3 Myths About Climate Adaptation Work

By Beth Gibbons

Beth Gibbons is Executive Director of the American Society of Adaptation Professionals, which supports and connects climate adaptation professionals while advancing innovation in the field. Beth is from America’s Most Perfect Village, Cooperstown, NY (pop. 1,030), spent ten years in Washington, D.C., and now lives in Ypsilanti, MI a quirky and tenacious, former factory town outside of Detroit, MI.

Apr 16, 2018 | Environment, Society | 3 comments

In 2011 and 2012, derechos caused over half a billion dollars in damage to central Ohio. Rural North Carolina is still reeling after Hurricane Matthew did $2.8 billion in damage there in 2016, not including an additional $2 billion in economic losses. And yet, climate adaptation strategies remain increasingly focused on urban areas, which ignores the needs of rural communities feeling the effects of climate change. Across the United States, cities are taking the lead on adaptation while dwindling federal leadership and funding leaves smaller communities searching for other resources for adaptation.

We must recognize, celebrate, and leverage the leadership from these city centers. However, in order to move the needle on climate change, our efforts to identify leaders, test strategies, and broaden the adaptation community must look beyond big cities.

At the American Society of Adaptation Professionals, we connect and support those on the front lines of this effort in both urban and non-urban communities by supporting creative adaptation solutions to climate change impacts.

In order to widen the focus of climate adaptation, we need to dispel three myths about climate work outside of our biggest downtowns:

 

Myth #1: Climate adaptation efforts should focus on cities because that’s where the people are.

80% of Americans live in urban areas, according to the 2010 Census. Shouldn’t limited adaptation planning resources be spent on the majority of the population?

This misleading statistic reflects our narrow perception of urban areas. As Nate Berg explained in CityLab, the Census Bureau’s urban threshold is low.  Eight in ten Americans live in what the Census terms an “urban cluster”, a town with more than 2,500 people, but hardly what we’d call a city. In fact, only 10 percent live in areas with a population greater than 50,000.

These urban areas include much of sprawling suburbia, including the outskirts of cities like Detroit, and Dallas. But, too often adaptation activities stop at the city line. Just as populations spill over borders, so does climate change vulnerability — and so, too, should support for adaptation planning and innovation.

 

Myth #2: Climate adaptation strategies outside cities can be universal.

To city dwellers, non-urban places can be hard to distinguish from one another. Suburbs with generic thoroughfares lined with identical chain restaurants or rural areas with pastoral farmlands and forests seem to blend together.

As a rural-American, turned-urban-dweller, turned ex-urbanite,  I tend to see the unique story in each of these places. It is fair to say it irks me when a well-meaning urbanite talks about “rural America” as if it were a homogenous Anytown. Growing up in rural central New York, we never thought of ourselves as kindred spirits to Kansans, and I’m sure they did not imagine their kith as fellow rural dwellers in New York.

 

Myth #3: Outside cities, no one believes in climate change.

A close cousin of the first myth and sprung from the stereotypes of the second, peddlers of the third myth ask why they should bother to help solve a problem rural Americans don’t believe exists.

Perhaps you’ve heard that 69 percent of Americans believe in global warming – that’s no statistical trick. According to the Yale Program on Climate Communication, a majority in each of the 435 Congressional districts believe global warming is happening. In every single county nationwide, more than 50 percent believe climate change will harm future generations. Deniers may make more noise, but increasingly their conspiracy claims are falling on deaf ears in urban and non-urban areas throughout the country.

In fact, Americans living in rural communities are acutely aware of changes in our natural systems–primarily because they are so close to them. Non-urban areas are forced to develop adaptation strategies as the impacts of climate change directly disrupt their economic and cultural connections to agriculture, recreation, ranching, and fishing.

