Thousands of acres of Great Lakes urban vacant properties can be turned from liabilities to assets as green infrastructure. We are working with water infrastructure agencies, land banks, non-governmental organizations working in urban neighborhoods, and analyzing the potential for green infrastructure to include social equity, economic growth, and ecosystem services.

2. Great Lakes AOC & CSO

3. Great Lakes AOC & CSO

4. Beyond Water to Vacant Lands

5. Beyond Water to Vacant Lands

6. Remediating Water & Vacant Lands
Issues With Ecosystem Services
- Gained substantial attention with publication of
Costanza et al.’s 1997 Nature paper which valued the
world’s ecosystem services at $16-54 trillion or 88-
300% of global GDP at the time.
- “These “ecosystem services”—the storage of carbon
in trees, the pollination of crops by insects—are
often closely tied to the economic fortunes of the
poorest in the developing world.” The Economist
“The Road to Rio” 11/17/11
- “To protect its watershed, New York pays farmers in
the Catskills not to develop their land.” The
Economist “The world’s lungs” 9/23/10
- “The city plans to spend $660 million to preserve that
watershed in good health; the alternative, a water
treatment plant, would have cost $4 billion to build.”
The New York Times “How Much Is Nature Worth? For
You, $33 Trillion” 5/20/97
- The USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
“Benefits”: “protects millions of acres of…topsoil
from erosion and is designed to safeguard the
Nation's natural resources…reducing water runoff
and sedimentation…protects groundwater and
helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds,
and streams. Acreage…planted to resource-
conserving vegetative covers, making the program a
major contributor to increased wildlife populations
in many parts of the country.” (CRP: Status and
Current Issues, CRS Report for Congress, 9/15/2010)
- 31.3 million acres as of July 2010 (↓10.9%) at $53-129
per acre
- Already a prime example of ecosystem service efficacy
and supply-side acceptance
- ''Nature's Services; Societal Dependence on Natural
Ecosystems” by Gretchen C. Daily

7. Remediating Water & Vacant Land Issues With Ecosystem Services
- Collective property regimes (Acheson 1988, Cole 2002):
- England’s open-field system
- Andean Mountain common-field agricultural tradition
- Japanese Iriachi common lands
- Maine’s “harbor gangs”
- Great Lakes Basin’s Vacant Lands?????
- Flood control, soil formation, pollination, food and timber production, provision of the raw material for new
medicines, recreational opportunities and the maintenance of a favorable climate are among them.

8. Municipal Concerns
How to maintain economic viability of shrinking cities?
• Continuous economic growth may not be realistic assumption
“…advance the steady state economy, with stabilized population and consumption…Continuous
economic growth on a finite planet is wishful thinking…limits to growth…[including] physical
and ecological principles…a way to achieve sustainability and equity in an increasingly
constrained world…work[ing] closely with economists and scientists…” — Center for the
Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE)
• Embrace shrinkage?
“It’s reality. We’re simply recognizing and accepting the reality of what’s happened to this city
over the past several years…We haven’t gone in and aggressively shut down streets, but, over
time, that’s part of the plan.”— Jay Williams, Youngstown, OH
“Decline in Flint is like gravity, a fact of life. We need to control it instead of letting it control us.
A lot of people remember the past, when we were a successful city that others looked to as a
model, and they hope. But you can’t base government policy on hope. We have to do something
drastic.”— Dan Kildee, Flint, MI

9. Municipal Concerns
How to maintain economic viability of shrinking cities?
• Minimize social disruption and protect property values
• Enhance vacant land fiscal condition—maximize revenues or minimize costs
• Protect and restore natural resources

10. Background
• Revitalization efforts in Great Lakes cities
• local
• small-scale
• variable
• Large-scale, regional revitalization: Does it make sense?
• triple bottom line: social, environmental, economic
• needs research to justify investment
NRG:GDP
“In ecological and thermodynamic
terms, all material economic ‘production’
is consumption.” – Rees (1992)
Income Per Capita

