Preparing for the Inevitable: Climate Migration at Home

FLH’s Yuliya Panfil and Tim Robustelli wrote an article for the Milken Institute Review applying concepts from behavioral economics and psychology to describe why people remain in or even move to disaster-prone areas across the Sun Belt. Panfil and Robustelli go on to propose how policymakers can leverage these same concepts to encourage population shifts to regions of the U.S. less at risk from climate change.

Looking ahead, some of the safest parts of the U.S. for these climate migrants will be northern cities like Duluth, Minnesota, and Rochester, New York. These “climate havens” are relatively sheltered from natural hazards and have the capacity to welcome new residents. Yet recent trends show that Americans displaced by climate are not moving north. They are instead choosing to stay in place and rebuild, despite the continued physical and financial risk. Or they are moving to nearby neighborhoods and towns just as vulnerable to climate change.

So why aren’t Americans relocating to the parts of the U.S. that science tells us will best protect them from the elements? Research confirms what most of us already suspect: people choose where to live based on a whole mix of social, economic and emotional factors. Borrowing approaches from psychology and behavioral economics, we propose strategies that may be more effective in coaxing migrants to climate havens than tired warnings that the sky is falling.

To incentivize climate-vulnerable populations to move to more resilient parts of the country, we should start with the assumption that people are rational – that they make decisions they believe are in their interest. A successful climate relocation strategy must therefore be based on programs that make it seem irrational to stay in climate-vulnerable regions and make it rational to move to more resilient places.

Read the full article, which includes policy recommendations, here.