Directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, climate change will affect all sectors and regions of the United States. The impacts, however, will not be homogenous across regions, sectors, population groups or time. The literature specifically related to how climate change will affect rural communities, their resilience, and adaptive capacity in the United States (U.S.) is scarce. This article bridges this knowledge gap through an extensive review of the current state of knowledge to make inferences about the rural communities vulnerability to climate change based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. Our analysis shows that rural communities tend to be more vulnerable than their urban counterparts due to factors such as demography, occupations, earnings, literacy, poverty incidence, and dependency on government funds. Climate change impacts on rural communities differs across regions and economic sectors; some will likely benefit while others lose. Rural communities engaged in agricultural and forest related activities in the Northeast might benefit, while those in the Southwest and Southeast could face additional water stress and increased energy cost respectively. Developing adaptation andMitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:819-844 DOI 10.1007/s11027-011-9295-9Research highlights • Rural U.S. population is more vulnerable to climate change than urban counterparts.• Climate change impacts differ across regions and economic sectors.• Geography and vulnerability of rural communities impact climate change tradeoffs.• Local and regional studies to discern climate impacts on rural U.S. are needed.• A suite of policy actions is needed to enhance coping capacity of rural communities Author's personal copy mitigation policy options geared towards reducing climatic vulnerability of rural communities is warranted. A set of regional and local studies is needed to delineate climate change impacts across rural and urban communities, and to develop appropriate policies to mitigate these impacts. Integrating research across disciplines, strengthening research-policy linkages, integrating ecosystem services while undertaking resource valuation, and expanding alternative energy sources, might also enhance coping capacity of rural communities in face of future climate change.

No abstract

No abstract

This article investigated public preferences for forest biomass based liquid biofuels, particularly ethanol blends of 10% (E10) and 85% (E85). We conducted a choice experiment study in three southern states in the United States: Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia. Reducing atmospheric CO 2 , decreasing risk of wildfires and pest outbreaks, and enhancing biodiversity were presented to respondents as attributes of using biofuels. Results indicated that individuals had a positive extra willingness to pay (WTP) for both ethanol blends. The extra WTP was greater for higher blends that offered larger environment benefits. The WTPs for E10 were $0.56 gallon -1 , $0.58 gallon -1 , and $0.48 gallon -1 , and for E85 they were $0.82 gallon -1 , $1.17 gallon -1 , and $1.06 gallon -1 in Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia, respectively. Although differences in WTP for E10 were statistically insignificant among the three states, significant differences were found in the WTP for E85 between AR and FL and between AR and VA. Preferences for the environmental attributes appeared to be heterogeneous, as respondents' were willing to pay a premium for E10 in all three states to facilitate the reduction of CO 2 and the improvement of biodiversity but were not willing to pay more for E85 in order to enhance biodiversity.