11. Current Monetization Framework
Wag+Stat Adj+Prof+Int+Ren = GDP = Con+Inv+Gov+(Exp–Imp)
Headline Vs. Real Spread Growing Wider
• “Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns,
and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for
what.” — Simon Kuznets, New Republic, 1962
• Expropriating distant “elsewheres”
--------------------------------------------Ecological Footprint--------------------------------------------
Total Footprint:City Arable Land Pasture Forest Hydrocarbons Urban Water
2
km Ratio -----------------------------km2-----------------------------
Cleveland 38,970 194.0 1,809 6,704 5,411 15,589 2,765 5,631
Toledo 21,341 102.2 1,198 4,439 3,583 10,323 1,831 3,729
Youngstown 3,655 41.5 279 1,034 834 2,404 426 868
Akron 13,796 85.8 830 3,077 2,484 7,156 1,269 2,585
Chicago 283,038 481.0 11,770 64,530 36,285 102,477 18,610 37,019
Erie 6,097 107.0 442 1,681 1,295 3,731 763 1,348
Pittsburgh 26,341 183.3 1,363 5,184 3,993 11,506 2,353 4,156
Rochester 16,550 178.3 926 4,246 2,603 7,899 1,441 2,853
Buffalo 17,971 170.8 1,142 5,234 3,209 9,737 1,777 3,517
Duluth 5,089 28.9 359 1,693 1,000 3,034 484 1,096
Flint 5,894 67.7 446 1,846 1,503 4,007 768 1,447
Detroit 78,640 218.7 3,643 15,085 12,281 32,739 6,279 11,827
Gary 6,070 46.7 429 2,004 1,308 3,693 708 1,334
Milwaukee 57,702 231.9 2,417 11,901 7,845 21,725 3,798 7,848
Hamilton 17,242 75.7 2,746 1,857 2,382 9,449 808 2,827
Windsor 7,397 50.4 1,178 797 1,022 4,054 346 1,213
Toronto 85,542 135.8 13,623 9,215 11,820 46,878 4,007 14,023

12. Future Monetization Framework
GDP = Con + Inv + Gov + (Exp – Imp)
6CO2+6H2O↔C6H12O6+6O2
Biomass/rash to landfills ($21.44
million annually); disease; NO32-,
NH4+, PO42-, etc. to Sewer/CSO
Organic C, N, P Mineral C, N, P
Mowing, pruning, animal Precipitation N, P, and S
control, security, trash -Toledo & Cleveland = 822
pickup with ↓/↔ ROI NO32-, 368 NH4+, 1,175 SO42-,
1,930 PO42- Gallons Sq. Mile
-1,462 N, 23,366 P, and 731
Tons K as Fertilizer
Huge Potential to be Monetized, Create Jobs, Stabilize Sewer Treatment Budgets &
Real-Estate Values, Clean Air, Ameliorate “Heat Island” Effect
• Municipal compost to replenish/remediate vacant lands would generate $24.23 million in
revenue, 7,352 jobs, $182-311 and $4.37-7.45 million in wages and taxes, and would
offset 6.65 MT CO2 or 31% of N Ohio’s urban per capita emissions
• N Ohio’s urban trees provide $3.6-22.4 million in pollutant remediation

