Climate gentrification: from theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade County, Florida

Abstract

This article provides a conceptual model for the pathways by which climate change could operate to impact geographies and property markets whose inferior or superior qualities for supporting the built environment are subject to a descriptive theory known as 'Climate Gentrification.' The article utilizes Miami-Dade County, Florida (MDC) as a case study to explore the market mechanisms that speak to the operations and processes inherent in the theory. This article tests the hypothesis that the rate of price appreciation of single-family properties in MDC is positively related to and correlated with incremental measures of higher elevation (the 'Elevation Hypothesis'). As a reflection of an increase in observed nuisance flooding and relative SLR, the second hypothesis is that the rates of price appreciation in lowest the elevation cohorts have not kept up with the rates of appreciation of higher elevation cohorts since approximately 2000 (the 'Nuisance Hypothesis'). The findings support a validation of both hypotheses and suggest the potential existence of consumer preferences that are based, in part, on perceptions of flood risk and/or observations of flooding. These preferences and perceptions are anticipated to be amplified by climate change in a manner that reinforces the proposition that climate change impacts will affect the marketability and valuation of property with varying degrees of environmental exposure and resilience functionality. Uncovering these empirical relationships is a critical first step for understanding the occurrence and parameters of Climate Gentrification.

Repetitive floods intensify outmigration and climate gentrification in coastal cities

“…The processes gradually change the centre of gravitation on a market pushing high-income households towards safe zones, while attracting increasing numbers of vulnerable households to riskier locations. This goes hand-in-hand with climate gentrification based on speculative investments in low-hazard properties [20], which further reinforces the trends of high-hazard neighbourhoods falling into decline.…”

“…It goes in line with the concept of 'trapped population' [19], that distinguishes between individuals who decide not to relocate versus those who are forced to stay in hazard-prone areas, possibly exposing themselves to progressively severe adversities. Moreover, floods can lead to climate gentrification [20] as high-income households push up demand and prices for safe locations, further forcing socio-demographic shifts in urban areas. While flooding has immediate economic consequences for all affected, the longerterm impacts are more detrimental for those who are economically vulnerable.…”

Usable Science for Managing the Risks of Sea‐Level Rise

“…One might expect that repeated flooding might lead to a shift of investment to less exposed areas and that the exposed population might likewise emigrate. Indeed, some evidence suggests that increasing minor tidal flood frequencies affect housing prices within coastal markets (Keenan et al, ), depressing demand for housing subject to repetitive flooding and increasing demand for higher‐elevation housing through a process referred to as “climate gentrification.” However, higher‐elevation properties may still have significant exposure to infrequent major flooding, and there is no clear evidence for migration out of flood‐exposed markets. There is also evidence that decisions about adaptation to RSL rise is related to the degree of belief in and understanding of climate change (Lata & Nunn, ).…”

Grabbed Urban Landscapes: Socio‐spatial Tensions in Green Infrastructure Planning in Medellín

“…Secondly, business districts might mobilize resources to build exclusive, protective infrastructure that creates ‘ecological enclaves’, while worsening flooding or other effects elsewhere and attracting funds (public and private) at the expense of investment in poor, vulnerable communities. And thirdly, resettlement sites for urban poor who are moved in the name of public‐health concerns or ecological upgrading might not be free from the risk of hazards and might lack access to livelihoods and social networks (Anguelovski et al ., ; Keenan, ).…”