Insights for Receiving Communities in Planning Equitable and Positive Outcomes Under Climate Migration

Climate change impacts are already increasing human mobility both within and beyond country boundaries. Within the US, projections based on sea level rise alone suggest 13 million people displaced by 2100. Beyond disaster responses, proactively moving people away from hazardous areas is a core climate adaptation action and can be used to provide space for infrastructure to protect other areas. Both planned and unplanned individual-level movements raise significant equity and practical issues for households and for sending communities, but also for receiving communities. Preparing likely receiving areas to equitably and successfully welcome in-comers provides receiving communities an opportunity for positive transformative change.

In March 2024, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and UMass Amherst faculty gathered a trans-sectoral and multi-disciplinary group of lived and learned experts to explore these issues and illuminate the current state of knowledge and practice in the US related to climate domestic in-migration. Collaboration and diverse perspectives across multiple levels of government, academia, non-profits, and the private sector surfaced new insights, promising policy tools, and knowledge gaps. Importantly, this gathering emphasized the need for innovation and collaboration to accelerate action and ensure that this phenomenon can be leveraged for transformational change.

This report documents key findings from the event. First, climate migration largely follows existing patterns of general migration, and within-region movement will likely be more common than longer-distance, intra-region migration, although patterns are still poorly forecasted and understood. Also poorly understood are the different implications of post-disaster pulse- movements of large but mostly temporary populations, versus slow-onset-event driven relocations from such hazards as sea level rise, heat waves, and repetitive wildfire evacuations. This suggests the need for differentiated ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ event planning and policy tools. Given that most movement will likely occur within, rather than across, regions, planning at the metropolitan region or multi-state level is required, and sister city programs may be helpful. Achieving justice for both newcomers and existing residents will be complex and needs to be centered in all policy and practice discussions. Proactively addressing these planning challenges for receiving communities is timely and essential.