; and promoting urban revitalization and regeneration.

David E. Dowall is professor of city and regional planning at the University of California at Berkeley.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Bajo condiciones de rápido crecimiento urbano, la concentración de la propiedad de la tierra y las leyes que regulan su uso contribuyen con frecuencia a la escasez de tierras dotadas de servicios públicos. Esta escasez, a su vez, lleva a grandes aumentos de los precios de la tierra e increíbles ganancias especulativas. Cuando los marcos legales y administrativos no se pueden cambiar fácilmente (para permitir que los mercados operen ajustes graduales del precio que puedan ser tasados por medio de los impuestos existentes a la propiedad y las ganacias de capital) la captura de la plusvalía es una intervención apropiada para obtener un desarrollo urbano sostenible, eficiente y equitativo.

A principios de la década de 1990, dos ciudades colombianas, Bogotá y Cali, adoptaron reglamentos del uso de la tierra orientados a la expansión de la oferta de tierras para el uso residencial. Bogotá abrió al mercado el acceso a una zona reservada en el medio de la ciudad, llamada “El Salitre”, con el propósito de proveer servicios urbanos y establecer normas especiales para asegurar el desarrollo de viviendas para la población de bajos y medianos ingresos. Cali extendió su perímetro urbano para incluir un área de tierras pantanosas conocida como la “Ciudadela Desepaz”, la cual necesitaba grandes inversiones en servicios públicos. La ciudad planeaba suministrar los servicios básicos como incentivo para que su propio departamento de vivienda y los promotores privados construyeran viviendas para grupos de bajos ingresos.

El simple anuncio de que los respectivos concejos estaban a punto de promover desarrollos aumentó significativamente los precios de las tierras. En el caso de Cali, las transacciones registradas en la Ciudadela Desepaz reflejaron aumentos de los precios de más del 300 por ciento, aun antes de que el Concejo Municipal tomara una decisión formal. La tierra pasó rápidamente de manos de un grupo disperso de hacendados de ganado relativamente desconocidos (y, según fue documentado posteriormente, algunos traficantes de drogas extranjeros y locales) a manos de especuladores y promotores urbanos. Una serie de decisiones administrativas durante un período de 30 meses impulsó el valor prácticamente nulo en el mercado de ciertas tierras a precios de más de 14.000 pesos colombianos por metro cuadrado (aproximadamente 18 dólares estadounidenses en 1995). Tales decisiones dieron como resultado ganancias generales de más de 1.000 veces el precio original de la tierra, una vez considerada la inflación.

El Salitre, en Bogotá, siguió un proceso similar de toma de decisiones por parte de la administración urbana que aumentó sustancialmente el precio de la tierra. No es sorprendente que los proyectos de vivienda en ambos casos se encuentren ocupados por grupos de medianos y altos ingresos, en lugar de los sectores de bajos ingresos anticipados originalmente.

Puesto que casos como los de Desepaz y El Salitre ocurren regularmente en las principales ciudades colombianas, el gobierno nacional preparó una propuesta de ley para permitir que las ciudades capturen la mayor parte de los aumentos en el precio de la tierra que puedan atribuirse primordialmente a cambios de uso autorizados. Tales cambios incluyen zonificación, variaciones de densidad o conversión del uso de la tierra de agrícola a urbano. La propuesta –inspirada por medidas de las leyes españolas y brasileñas, similares aunque menos estrictas– fue aprobada por el Congreso Colombiano como la Ley No 388 de 1997.

Las leyes colombianas del impuesto sobre la renta –incluyendo la exitosa Contribución de Valorización, una tasa a las mejoras de la propiedad limitada a la recuperación del costo de la inversión pública– no resultan eficaces para capturar el tipo de ganancias de capital extremas registradas en Desepaz o El Salitre. La Ley No 388 de 1997, conocida como la Ley de Desarrollo Territorial, ofrece varias opciones para que las autoridades locales puedan “participar de las plusvalías” a través de la recaudación de una nueva “contribución al desarrollo territorial”. Las ciudades y los propietarios pueden negociar pagos en efectivo, en especie (por medio de la transferencia de parte de las tierras), o a través de la combinación de pagos en especie (tierras) y la formación de una sociedad de desarrollo urbano entre los propietarios, la ciudad y los promotores, por ejemplo.

