Forests are hardworking heroes in the fight to manage climate change, but they can’t remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to single-handedly help the world reach its Paris Agreement targets. However, what if we focus on protecting not just the trees, but also the larger animals that have historically lived among them, like gray wolves and elephants?

Well, that could get us a lot closer.

In a new study published in Nature Climate Change, an international team of researchers led by Yale ecology professor Oswald J. Schmitz found that protecting and restoring populations of animal species—including marine fish, gray wolves, wildebeests, sea otters, African forest elephants, and bison—can supercharge the carbon capture capabilities of their respective ecosystems, enhancing the total amount of CO2 naturally absorbed and stored by as much as 6.41 gigatons per year.

That’s more than 14 trillion pounds of CO2, and about 95 percent of the annual “negative emissions” needed to limit global warming to 1.5ºC in line with the Paris Climate Agreement.

The findings could have a big impact on land and marine conservation efforts, says Jim Levitt, director of the International Land Conservation Network (ILCN) at the Lincoln Institute. “This is not your everyday piece of natural climate solution research,” says Levitt, who was not involved in the study. “I think this is a major insight.”

Animating the Carbon Cycle

Climate change and a staggering worldwide loss of biodiversity are not just concurrent crises of the natural world; they’re two sides of the same coin, each impacting the other. This research suggests that the positive climate impacts of land and ocean conservation can be amplified even further when coupled with what’s called “trophic rewilding”—that is, protecting and restoring the functional roles of animals within their ecosystems.

That’s because many animals all over the world augment the carbon capture potential of their native habitats in different but impactful ways.

In the African Serengeti, for example, migrating wildebeests graze on grasses and, with the help of dung-burying insects, return that carbon to the soil. When disease decimated wildebeest populations in the early 20th century, the resulting overabundance of dry, uneaten grasses led to more frequent, intense wildfires that turned the savannah into a net emitter of CO2. Now the wildebeest population has recovered, and the Serengeti is once again a carbon sink.

Endangered forest elephants in central Africa, meanwhile, spread the seeds of trees and woody plants, and trample and devour vegetative undergrowth, helping carbon-dense overstory trees grow faster and bigger. Based on one of the authors’ earlier studies, the researchers estimate that restoring wild elephant populations just within the region’s 79 national parks and protected areas—about 537,000 square kilometers of tropical rainforest—could help capture roughly 13 megatons of additional CO2 per year, or 13 million metric tons.

When large mammals like muskoxen trample arctic snowpack, that cold crust of compressed snow helps keep the soil below from thawing and releasing methane. Migrating marine fish eat algae near the surface and send it to the ocean floor as fecal pellets. Predators like sea otters help carbon-absorbent kelp forests thrive by keeping seaweed-munching sea urchins in check; gray wolves and sharks are responsible for similar “trophic cascades” in boreal forests and coral reefs, where they keep the populations of their smaller herbaceous prey in balance.

And in North America, where white settlers all but wiped out the more than 30 million bison that once roamed the prairies, just 2 percent of that animal’s one-time numbers remain, confined to about 1 percent of its historical range. Because grazing bison help grasslands retain carbon in the soil, restoring herds across even a small fraction of the landscape—less than 16 percent of a handful of prairies where human conflict would be minimal—could help those ecosystems store an additional 595 megatons of CO2 annually, the study found. That’s more than 10 percent of all the CO2 emitted by the United States in 2021.

“Using wild animal conservation explicitly to enhance carbon capture and storage is known as ‘animating the carbon cycle,’” the study’s authors write—and it demands a new way of thinking about conserved spaces as “dynamic landscapes.” It’s well understood that protecting nature as a climate solution can have the ancillary benefit of enhancing biodiversity, for example, but it turns out the relationship works both ways: Improving animal biodiversity can also enhance natural climate solutions. “It requires protecting and restoring the ability of animal species to reach ecologically meaningful densities so that as they move and interact with each other they can fulfill their functional roles across landscapes and seascapes.”

Failing to protect wildlife, meanwhile, can limit or even reverse an ecosystem’s carbon-storing potential. Overfishing of predatory fish in the coastal waters of the Northeastern United States, for example, led to an explosion of saltmarsh crabs, whose voracious appetite for seagrasses ravaged intertidal salt marshes, triggering their demise. Salt marshes are carbon supersinks that absorb and store up to 10 times as much carbon as a mature tropical rainforest. But when they die off, the resulting tidal erosion releases hundreds of years’ worth of stored sediment carbon, and a powerful carbon sponge disappears, along with all its future potential for CO2 capture.

Keeping Systems in Tune

For animal populations to recover their historical numbers and species diversity, they need large swaths of functionally intact ecosystems—which currently comprise just 2.8 percent of global land area. But “with the right enabling conditions, animal populations can rebound rapidly,” the authors write, with a measure of hope.

“If you give nature a chance to reestablish itself, it’s really, really efficient at doing so,” Levitt agrees, noting that many of the U.S. National Forests were once abandoned landscapes denuded of their timber. Now those swaths of forest are essential tools for absorbing atmospheric carbon. “Not only do the trees sequester carbon, but the soil, the animals, the insect life, and the mycorrhizal networks under the ground, they’re all sequestering carbon, and they all depend on a healthy chain of trophic networks,” Levitt says. “So there is utility, even related to the survival of our species, in having wild animals on open space. It’s not just beautiful, it keeps the carbon cycle in tune.”

As a resource hub connecting private and civic conservation groups across cultural and political boundaries, Levitt says ILCN has an important role to play in supporting the establishment of the types of linked, protected environments that promote greater biodiversity. “You really need large, interconnected, protected spaces to get to truly rich ecosystems,” he says. “And what networks can do is make land conservation contagious sociologically—meaning, if your next-door neighbor has conserved his property, you’re more likely to do the same thing.” ILCN also supports the global 30×30 effort, an agreement among more than 190 countries to work toward protecting 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans by 2030.

Expanding the range of intact ecosystems to restore and protect animal populations will require people and wildlife to share space in more dynamic “coexistence landscapes,” the authors add. “This involves seeking ways for wild animals and humans to coexist across landscapes and seascapes, rather than separating people from nature, as has been a common practice in proposals to apportion spaces for biodiversity and carbon storage.”

While the study’s authors acknowledge the challenge of such a cultural shift, they also note, with some urgency, that the opportunity is too great to squander. “We are losing populations of many animal species just as we are discovering how much they functionally impact carbon capture and storage.”

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

Lead image: Bison grazing in Yellowstone National Park. Credit: panugans via iStock/Getty Images Plus.

Aftab Pureval, elected in 2021, is making history as Cincinnati’s first Asian American mayor. He was raised in Southwest Ohio, the son of first-generation Americans, and worked at a toy store when he was in middle school. After graduating from the Ohio State University and the University of Cincinnati Law School, Pureval held several positions including as counsel at Procter & Gamble before entering public service. He served as Hamilton County Clerk of Courts from 2016 to 2021, and was the first Democrat to hold that office in over 100 years. Pureval resides in the north Cincinnati neighborhood of Clifton with his wife and their two sons and, as has become evident during his time in office, is a big-time Cincinnati Bengals fan. He spoke with Senior Fellow Anthony Flint earlier this year for the Land Matters podcast

Anthony Flint: You’ve attracted a lot of attention for what some have called a “heroic undertaking” to preserve the city’s single-family housing stock and keep it out of the hands of outside investors. Briefly, walk us through what was accomplished in coordination with the Port of Cincinnati.

Aftab Pureval: Just to provide a little more context, Cincinnati is a legacy city. We have a proud, long tradition of being the final destination from the Underground Railroad. We were the doorstep to freedom for so many slaves who were escaping that horrific experience. We have a lot of historic neighborhoods, a lot of historic buildings, and we have a lot of aging infrastructure and aging single-family homes, which—paired with the fact that we are an incredibly affordable city in the national context—makes us a prime target for institutional investors.