13. Potential Restoration Strategies
• Constructed Wetlands
--------------------Organic-------------------- -----------Mineral-----------
CO2 Carbon Nitrogen Phosphoru Nitroge Phosphorus
s n Deposition
Tons yr-1 ------------------------------------kg yr -1------------------------------------
Cleveland 7,774 1,923,316 6,225 48.720 3,498 29,130
Toledo 8,079 1,998,947 6,470 50.636 3,636 31,466
Youngstow 3,405 842,468 2,727 21.341 1,644 5,589
n
Akron 6,222 1,539,419 4,983 38.996 3,004 18,662
Chicago 22,768 5,633,047 18,233 142.693 11,321 249,876
Erie 2,206 545,690 1,766 13.823 1,443 2,345
Pittsburgh 5,560 1,375,712 4,453 34.849 2,684 14,904
Rochester 4,617 1,142,429 3,698 28.939 2,797 10,278
Buffalo 4,071 1,007,132 3,260 25.512 2,663 7,988
Duluth 6,814 1,685,893 5,457 42.706 392 22,382
Flint 3,370 833,852 2,699 21.123 1,091 5,475
Detroit 57,289 14,174,115 45,879 359.050 32,047 1,582,086
Gary 5,034 1,245,512 4,031 31.551 3,511 12,216
Milwaukee 9,627 2,381,887 7,710 60.337 5,685 44,677
Hamilton 6,447 1,595,039 5,163 40.405 4,218 20,035
Windsor 4,159 1,029,105 3,331 26.069 2,327 8,340

14. Potential Restoration Strategies
• Agroforestry (aka, carbon farming)
• Strategies:
• intercropping, black walnut, silvopastoral, windbreaks, biofuels (Current
urban tree estimate NTFB $199 million or $202 per capita annually)
• R&D:
• biological processes, erosion control, wildlife, vacant lands, specialty
products, fine hardwoods, waste application, biomass and pulp
•
•
Versus conventional farming:
NE Ohio vacant land back-of-the-envelope
• Increase (+) = 702 tons harvest, 687 tons N Inputs, 21,599 labor hours, $809,955 Net
Revenue
• Decrease (-) = 4,759,236 kW of non-solar NRG inputs, 107 tons fertilizer, 48 tons N losses,
19,047 tons soil loss

15. Potential Restoration Strategies
• Agroforestry (aka, carbon farming)
• Benefits:
• Reduce wind/H2O erosion
• Reduce N2 fixation (offset tremendous urban N2O
emissions)
Multi-Story Farming
• Reduce leaf decay
• Increase yields due to reduced winds, cooler
temps, and less evapotranspiration
• Energy savings of 15-30%
• Bee/butterfly habitat ($75-188 million demand
value/$107 million supply value; $6.23 million in
fruit & grain value; 16-40 plant species; 1.35-3.37
bird species)
• Shade for livestock
• Absorb greenhouse gases¶
•
•
¶
From Fisher 2011: “[IPCC]…states that natural forests hold the greatest carbon storage potential…among managed
systems, agroforestry systems top the list, followed by managed forests, and agricultural lands.” — USDA Secretary
Vilsack’s “all lands” management speech

16. Potential Restoration Strategies
• Uneven or Even-Aged Forestry
• Uneven:
• More Continuous supply of NTFB and TFB
revenue (High Value Crops), precipitation
infiltration, Heat Island alleviation,
carbon/nitrogen (NO3- & NH4+)/phosphorus (PO42-)
sequestration → Reaches asymptote w/in 50
years
• Even-Aged:
• More Discrete supply of NTFB and TFB
revenue (Low Value Crops), precipitation
infiltration, Heat Island alleviation,
carbon/nitrogen (NO3- & NH4+)/phosphorus (PO42-)
sequestration → Never really reaches
asymptote constantly being replanted
•

17. Tree Potential On Vacant Lands
Hardwood Plantations:
• High value product, well-paying jobs, high above-
and belowground CO2 sequestration, stormwater
remediation
$ and Jobs (Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, Akron):
• Years 1-12 – Chestnut $682 million & 18,596 jobs;
Black Walnut $515 million & 14,026 jobs; Red Oak
$124 million & 3,369 jobs
• Years 12-19 – Chestnut $1.71 billion & 46.477
jobs; Black Walnut $1.48 billion & 40,408 jobs

18. Tree Potential On Vacant Lands
Softwood Plantations:
• Biofuels/Pulp/Paper, well-paying jobs, high above-
and belowground CO2 sequestration, stormwater
remediation
$ and Jobs (Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown,
Akron):
• Hybrid Poplar
• Years 1-8 – $2.41 billion & 65,781 jobs
• Years 1-14 – $562 million & 15,332 jobs
• Years 1-18 – $509 million & 13,865 jobs
• Red Pine
• Years 1-27 – $65 million & 1,780 jobs
• White Pine
• Years 1-27 – $49 million & 1,355 jobs