La implementación de este nuevo instrumento de captura de la plusvalía constituye un desafío formidable para los administradores urbanos colombianos, quienes se ven obligados a identificar los aumentos del valor que se deben primordialmente a decisiones administrativas. Entre las dificultades a superar se incluyen la medida del aumento relevante del valor de la tierra, la negociación de las formas de pago y el establecimiento de sociedades de desarrollo urbano.

Como parte de su programa de investigación y educación en Latinoamérica, el Instituto Lincoln ha estado colaborando con representantes oficiales colombianos desde 1994 a fin de suministrar el entrenamiento y apoyo técnico durante etapas sucesivas de preparación e implementación de la Ley No 388 de 1997. El Instituto contempla trabajar con otros países que experimenten problemas con los precios de la tierra y deseen considerar medidas de captura de la plus-valía similares a la ley colombiana.

Fernando Rojas, abogado de Colombia, fue visitante asociado del Instituto Lincoln en 1997-1998. Junto con Víctor M. Moncayo, actual Presidente de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, preparó la propuesta que posteriormente se convirtió en la Ley No 338. También participó en ella Carolina Barco de Botero, miembra de la Directiva del Instituto Lincoln, quien en ese entonces se encontraba dirigiendo el Programa de Desarrollo de las Naciones Unidas, entidad que supervisó la preparación de la propuesta de ley para el gobierno colombiano. Martim O. Smolka es Senior Fellow y director de programas Latinoamericanos y del Caribe del Instituto Lincoln.

* La captura de la plusvalía se refiere a medidas fiscales o de otro tipo utilizadas por los gobiernos para identificar y asignar la parte de los aumentos del valor de la tierra atribuíble al esfuerzo comunitario más que a las acciones de los propietarios. En Latinoamérica, estos aumentos en el valor de la tierra se denominan con frecuencia plusvalías.

Within the framework of economic restructuring, privatization and globalization, the issue of urban land and conflicts over its use is a top priority for El Salvador. Numerous factors contribute to the critical status of land management in the country:

• The small geographical size of the country and its large and growing number of inhabitants.
• The extraordinary concentration of rural land ownership in a few hands. This historical trend has been the source of a peasant uprising (1932), a civil war (1981-1992) and two important agricultural reforms (1980 and 1992), the latter leading to the Program for Transfer of Land supervised by the United Nations for ex-combatants and those affected by the civil war.
• A weak legal and fiscal system that has favored eviction and the generation of numerous conflicts; for example, a land tax does not exist.
• A serious process of degradation of the environment that introduces strong conditions and restrictions to the functioning of the land markets.
• An accentuated process of internal migration that has concentrated a third of the population in the metropolitan region of El Salvador.
• The large number of El Salvadoran migrants in the United States who transfer a major source of capital to their native country. This influx of cash through largely informal transactions has accelerated a booming property market.

The Lincoln Institute is working with the Salvadoran Program for Development and Environmental Research (PRISMA) to present a series of seminars for high-level municipal and national government officials, private development agents and representatives of non-governmental organizations. Last spring the two groups cosponsored a course on the functioning of the urban land markets and this fall will follow up with a course on “Regulatory Instruments for the Use of Urban Land.”

This program addresses the urgent need to create economic and regulatory instruments to promote strategic urban land management, contribute to the ongoing process of democratization and support sustainable development. The course is particularly timely because El Salvador is in the process of establishing a Ministry of the Environment and drafting legislation to address issues of territorial organization.

Mario Lungo Ucles is a researcher affiliated with PRISMA, the Salvadoran Program for Development and Environmental Research, in San Salvador.

Gated communities are residential areas with restricted access designed to privatize normally public spaces. These developments occur in both new suburban developments and older inner city areas retrofitted to provide security. We estimate that at least three or four million and potentially many more Americans are seeking this new form of refuge from the problems of urbanization.

