Funding rules that promote equity in climate adaptation outcomes

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: Pollack, Adam B.; Aguilar, Sara Santamaria -; Maduwantha, Pravin; Helgeson, Casey; Wahl, Thomas; Keller, Klaus
• 署名单位: Dartmouth College; State University System of Florida; University of Central Florida; State University System of Florida; University of Central Florida; Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PCSHE); Pennsylvania State University; Pennsylvania State University - University Park; Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PCSHE); Pennsylvania State University; Pennsylvania State University - University Park
• 刊物名称: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0027-13394
• DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2418711121
• 发表日期: 2025-01-14
• 关键词: flood risk-management; environmental justice; social vulnerability; uncertainty; cost

摘要

Many climate policies adopt improving equity as a key objective. A key challenge is that policies often conceive of equity in terms of individuals but introduce strategies that focus on spatially coarse administrative areas. For example, the Justice40 Initiative in the United States requires 518 diverse federal programs to prioritize funds for disadvantaged census tracts. This strategy is largely untested and contrasts with the federal government's definition of equity as the consistent and systematic fair, just and impartial treatment of all individuals (Executive Office of the President, Federal Register, 2021). How well does the Justice40 approach improve equity in climate adaptation outcomes across individuals? We analyze this question using a case study of a municipality that faces repetitive flooding and struggles to effectively manage these risks due to limited resources and public investment. We find that the way the Federal Emergency ing equity in household flood- risk outcomes. For example, in this case study, ensuring the majority of benefits accrue in Justice40 Communities does not reduce risk for the most burdened households, does not reduce risk- burden inequality, and produces net costs. In contrast, we design simple funding rules based on household risk burden that cost- effectively target the most burdened households, reduce risk- burden inequality, and and can be ineffective for meeting equity promises about climate- related investments.