Climate change is causing people to move. They usually stay local, study finds

16 06 2023
An ornamental palm tree stands in an empty field where there were once houses in Houston. As climate change drives more extreme rain, FEMA says it expects demand for the program to grow in the coming years. Photo: Claire Harbage/NPR

By Rebecca Hersher from National Public Radio • Reposted: June 16, 2023

Most people who move because of climate change in the United States don’t go far, and they end up in homes that are less threatened by the effects of global warming, according to new research. The findings underscore the degree to which climate-related relocation is a hyperlocal phenomenon that can nonetheless protect people from disasters such as floods and hurricanes.

Sociologists at Rice University studied thousands of homeowners who sold their extremely flood-prone homes to the government through a special federal program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The program has moved about 50,000 families out of flood zones since the 1980s, and demand for such federal buyouts is growing.

The study is the first to examine where those families ended up living, and it found that most people stayed within a 20-minute drive of their original homes. Most families also moved to homes with lower flood risk, meaning the program successfully accomplished its primary goal.

It makes sense that people are moving only short distances, says A.R. Siders, a faculty member at the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. Most Americans who move for any reason do so within the same county, Siders says. “It’s useful to see that, even when people are moving because of a flood-related program, they are staying close.”

The study casts doubt on the idea that climate change could cause mass migration to places in the U.S. that are less disaster-prone, like New Englandor the Upper Midwest, Siders says.

The findings could also be good news for local officials in places where climate change is already driving catastrophic flooding. The cost of flood damage each year in the U.S. has more than quadrupled since the 1980s, according to FEMA, and the dangers are only growing because of climate-driven extreme rain, more intense hurricanes and rising seas.

In recent years, many local governments have expressed concern that helping people relocate could decimate their tax bases. Knowing that most people stay nearby could help alleviate that concern.

“You can help your constituents reduce their future flood risk without necessarily losing their tax dollars,” says James Elliott, a sociologist at Rice University and one of the authors of the new study, which was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters

Asking homeowners to voluntarily sell their flood-prone homes to the government is a crucial tool for reducing damage from floods and protecting people. Through the federal buyout program, the government pays market value for homes at risk and then demolishes them, with the goal of preventing future families from moving into harm’s way. 

Although demand for the program is growing, it has faced a slew of criticism for making homeowners wait years before their buyout is approved and for not making buyouts available to low-income households.

Relocating makes people much safer, the study found. On average families moved to homes with about 60% less flood risk, compared to where they used to live. That’s equivalent to leaving a home that’s likely to flood with a foot or more of water within the next 30 years, and instead moving somewhere with a small chance of a few inches of floodwater over that same time period.

Housing segregation persists as people move because of climate change

The researchers also considered how race affects where people move when they’re fleeing flooding. Race is an important factor in studies of housing in America, because of widespread, entrenched housing segregation. 

That racial segregation shows up in government efforts to help people move away from flood zones. An NPR investigation in 2019 found that majority-white neighborhoods received a disproportionate share of federal funds for flood-related relocation.

The new study goes further, by tracing where residents of those majority-white neighborhoods moved. They found that an overwhelming majority, 96%, of people who started in a majority-white neighborhood also ended up in such a neighborhood after they moved, meaning housing segregation persisted despite migration.

“If you’re moving [away] from a majority-white neighborhood, you almost inevitably and exclusively will only relocate if you can find housing nearby in another majority-white neighborhood,” Elliott says.

The study wasn’t designed to tease apart the reasons for this, although it determined that people did not choose majority-white neighborhoods because those areas have less flood risk overall, or because property values there are higher. Follow-up studies will try to explore why homeowners chose the neighborhoods they did, and how race affected those decisions, Elliott says.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.npr.org/2023/06/15/1181693629/climate-change-is-causing-people-to-move-they-usually-stay-local-study-finds





Energy Efficiency: A Co-Benefit to Disaster Risk Reduction

22 01 2023

Damage caused by Hurricane Ida to homes in Pointe-aux-Chenes in Terrebonne Parish, La. (FEMA photo by Julie Joseph)

Critical infrastructure failures are a climate risk multiplier. Research has demonstrated how dramatically the impact of hurricanes/tropical cyclones may increase over time, due to compound effects of changes in storms and heatwaves.

By Natalie Enclade from Homeland Security Today. Reposted: January 21, 2023

While we continue to learn lessons from recent natural hazards and their impact on critical infrastructure—like the electric grid and water systems—we are moving toward an environment of increased understanding and acceptance of modern sustainability and resilience concepts. 

Case studies out of Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian provide evidence that individuals and communities were kept safe through the strength of their homes and the infrastructure that provided critical resources and services in those affected areas. Any national discussion of reducing damage from natural disasters, climate events, and protecting the environment must include disaster-resilient and sustainable construction and infrastructure. It does not need to be an “either/or” choice.

Many communities facing current known hazards still haven’t adopted modern hazard-resistant codes, despite the expectation that natural hazards will increase in frequency and severity in the years ahead. Between the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, energy codes saw a $1.25 billion investment at a time when FEMA is providing less than $2 million annually to support resilient codes through its hazard mitigation grant programs. Without strong codes and standards, infrastructure will sustain avoidable damage, unable to realize climate benefits if they are damaged or destroyed because they were not constructed to withstand hazard risk. 

Critical infrastructure failures are a climate risk multiplier. Research has demonstrated how dramatically the impact of hurricanes/tropical cyclones may increase over time, due to compound effects of changes in storms and heatwaves. These infrastructure failures drive compounding hazards and life and safety impacts. An example of this dramatic impact was seen in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Fiona where over 100,000 people were still without power weeks after the storm made landfall, while the heat indices rose above 100 degrees. It is also important to note that “excessive heat during an extended power outage” was the cause of most deaths in Louisiana after Hurricane Ida, not the immediate impact of the storm.

Loss of electric service can also adversely impact other critical lifeline infrastructure systems, such as wastewater treatment and water transmission and distribution. Furthermore, power outages and compound hazards can significantly disrupt local business and supply chains, leading to secondary losses, and the enhanced connectivity of local and global economics potentially would further foster the impact.  

Energy efficiency and decarbonization can lead to co-benefits in disaster risk reduction. Disaster after disaster we see over and over again that the most at-risk communities are least likely to be able to evacuate, so making it safer to shelter in place and reduce emissions (e.g., better insulation to maintain interior temperatures when the power grid goes down) should be a priority. 

In conclusion, while contemplating energy efficiency, we must enhance disaster resilience across the nation through measures that would effectuate these policy ideals, changes in authority, development of incentives, and streamlining of assistance to serve our communities in an equitable and transformational way.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.hstoday.us/featured/energy-efficiency-a-co-benefit-to-disaster-risk-reduction/