This rapidly growing phenomenon has become ubiquitous in many areas of the country since the late 1980s. While early gated communities were restricted to retirement villages and the compounds of the super rich, the majority found today are middle to upper-middle class. Along with the trend toward “forting up” in new developments, existing neighborhoods of both rich and poor are using barricades and gates with increasing frequency to isolate themselves.

Gated communities can be classified in three main categories based on the primary motivation of their residents. Two types of “lifestyle” communities provide security and separation for the leisure activities and amenities within. These include retirement communities and golf or country club leisure developments as one subgroup and suburban new towns as another.

In “elite” communities the gates symbolize distinction and prestige. Through both creating and protecting a secure place on the social ladder, these communities become enclaves of the rich and famous, developments for the very affluent, and executive home developments for the middle class.

The third type is the “security zone,” where fear of crime and outsiders is the key motivation for defensive fortifications. This category includes middle-class areas where residents attempt to protect property and property values; working-class neighborhoods, often in deteriorating sections of the city; and low-income areas, including public housing complexes, where crime is acute.

Urban Problems Stimulate Trend to Gating

High levels of foreign immigration, a growing underclass and a restructured economy are changing the face of many metropolitan areas and fueling the drive for separation, distinction, exclusion and protection. Gated communities are themselves a microcosm of America’s larger spatial pattern of segmentation and separation by income, race and economic opportunity. Suburbanization has not meant a lessening of segregation, but only a redistribution of the old urban patterns. Minority and immigrant suburbanization is concentrated in the inner ring and old manufacturing suburbs. At the same time, poverty is no longer concentrated in the central city, but is suburbanizing rapidly.

Gated communities are not yet the normal pattern in the nation. They are primarily a metropolitan and coastal phenomenon, with the largest aggregations being in California, Texas and Florida. However, gates are being erected in almost every state. Real estate developers suggest that the demand for homes in gated communities is increasing, and there is evidence that housing appreciation in such developments is higher than outside the gates.

Fear of crime is the strongest rationale for this new form of community. According to recent reports in Miami and other areas where gates and barricades have become the norm, some forms of crime, such as car theft, are reduced. On the other hand, some data indicate that the crime rate inside the gates is only marginally altered by barricades. Nevertheless, residents report less fear of crime in such settings. This reduction in fear is important in itself, since it can lead to increased neighborly contact, which can reduce crime in the long run.

Policy Issues for Community Life

The development of gated areas is related to the uncoupling of industry from cities and of professionals from the industrial core. Geography compounds current trends toward fragmentation and privatization by undercutting the old foundation of community and providing a new rationale for the lifestyle enclave or gated community based on shared socioeconomic status. This narrowing of social contact is likewise narrowing the social contract.

Privatization- the replacement of public government and its functions by private organizations which purchase services from the market- is promoted as a “benefit” of gated communities, but it may have serious impacts on the broader community. Private communities provide their own security, street maintenance, parks, recreation, garbage collection and other services, thus relieving taxpayers of additional burdens. However, they may also have the unintended consequence of reducing voter interest in participating in tax programs or voluntary efforts to deal with community problems or additional public services such as schools, streets, police or other city and county government programs.

The resulting loss of connection between citizens in privatized and traditional communities loosens social contact and weakens the bonds of mutual responsibility that are a normal part of community living. As a result, there is less and less talk of citizenship. The new lexicon of civic responsibility is that of the taxpayers who take no active role in governance but merely exchange money for services. Residents of privatized gated communities say they are taking care of themselves and lessening the public burden, but this perspective has the potential for redistributing public costs and benefits.

Walled and gated communities are a dramatic manifestation of the fortress mentality growing in America. As citizens divide themselves into homogenous, independent cells, their place in the greater polity and society becomes attenuated, increasing resistance to efforts to resolve municipal, let alone regional, problems.

The forting-up phenomenon has enormous policy consequences.What is the measure of nationhood when neighborhoods require armed patrols and electric fencing to keep out other citizens? When public services and even local governments are privatized and when the community of responsibility stops at the subdivision gates, what happens to the function and the very idea of democracy? In short, can this nation fulfill its social contract in the absence of social contact?

