Will Market Forces Prompt Cities to Manage Retreat from Climate Risks?
August 28, 2018 | Adaptive Futures, Climate Adaptation, Innovation Network for Communities, Managed Retreatby
Update on an INC project-in-progress (supported by the Summit Foundation) with 3 questions for readers
What is the prospect of managed retreat becoming a prevailing practice among US cities that are faced with likely unmanageable future climate impacts? As we continue to study this question, we've developed a hypothesis of how this might come about: the potential negative impact of chaotic retreat driven by market dynamics in response to climate risks and disasters is the most likely factor that will lead cities to consider and embrace managed retreat as a viable approach.
We define urban managed retreat as the use of public policies, including regulation and investment, to over time eliminate or prevent development in places at significant risk of recurrent or permanent damage or destruction from climate effects or places needed in a less developed or undeveloped condition in order to protect other development that is at significant climate risk.
We see managed retreat as one of five approaches to climate resilience that cities can use to reduce the potential of physical, environmental, economic, and social damage from climate changes. Cities may use these approaches in various combinations.
| Protection | Protecting physical assets by reducing their exposure to climate events (e.g., building barriers to inundation, adding green infrastructure to reduce storm surges or heat). |
| Alteration | Altering physical assets to reduce their potential vulnerability to climate events (e.g., moving buildings’ operational systems to roofs, increasing the air conditioning of buildings). |
| Creation | Creating more developable or arable land and protecting it (e.g., reclaiming land from the sea; increasing the amount of irrigated agricultural land near city). |
| Response | Planning, preparing, and implementing emergency response capacities and services for various climate-disaster scenarios. |
| Retreat | Eliminating or preventing development in places at significant risk of recurrent or permanent damage from climate effects or needed in a less developed or undeveloped condition to protect other at-risk development. |
But for a number of reasons. managed retreat is the last resort of cities, if it is considered at all. Eliminating existing or future development raises particular issues:
- Displacement. Where will displaced people and businesses relocate and what is the city’s responsibility to facilitate relocation?
- Property Acquisition. How much money will the city have to pay to acquire the right to eliminate privately owned development, which may be legally required?
- Lost Public Revenue. How much will city revenue be reduced when taxable private development is eliminated or prevented in the future?
- Political and Community Opposition. How will people who depend on existing development or count on future development targeted for retreat react to the plans, and how will civic leaders and the public react to a retreat approach?
Our research has turned now to these questions:
- To what extent do US cities face climate risks that cannot be sufficiently addressed through other approaches?
- To what extent are and will market dynamics (e.g., unavailability and pricing of insurance) trigger chaotic retreat?
- In what ways would managed retreat be better for a city’s well-being than chaotic retreat?
You thoughts on these questions--and links to information and studies--would be greatly appreciated.
