Vulnerable City, recipient city, or climate destination? Towards a typology of domestic climate migration impacts in US cities

Abstract

Globally, the impacts of climate change will uproot and displace millions of individuals, and American cities are on the frontline of these future population shifts. Our analysis of empirical documentation of migration factors as well as theoretical demographic models shows three predominate types of US cities affected by climate migration pathways: (1) vulnerable cities—those that will suffer significant losses in population and tax revenue; (2) recipient cities—those that serve as unsuspecting or unwilling “receiving communities” from sudden-onset disasters without preparation; and (3) climate destinations—cities seeking to rebrand their communities as “climate havens” that welcome displaced residents through equitable planning and preparation. Despite the evidence of such migration trends, there currently is limited guidance for governments at any scale to plan and prepare for these changes. Forced or unplanned migrations will have a profound and disproportionate impact on communities of color, the elderly, and other at-risk populations that are already experiencing the compounding effects of climate and environmental injustices. A lack of adequate preparation and resources dedicated to minimizing the impacts of planned and unplanned migration pathways could exacerbate existing economic, environmental, and social inequalities. Drawing from case studies in cities across the country that illustrate the typology outlined above, this paper presents a framework with preliminary strategies for policy makers to bridge knowledge gaps and design responses for both short- and long-term planning initiatives. In particular, we encourage the use of typological frameworks for implementing scenario planning that can help cities navigate the challenges of planning for future climate-migration to plan for more sustainable, inclusive, and equitable cities for all.

Managed retreat and planned retreat: a systematic literature review

“…Dundon & Abkowitz [43] in their review paper also discuss at length the terminology issue, suggesting a range of different terms including their preference for ‘transformative adaptation’ so as to better encompass the positive aspects of retreat. Ajibade et al [63] provide a comprehensive analysis of the differences between climate migration and managed retreat, noting that these are not synonymous terms (contra [64], who tag their paper as managed retreat, but predominately analyse climate migration presenting a tripartite typology: places that lose people, places that receive people and places that are optimal destinations). Ajibade [53] also provides a detailed analysis of the legal, political, economic and cultural aspects of retreat, which are also strong reasons as to why we need to be clear about what we mean in relevant terminology.…”

Spatial Patterns and Determinants of Inter-county Migration in California: A Multilevel Gravity Model Approach

“…For instance, Humboldt County, known as the state’s “cannabis capital” due to its unique growing history and environment, has experienced rapid exurban growth and increasing property conflicts as newcomers participate in the legalized cannabis industry (Bodwitch et al, 2019 ; Kavousi et al, 2022 ). In Butte County, an increasing number of residents have been displaced during the post-disaster reconstruction/redevelopment projects; wealthy newcomers have taken the opportunity and purchased lots of wildfire-stricken areas from locals (Marandi & Main, 2021 ; Spearing & Faust, 2020 ), causing regional housing prices to soar and become unaffordable. In contrast, northern inland counties exhibit below-average exporting and importing ability.…”

Maladaptation and moving from coastal hazards: A global comparison of retreat and relocation strategies

“…These t with principles from coastal science to manage a site in its context, consider how conditions may change, and maintain the site after a retreat (Hoggart et al, 2014;Pethick, 2002;Rupp-Armstrong and Nicholls, 2007). These two guidelines also t with social science questions asking whether a moving project helps relocate people (Abel et al, 2011), whether livelihoods are supported when people relocate, and whether moving harms people who are already using a relocation site (Marandi and Main, 2021;Moss et al, 2021).…”