Unfortunately, Cincinnati is on national list after national list about the rate of increase for our rents. It’s primarily being driven by these out-of-town investors—who have no interest, frankly, in the well-being of Cincinnati or their tenants—buying up cheap single-family homes, not doing anything to invest in them, but overnight doubling or tripling the rents, which is pricing out a lot of our communities, particularly our vulnerable, impoverished communities.

The City is doing a lot of things through litigation, through code enforcement. In fact, we sued two of our largest institutional investors, Vinebrook and the owners of Williamsburg, to let them know that we’re not playing around. If you’re going to exercise predatory behavior in our community, we’re not going to stand for it.

We’ve also done things on the front end to prevent this from happening by partnering with the Port . . . . When several properties went up for sale because an institutional investor put them on the selling block, the Port spent $14.5 million to buy over 190 single-family homes, outbidding 13 other institutional investors.

Over the past year, the Port has been working to bring those properties into compliance, dealing with the various code violations that the investor left behind, pairing these homes once they’re fixed up with qualified buyers, oftentimes folks who are working in poverty or lower middle-class who’ve never owned a home before.

Just this year we’re making three of those 194 available for sale. It’s a huge success across the board . . .  but it’s just one tool that the Port and the City are working on to increase affordability of housing in all of our neighborhoods.

AF: What did you learn from this that might be transferable to other cities? It takes a lot of capital to outbid an institutional investor.

AP: It does require a lot of funds. That’s why we need more flexibility from the federal government and the state government to provide municipalities with the tools to prevent this from happening in the first place. Now once an institutional investor gets their claws into a community, there’s very little that the city can do to hold them accountable.

The better strategy as we’ve seen this time is to, on the front end, buy up properties. A lot of cities have a lot of dollars from the federal government through ARP [American Recovery Plan]. We have used a lot of ARP dollars not just to get money into the hands of people who need it most, which is critically important in this time, but also to partner with other private-public partnerships or the Port to give them the resources necessary to buy up the land and hold it.

That has been part of our strategy with ARP. This is a unique time in cities where they have more flexibility [with] the resources coming from the federal government. I would encourage any mayor, any council, to really think critically about using the funds not just in the short term but also in the long term to address some of these macroeconomic forces.

AF: Cincinnati has become a more popular place to live, and the population has increased slightly after years of decline. Do you consider Cincinnati a pandemic or climate haven? What are the implications of that growth?

AP: What I love about my job as mayor is my focus isn’t necessarily on the next two or four years, but the next 100 years. Right now, we are living through a paradigm shift because of the pandemic. The way we live, work, and play is just completely changing. Remote work is completely altering our economic lifestyle throughout the entire country, but particularly here in the Midwest.

What I am convinced of is because of climate change, because of the rising cost of living on the coast, there will be an inward migration. I don’t know if it’s in the next 50 or 75 years, but it will happen. We’re already seeing large businesses making decisions based on climate change. Just two hours north of Cincinnati, Intel is making a $200 billion investment to create the largest semiconductor plant in the country.

Two of the reasons they chose just north of Cincinnati are access to fresh water, the Ohio River in the south and the Great Lakes in the north, and our region’s climate resiliency. Now, don’t get me wrong: we’re all affected by climate change. We’re not all affected equally—our impoverished and disadvantaged communities are more affected disproportionately than others—but in Ohio and Cincinnati, we’re not seeing the wildfires, the droughts, the hurricanes, the earthquakes, the coastal erosion that we’re seeing in other parts of the country, which makes us a climate-change safe haven not just for business investment but also for people. Cincinnati is partly growing because our economy’s on fire right now, but we’re going to really see, I believe, exponential growth over the next few decades because of these massive factors pushing people into the middle of the country.

The investments that we make right now to help our legacy communities and legacy residents stay in their homes and continue to make Cincinnati an affordable place for them, while also keeping in mind these future residents, is a really challenging topic. While Cincinnati right now is very affordable in the national context, it’s not affordable for all Cincinnati residents because our housing supply has not kept up with population growth and our incomes have not kept up with housing prices.

In order to make sure that the investments in the future and the population growth in the future does not displace our current residents, we’ve got to stabilize our market now and be prepared for that growth.

AF: What are the land use changes and transportation improvements that you’re concentrating on accordingly?

AP: Oftentimes, people ask mayors about their legacy, and the third rail of local politics is zoning. If we’re going to get this right, then we have to have a comprehensive review and reform of our land use policies. When I talk about legacy, that’s what I’m talking about.

We have, for over a year now, been having meetings with stakeholders to [explore what] a modern Cincinnati looks like. I believe it looks like a dense, diverse neighborhood that’s walkable, with good public transportation and investments in public art. Right now, the City of Cincinnati’s zoning is not encouraging those kinds of neighborhoods. Close to 70 percent of our city is zoned for single-family use exclusively, which is putting an artificial cap on the amount of supply that we can create, which is artificially increasing rents and artificially increasing property taxes, which is causing a lot of our legacy residents, who even own their homes, to be displaced.

If we’re serious about deconcentrating poverty and desegregating our city, then we’ve got to take a look at multifamily unit prohibitions. We’ve got to take a look at parking requirements for both businesses and homes. We’ve got to look at transit-oriented development along our bus rapid transit lines. We’ve got to look at creative opportunities to create more housing like auxiliary dwelling units, but none of this is easy.

It’s not easy because NIMBYism is real, and we’ve got to convince people that I’m not going to put a 20-floor condo building on your residential cul-de-sac . . . . Zoning is very, very difficult because change is very difficult, and people are afraid of what that will turn the city into. That’s why we’ve been doing a year-long worth of community engagement, and I am confident we can make some substantive changes to our zoning code to encourage more affordability, encourage more public transportation, and just be a greener city.

On that note, we have made a commitment that we will only buy city vehicles that are electric vehicles when they become available. We have the largest city-led solar farm in the entire country, which is significantly contributing to our energy consumption.

AF: A little bit of this is back to the future, because the city had streetcars. Do you have the sense that there’s an appreciation for that, that those times actually made the city function better?

AP: The city used to be dense, used to have incredible streetcars, public transportation, and then, unfortunately, cities—not just Cincinnati but across the country—saw a steady decline of population, losing folks to the suburbs. Now people want to come back into the city, but now we have the hard work of undoing what a lot of cities tried to do, which was create suburban neighborhoods within a city to attract those suburban people back, right? It’s a little bit undoing the past while also focusing on what used to exist. When I share this vision with people, they say, “Yes, that’s a no-brainer, of course, I want to do that,” but they don’t want to do it on their street.

AF: What worries you most about this kind of transition, and what do you identify as the major issues facing lower-income and communities of color in Cincinnati?

AP: Displacement. If we cannot be a city that our current residents can afford, they will leave, which hurts everything. If the city is not growing, then a city our size, where we’re located in the country, we are dying, and we are dying quickly. Cities our size have to grow, and in order to grow, not only do we need to recruit talent, but we have to preserve the families and the legacy communities that have been here in the first place.

No city in the country has figured out a way to grow without displacement. The market factors, the economic factors are so profound and so hard to influence, and the City’s resources are so limited, it’s really difficult. Getting back to our institutional investor problem, the City doesn’t have the resources to just go up and buy property and make sure that we’re selling to good-faith owners, right? If we had that power, that market influence, we would do it. Oftentimes, I guess I get frustrated that I don’t have enough resources, enough authority to make a meaningful impact on the macroeconomic forces that are coming into the city. Because if we get our dream, which is more investment, more growth, that comes with negative consequences, and it’s really difficult to manage both.

AF: Finally, back to climate change, the mayor’s website says Cincinnati is well-positioned to be a leader in climate change at home and abroad. What do you think the city has to offer that’s distinctive in terms of climate action?

