����������ý�Ļ���Ʒ

When Hurricane Helene made landfall in the southeastern U.S. last September, it brought record-breaking rainfall to states including North Carolina, dumping as much as 2 feet of water in some rural communities.

It was the hurricane to strike the U.S. mainland since 2005, killing more than 200 people. Despite authorities’ efforts to evacuate residents in the region, many people had no choice but to stay put, some due to a lack of resources or unwillingness to leave their homes or pets behind.

“Not everyone can respond the same to climate change,” said Karen Bailey, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies. “There’s been a growing recognition that climate change disproportionally impacts marginalized communities, but our current strategies for adapting and mitigating risk from hazards could potentially exacerbate inequity.”

Bailey, who studies how climate change, and efforts to adapt to it, impact different populations, sat down with ����������ý�Ļ���Ʒ Today to share her insights.

Karen Bailey

How do different populations adapt differently to climate change?

People’s ability to adapt depends on many factors, from where they live to the resources available to them.

Low-income families, for example, may not be able to install ventilation systems to improve air quality after wildfires. In fire-prone areas, the ability to remove trees around a home depends on how much money the residents have or whether they own that property.

On a global scale, people in wealthy countries contribute the most to emissions that drive climate change, but those in low-income countries experience the worst consequences. For example, extreme heat has led to many deaths in South Asia, and the problem is worsened because of limited access to cooling devices.

You recently did�� on a��flood mitigation program in a rural community in the state of��New York. What did you find?

In the Catskills region of southwestern New York, the government runs a��flood mitigation program that buys out properties at high risk for flood damage. While the intent is to protect people and their property and reduce the risk of water pollution from flood-damaged structures, some community members who participated in the program told us they struggled to find affordable housing elsewhere. The buyout program also impacted the essential services the community had provided by potentially shutting down their local health clinic and putting the local grocery store at risk of relocation.

For this program, the primary metric of success that the authorities were using was how much land was bought up. They weren't really thinking about other potential benefits or harms associated with buying out property.

How do decision-makers balance the urgent need to prevent harm from natural disasters while considering the needs of different groups?

There's no easy answer to this question. Federal, state, and municipal authorities need to work quickly and provide resources to get people out of harm's way when emergencies like fires or hurricanes strike. But before, during, and after a hazard, it's important to have a planning process that asks: How can we help community members and ensure all of them continue to thrive despite these challenges?

Keep in mind that urgency is sometimes intentionally or unintentionally used to exclude people from conversations. We sometimes need to slow down these preparedness processes a little bit, so we can talk to more people and consider their diverse perspectives.

Define ‘equity’ in the context of climate change adaptation?

Broadly speaking, equity deals with fairness in the distribution of harms and benefits. While people may have different goals, can we still design systems that account for those differences?

Equity also deals with fairness in the decision-making process. Are we including the perspectives of the most impacted or marginalized communities? Are we making the processes open and transparent?

How do you respond to people who take issue with the term ‘equity?’

Last year, my team and I published a paper where we looked at prior research in this field and found scholars rarely define “equity” explicitly. This vagueness has made the concept more susceptible to politicization. People often attack “equity” based on their own interpretations, while we may mean something entirely different.

If people have concerns about “equity,” I would encourage them to look at what those advocating for equity and inclusion are actually doing. Are they making resources available? Are they communicating in different languages? Are they having programs that are open to and target marginalized communities?

I encourage them to reflect on whether these are truly the things they disagree with before arriving at a conclusion.

��