Edward J. Blakely, a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is dean and Lusk Professor of Planning and Development for the School of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Southern California. Mary Gail Snyder is a doctoral student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California at Berkeley.

Additional information in printed newsletter:

1. Map of the United States showing concentrations of Gated Communities.

2. Table showing Social Dimensions of Gated Communities.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 3 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

La ejecución de cualquier programa nacional de planeación a escala regional o local puede ser un reto, incluso en las circunstancias más propicias. Colombia enfrenta muchos problemas sociales, políticos y económicos que bien podrían haber desvirtuado la expansión de su iniciativa principal de planeación: el programa nacional de catastro. Algunos de estos problemas tienen su origen en el gobierno descentralizado, los cambios de mando en la gestión pública local, la inestabilidad de la economía y las dificultades generalizadas vinculadas a la pobreza, el narcotráfico y la intervención internacional. No obstante esta situación, el Departamento Administrativo de Catastro Distrital de Bogota (DACD) está recibiendo un reconocimiento cada vez mayor como un precedente exitoso para los países en desarrollo de América Latina y más allá.

Aunque las transferencias legales, la política de suelos y la planeación han sido aspectos significativos en toda la historia de los catastros, la gestión fiscal ha sido el principal centro de atención en Bogotá para sus ciudadanos y el sector empresarial por igual. El proceso administrativo de los avalúos abarca el mantenimiento de una base de datos que se alimenta de la información aportada por las divisiones encargadas del modelo econométrico, los sistemas de información geográfica (SIG), la creación de códigos y normatividad, la cartografía, el análisis socioeconómico de sectores homogéneos, la matrícula inmobiliaria y la zonificación. Como se señaló en el artículo anterior, los números de inmuebles incorporados (formación catastral) y actualizados (actualización catastral) han aumentado considerablemente (véase la Figura 1).

El gran volumen de predios y mejoras ha podido manejarse en un lapso tan corto gracias a un plan administrativo minucioso e integral. El proceso reglamentario de participación pública no puso en riesgo la eficiencia con la cual se llevaron a cabo las actualizaciones y la certificación de inmuebles. Durante el año fiscal pasado, el modelo econométrico tomó en cuenta las variables típicas del avalúo y también consideró un elemento clave en el catastro de Bogotá, el “autoavalúo”. De conformidad con la Ley 44 de 1990, se utiliza un proceso de declaración y revisión públicas para actualizar y mantener la cédula catastral de cada inmueble. El propietario u ocupante presenta un estimado del valor del inmueble y su depreciación o apreciación, según lo estipulado en la Ley de Reforma del Impuesto Predial Unificado. Esta legislación busca simplificar la administración tributaria territorial y evitar la posibilidad de gravar los mismos factores dos veces. Si bien es importante recurrir a los ciudadanos para que suministren la información más actualizada con respecto a las condiciones del inmueble, también es imprescindible la verificación. De esta manera, un grupo de peritos profesionales debidamente capacitados han realizado inspecciones de todos los inmuebles registrados en el sistema catastral. Los ciudadanos han tenido muy buena disposición para suministrar información sobre las mejoras en terrenos desocupados, puesto que la tasa del impuesto sobre suelo no urbanizado es mayor que la tasa sobre suelo con mejoras. Este enfoque de planeación integral ha limitado la especulación y por ende ha estimulado la inversión de la comunidad.

El uso de SIG ha sido un factor determinante para la integración y evaluación en todo el departamento de las revisiones de inmuebles, actualizaciones del sistema y la administración general del programa. El IGAC está en el proceso de desarrollo de un programa basado en el software ArcCadastre en coordinación con la Universidad de Bogotá. El objetivo es vincular todos los catastros regionales con la base de datos nacional. En el área de Bogotá un SIG central proporciona a los funcionarios catastrales una base de datos valiosa que incluye un inventario interactivo y multifuncional que se utiliza durante el proceso de disminución del impuesto predial. El SIG se ha ampliado recientemente para ofrecer al público general una herramienta de consulta de datos de los registros históricos de los inmuebles, además de listados de los bienes raíces de todos los vecindarios. Con el uso propuesto para el SIG y el aumento del número de terminales públicos, se tendrá un acceso mayor al sistema catastral. Mientras tanto, la página Web del DACD es una creativa herramienta educativa que mantiene a los usuarios informados a la vez que controla este complejo proceso.