AP: All of our policy initiatives are looked at through two lenses. The first is racial equity and the second is climate. Everything that we do, whether it’s our urban forestry assessment, looking at a heat map of our city and investing in trees to not just clean the air but also cool our neighborhoods, [or] our investments in biochar. We are one of only seven cities in the entire world that received a huge grant from the Bloomberg Philanthropies to continue to innovate in the world of biochar, which is a byproduct of burning wood, which is an incredible carbon magnet that helps with stormwater runoff but also pulls carbon out of the air.

Our parks department, which is one of the best in the country, continues to innovate on that front . . . . Continuing to have some of the best testing and best preservation in the country for our water supply will be important. Ultimately, businesses and people who are looking to the future consider climate change in that future. If you’re looking for a city that is climate-resilient but also making massive investments in climate technology, then Cincinnati is that destination for you.

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

Lead image: Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval. Credit: © Amanda Rossmann – USA TODAY NETWORK.

By many accounts, Costa Rica has been a unique Central American success story—“a beacon of Enlightenment” and “a world leader in democratic, sustainable, and inclusive economic growth,” according to the prominent economist Joseph Stiglitz.

A nation of about 5 million people roughly the size of West Virginia, Costa Rica has been punching above its weight particularly in the realm of sustainability and climate action: a pioneer in eco-tourism; successful in getting nearly all of its power from renewable sources, including an enterprising use of hydro; and a leader in fighting deforestation and conserving land with its carbon-soaking rainforests.

The Land Matters podcast welcomed two special guests recently who know a thing or two about this country: Carlos Alvarado Quesada and Claudia Dobles Camargo, the former President and First Lady of Costa Rica. They are both in the Cambridge, Massachusetts, area this year—she is a Loeb Fellow, part of a mid-career fellowship program based at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, and he is a visiting professor of practice at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Also in the studio was Enrique Silva, vice president of programs at the Lincoln Institute, who oversees the organization’s research and activities globally, and has years of experience in and familiarity with Latin America.

The conversation, recorded at the Podcast Garage in Allston after a visit by the couple to the Lincoln Institute, included reflections on leadership and climate action, and what it’s been like to take a year to decompress after an eventful time in office, from 2018 to 2022.

Costa Rica has much to show the world when it comes to the implementation of targeted sustainability practices, Quesada said. “We’re not saying people have to do exactly the same [as we did], but we can say it’s possible, and it’s been done in a model that actually creates well-being and economic growth,” he said. “Back in the day, people would say it’s impossible—‘if you’re going to create protected areas, you’re going to destroy the economy.’ It turned out to be the other way around, it actually propelled the economy.”

After seeing big successes in the countryside, the interventions have turned to urban areas. “Costa Rica has done such an amazing job in nature-based solutions, not so much on urban sustainability,” said Dobles, noting the ambitious National Decarbonization Plan she launched with Quesada, which aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. “In order to decarbonize, we really needed to focus also on our urban agenda.”

A big task was reinvigorating public transit, starting with a new electric train that would have spanned the city of San Jose. Quesada’s successor shelved the $1.5 billion project, demonstrating the common mismatch between long-term projects and limited time in office. A pilot project to electrify buses was implemented, however, to rave reviews. The couple says they are hopeful the train will be revived.

“I know that this is eventually going to happen. Sometimes you have political setbacks,” said Quesada. “Your administration cannot own throughout time what’s going to happen, but you can plant positive seeds.”

Costa Rica has been nothing if not creative in addressing the many dilemmas inherent in climate action. Open-ore mining is banned, for example, but entrepreneurs figured out a way to extract lithium from recycled batteries.

“That’s very linked to the discussion of the just energy transition, where the jobs are going to come from, where the exports are going to come from. While there’s a huge opportunity for many developing countries which are rich and are endowed with minerals and metals . . . we need to address those complexities,” said Quesada.

Dobles added, “When we talk about decarbonization, we cannot exclude from that conversation, the inequality conversation. This is supposed to provide our possibilities of survival as humankind, but also it’s a possibility for a new type of social and economic development and growth.”

Reflecting on being in the land of Harvard, MIT, and Mr. Bartley’s Burger Cottage, Dobles said she has been immersed in “the whole academic ecosystem that is happening here . . . just to be, again, in academia, sometimes just to receive information, not having the pressure of having the answers . . . . It’s been wonderful.”

“Being a head of state for four years of a country, it’s an experience that I’m currently unpacking still,” said Quesada. “I’m doing a little bit of writing on that, but you get to reflect a lot, because it’s a period of time you live very intensely. In our case, we were not only working with decarbonization, with the projects we mentioned, we [were also working] with the fiscal sustainability of the country. We had COVID. We had [the legalization of same-sex marriage].

“We tend to train ourselves for things that are outside of us, like methods, tools, knowledge,” he said. “There’s a part of it that has to do with training ourselves, our feelings, our habits, our framing, our thinking . . . to address those hard challenges.”

Carlos Alvarado Quesada served as the 48th President of the Republic of Costa Rica from 2018 to 2022, when his constitutionally limited term ended. He won the 2022 Planetary Leadership Award from the National Geographic Society for his actions to protect the ocean, and was named to the TIME100 Next list of emerging leaders from around the world. Before entering politics, he worked for Procter and Gamble, Latin America.

Claudia Dobles Camargo is an architect with extensive experience in urban mobility, affordable and social housing, community engagement, climate change, and fair transition. As First Lady, she was co-leader of the Costa Rica National Decarbonization Plan. Her architecture degree is from the University of Costa Rica, and she also studied in Japan, concentrating on a sustainable approach to architecture.

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

Further Reading

Showing the Way in San José – How Costa Rica Gets It Right (The Guardian)

Former President of Costa Rica Talks Climate Change, Public Policy During Northeastern Campus Visit (Northeastern Global News)

Costa Rica’s ‘Urban Mine’ for Planet-Friendlier Lithium (Agence France- Presse)

How Costa Rica Reversed Deforestation and Raised Millions for Conservation (Diálogo Chino)

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

Lead image: San José, Costa Rica. Credit: Gianfranco Vivi via iStock/Getty Images Plus.

La alcaldesa Yvonne Denise Aki-Sawyerr asumió su cargo en Freetown, Sierra Leona, en mayo de 2018, después de desempeñarse como jefa del Ayuntamiento de la ciudad de Freetown. La profesional de las finanzas con más de 25 años de experiencia en los sectores público y privado, previamente había participado en la campaña contra los “diamantes de sangre” y tuvo un papel fundamental en la respuesta a la crisis del ébola en 2014. Presentó dos charlas TED sobre cómo transformar la insatisfacción en acción y sobre la iniciativa de la ciudad capital para plantar un millón de árboles, y recibió nominaciones para la lista Time100 Next de líderes emergentes y la lista 100 Women de la BBC.

Como líder en la red mundial C40 Cities, Aki-Sawyerr lanzó la iniciativa Transform Freetown y nombró al primer director de calor de África. Se graduó en la Facultad de Economía de Londres y en la universidad Fourah Bay College de Freetown. En otoño, habló con el miembro sénior Anthony Flint. La conversación, que se editó por motivos de espacio y claridad.

Anthony Flint: ¿Podría hablar sobre la iniciativa Transform Freetown como una planificación urbana y un marco de acción, y contarnos qué opina sobre cómo progresó? 

Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr: Me postulé para el cargo en 2018, motivada por mis preocupaciones en torno al medioambiente y el saneamiento. Mi mensaje para la campaña, “por la comunidad, por el progreso, por Freetown”, se tradujo en Transform Freetown. La iniciativa se centra en cuatro categorías: resiliencia, desarrollo humano, ciudad saludable y movilidad urbana.  