It’s not just that non-urban areas agree that climate change is happening, in many ways they are leaders in adaptation. The Mississippi-Alabama (MSAL) Sea Grant Consortium engages with local communities to prepare for increased flooding for sea level rise and extreme storms, develop regional guidance on living shoreline restoration, and collaborates on the Gulf of Mexico Area Climate Community of Practice. In the rural Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the Superior Watershed Partnership and a coalition of partners measurably reduced run-off into Lake Superior, reducing e-coli levels, improving water quality, and benefiting health outcomes for coastal residents.

Urban areas are certainly important, but not exclusively so. Large swaths of population and economy reside in America’s suburbs, exurbs, and rural communities – each of which faces unique challenges that require tailored approaches. Americans outside urban areas not only recognize the impacts of climate change, they are driving unique adaptation approaches.

The effects of climate change are felt by every part of our nation. Climate change strategies are most effective when they are coordinated regionally, across rural, exurban, suburban, and urban areas. Urban and non-urban Americans have a lot to learn from each other. The foremost lesson just might be that we’re all in this, together.

Discussion

Leave your comment below, or reply to others.

Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.

3 Comments

  1. George Shultz observed: “Climate change deniers will be mugged by reality”. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us if don’t work together to address its impacts through mitigation and adaptation.

    Reply
  2. I was stunned by the statistic that only 10 percent of the U.S. population lives in cities of 50,000 or more. When I look at the population of all the Metropolitan Statistical Areas over 1 million people, it represents over 56% of the 326 million people living in this country. One of these two statistics is misleading and I am inclined to believe it is the former.

    Reply
    • Author got the statistic wrong. If you follow the link, “Urbanized Areas” of 50,000 or more account for 71.2% of U.S. population. So less than standard 80% figure, but still high

      Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org

Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology

Encouraging Civic Engagement with What Matters Most to Residents

Encouraging Civic Engagement with What Matters Most to Residents

OurStreets origins are rooted in capturing latent sentiment on social media and converting it to standardized data. It all started in July 2018, when OurStreets co-founder, Daniel Schep, was inspired by the #bikeDC community tweeting photos of cars blocking bike lanes, and built the @HowsMyDrivingDC Twitter bot. The bot used license plate info to produce a screenshot of the vehicle’s outstanding citations from the DC DMV website.

Fast forward to March 2020, and D.C. Department of Public Works asking if we could repurpose OurStreets to crowdsource the availability of essential supplies during the COVID-19 crisis. Knowing how quickly we needed to move in order to be effective, we set out to make a new OurStreets functionality viable nationwide.

How Urban Industry Can Contribute Green Solutions for COVID-Related Health Disparities

How Urban Industry Can Contribute Green Solutions for COVID-Related Health Disparities

The best nature-based solutions on urban industrial lands are those that are part of a corporate citizenship or conservation strategy like DTE’s or Phillips66. By integrating efforts such as tree plantings, restorations, or pollinator gardens into a larger strategy, companies begin to mainstream biodiversity into their operations. When they crosswalk the effort to other CSR goals like employee engagement, community relations, and/or workforce development, like the CommuniTree initiative, the projects become more resilient.

Air quality in urban residential communities near industrial facilities will not be improved by nature alone. But nature can contribute to the solution, and while doing so, bring benefits including recreation, education, and an increased sense of community pride. As one tool to combat disparate societal outcomes, nature is accessible, affordable and has few, if any, downsides.

Crisis funding for public parks

Crisis funding for public parks

I spoke last week to Adrian Benepe, former commissioner for the NYC Parks Department and currently the Senior Vice President and Director of National Programs at The Trust for Public Land.

We discussed a lot of things – the increased use of parks in the era of COVID-19, the role parks have historically played – and currently play – in citizens’ first amendment right to free speech and protests, access & equity for underserved communities, the coming budget shortfalls and how they might play out in park systems.

I wanted to pull out the discussion we had about funding for parks and share Adrian’s thoughts with all of you, as I think it will be most timely and valuable as we move forward with new budgets and new realities.

Subscribe to Our Weekly Newsletter

Sign up for our email list to receive resources and invites related to sustainability, equity, and technology in cities!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This