19. Potential Restoration Strategies
Uneven or Even-Aged Forestry
Much
Reorganization Conservation
Uneven: Renewal
-Continues supply of NTFB and TFB
revenue (High Value Crops),
Stored Capital
precipitation infiltration, Heat Island
alleviation, carbon/nitrogen/phosphorus
sequestration → Reaches asymptote
w/in 50 years
Even:
Growth Release
-Discrete supply of NTFB and TFB Exploitation
revenue (Low Value Crops), precipitation
infiltration, Heat Island alleviation, Little
carbon/nitrogen/phosphorus Weak Strong
sequestration → Never really reaches Connectedness
asymptote constantly being replanted Modified from Holling’s “Adaptive Cycle” (1987, 1992)

20. Potential Restoration Strategies
Schumpeter’s “Creative Destruction”
re-imagined to yield “constant capital stock”
Uneven or Even-Aged Forestry
Much
Reorganization Conservation
Uneven: Renewal
-Continues supply of NTFB and TFB
revenue (High Value Crops),
Stored Capital
precipitation infiltration, Heat Island
alleviation, carbon/nitrogen/phosphorus
sequestration → Reaches asymptote
w/in 50 years
Even:
Growth Release
-Discrete supply of NTFB and TFB Exploitation
revenue (Low Value Crops), precipitation
infiltration, Heat Island alleviation, Little
carbon/nitrogen/phosphorus Weak Strong
sequestration → Never really reaches Connectedness
asymptote constantly being replanted Modified from Holling’s “Adaptive Cycle” (1987, 1992)

21. •
Current Costs to Be Alleviated By
Retention and Runoff Currently Health Costs
Vacant Land Restoration
Precipitation:
CO2:
-808 kg km yr
2 -1
-$1.94 billion annually ($449 &
Runoff: $255 million from production &
-530 million gallons mi2 yr-1 manufacturing)
Deaths & Emergency Room:
-1,195 deaths annually (1,002 non-
infant & 193 infants); 6,965
Asthma admissions at cost of $216
million
Other:
-$1.06 & $1.41 billion due to
physical inactivity and alcohol
abuse; $146 million Heat Wave

22. Overview
How this group can be involved:
• Feedback, Participation, Economic
Equivalents or Proxies on Vacant Land
Examples:
• Great Lakes Ag/Resource Econ Assoc
(GLAREA) Land Use Policy Workshop
Four fundamental questions:
• Appropriate role of Social Science in land conservation
and development policy?
• Why, where, when does land conversion occur?
• What are land conversion & conservation implications
for property values/taxes, and vice versa?
• What are practical relationships among urban
amenities, character, and policies designed to protect,
create, or transform them?

23. Triple-Bottom Line Approach
• Social, economic, environmental concerns
• Institutional, short- Vs. long-term, health, etc.
Cleveland Federal Reserve Inaugural Community Survey Top 3 Issues ¶:
• Availability of Local Employment Opportunities, Vacant Properties, Budgetary
Cuts and Financing Issues at the State Level
• “Federal budget cuts will cripple our operations.”
• “No jobs, no income, no credit, no housing.”
• “There is no apparent job growth to replace the elimination of
public-sector and service-sector jobs lost because of budget shortfalls”
• “New business and jobs must be at the top of every list. Suitable business
development for small and rural communities is critical for this region, and
appropriate tactics must be employed to address this issue.
Entrepreneurship, rural business development (including farming),
small-scale manufacturing, alternative energy, traditional
energy, tourism, food, and technology-based businesses must be
developed from within to stabilize and grow these communities.”
¶
Others included home foreclosures, quality K-12 education, small business loans,
federal and local budgetary cuts, affordable housing, credit scores