La resiliencia incluye la gestión medioambiental; además incluye el planeamiento urbano, porque no es posible separar las dos cosas, y la organización de la renta, porque la sostenibilidad solo se logrará si la ciudad es capaz de mantener y generar una renta por sí misma. El punto sobre la ciudad saludable incluye el saneamiento, que está estrechamente relacionado con la gestión medioambiental para Freetown y muchas ciudades de África. Si pensamos en el cambio climático, en nuestro aporte diminuto al cambio climático, gran parte de este proviene del metano, del vertido de basura a cielo abierto, pero, a su vez, esto tiene implicaciones inmensas para la salud. Así que, en la categoría de ciudad saludable se incluyó el saneamiento, la salud y el agua.

Lo que hicimos fue, habiendo asumido el cargo con esos focos prioritarios de preocupación, organizar 322  grupos de sondeo con alrededor de 15.000 residentes, para escuchar sus opiniones sobre la capacidad de pago, la accesibilidad y la disponibilidad de servicios en esos sectores. Invitamos al sector público, al sector privado y a la comunidad internacional, por medio de socios de desarrollo y ONG, a participar en debates.

De ese proceso surgieron 19 objetivos específicos y mensurables en los que estamos trabajando en el marco de Transform Freetown. Todo los años informamos sobre la situación de los objetivos a la ciudad, a nuestros residentes. Fue una forma de generar un mayor grado de responsabilidad, de ponernos a prueba, y existe un fuerte sentido de propiedad por parte de la comunidad que es quien impulsa la iniciativa. 

AF: Entre todas las amenazas climáticas que la ciudad enfrenta, usted nombró un director de calor. ¿Por qué se necesitó un director de calor, y qué resultados se observaron hasta ahora? 

YA: A menudo me preguntan: ¿cómo logras que la gente común se interese en el cambio climático? En nuestro caso, no es difícil, porque, en estos pagos, las consecuencias del cambio climático se sienten con intensidad, y sufrimos intensas inundaciones y derrumbes. A esto se debe mi preocupación por el medioambiente y nuestra habilidad para mitigar esos impactos. 

El [Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center] nos hizo pensar de verdad sobre el hecho de que muere más gente a causa del calor extremo que de los desastres tangibles y visibles como las inundaciones y los derrumbes. El calor extremo, sobre todo en lugares donde el agua escasea, es un efecto importantísimo del calentamiento climático.  

En nuestro caso, las personas vulnerables son, principalmente, aquellas que viven en asentamientos informales. Estas representan el 35 por ciento de la población de nuestra ciudad, y en esos asentamientos urbanos, las estructuras de las viviendas son, por lo general, de chapa corrugada. Con el aumento de la temperatura, viven, literalmente, en un horno. Otro aspecto relacionado con esto es que tenemos una economía informal. Alrededor del 60 por ciento de las mujeres de nuestra ciudad están involucradas en el comercio. La mayoría de nuestros mercados están al aire libre, por lo que te la pasas todo el día sentada al rayo del sol. Si a esto le sumamos el calor intenso, se exacerban otras consecuencias negativas para la salud.

Ahora, con el director de calor, vamos a poder emprender algunas investigaciones y recopilar datos para identificar las islas de calor. Según nuestra experiencia, tenemos una idea de dónde se encuentran, sobre todo en los asentamientos informales, pero es posible que también se encuentren en el medio de la ciudad. Tenemos que ser capaces de generar argumentos para desafiar lo que está sucediendo respecto a la falta de permisos para la construcción, y la delegación de la planificación del uso del suelo a la ciudad y la deforestación masiva que continúa sin amainar.

El director de calor trabajó con las mujeres del mercado y obtuvo financiamiento de la Arsht-Rockefeller [y el Atlantic Council] para instalar toldos que generen sombra en tres de nuestros mercados al aire libre. Es maravilloso ver el entusiasmo de las mujeres y oírlas decir: “¿Esto se va a extender a todo el mercado? Podemos ver donde empieza, dónde termina, pero también lo necesitamos”.

AF: ¿Qué esperanzas tiene para los otros proyectos de mitigación climática, incluida la iniciativa para plantar un millón de árboles? ¿Cómo tuvo lugar y en qué situación se encuentra? 

YA: Bien, el proyecto surgió porque observamos que estamos perdiendo nuestra vegetación, y eso [agrava] los fenómenos meteorológicos extremos, [como cuando las lluvias fuertes generaron avalanchas de lodo en 2017]. La falta de forestación es uno de los principales motivos de eso. El objetivo es aumentar la cobertura de vegetación en un 50 por ciento.

La plantación de un millón de árboles es un plan a largo plazo, pero en el ínterin, la escorrentía de las montañas sigue llenando los drenajes de lodo. A través de nuestro trabajo anual de mitigación de las inundaciones, identificamos cuáles son las peores áreas en este sentido y limpiamos el lodo para que cuando llegue la lluvia, el agua siga corriendo. A una escala menor, también pudimos construir alrededor de 2.000 metros de drenaje en comunidades más pequeñas. Aparte de eso, hicimos inversiones importantes en formaciones y capacitaciones sobre gestión de desastres.

El problema con los efectos del cambio climático es que son profundos. Si las personas están teniendo malas cosechas a las afueras de Freetown, con el tiempo, se producirá una migración del campo a la ciudad porque no pueden mantener sus medios de subsistencia y vendrán en busca de alguna forma de sustento.

Esa presión del crecimiento demográfico en la ciudad es algo más con lo que tenemos que lidiar, ya sea introduciendo el teleférico para mejorar el transporte y reducir la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero [o alentando] al gobierno para que delegue la planificación del uso del suelo y las funciones de los permisos para la construcción a fin de que podamos implementar medidas de gestión del suelo, que salvan vidas y salvan propiedades, pero además protegen el medioambiente y evitan que las personas construyan sus propiedades en vías fluviales, arroyos y canales, que es lo que ocurre hoy en día. Todo esto empeora porque no se utilizan herramientas legislativas y de gestión urbana, como la planificación del uso del suelo y los permisos para la construcción, de forma superadora.

AF: ¿Podría describir los proyectos de reforma del impuesto a la propiedad de Freetown y los resultados que observó en el contexto general de la salud fiscal del municipio? 

YA: Empezamos a trabajar con esta reforma del impuesto a la propiedad en 37.000 propiedades de la base de datos de una ciudad que es la ciudad capital y tiene al menos entre 1,2 y 1,5 millones de personas, 37.000 propiedades. Cuando asumí, estaba claro que esas cifras no reflejaban la realidad, pero, además, el sistema manual que se utilizaba, literalmente un libro de registro, no era apropiado para la tarea en pleno s. XXI.

Uno de nuestros 19 objetivos es quintuplicar el ingreso del impuesto a la propiedad para el 2022. Para lograrlo, nos aseguramos un financiamiento y sociedades a fin de implementar una digitalización. Pasamos de un sistema basado en superficies a un sistema de representaciones puntuales. Nuestro trabajo consistió en tomar imágenes satelitales de toda la ciudad y crear un algoritmo para ponderar características [como los techos, las ventanas y la ubicación], y luego comparar eso con una base de datos de 3.000 propiedades cuyos valores fueron determinados por tasadores inmobiliarios. Logramos implementar la forma antigua de avalúo. Pudimos identificar casos atípicos y perfeccionar el modelo y, con el tiempo, construir un modelo que ahora utilizamos como nuestra base de propiedades.

Durante ese proceso, pasamos de 37.000 propiedades a 120.000. De esta manera, alcanzamos nuestro objetivo de aumentar la renta por impuestos a la propiedad de [US$ 425.000 a más de US$ 2 millones]. Ese es, en sí mismo, el camino hacia la sostenibilidad, al igual que tener la capacidad de invertir. Una gran parte de la salud fiscal se basa en esa sostenibilidad, pero . . . lamentablemente, el Ministerio de Gobierno Local [detuvo la recaudación mientras desarrollaba pautas para la reforma tributaria nacional]. Estuvimos sin recaudar rentas durante casi un año. Empezamos a recaudar otra vez, pero como se imaginará, nos llevará bastante tiempo recuperar los niveles de cumplimiento.