El catastro de Bogotá ha logrado avances novedosos y tangibles en la creación, desarrollo y mantenimiento de un sistema catastral considerado por muchos una imposibilidad teórica. La visión y la tenacidad de los administradores públicos, la empresa privada y los ciudadanos contribuyeron a crear un catastro que debiera cumplir e incluso superar las metas previstas en el Catastro 2014 de la FIG (Van der Molen 2003). Este plan requiere que un catastro tenga “derechos inclusivos y restricciones sobre el suelo en los registros cartográficos, modelos integrales de mapas catastrales, colaboración continua entre los sectores público y privado y un catastro que permita la recuperación de costos”. En vista de sus retos políticos, administrativos, financieros, técnicos y prácticos, el catastro de Bogotá ha logrado convertir un sueño en una realidad innovadora.

Michelle Thompson es consultora de bienes raíces e investigación y dicta clases de sistemas de información geográfica en el Departamento de Planeación de Ciudades y Regiones de la Universidad de Cornell. Además pertenece al cuerpo docente asociado del Instituto Lincoln; participó en la conferencia sobre catastros realizada en Bogotá en noviembre de 2003.

The Pawcatuck Borderlands illustrates what is fast becoming one of the major puzzles in land use policy—how to plan across boundaries. Countless examples across the country (and arguably the world) demonstrate two fundamental points (Foster 2001; Porter and Wallis 2002; McKinney et al. 2002). First, the territory of many land use problems transcends the legal and geographic reach of existing jurisdictions and institutions (public, private, and other). In the Borderlands area, the spatial dimension of the problems created by increasing population growth and demand for municipal services cuts across multiple jurisdictions.

This mismatch between the geography of the problem and the geography of existing institutions leads to the second point: the people affected by such problems have interdependent interests, which means that none of them have sufficient power or authority to adequately address the problems on their own, yet self-interest often impedes cooperation.

These observations are not new. The history of regionalism in America dates back to at least the mid-nineteenth century and the writing of John Wesley Powell (McKinney et al. 2004). As we move into the twenty-first century, there seem to be two basic responses to this planning puzzle. The first is to create new regional institutions or realign existing institutions to correspond to the territory of the problem, and the second is to start with more informal, ad hoc regional forums.

Some of the more notable examples of regional land use institutions include the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (1969), Adirondack Park Agency (1971), New Jersey Pinelands Commission (1979), and the Cape Cod Commission (1990). The impetus to establish such entities requires a significant amount of political commitment upfront, or sometimes legal pressure from influential court cases. Once the regional organizations are established, they tend to require a great deal of effort to sustain. This largely explains why there have been so few proposals to create such institutions in the past few decades (see Jensen 1965; Derthick 1974; Robbins et al. 1983; and Calthorpe and Fulton 2001).

Rather than create new institutions, leaders in more than 450 regions across the country have realigned existing institutions to form regional councils, which generally do not have the authority to make and impose decisions per se, but are designed to foster regional cooperation and the delivery of services. In New England, these organizations have evolved to fill the vacuum left by weak county government, and their boundaries often follow county boundaries, which may or may not correspond to the territory of the problem.

The second response, which is more common these days, is to bring together the “right” people with the best available information in tailor-made, ad hoc forums. This approach, which might be termed “regional network governance,” is more bottom-up than top-down, and depends largely on the ability of the participants to build and sustain informal networks to get things done. In some cases these ad hoc forums lay the groundwork to create more formal regional institutions in the future.

