Abstract

Our project documents the equity impacts of public and private land policies, generates policy reform options where exclusion and equity losses occur, and offers legal-conceptual justifications for these changes.

Issue

Ownership is vital to social welfare and animates political discourse (vis-a-vis the "Ownership Society"). Land use policy buys, regulates, or encumbers private lands, thus attracting the attention of land owners. Those policies which increase access to land, make it affordable, protect it for public purposes, or redistribute it attract the attention of non-owners. Yet much land use policy is predicated on notions of limited use, segregated use, or outright exclusion, posing issues of equity and security for civil society. Examples abound. Public acquisition through eminent domain ignores willing seller norms and compels eviction. Zoning excludes certain uses, stigmatizes certain groups (e.g., mobile home owners, public housing residents), and legalizes the segregation of minorities. Public land policies often displace traditional users, creating "refugees" under a public interest mantle. Do these examples have a common logic? Is there variation among states and nations which point to inclusionary and equity-inducing policies? To the extent that

strong state sovereignty is behind land use controls, does the weakening of nation states invite a crisis or a new opportunity structure in the ownership, use, and protection of land resources?

Response

I have begun with public land use policy. National parks and protected areas seem above reproach, given the beauty, recreation, and ecosystem services they provide. Yet World Resources data and case study materials shows a double-edged impact large numbers of humans have been displaced, north and south, as one-tenth of the planet has be reserved for nature. These "conservation refugees" are unrecognized by the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR), though their numbers eclipse political refugees. We have: 1) documented the problem; 2) built a legal argument that conservation refugees qualify as political refugees;

and 3) extensively reviewed literature and published cases showing that conservation can be accomplished through alternative (non-park and parks-plus) models. Finally, as a theoretical contribution, we have assembled evidence that ownership is evolving and differentiating, making hybrid forms of ownership and conservation more plausible ("protection beyond the protected").

Impact

In addition to publications outlining equity problems in current land use/conservation policy, I have contributed to a workshop expanding community land trust goals to include conservation (Lincoln Land Institute of Land, 12/04); organized two sessions in an international meeting in Norway comparing what other societies are doing to incorporate conservation into recent land reform initiatives (July, 04); mentored an honors thesis on the political markings of global conservation in an effort to persuade the UNHCR of the rights of conservation refugees; and organized a session on land reform and conservation at the 2004 Community Land Trust Congress in Syracuse (November). I have also chaired (or served on) the graduate committees of students working on the equity dimensions of land use planning in Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Brazil, and India.

Funding Sources

• Federal Formula Funds - Research (e.g., Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Animal Health)
• Private (e.g., commodity groups, foundations, companies)
• Polson Institute

Collaborators

• NRCRD
• Penn State University
• U.C. Davis
• U.C. Berkeley
• Center for Refugee Studies-Oxford
• Housing Assistance Council (Wash. DC)

Key Personnel

• Nelson Bills, Applied Economics and Management
• Al Sokolow, U.C. Davis Extension
• David Kay, Applied Economics and Management, Warren Hall
• Shelley Feldman, Warren Hall
• Dawn Chatty, Center for Refugee Studies, Oxford, U.K.
• John Bryden, Arkleton Trust, Aberdeen University