AF: ¿Dónde encuentra inspiración frente a tantos desafíos? 

YA: En el hecho de que fuimos capaces de marcar una diferencia en las vidas de las personas de Freetown. Pudimos evaluar y comprobar cuánto se puede lograr si se nos da el espacio para hacerlo. Sabemos que hay mucho por hacer, así que seguimos adelante. 

 
Anthony Flint es miembro sénior del Instituto Lincoln, conduce el ciclo de pódcasts Land Matters y es editor colaborador de Land Lines. 

Imagen: La alcaldesa Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr.

Cuando pensamos en innovaciones en la urbanización y la construcción, la madera no suele ser lo primero que se nos viene a la mente. Para que no suene tan agresivo, es un material de la vieja escuela. Pero, en el último tiempo, la construcción con masa de madera (mass timber) (que consiste en paneles, vigas y columnas de madera fabricados con técnicas modernas y herramientas de diseño digital avanzadas) ha tenido un crecimiento destacado. Entre otros atributos, los defensores señalan su potencial con relación al impacto climático: al usar masa de madera extraída de forma sostenible, la huella de carbono se puede reducir a la mitad, en comparación con la de una estructura similar hecha con acero u hormigón.

Según el grupo de comercio de madera WoodWorks, hasta septiembre de 2022, se construyeron o diseñaron más de 1.500 proyectos multifamiliares, comerciales o institucionales con masa de madera en los 50 estados del país. Esto representa un aumento de más un 50 por ciento desde el 2020. El Wall Street Journal, en base a los datos del Servicio Forestal de los Estados Unidos, informa que desde el 2014, abrieron al menos 18 plantas de fabricación de masa de madera en Canadá y los Estados Unidos.

Los componentes básicos de la construcción con masa de madera son las placas, columnas y vigas de madera. Son mucho más sostenibles que, por ejemplo, los conocidos tablones de cinco centímetros por diez, gracias a procesos especiales que se utilizan para unir pedazos pequeños de madera y formar bloques de madera fabricados con precisión. El resultado final incluye columnas y vigas de madera laminada encolada (o “glulam”), y paneles de madera contralaminada (o CLT) que pueden tener hasta 3,5 metros de ancho y 18 metros de largo. Los paneles más largos se usan, principalmente, para pisos y techos, pero también para las paredes. El resultado final, como lo expresaron en la publicación en línea de Vox, es “madera, pero como bloques Lego”. Los proyectos de masa de madera más importantes suelen exhibir el material, por lo que se obtienen construcciones cuyos elementos estructurales ofrecen una estética más cálida y orgánica en comparación con aquellas de acero u hormigón.

Desde hace un tiempo, tanto el proceso como el interés en su potencial vienen cobrando fuerza. La masa de madera empezó a utilizarse en Austria y, luego, en toda Europa, en la década de 1990, y, desde entonces, su uso se ha extendido gradualmente al resto del mundo. En una charla TED muy citada del 2013, el arquitecto Michael Green, de Vancouver, dio sus argumentos a favor de este material: “Siento que la madera tiene una función que cumplir en las ciudades”, sostuvo resaltando las propiedades de captura de carbono de la masa de madera (una estructura de hormigón de 20 pisos emitiría más de 1.200 toneladas de carbono, mientras que una construcción de madera capturaría más de 3.000 toneladas). Además, destacó la capacidad que tiene este material de soportar terremotos e incendios.

Cuando Green dio su charla, las estructuras más altas de masa de madera tenían nueve o diez pisos. Sin embargo, Green argumentó que este nuevo proceso de fabricación podría utilizarse con éxito en estructuras con una altura dos o tres veces mayor. “Esta es la primera innovación en la manera de construir rascacielos que observamos en, probablemente, 100 años”, declaró, y explicó que el proceso de ingeniería no sería tan arduo como la tarea de cambiar la percepción general del potencial que tiene la madera. En el último tiempo, esta percepción se ha estado renovando gracias a un aluvión de proyectos atractivos (entre ellos, un complejo de 25 pisos de comercios minoristas y viviendas en Milwaukee, y un hotel y centro cultural de 20 pisos en el noreste de Suecia) y propuestas para edificios de masa de madera aún más altos.

Debido a que la masa de madera se prefabrica en una planta y se envía al lugar de la instalación (a diferencia de las estructuras de hormigón, que se hacen en el lugar), los detalles del diseño deben resolverse de antemano, lo que requiere una planificación y un trabajo de modelado digital exhaustivos. En definitiva, esto puede aumentar la eficiencia de los procesos de construcción, así como requerir menos trabajadores y generar menos desperdicio. Los proyectos de masa de madera siguen incluyendo otros materiales, señala Judith Sheine, una profesora de arquitectura de la Universidad de Oregón (UO) y directora de Diseño del TallWood Design Institute. TallWood es una colaboración entre la Escuela de Diseño de la UO y las Facultades de Silvicultura e Ingeniería de la Oregon State University que se centra en fomentar la innovación de la masa de madera. “Pero la masa de madera puede reemplazar al acero y el hormigón en muchísimos usos, y cada vez es más popular”, afirmó. “Esto se debe a la nueva disponibilidad, pero también a un interés en usar materiales que impliquen menos carbono”.

TallWood llevó a cabo decenas de proyectos e iniciativas de investigación aplicada, en los que se analizaron los más diversos aspectos, desde problemas de codificación hasta desafíos de la cadena de suministro y maneras de mejorar el rendimiento, con el fin de promover el uso de madera con propiedades y diseños superiores. El instituto forma parte de la Oregon Mass Timber Coalition, una asociación entre instituciones de investigación y agencias estatales de Oregón que, en el último tiempo, recibió US$ 41,4 millones en becas del plan Build Back Better Regional Challenge de la Administración de Desarrollo Económico de los Estados Unidos. Este financiamiento tiene como objetivo respaldar iniciativas de investigación vinculadas con el desarrollo del mercado para la masa de madera.

Sin duda, parte de la promesa medioambiental de este novedoso material depende de los detalles menos conocidos, en particular, cómo y dónde se extrae la madera. Los defensores del sector alegan que su expansión no causará una presión indebida en los bosques, en parte porque los productos de masa de madera pueden fabricarse con madera de “poco valor” (como árboles de diámetro pequeño que ya se sacrifican como parte de la mitigación de los incendios forestales, árboles enfermos y, posiblemente, incluso madera de descarte).

Los grupos conservacionistas y otros expertos están actuando con mayor cautela. En 2018, The Nature Conservancy inició una evaluación de varios años del impacto de la masa de madera a nivel global. Se investigaron los beneficios y riesgos potenciales de la mayor demanda de productos de masa de madera para los bosques, y se está desarrollando un conjunto de principios orientativos mundiales para una “economía de los bosques inteligente desde el punto de vista del clima”, buenas prácticas que ayudarán a proteger la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas a medida que el mercado de la masa de madera crece.

A menudo, los constructores y desarrolladores que, concretamente, desean pregonar el uso de materiales de masa de madera insisten en que la forma de obtención se certificó como sostenible, según Stephen Shaler, profesor de materiales y tecnologías sostenibles en la Facultad de Recursos Forestales de la Universidad de Maine. “En este momento, dicha demanda está en el mercado”, afirmó.

Además del interés en la sostenibilidad, existe otra razón a favor de la proliferación de los proyectos de masa de madera: la biofilia o instinto humano de conectar con la naturaleza. Sharler explicó que “el solo hecho de estar en una casa de madera puede generar una sensación agradable”. Este no es un simple juicio subjetivo: pequeños estudios demostraron que los interiores de madera pueden mejorar la calidad del aire, reducir la presión sanguínea y el ritmo cardíaco, y mejorar la concentración y la productividad.