Obstacles to Regional Networks

Of course, building and sustaining regional networks is easier said than done. Our research and experience suggest there are four primary obstacles to planning across boundaries. First, the very nature of thinking and acting like a region raises questions about the participants and scope of the problem: Who should take the lead in organizing and convening regional conversations, and who else should be involved? What issues should be on the agenda? How should the region be defined? How can multiple parties—public, private, and nonprofit—share the responsibilities and costs to achieve identified goals? Even where regional planning councils exist, the rules governing or guiding such efforts are not clear.

Second, the value of working together is not always apparent or shared. As with other forms of multiparty negotiation, it is difficult to mobilize and engage people unless and until they believe that they are more likely to achieve their objectives through regional collaboration than by acting independently. Public officials may be reluctant to engage for fear that such efforts will undermine their authority, and business leaders and real estate developers may view collaboration as something not worth their time. Local citizens often cringe at the idea of regional planning, thinking that someone who does not live in the local area will be making decisions about their land. Other stakeholders may simply have different priorities or a better alternative to satisfy their interests.

Third, many people are unfamiliar with the process of regional collaboration, and that uncertainty makes them feel uncomfortable and reluctant. In addition, people may lack the skills to organize and represent their constituency, deal with scientifically complex issues, and negotiate effectively in a multiparty setting. Others may be uneasy with the organic nature of ad hoc regional forums, and how they should be linked to formal decision-making processes.

Even if participants can overcome these obstacles, their effectiveness at regional collaboration is often limited by a fourth factor: lack of resources. In an assessment of about 75 established regional initiatives in the West, nearly all participants said that “limited resources” was the primary obstacle to more effective collaboration (McKinney 2002). Among the resources cited were time, money, information, and knowledge. People trying to initiate and support regional land use projects in three recent projects (in the San Luis Valley in south-central Colorado, the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana, and the Upper Delaware River Basin) reported struggling due to a lack of financial resources and staffing capabilities.

In sum, the challenge of addressing multijurisdictional land use issues is not primarily a scientific or technical challenge, nor is it simply about managing land use more effectively and efficiently. At its core, regional land use is a sociopolitical challenge. It is a question of whether we can integrate the needs, interests, and visions of multiple jurisdictions, sectors, and interests. It is also a question of how society addresses shared and competing interests—in this case, land use.

An Emerging Framework

During the past few years, the Lincoln Institute has taken a leadership role in studying and evaluating regional collaboration on land use issues through policy and research reports, educational programs, and regional land use clinics. This collective body of work suggests at least three overarching lessons.

First, regional initiatives vary greatly in terms of who leads the project, as well as its scale, purpose, issues, activities, and structure, including funding and time frame. While some initiatives augment existing government institutions, others are more ad hoc in nature, filling gaps in governance at different levels. Whether formal or ad hoc, regional initiatives create public opportunities that would not otherwise exist to address land use issues that cut across multiple jurisdictions.

Second, regional collaboration includes both a procedural element (how to plan across boundaries) and a substantive element (policies, programs, activities, and other outcomes to address a particular regional land use issue). The Lincoln Institute’s work on the procedural aspects of regional collaboration complements and builds on its land use dispute resolution program, although it is different in two fundamental ways: regional collaboration deals primarily with multiple jurisdictions, which raises the key question of convening diverse stakeholders; and it has more to do with designing new systems of governance (both formal and informal) than with resolving disputes per se.

Third, there is no single model for planning across boundaries, but rather a set of principles to guide regional collaboration (see Figure 1). This “theory of change” posits that the implementation of something like this set of principles leads to better informed, more widely supported, and more effective solutions to multijurisdictional land use issues (see www.umtpri.org).

Guiding Principles for Regional Collaboration

• Focus on a compelling purpose
• Mobilize and engage the “right” people
• Define regional boundaries based on people’s interests
• Jointly name and frame issues
• Deliberate and make collaborative decisions
• Take strategic action
• Be flexible and adaptive to sustain regional collaboration

Some Outstanding Questions

Who should take the lead in organizing and convening regional conversations?

