Recommendations to Prepare for Climate Migration

Climate migration is not yet occuring at scale. That means receiving communities across the United States have an opportunity to proactively understand and plan for the impacts of climate-related displacement and migration on their housing supply, public infrastructure, and job market. The policy and programming decisions that policymakers, civil society, and the private sector make today can ensure equitable economic growth, just and sustainable development patterns, and thriving neighborhoods for both long-time residents and new arrivals.

So, how can these towns and cities successfully receive people who move because of climate change? Overall, receiving communities must adopt a proactive and whole-of-government approach to plan for climate migration, regularly engaging with the private sector and civil society and leveraging to the greatest extent possible state and federal funding and technical assistance.

This section offers recommendations at the local, state, and federal levels to help receiving communities navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by climate migration while also working towards more equitable and resilient outcomes.

Most receiving communities are unprepared for future climate migration and many currently underinvest in housing, infrastructure, and other public needs. Various observers, for example, are quick to point out that labels such as “climate-proof Duluth” and Buffalo as a “climate refuge city” are merely marketing campaigns. In the near future, these cities and others could easily experience migration-related challenges such as gentrification, housing insecurity, and overwhelmed services and infrastructure.

Climate adaptation and resilience overlap considerably with sustainable community development and encompass aims like inclusionary zoning, affordable housing development, improved public services, and walkable communities with ample and accessible amenities. Planning also offers an opportunity to change development patterns that have long resulted in poor living and working conditions, notably for low-income and minority populations, as well as negative environmental impacts. On the other hand, if receiving communities fail to adequately plan for an influx of new residents, current socioeconomic inequities and environmental degradation may become worse.

It is therefore imperative for local decision makers to better incorporate climate migration into planning processes, risk and vulnerability assessments, and future strategies related to resilience and adaptation, land use and housing, hazard mitigation, economic growth, and public infrastructure. Both climate havens and safe harbor cities must assess their physical infrastructure and public services for vulnerabilities that are likely to become worse due to the combined effects of climate change and population growth. Cross-sectoral collaboration and community engagement during planning and other strategy sessions can leverage local expertise and help to effectively identify any gaps and resident concerns.

Receiving communities should consider creating and sustainably funding a chief resilience officer position and a range of tools that are available for more effective and sustainable planning. Scenario planning for multiple “futures,” vulnerability mapping, and creation of early warning systems for extreme weather can help to boost resilience. Mayors, city councils, or resilience offices could also assemble a scientific advisory group or a welcoming committee, created in collaboration with civil society and the private sector to ensure that new arrivals are socially, culturally, and economically supported and connected in receiving communities.¹ Post-industrial cities, in particular, might even establish a “rejuvenation committee” to actively attract climate migrants.

Local Recommendation #1: Local planners must integrate climate migration into existing and future planning processes and strategies, ideally in collaboration with other government, academic, and community stakeholders.

Future receiving communities can also cooperate with other cities through regional, state, national, or international networks or initiatives, to share best practices and other learnings around climate migration, facilitate the development of skills and expertise, and act collectively to influence government policies.² The Anthropocene Alliance, for instance, includes 300 frontline communities across the United States and provides convening support, technical guidance for adaptation, and resources to better access public and philanthropic funding. Another example is the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, a partnership between a number of low-lying counties around Miami that is focused on mitigation and adaptation strategies. Similar models could exist for a receiving communities network at various scales.

Local Recommendation #2: Receiving communities should collaborate through networks to share best practices on climate migration, facilitate planning skills and expertise, and act collectively for policy change.

On the ground, significant population growth in receiving communities could lead to challenges such as gentrification, housing shortages, and inadequate delivery of public services (see previous section). Yet local policymakers also possess the tools to meet the needs of current and future residents. Municipal governments can leverage their land use and zoning powers to allow for infill housing development, the retrofitting of antiquated and abandoned infrastructure into mixed-use buildings,³ and accessory dwelling units on single-family plots.⁴ Through more relaxed zoning policies, or upzoning, receiving communities can encourage developers to build more dense housing; subsidies, tax breaks, and other financial incentives for construction of low- and middle-income housing can help to offset the risk of displacement for vulnerable populations. Innovative approaches such as a municipal acquisition fund for affordable housing, community land trusts or a shared equity homeownership program, and a local land bank can better ensure long-term and more equitable access to housing.⁵

Local Recommendation #3: Policymakers in receiving communities should use their land use and zoning powers to spur the development of more housing and also implement policies and programs that preserve existing affordability.

Receiving communities with their own risk of flooding and other climate hazards, notably safe harbor cities such as Houston and Orlando, must concurrently limit residential development in unsafe areas. As outlined in our 2023 Beyond Rebuilding report, local governments should reduce or outright restrict new construction in climate-vulnerable areas through changes to zoning codes and land use policies. In 2018, for example, the City of Norfolk, Virginia, reformed a zoning ordinance to include overlay zones that direct new development to higher ground. Such cities should also assist existing residents that live in at-risk areas to relocate, possibly through proactive and participatory buyout programs.

