{"id":2574,"date":"2019-03-18T11:35:56","date_gmt":"2019-03-18T15:35:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lifeaftercarbon.net\/?p=2574"},"modified":"2019-03-25T11:39:45","modified_gmt":"2019-03-25T15:39:45","slug":"new-inc-report-can-it-happen-here-improving-the-prospect-of-managed-retreat-by-us-cities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/in4c.net\/2019\/03\/new-inc-report-can-it-happen-here-improving-the-prospect-of-managed-retreat-by-us-cities\/","title":{"rendered":"New INC Report: Can It Happen Here? Improving the Prospect of Managed Retreat by US Cities"},"content":{"rendered":"

This research report <\/a>provides city government and civic leaders with new reasons to consider the use of managed retreat as a way to strengthen their cities\u2019 climate resilience.<\/p>\n

As mounting destruction by rising seas, hurricanes, and wildfires drives the dangers of climate change deeper into public awareness, more and more US cities are trying to figure out how to strengthen their resilience against climate shocks and stresses. They are using two approaches to protect public infrastructure and private property from climate risks: Armoring\u2014building physical barriers to flooding, for instance\u2014reduces the exposure of physical assets and people to climate hazards. Accommodating\u2014raising roads and building sites, for example\u2014alters physical assets to reduce their vulnerability to climate hazards.<\/p>\n

But few cities are using, or even considering, a third approach known as \u201cmanaged retreat.\u201d This approach uses public policies, including regulations, investments, and incentives to remove existing development\u2014buildings, infrastructure, entire neighborhoods\u2014over time and prevent future development in parts of the city that cannot, should not, or will not be armored or accommodated for potentially devastating climate hazards. (See Appendix for an inventory of tools cities use for managed retreat.)<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not hard to understand why managed retreat is overlooked: it is an irrational decision under the current rules of the urban-development game. Cities are <\/em>their development: housing for residents; stores, offices, factories, and warehouses for businesses; transportation, water, energy, and waste infrastructure for everyone. Existing development provides enormous financial value for owners and businesses and a large portion of a city government\u2019s revenue. New development generates profits for developers, investors, and lenders and boosts the local economy. It signals that the city is attracting people and investment, indicators of urban health.<\/p>\n

City leaders can foresee that considering retreat would produce substantial political, financial, and emotional pain locally\u2014an array of immediate and intimidating difficulties with little gain in the short run. Property owners and real estate developers will worry that retreat will reduce the value of their assets; some will accuse the city of trampling on their private property rights, People will refuse to abandon their homes, businesses, and neighborhoods, citing a deep attachment to place and neighbors. Civic leaders will be concerned that retreat will shake public confidence in the city\u2019s future. Renters will fear they will be displaced and left with no affordable housing options. City officials will be uneasy about losing future property tax revenue when private development is eliminated and future development is prohibited. And so on.<\/p>\n

The inclination to avoid retreat is strong even in cities that have undergone a destructive climate disaster; the civic reflex of city leaders is almost always to rebuild everything as it was. After Hurricane Sandy pounded New York City in 2012, for instance, then-mayor Michael Bloomberg declared that \u201cwe cannot and will not abandon our waterfront. It\u2019s one of our greatest assets. We must protect it, not retreat from it.\u201d[i]<\/a><\/p>\n

But these calculations are changing.<\/p>\n

This report<\/a> examines the role that managed retreat will increasingly play as more and more cities wrestle with how to deal with the growing risks of destructive climate changes. It is organized around three insights:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Many cities will not be able to avoid retreat, but they can choose what kind of retreat to have.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Whether or not to retreat is a false choice for cities facing certain climate risks such as rising seas. Politicians don\u2019t want to make decisions about who gets protected from climate risks and who doesn\u2019t, notes David Titley, head of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at the University of Pennsylvania. \u201cWe saw this in New York with Mayor Bloomberg. \u2018We don\u2019t retreat.\u2019 Well, guess what. The ocean gets a vote.\u201d[ii]<\/a>The question is which of three kinds of retreat will occur in the city: traumatic post-disaster retreat; chaotic, market-driven retreat; or forward-looking planned retreat. In this light, the alternatives to managed retreat may be \u201cgreater evils\u201d that cities will want to avoid.<\/li>\n
  2. There is an emerging roadmap for generating community acceptance of managed retreat as part of building a city\u2019s climate resilience. <\/em><\/strong>The limited experience of cities that have taken on managed retreat suggests that an effective process depends on critical actions that move the community from denial and anger to acceptance. It\u2019s especially important to reframe retreat as not simply a loss of what was, but as part of a larger and inspiring vision for what can be, for the city\u2019s future. Five lessons learned are:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n