In many professional circles there is an ongoing debate about the role and ability of government to convene effective collaborative processes. Many people argue that government cannot successfully organize and convene such efforts given its built-in institutional resistance and lack of responsiveness. Citizens, by contrast, often can provide more effective forums through organic, grassroots initiatives. Throughout the West, there is a growing movement where citizens, frustrated by government’s lack of responsiveness, are convening place-based groups to address a variety of land use issues—ranging from growth management to endangered species to water allocation (Kemmis 2001). In the Northeast, citizens in adjacent towns and states are recognizing their shared resources, values, threats, and opportunities. They are committing to joint planning projects, regional economic development campaigns, and applications for official designation for their regions.

Recent studies indicate, however, that participation by one or more levels of government is essential to the effectiveness of the more ad hoc, citizen-driven processes (Kenney 2000; Susskind et al. 1999; Susskind et al. 2000). Governments not only provide financial and technical assistance, but also become critically important if the intent of a regional initiative is to shape or influence land use policy. Official government institutions, after all, constitute the formal public decision-making processes in our society.

Neither top-down nor bottom-up approaches are inherently superior, and in the final analysis the two ends of the spectrum need to come together to facilitate positive change. Whether a regional initiative is catalyzed and convened by citizens, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, or public officials, it is most effective when the people initiating the process exercise collaborative leadership. Such leaders facilitate development of a shared vision by crossing jurisdictional and cultural boundaries; forging coalitions among people with diverse interests and viewpoints; mobilizing the people, ideas, and resources needed to move in the desired direction; and sustaining networks of relationships. In this respect, regional collaboration is more like organizing a political campaign than preparing a regional plan.

Three vignettes—the first two based on regional clinics sponsored by the Lincoln Institute—illustrate the need to have the right convener and to employ the characteristics of collaborative leadership. In the Upper Delaware River Basin, two government agencies initiated a regional conversation, but they framed the problems and solutions prior to consulting with other stakeholders or citizens. Not surprisingly, many people who were not part of the initial process criticized both the definition of the region and the scope of the project.

In the San Luis Valley in Colorado, citizens and interest groups tried to organize a regional land use planning effort, but the local elected officials dragged their feet and characterized the participants as “rabble rousers.” This experience shows what can happen when citizens get ahead of decision makers, that is, when civic will outpaces political and institutional will.

On a more encouraging note, leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, as well as academics, the media, and others, have jointly convened Billings on the Move—a conversation on what is needed to promote and sustain the economic vitality of the region in and around Billings, Montana. One of the primary reasons for this project’s success is that all of the key stakeholders bought into the project from the beginning, and they jointly identified problems and framed solutions.

Is it possible to mobilize and engage people “upstream” in a proactive, preventive way, rather than “downstream” after a crisis, threat, or regional land use dispute has emerged?

In the San Luis Valley, citizens and leaders from all walks of life came together some years ago to fight and defeat a proposal to export precious groundwater out of the valley. This effort clearly demonstrated sufficient civic will and political capacity to organize regionally in response to a real external threat. However, the same people are now struggling to organize around land use issues when there is no immediate crisis. Some observers believe that if they do not act soon, however, the valley will eventually become another expensive tourist destination like Aspen, Sun Valley, or Jackson Hole.

In response to this concern, we are working with the Orton Foundation to determine if the use of technology—in particular the visualization and scenario-building software known as Community Viz—may provide the necessary leverage to mobilize and engage people, to help them see what is at stake, and to evaluate how regional collaboration can help to address issues of common interest. The challenge here is not only to focus on a tangible problem, but also to build the social and political capacity of the region to think and act more proactively.

How do we measure the success of regional collaboration?

The question of what criteria or metrics should be used to evaluate efforts to plan across boundaries takes us back to the distinction between the procedural and substantive aspects of regional collaboration. If one agrees with this distinction, then any framework to evaluate success should include metrics that focus on both process and outcomes.

A recent study evaluated the success of 50 community-based collaborative initiatives in the Rocky Mountain West that were regional in nature, encompassing two or more jurisdictions (McKinney and Field 2005). Twenty-seven indicators measured participants’ satisfaction with the substantive outcome of the effort, its effect on working relationships, and the quality of the process itself. The evaluation framework also allowed participants to reflect on the value of community-based collaboration relative to other alternatives.

