Comments on the South Florida Climate Change Compact Draft Adaptation Plan

Seeking to understand the coming impacts of climate change on South Florida and to prepare for those impacts is a wise step, and I congratulate the SFCCC on moving this process forward by releasing the Draft Adaptation Plan. I wish to contribute to this process by offering these comments based on my current work towards my PhD thesis on social dimensions of vulnerability to climate change, and my seven years of working in applied social science research with non-profit community based organizations and social service providers in Miami-Dade County.

The Draft Adaptation Plan provides a good first cut analysis of the vulnerability of geographical areas, land uses, and physical structures to sea level rise, using elevation as the sole indicator of vulnerability. Sea level rise is indeed one of the primary adaptation concerns for South Florida due to our topography and low elevation, and so this is an appropriate starting point for understanding the nature of vulnerability in our area. But eventually a complete analysis must also go beyond the physical dimensions of vulnerability to include the social or human dimensions of vulnerability and resilience to climate change and sea level rise. This is the area I wish to focus my comments on.

The social and human dimensions of climate change are just beginning to be studied, so at this point we do not have a good map for understanding all of the factors and their interrelationships. But we do know that the way humans experience nature and weather is filtered through social processes. We do not live in “nature,” we live in a world we have created out of nature. The neighborhood we live in, the kind of infrastructure it has, our ability to survive storms or heat waves and to recover from floods, are all determined as much by our history and our political, economic, social and cultural conditions as they are by pure geography and elevation. In the field of disaster management this is becoming more widely acknowledged especially after the experience of Hurricane Katrina. Social vulnerability factors such as age, income and race influenced who lived in higher risk areas and who was able to evacuate, meaning that different groups are more vulnerable to loss or have a more difficult time recovering recovering (Finch et al. 2008). Understanding these factors is critically important for increasing resilience both in terms of preparedness and recovery.

The Draft Adaptation Plan is not set in a disaster framework, but is instead largely focused on adapting the urban and conservation areas to gradual sea level rise. I feel it is somewhat of an omission that the plan does not address the other likely impacts of climate change including higher temperatures, droughts, and rain events, and more intense hurricanes, that climate scientists predict South Florida will experience (Misra et al. 2011). However in keeping with the Plan’s focus on gradual sea level rise, the lessons learned from disasters are still instructive. In the initial stages sea level rise will very likely be experienced as a series of smaller and larger flood events similar to those that low-lying areas such as Miami Beach have experienced recently. Scientists warn that such events will become more frequent, whether from the inability to drain storm water after a severe rain event, a hurricane storm surge, seasonal high tides or eventually daily high tides. These mini-disasters will have impacts much like larger disasters, including disruption in school and work routines as transportation is cut off or businesses are closed, loss of income particularly for hourly workers who can’t get to work or whose worksites are closed, additional hardships for people with urgent medical issues, property loss, and certainly other effects we do not yet know. All of these will hit more socially vulnerable groups harder.

The Plan acknowledges the likelihood of this scenario of increased flood events in low-lying areas and recommends that those areas be designated as Adaptation Action Areas, which will be used for improving resilience to flooding or for modified land use. Resilience is defined primarily in terms of infrastructure, building codes, zoning, and other development regulations. These are centrally important tools for mitigating potential disasters, and it is the hope of the Plan that using these tools will significantly reduce the risk from flooding events either by improving physical structures or by removing people from hazardous areas. But no tools are foolproof, and some loss will inevitably occur. Also, planning for climate change brings the added burden of dealing with the impacts of adaptation policy itself, so-called “second order” impacts. For example, homeowners who are living in areas that will be designated Adaptation Action Areas face the risk of significant loss to their property both from potential flooding and from the potential signaling of their location as less viable by the act of designation as an “Action Area,” which may cause a loss of property value. For the vast majority of middle class and poor households, the home is by far the most valuable asset, and the loss of this asset would cause severe financial hardship. For planners, who must deal in some way with the built environment and who have very limited infrastructure or technological options for dealing with sea level rise in South Florida, this presents an incredibly tricky, seemingly no-win situation.