Según se informó, los desarrolladores del edificio de 25 pisos en Milwaukee, Ascent, escogieron la masa de madera, sobre todo, por razones estéticas y por el valor de difusión de su aspecto distintivo. El edificio Ascent, una de las construcciones de masa de madera más altas del mundo, ha sido el centro de atención de los medios, y se le suma otro valor a la exposición pública: si bien es posible que el edificio Ascent, de 86,5 metros de altura, y otros proyectos de muchos pisos no presagien el futuro de todos los rascacielos, demostraron que es posible construir de manera segura y a gran escala con masa de madera. Esto podría persuadir a reguladores y planificadores, sobre todo, a la hora de aprobar construcciones de menor escala que podrían ser más importantes para demostrar el potencial real de la masa de madera. Según las predicciones de Sharler, “es probable que la mayor parte de su uso se centre en proyectos de altura media, de seis a ocho pisos”.

El Código Internacional de la Edificación permite construcciones de madera de hasta 18 pisos. Los desarrolladores de Ascent lograron una variación debido, en parte, a que el diseño final incluía dos núcleos de hormigón. Sheine y Sharler recalcaron que la mayoría de los proyectos de masa de madera siguen incluyendo al menos algo de hormigón, acero y otros materiales. Y está bien, añade Sharler: la masa de madera debería verse como una opción relativamente nueva que puede ayudar a mejorar la huella de carbono, y no como un sustituto absoluto de los materiales tradicionales. Además, las opciones nuevas siempre son útiles, incluso cuando provienen de la vieja escuela como la madera

Rob Walker periodista; escribe sobre diseño, tecnología y otros temas. Es el autor de The Art of Noticing. Publica un boletín en robwalker.substack.com.

Imagen: La construcción con masa de madera. Crédito: Cortesía de ACSA.

Most people in the mountainous northeastern corner of New Mexico were looking forward to the arrival of the annual monsoon season last summer. The Hermits Peak–Calf Canyon wildfire had started in April, burning 340,000 acres and destroying hundreds of properties, and residents were hoping for a reprieve from the smoke and evacuations that had begun to define their lives. But then the monsoon arrived, both unseasonably early and with more intensity than normal.

As the rains pelted soil that had been rendered water-repellent by the fire, mud and water cascaded down the slopes of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains into the waterways, fields, roads, and homes below. Still reeling from the fire, residents were forced to deal with a fresh disaster—in many cases, needing to leave their homes once again.

“Their homes were flooded, their corrals were taken out, their burnt barns were taken out,” said Veronica Serna, county commissioner in Mora County, one of the areas hardest hit by the fire and the floods. “One family had a boulder come down and block their whole driveway. They didn’t have any water and no way to go out and get water—just imagine not being able to shower in your own home or wash your hands or use a toilet. It was devastating.”

Serna recalls another family “whose home kept getting flooded over and over and over. One day we stopped by to check on them, and they were scraping the mud out of their shoes, shoveling mud out of their bedroom. It’s just so hard to see that.”

The flooding also affected San Miguel County just to the south, damaging homes and infrastructure, polluting wells, and threatening water supplies. “Most people are back within the community, but they’re still stressed out about the future, because the flooding is not going to stop,” said Ralph Vigil II, a farmer and water commissioner who grew up in San Miguel County and runs a farmers’ cooperative there. “I’m afraid that we’re going to be dealing with this for years.” According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, flood risk remains elevated for up to five years after a wildfire, until vegetation is restored.

Vigil had the opportunity to take a helicopter flight over the burn scar in the fall, after the fire was fully contained and the worst of the flooding had subsided. “You don’t really understand the vastness of the damage until you’re up there,” he said. He was alarmed, and not just by the decimation of landscapes and communities that he’s long loved: “I also saw the risk for more fires, and really the signs of what’s to come.”

As climate change contributes to longer, more intense wildfire seasons, fires are leaving burn scars across the U.S. West, putting nearby communities at risk of flooding. That flooding, which can be catastrophic, can occur long after the fire is over. In the face of these threats, communities can make land use decisions that help build their resilience.

After the Fire, the Deluge

It’s apt that the name of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, which extend from Colorado to their terminus near Santa Fe, translates as “Blood of Christ.” The ridges, valleys, and bowls that would have been dwarfed from Vigil’s viewpoint in the helicopter make up the bulk of two watersheds that are the lifeblood of downstream communities and farmlands. Some 23,000 people in San Miguel and Mora counties rely on these watersheds for drinking water and agriculture.

Under the right conditions, naturally occurring and prescribed fires support ecosystem health. But the Hermits Peak–Calf Canyon fire, the largest in New Mexico’s history, got out of control and caused chaos. Twenty-four percent of the burn area was classified as high-severity fire, causing extensive tree mortality and profound impacts to soil. When trees and vegetation burn in high heat, they release gases that harden the soil into a water-repellent, concrete-like material. That allows rain to run over the forest floor like it would a sloped parking lot, picking up speed and sediment before flooding into the communities below.

“Pre-fire, these forested ecosystems and slopes work like a sponge, but post-fire, nothing is going to stop that rain,” says Micah Kiesow, a soil scientist for the Santa Fe National Forest and team lead for the fire’s Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team. BAER teams assess wildfire damage on federally owned lands. “We saw a tremendous amount of erosion, sedimentation, and debris flows in the most severely burned areas, which eventually makes its way to the drainages and streams below.”

While post-fire flooding affected many communities around the burn area, some of the worst damage occurred in Mora County. The county, one of the poorest in the nation, has about 2,130 homes scattered across nearly 2,000 square miles. Serna estimates that 200 of those homes were burnt over and countless others impacted when ash, water, and sediment flowed into the communities of Mora, Holman, Chacon, and Guadalupita. “It’s sad, because our communities had a lot of adobe homes,” she said. “Our people have lived here for generations, they have inherited these adobes from their great-, great-, great-grandparents.”

Many of those affected were rural farmers. According to Serna, numerous residents had freezers full of high-quality cattle and game meat that had to be thrown away following power outages in the aftermath of the flooding. Meanwhile, the acequias—small ditches or canals that divert water from creeks and rivers to provide water to farms and form the foundation of water access in this part of New Mexico—were clogged with wood, rocks, and mud. Over 40 acequias were destroyed in the aftermath of the fire, according to the New Mexico Acequia Association and reporting by Source New Mexico. The infrastructure that these remote communities rely on for everything from growing food to accessing critical services suffered profound damage.

In the immediate aftermath of the fire, it was difficult to access federal emergency funding. In later months, however, significant funding opened up for those affected by the fires—some $3.9 billion total, including $2.5 billion from the federal Hermits Peak–Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act passed in September and $1.4 billion allocated in the 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Total damages for the fire have not been confirmed, but some estimates put it as high as $5 billion.

Despite the influx of funding, “I really don’t think [$3.9 billion] is going to be enough,” Serna said. “How do you replace trees that were over 100 years old? How do you get all that back? I mean, is there a dollar amount that could do that? How do you buy back time?”

While the recovery effort continues, the risk for more flood damage persists, hinging precipitously on the intensity of future rain and snowmelt events. Mora County officials have begun developing a hazard mitigation plan for potential impacts from fires and flooding in the future. This kind of planning is one of many steps communities need to take to become more resilient in the face of increasingly frequent and severe disasters.

From Reactive to Proactive

In many cases, communities address the risk of flooding after a fire, but time isn’t always on their side. “The challenge in New Mexico is we have a fire season from April to June, immediately followed by a monsoon season,” said Brian Williams, director of emergency management in Santa Fe. “That window of time between when the fire season ends and the flooding season begins is weeks, not months. Often it overlaps, and then it’s a mad scramble to mitigate those potential impacts as best you can. And the kinds of things that you can do are to some degree limited.”