The people who responded to the survey were generally satisfied with the use of community-based collaboration to address issues related to federal lands and resources. Seventy percent of the respondents said that all 27 indicators were important contributors to their satisfaction with both the process and its outcomes. Eighty-six percent of participants stated they would recommend a community or regional process to address a similar issue in the future.

Participants tended to rank “working relationships” and “quality of the process” as more important than “outcomes,” suggesting that people are at least as interested in opportunities for meaningful civic engagement and deliberative dialogue as in achieving a preconceived outcome. These results also support the value of community-based or regional collaboration—particularly when compared to other forums to shape land use policy and resolve land use disputes. Future evaluation research is necessary to affirm or refine these findings, and to clarify the impact of regional collaboration on various social, economic, and environmental objectives.

Conclusion

Planning across boundaries—or regional collaboration—is slowly emerging as an essential component of land policy and planning in the twenty-first century. For example, the 2005 White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation—only the fourth White House conference ever held on conservation—convened several sessions on reaching across boundaries to promote shared governance. Whether the issues to be addressed in such forums focus on rapid growth and its consequences or the need to retain and expand the local economic base, these problems are often best addressed by planning across the boundaries created by government jurisdictions, economic sectors, and academic disciplines. Indeed, in many cases, this is the only way these problems will be resolved effectively.

The Pawcatuck Borderlands

The Pawcatuck Borderlands on the Connecticut and Rhode Island state line is part of a largely undeveloped region within the megalopolis that stretches from Boston to Washington, DC. This landscape is one of the largest intact, forested areas in southern New England, and its abundant wildlife ranges from bears to songbirds. The remarkable diversity of the Borderlands includes hardwood forests, pitch-pine woodlands, wetlands, lakes, and rivers, as well as numerous small, rural communities where people have lived and worked for centuries.

Nearly 40 percent of the Borderlands is protected by the Pachaug State Forest and the Arcadia Management Area, and the relatively undisturbed natural character of the region creates a high quality of life for its residents. However, this open space in the heart of the northeastern megalopolis is also popular with visitors for its recreational opportunities and world-class tourist attractions. Located between Providence and Hartford, the Borderlands faces increasing demands for housing, roads, and shopping centers. Unlike many other rural areas, the opportunities for employment and investment are good, making this a financially attractive location for families and businesses.

Between 1960 and 2000, the population of Borderlands towns grew by more than 95 percent. Traffic is escalating on local roads and highways, and finite water resources are being overused, impacting both the quality and quantity of water in local watersheds. This increasing activity is eroding the existing infrastructure and requiring local residents to pay for additional roads, schools, and other essential services. All of these trends threaten longstanding social, historic, and environmental values.

Choices about the rate and pattern of future land conservation and development in the Borderlands must be addressed by decision makers in two states and ten towns. As in much of New England, each town retains land use authority and is governed through town meetings and the decisions of numerous local commissions and boards. Each of these jurisdictions has historically tackled land use issues independently, but the nature of existing trends and emerging challenges calls out for a different approach.

About the Authors

Matthew McKinney is director of the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana, Helena. He was founding director of the Montana Consensus Council and has taught many courses for the Lincoln Institute on both regional collaboration and land use dispute resolution.

Kevin Essington is director of the Pawcatuck Borderlands Program for the The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut and Rhode Island. He works on land acquisition, land and watershed restoration, planning, and consensus building.

References

Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fulton. 2001. The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Derthick, Martha.1974. Between state and nation: Regional organizations of the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Foster, Kathryn A. 2001. Regionalism on purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Jensen, Merrill. 1965. Regionalism in America. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Kemmis, Daniel. 2001. This sovereign land: A new vision for governing the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kenney, Doug. 2000. The new watershed sourcebook. Boulder: The University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center.

McKinney, Matthew, et al. 2002. Regionalism in the west: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review: 101–191www.ars.org.