Moving Along

Following my prior entry about geographic relocation as a means of mitigating future damage by flood waters, I found a few interesting news stories about towns being moved for various reasons.

While not all were being pushed out by natural forces, the lessons learned (and indeed the experiences of the relocated citizens) are likely very similar.  A common theme seems to be that such relocations will be more common in the future, so worth understanding the dynamics, issues and best practices.  Here’s a sample:

A Swedish mining town in the arctic being moved to facilitate mining under its current location.  Note the “new town” planning methods being used to support a community-centered focus.

A Korean town relocated to make way for an Olympic venue.  Not all were happy with the lucrative buyout the organizers offered, but all left--even if by force.

Washington State town being relocated to avoid potential damage from tsunami.  The town, a Native American village in an earthquake prone area, is scrambling to put funds together and setting priorities for development of their new "upper" village.  One tribal council member is quoted as saying:

"You know, just to see the timber on the ground up there, it's a wonderful thing to see—to be able to try to get everybody up to safety, because you never know when that's going to happen. You don't want it to happen, but if we can prevent it -- save lives -- I mean that's the ultimate goal."

  

Finally, a commentary piece by Terry Anderson that begins with a discussion about how property values are  increasing in direct positive correlation with elevation due to sea level rise, and how climate change is shifting agriculture northward, offers another very interesting opinion about the potential negative impact of hazard mitigation efforts. Anderson writes:

Government programs aimed at making us more resilient to the threat of climate change only delay adaptation. Codes requiring building high to withstand a hurricane storm surge or requiring fire resistant roofs in the urban-wildland interface may reduce the cost of bailing out victims of nature's wrath, but they only delay the inevitable adaptation required to live with it.

Instead, we should get rid of subsidies to coastal developers and to hurricane, flood, and crop insurance.  The best thing policy makers can do is to make sure they don't distort market forces. If asset prices are allowed to reflect the risks of climate change, property owners who have the most at stake will literally move to higher ground. 

It is not faith in better or more government, but faith in humanity that will allow us to weather the climate change storm.

Well-said, Terry. Sounds like fodder for a number of future entries.