When BAER teams assess the extent of damages in federally owned areas, part of their charge is to determine priorities for immediate mitigation measures—ideally before extreme precipitation arrives. These often-forested ecosystems are prime candidates for aerial seeding and mulching, which can help burned areas begin to recover; restoration of stream channels can also help address flood risk. To prepare for the New Mexico monsoons, the BAER team also recommended and oversaw a number of emergency interventions including installing obstructions in stream channels to redirect debris and sediment and making fixes to bridges and culverts to facilitate vehicle access. These measures likely helped minimize some of the most extreme impacts of the rains, but it’s difficult to quantify their effect—and the hard truth is that only so much can be done in the timeline between fire suppression and extreme rain events. Harder still is the fact that that timeline seems to be shrinking in many regions.

A lot of the conversation around post-fire flooding focuses, understandably, on ecosystem recovery measures like those that BAER teams recommend and facilitate. But effectively preparing for the unique challenges of recovery and potential post-fire erosion events also requires significant forethought on the part of communities and homeowners.

Planning and land use decisions can minimize risk before fires occur. On the ground, communities can install infrastructure to help contain or redirect debris flows; retrofit homes with more ignition-resistant materials; and identify and improve evacuation routes. They can also reduce hazardous fuels in forests and create defensible space around structures by thinning trees and other vegetation Some fuel-reduction work, which is an essential forest management tool, comes with risks; the Hermits Peak–Calf Canyon fire was the result of two U.S. Forest Service fires that went awry: a prescribed burn and a pile burning project. The fires combined and spread due to high winds. But under the right conditions, prescribed burns can reduce the risk of wildfire and help maintain ecosystem health.

On a policy level, communities can take steps including prohibiting or limiting development in areas vulnerable to fire and flooding. Where development is allowed, they can mandate the use of certain building materials, such as fire-resistant siding. Local and regional officials can also map wildfire and debris flow risks to help determine when and where to build; develop pre-disaster plans, which allow communities to consider how they will handle recovery challenges such as restoring electricity, providing temporary housing, or managing long-term rebuilding; and proactively budget for projects such as stormwater treatment infrastructure upgrades, which can help communities better cope with flooding. Communities can also engage in scenario planning, a process that can help them identify and plan for various possible futures.

Scenario Planning for Wildfire Resilience

Scenario planning can help communities plan for an uncertain future. The practice guides planners, community members, and other stakeholders through considerations of various futures and how to effectively respond to and plan for them. In the case of wildfires, communities can consider the impacts of a changing climate on factors including public health, housing, equity, the economy, water availability, and quality of life. How could more frequent and intense drought affect wildfire suppression efforts? How can coordinated regional climate policies reduce wildfire risk and improve quality of life? By asking questions like this and exploring multiple possible outcomes, communities can better prepare for the challenges ahead. To learn more about this planning practice or to get assistance running a scenario planning process, visit the Lincoln Institute’s Consortium for Scenario Planning.

According to a report from the National Institute of Building Sciences, every $1 of public funding spent on hazard mitigation since 1995 is expected to save $6 in future disaster costs. After decades of focus on disaster recovery funding, the federal government has begun a shift toward funding pre-disaster planning and mitigation. FEMA has released a pre-disaster planning guide and has made limited funds available for disaster mitigation projects. Unfortunately, this kind of advance planning often hinges on the kind of political will and funding that are still much easier to come by after disaster has struck.

“I think the fundamental challenge with all of this, as with most natural hazards, is it’s very hard for us to plan ahead for things,” said Dr. Kimiko Barrett of Headwaters Economics, a Montana-based nonprofit research group that works to improve community development and land management decisions across the country. “We are by nature reactive and responsive, in contrast to being anticipatory. Even after a wildfire occurs, we have a small window to actually mobilize and enact the transformative change needed before amnesia kicks in, or bias kicks in, where you feel that [because the fire] happened, it will never happen again.”

A Holistic Approach

As more areas are affected by increasingly destructive wildfires, the threat of erosion and flooding in these landscapes will also increase—and should be factored into planning and land use decisions, Barrett says. She explains that the principles of holistic land use policy for wildfire resilience are inherently connected to planning for potential post-fire impacts like flooding. The measures typically used to build community resilience to wildfire—things like reducing hazardous fuels near critical infrastructure, planning evacuation routes, considering home density and development patterns in new developments, and mapping risk—also provide intrinsic benefits in the post-fire period.

“[Taking these actions] means communities have a greater chance of surviving a wildfire—therefore, that rebuilding and recovery piece is inherently better situated, because you’ve put that thought and that deliberate strategic planning in on the front end,” Barrett says. “So [planning for wildfire and its impacts] have to be wedded together. The challenge is that federal funding and policy does not often address it in that nature, or within that holistic framing.”

Quantifying and addressing the highly localized hazard planning needs of individual communities—from mapping risk to implementing mitigation at a meaningful scale—is also challenging when an area hasn’t yet felt the impacts of a wildfire or post-fire disaster. Risk mapping, for example, makes it less challenging to predict where and how a wildfire might impact a landscape; yet it remains challenging to create comprehensive and accurate maps, not only because of the robust data needed to make such predictions, but also because of community resistance.

“There’s a lot of pushback—much like you see on sea-level rise and other things in Florida and elsewhere—where politicians, developers, and community leaders are like, ‘We don’t really want to know—or we might want to know, but we really don’t want it publicized,’” said Molly McCabe, CEO of HaydenTanner, an investor advisory firm that focuses on social impact and sustainability in the built environment. “So you have this tension between, ‘We want to keep our people safe,’ and ‘It’s also an economic risk.’”

In 2022, the state of Oregon created a statewide wildfire risk map, distributing it to 150,000 residents who lived in areas facing high or extreme risk. Controversy arose quickly: homeowners suspected that the map might affect property values and insurance rates, and some worried that it could lead to new building codes or mandates for home hardening—a retrofitting approach that involves steps ranging from replacing windows to trimming nearby trees and shrubs. The Oregon Department of Forestry withdrew the map for further development, but the response was a clear reflection of the challenges related to getting out ahead of risk.

This problem grows even muddier when it comes to planning for erosion and flooding events after wildfires—how can you meaningfully quantify the potential impacts of a disaster that is the result of another disaster, which is also relatively difficult to predict? And how can you garner the essential buy-in of residents who could be financially affected by a better understanding of the risk in certain areas?

Despite these challenges, some communities are making progress, Barrett said: “I can tell you that there are communities that recognize their level of risk, and are addressing it in aggressive ways that go beyond what we’re seeing from federal mandates or state regulations.”

Communities Taking Action

Barrett said some communities in California have implemented mandates beyond existing state requirements for ignition resistance standards. Portola Valley, for example, adopted a home-hardening ordinance to supplement the state building code, which requires ignition-resistant building materials for new developments in high-risk areas. In 2020, residents in Marin County approved a measure that applies a property tax of 10 cents per square foot to support wildfire prevention efforts. The measure, which includes exemptions for low-income senior citizens, is expected to generate nearly $20 million per year over a 10-year period.

Both Barrett and McCabe mentioned that bond proposals have been a successful—though not yet widely utilized—means for motivated communities to set aside funding for wildfire and post-fire resilience. One particularly notable example is the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP), initiated after the Schultz Fire burned 15,000 acres in the mountains north of the city in 2010. The fire itself had little impact on homes and private property in Flagstaff, but a month later heavy rains triggered debris flows and floods that swept into the valley, causing the death of a young girl and the loss of 85 homes. Two years later, residents approved a $10 million bond that would help protect the watershed and adjacent homes and properties against similar impacts.