Local Recommendation #4: Receiving communities with climate risk, including many safe harbor cities, must (I) limit new development in floodplains and other unsafe areas through innovative zoning and land use policies; and (II) assist existing residents to move from unsafe areas through buyout programs and other incentives.

It is also essential for local decision makers in receiving communities everywhere to improve their public infrastructure and services in anticipation of future population growth. Many cities in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions possess aging infrastructure, much of which cannot withstand extreme weather events. Power grids, in particular, are extremely vulnerable to severe storms, and a report from the Citizens Utility Board ranks Michigan and Vermont near the bottom of all U.S. states in electrical reliability.

Receiving communities must invest in holistic and sustainable infrastructure upgrades to improve essential services such as transportation, health care, education, and public utilities. Where possible, municipal leaders should collaborate with civil society and the private sector to both carry out upgrades and help deliver services. Climate havens in less vulnerable regions might attract companies or high-skilled remote workers through upgrades to their local fiber optics network.⁶

Local Recommendation #5: Receiving communities should invest in holistic and sustainable infrastructure upgrades, in particular upgrades to electrical grids, in anticipation of both population growth and increasingly severe climate impacts.

Climate migrants will also likely need economic support in their new communities. To the extent possible, climate haven governments should partner with private companies, civil society, and anchor institutions like universities to promote inclusive labor practices and provide vocational training and “re-skilling” opportunities for both blue- and white-collar workers. Localities can offer tax incentives and revive brownfield sites to further attract commercial and entrepreneurial investments. A focus on fast-growing sectors related to the green energy transition, including solar and wind power, could help to both ease economic insecurity and build resilience.

Local Recommendation #6: To attract migrants and promote inclusive economic growth, climate havens should incentivize private sector investment locally and adopt policies that support workforce development and job creation.

Effective adaptation will undoubtedly take years to plan and decades to implement, necessitating large investments of human and financial resources, along with sustained social and political will. If possible, receiving communities should earmark municipal revenue for affordable housing, infrastructure, and public services that will demonstrably benefit both long-time residents and newcomers. A growing tax base through demographic growth will help partially fund these initiatives, and climate havens should also consider innovative funding models such as taxes levied towards large retailers, fossil fuel production, or electricity consumption. Municipal governments could also issue bonds to fund larger, more capital-intensive projects.

Recent federal legislative packages, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), and the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, provide an unprecedented amount of money to finance climate adaptation. The IRA, for example, offers funding, programming, and incentives for myriad stakeholders—businesses, nonprofits, educational institutions, and state, local, and tribal authorities—for sustainable development. The IIJA allocates $1.2 trillion for a range of policy areas, including the improvement of American infrastructure and “climate readiness.”⁷

Local Recommendation #7: Receiving communities must complement local funding for climate adaptation with federal technical and financial support, including from large bills passed during the Biden Administration.

Large-scale climate migration will inherently involve many communities, some of which will experience outmigration while others receive an influx of new residents. Impacts will spill over jurisdictional boundaries, necessitating regional coordination, information sharing, planning support, and allocation of resources. If they have not already, state governments from Alaska to Florida should create their own adaptation and resilience plans, and also lead preparedness efforts across counties, cities, and towns, sharing resources and expertise. Louisiana is a notable example, as its Office of Community Development wrote a Strategic Adaptation for Future Environments (LA SAFE) report in 2019, although the state government has not yet implemented the plan in earnest.

State Recommendation #1: State governments should lead climate preparedness efforts across counties, cities, and towns through regional coordination, information sharing, planning support, and resource allocation.

At the same time, state policymakers must create increased financial opportunities and incentives for municipalities to prepare for climate migration. For example, a state government may allow jurisdictions to create new taxes and fees to fund adaptation projects. Or states could provide flexible grant opportunities for housing and hazard mitigation, including programs specifically for disadvantaged populations. Subsidies for housing, infrastructure, and the private sector might also help spur preparation efforts. The Clean Truck and Bus Vouchers Program in California, for instance, provides millions of dollars for communities to transition to renewable energy and improve infrastructure. Any receiving community would benefit from similar initiatives.

State Recommendation #2: State policymakers must increase financial support for local climate adaptation by allowing for new municipal levies and providing a range of grants and subsidies.

Private sector engagement at the state level can further increase preparedness. To the extent possible, states should leverage their sweeping perspectives and coordinate with businesses to improve understanding of climate migration patterns and then incentivize investment across multiple receiving communities. Policymakers, business leaders, and nonprofits might also partner to create relocation and reskilling programs, especially for low-income workers with limited resources. Focus on fast-growing industries, notably those related to the green energy transition and other national priorities, could help to both ease economic insecurity amid climate migration and build more widespread resilience.