For these reasons, resilience and sustainability cannot be accomplished through focusing on physical adaptation alone, but must also focus on helping people to become more resilient. The people who will best be able to deal with the coming impacts of climate change are people who are economically stable, healthy and well-informed. Resilient people will be able to recover from a disaster more quickly, contribute to the recovery of their communities, and make informed decisions about their choice of location. By contrast, people who are not resilient will not be able to recover quickly, will need substantial assistance with recovery, and will have few or no options for relocating if they desire to live in a less vulnerable area.

Asking what is it that people need in order to be resilient opens up a whole new set of tools, some of which are already included in the plan such as those on urban agriculture (NS20-23) and transportation equity (RR-6). However stronger language is needed to emphasize that these programs should be targeted to the most vulnerable sectors of society in order to have the largest impact on improving resilience. Although the Plan states that “it is possible to affect positive outcomes that further regional climate change mitigation and adaptation goals while improving community livability, economic opportunities and resource sustainability” there are very few recommendations that concretely address economic opportunity and none that directly link it with increased resilience. Some examples of recommendations that would enhance the resilience of vulnerable social groups include:

(1) Providing or facilitating assistance with making residences and businesses in all areas of South Florida more wind and flood resistant. This will minimize the losses from smaller disasters in the early stages of climate change and give the population time to become informed about climate change and the likely impacts of planning efforts and policy changes. Insurance incentives, PACE and similar options should be explored, promoted, and made available to all.

(2) Connect all sustainability and resilience initiatives with opportunities for workforce development to increase the economic security of vulnerable populations. The current EF-3 recommendation addresses green sector economic development but should link it with improving economic security for the most vulnerable by making sure training opportunities are available and supported especially for the long-term unemployed.

(3) Develop tools for helping people in vulnerable areas to extract the equity in their homes and transfer it to less vulnerable locations, or even for other uses entirely such as education or savings.

(4) Make sure that the newly designated Growth Areas include options affordable for middle class and poor households, and preserve the tenure of existing residents of those areas who may also be vulnerable to displacement from increasing property values.

(5) Encourage businesses to include employees in their emergency plans so that employees have time to prepare their own households and so in the event of the closure of the business the employee is not left entirely without income.

(6) Develop early warning systems for flooding that allow people time to prepare to minimize property loss and the disruption of daily routines, and plan for health needs.

(7) Develop large scale public outreach on the potential hazards related to climate change, the options for improving community and household resilience, and the adaptation planning process. Provide regular updates as well as mechanisms for households and businesses to get involved in planning, which will both improve uptake of resilience options and contribute to the innovation of new options.

The large uncertainty surrounding the likely impacts of climate change, the time frames when they might occur, and the shifting locations where impacts will be felt, all make traditional urban planning much more difficult and call for new ways of thinking about the relationship between people and the built environment. In some ways trends such as New Urbanism have already begun to envision a more people-centered urban environment. But we must go much further in order to truly improve the resilience of socially vulnerable groups to a changing climate. Humans are very adaptable, but carefully crafted and inclusive policies are needed to make sure no one is left behind. There are many reasons that support such an approach. One, the prospect of climate change can be frightening and adaptation efforts can trigger backlash. A human centered approach could help people to feel their needs are addressed even amid great uncertainty. Two, focusing on building a resilient population may turn out to be a cost-effective complement to increasing the resiliency of physical structures. Three, building economic security, increasing education and opportunities for public participation are all desirable goals in themselves that contribute to social harmony and quality of life. Finally, it is wholly consistent with a no-regrets approach and there is vast potential for partnerships with other institutions and programs that can provide expertise and capacity.

I urge the Compact to include social vulnerability factors and recommendations for increasing the resilience of vulnerable populations in the Adaptation Plan as a necessary component of the strategy for building a truly sustainable community. Congratulations on taking this step and thank you for your consideration.

References

Finch, C. C.T. Emrich, S.L. Cutter. 2010. Disaster disparities and differential recovery in New Orleans. Population and Environment 31:179–202.

Misra, V., E. Carlson, R. K. Craig, D. Enfield, B. Kirtman, W. Landing, S.K. Lee, D. Letson, F. Marks, J. Obeysekera, M. Powell, S.-l. Shin. 2011. Climate Scenarios: A Florida-Centric View, Florida Climate Change Task Force. [Available online at http://floridaclimate.org/whitepapers/]

Submitted by Emily Eisenhauer, Doctoral student

Department of Global and Sociocultural Studies, Florida International University