FWPP is a partnership between the state, city, and Coconino National Forest intended to help reduce the risk of both wildfire and post-fire flooding. “This has become one of the best examples I’ve seen out there of a partnership that has really resulted from a pretty devastating event that was post-fire related,” Barrett said. “It’s just a really good example of what can happen when the right players are there, and of communities and local partners recognizing a risk and acting on it.” Last year, voters in Flagstaff showed sustained support for continuing the city’s wildfire suppression and stormwater management efforts, with 76 percent approving a proposal to issue $57 million in bonds to invest in water- and fire-related infrastructure.

McCabe mentioned Montecito, California, as another notable example of community resilience arising from tragedy. The 2017 Thomas Fire destabilized slopes above Montecito. When these slopes were subjected to a deluge of rain just a few weeks later, 23 people lost their lives and 130 homes were destroyed. Since then, Santa Barbara County officials have developed debris flow risk maps for the area, while a community-led nonprofit called the Project for Resilient Communities facilitated the installation of steel mesh netting to catch debris in drainages above the community.

In Montecito and other communities, McCabe says, “people are voluntarily using grants and other monies to build their homes up on 10-foot elevated pads, so that if they’re in a path, the mud flows around them. But I haven’t seen any policies that are requiring that for new construction, much less existing construction.”

Still, local or regional policy can support such individual actions. Grants or insurance incentives can be offered to homeowners who create defensible space around their home, or to those who retrofit their homes with ignition-resistant materials. Programs like FireWise USA, an initiative of the National Fire Protection Association, can help neighborhoods organize collective fire mitigation projects and hold residents accountable for maintaining properties over time.

Getting buy-in at the local level also hinges on communicating strategically. In Central Washington’s Chelan County, public information campaigns around wildfire risk reduction included translators who could engage Spanish-speaking communities. Engaging with non-English speaking and migrant communities, in addition to other communities that are at disproportionate risk of wildfire and post-fire flooding, is an important component of public information campaigns throughout the process—from preparing for wildfire to navigating the recovery stage.

A Watershed Moment

In 2012, a major wildfire burned 87,000 acres near Fort Collins, Colorado. In the months following the fire, ash and mud choked the Poudre River, which provides drinking water for 135,000 downstream residents. Sediment clogged the pipes of the local water treatment plant, requiring extra clean-up and treatment and leading the city to install sensors that monitor sediment in the river. “We had been privileged and in some ways probably took for granted that these watersheds were providing us consistently clean, clear water, all the time,” the city’s water quality manager, Jill Oropeza, told a local radio station. “That was the first time, for many of us working there, that we had to grapple with the fact that our watersheds are under pressure.”

According to the U.S. Forest Service, the forested watersheds of the United States provide drinking water for 180 million people. Ninety-nine percent of people who rely on public water systems in the United States get at least some of that water from forested ecosystems. Research suggests that post-wildfire flooding contaminated the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of people in the West between 2017 and 2020.

In Mora County, “people sent me photos of turning their water on and having sludge come out,” said Serna, the county commissioner. Many wells were destroyed, with some residents only getting their water back online in October and November. The city of Las Vegas, in nearby San Miguel County, almost ran out of water for its 13,000 residents after debris from the fire found its way into the local reservoir. With only 20 days’ worth of clean water remaining, the city used emergency state funding to convert a local lake into a short-term back-up water source. Longer-term relief came in the form of $140 million from the omnibus bill that will allow Las Vegas to invest in water treatment and filtration upgrades.

In response to situations like these, organizations including the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed in Fort Collins and the Greater Santa Fe Fireshed Coalition, which focuses on a high-risk area just south of the Hermits Peak–Calf Canyon fire area, are bringing stakeholders together to better understand the risks wildfire poses to water supply and water quality. Many communities in the West take great pride in the places where their water comes from. Protecting watersheds from high-severity wildfire—and, thus, debris flows—is an easy sell to the communities that rely on the resources these ecosystems provide, and building resilience in watersheds inherently builds resilience for downstream communities.

Whether focused on making a watershed more resilient, guiding development to less vulnerable areas, or envisioning and preparing for multiple possible futures, communities can take many steps to build resilience to wildfire and post-fire flooding. The profound influence of past and present land management decisions on wildfire and flood outcomes makes it increasingly clear that we can better prepare for events that are exacerbated by human actions—and, in some cases, inaction. Adequately planning for wildfires and subsequent debris flows or flooding in the West requires significantly more funding, resources, and creative policy solutions than are currently available, but taking action and making investments on the front end can lead to stronger communities that are better prepared to face future disasters.

Amanda Monthei is a freelance writer, podcast producer, and former wildland firefighter whose work on wildfire adaptation and resilience has been featured in The Atlantic and The Washington Post, as well as on her podcast Life with Fire. She lives in Bellingham, Washington.

Lead image: Smoke from the Hermits Peak–Calf Canyon wildfire over Las Vegas, New Mexico, in May 2022. Credit: Robert Browman/Albuquerque Journal via AP Images.

In Cincinnati lately, good fortune extends well beyond the Bengals, the city’s football team, which has consistently been making the playoffs. The population is growing after years of decline, companies are increasingly interested thanks to its strategic location, and there’s even talk of southwestern Ohio becoming a climate haven.

But any resurgence in a postindustrial legacy city comes with downsides, as newly elected Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval has been discovering: the potential displacement of established residents, and affordability that can vanish all too quickly.

One of Pureval’s first moves was to collaborate with the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority to buy nearly 200 rental properties in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, outbidding more than a dozen institutional investors that have been snapping up homes to rent them out for high profits. That sent an important signal, Pureval said in an interview for the Land Matters podcast: transitioning neighborhoods will be protected from the worst outcomes of market forces in play in Cincinnati.

“These out-of-town institutional investors … have no interest, frankly, in the wellbeing of Cincinnati or their tenants, buying up cheap single-family homes, not doing anything to invest in them, but overnight doubling or tripling the rents,” he said, noting a parallel effort to enforce code violations at many properties. “If you’re going to exercise predatory behavior in our community, well, we’re not going to stand for it, and we’re coming after you.”

Pureval, the half-Indian, half-Tibetan son of first-generation Americans, said affordability and displacement were his biggest concerns as Cincinnati—along with Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and other cities hard hit by steep declines in manufacturing and population—gets a fresh look as a desirable location. Cincinnati scored in the top 10 of cities least impacted by heat, drought, and sea-level rise in a recent Moody’s report.

“Right now, we are living through, in real-time, a paradigm shift,” spurred on by the pandemic and concerns about climate change, he said. “The way we live, work, and play is just completely changing. Remote work is … altering our economy and lifestyle throughout the entire country but particularly here in the Midwest. What I am convinced of due to this paradigm shift is because of climate change, because of the rising cost of living on the coast, there will be an inward migration.”

But, he said, “We have to preserve the families and the legacy communities that have been here, in the first place. No city in the country has figured out a way to grow without displacing. The market factors, the economic factors are so profound and so hard to influence, and the city’s resources are so limited. It’s really, really difficult.”

Joining a chorus of others all around the U.S., Pureval also said he supports reforming zoning and addressing other regulatory barriers that hinder multi-family housing and mixed-use and transit-oriented development.

An edited version of this interview will appear in print and online as part of the Mayor’s Desk series, our interviews with innovative chief executives of cities from around the world.

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

The show in its entirety can also be viewed as a video at the Lincoln Institute’s YouTube channel.

Further Reading

A Bid for Affordability: Notes from an Ambitious Housing Experiment in Cincinnati (Land Lines)

Activist House Flippers Take On Wall Street to Keep Homes From Investors (Wall Street Journal)

Meet Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval (SpectrumNews1)

They Told Him to Change His Name. Now Crowds Are Shouting It. (Politico)

Which U.S. cities will fare best in a warming world—and which will be hit hardest? (Washington Post)
 

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

Lead image: Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval. Credit: © Amanda Rossmann – USA TODAY NETWORK.