State Recommendation #3: State governments should partner with the private sector to ensure that there are sufficient and inclusive economic opportunities across receiving communities.

Finally, it is critical to acknowledge that smaller receiving communities may not have the capacity to apply for funding and then implement climate-related projects. State policymakers must consider how to more equitably allocate funds, as well as human resources such as experienced planning personnel, to support both climate migrants and long-time residents in smaller receiving communities. Decision makers should focus especially on rural areas during climate preparation, as relocation trends from the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that a significant number of Americans could move to smaller communities amidst climate change. Historically underfunded, rural communities will need to be more mobile, nimble, and creative to support climate migrants.

State Recommendation #4: State governments must lower administrative barriers to access climate adaptation funding and help build the capacity of receiving communities to implement initiatives related to climate migration.

The federal government—from Congress to the White House and agencies such as HUD and FEMA—must take the leading role on domestic climate migration by establishing a national strategy,⁸ strengthening disaster response and recovery systems, and facilitating coordination among communities across the country. Clear guidelines and a unified vision can ensure consistency and coordination across the country. Any strategy should prioritize principles such as justice, equity, and resilience to support our most vulnerable populations.

Federal Recommendation #1: The U.S. federal government should take the leading role to plan for domestic climate migration by developing a National Climate Migration Strategy, improving disaster response systems, and facilitating coordination nationwide.

It is crucial for Congress to allocate federal funds for proactive planning in future receiving communities, and policymakers might even designate legislative earmarks for these efforts. Major legislation, including the American Rescue Plan, IRA, and IIJA, demonstrate that the federal government can direct significant and flexible resources towards climate adaptation and resilience. Prioritization of these needs must continue.

The nonprofit New Cities, among others, points to “Green New Deal” legislation as a comprehensive policy approach that can help to sustain the transformative change necessary amid climate change. A 2021 Green New Deal resolution introduced into Congress by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, proposes funding to retrofit 1.2 million public housing units and repeal the federal ban on construction of new public housing. Solar panel installation and other improvements to public housing would reduce carbon emissions, boost energy and water efficiency, create jobs, and improve quality of life for residents. Other sectors would also benefit from increased public investment. The federal government could fund or otherwise incentivize upgrades to sewage and water treatment systems, public transportation, schools, and medical facilities.

Federal policymakers could also leverage existing initiatives—such as FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance or HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Program—to support receiving communities. This assistance might also include infrastructure grants or subsidies via the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy, increased technical and financial assistance for urban planning and public awareness campaigns, or the creation of a national resettlement program akin to the newly established Welcome Corps.

Federal Recommendation #2: Congress must allocate significant federal funding for receiving communities to plan for climate migration by leveraging existing initiatives and establishing new programs to fill any gaps in preparation.

In fact, the U.S. government should actively encourage population growth in communities less vulnerable to climate impacts, in partnership with state and local leaders. For better or worse, various national policies incentivized domestic migration in the past, including the nineteenth century’s Homestead Acts during westward expansion and the 1913 mortgage deduction amid the growth of suburbs. Congress or the White House could similarly create a climate relocation program to help resettle Americans from high-risk areas to climate havens, offering tax credits, housing vouchers, or direct financial payouts to households that pack up and move. The federal government might even create a national land trust to acquire housing and land, and then distribute property to climate migrants.

Federal Recommendation #3: In coordination with state and local authorities, the federal government should create a national relocation program that incentivizes American households to move to climate havens.

Access to any federal funding and technical resources should be streamlined to allow lower-capacity receiving communities to benefit from this assistance. Small, poor, and rural municipalities often lack the technical expertise and staffing capacity to identify, apply for, and receive funding for climate adaptation. In turn, these communities should utilize federal assistance to better staff their planning departments, housing agencies, and other offices tasked with resilience.

Federal Recommendation #4: U.S. federal agencies should lower barriers for smaller, poorer, and rural receiving communities to access funding and technical assistance in preparation for climate migration.

Finally, the U.S. government should prioritize continued research and data collection on climate migration nationally.⁹ Comprehensive, standardized, and up-to-date information on migration patterns, as well as the needs of both climate migrants and receiving communities, is essential for informed and data-driven decision-making across all levels of government.

Federal Recommendation #5: The U.S. government should prioritize the collection of comprehensive, standardized, and up-to-date information on climate migration patterns and related needs to better inform planning in receiving communities.

Data that is collected at the local level and aggregated nationally will allow policymakers to better understand climate impacts on different demographics and geographies, and then develop targeted interventions and investments. Sources to track climate migration might include cell phone records, utility bills, school enrollments, and federal aid requests.