Climate Gentrification Is Spreading to Receiving Cities. Here’s How They Can Fight Back.

Intensifying natural disasters and other climate impacts are transforming Americans’ decisions about where they live and when to move.

Climate-driven migration will likely intensify pressure on “receiving cities”—communities that receive a significant influx of new residents due to climate-related migration, sometimes dubbed “climate havens.” Without proper planning, rapid population growth in receiving cities could lead to climate gentrification, a relatively new expression of urban inequality by which climate risks drive changes in real estate markets and neighborhood demographics, often leading to the displacement of lower-income residents.

Early manifestations of climate gentrification offer a look at how larger-scale migration patterns might play out in the future. Indeed, it’s likely that receiving cities such as Duluth, Minnesota and Buffalo, New York will begin to experience development that makes neighborhoods more resilient and pricier, forcing out lower-income residents. But these places have an opportunity right now to adopt measures that help prevent climate gentrification in the near future. Policymakers should learn from current challenges—and successful responses—around the U.S. to adopt measures that prevent displacement of vulnerable populations in receiving cities.

The academic researchers who coined the term “climate gentrification” in 2018 suggest that the phenomenon can take three pathways. In the first instance, labeled the “superior investment pathway,” investors start to shift capital to properties farther inland or to neighborhoods with higher elevations, as a result displacing working class communities in those inland neighborhoods. In the second form, or the “cost-burden pathway,” climate impacts raise the cost of living to a point where only wealthy households can afford to stay put in increasingly risky areas. Poorer families are priced out by more expensive insurance, property taxes, or repair costs. The third form of climate gentrification, known as the "resilience investment pathway,” occurs when infrastructure and housing upgrades make a community more resilient and thus more valuable and expensive, pricing out lower-income households.

Miami is an acute example of the “superior investment pathway.” Sea-level rise has increased property values in Miami neighborhoods with higher elevation. In particular, developers have focused on ridgeline communities like Little Haiti, a cultural mecca for the Haitian-American community—and ten feet above sea level—as inland targets for real estate projects. The City of Miami, reliant on its property taxes for public spending, is especially inclined to support the financing of new and higher-priced homes in these areas. Yet the majority of residents in a community like Little Haiti rent their homes, and as housing demand shifts to reflect local concerns about rising sea levels and flooding, these tenants will face rent hikes. Indeed, locals have begun to report pressures to move from developers and investors.

Meanwhile, California is beginning to experience “cost-burden” gentrification: Intensifying wildfires have already led to rapidly increasing insurance costs in risky areas, making it even harder for people to access or maintain a mortgage, or for places to rebuild post disaster. As a knock-on effect, urban or suburban disasters such as the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles will likely place pressure on housing in previously low-income areas of major cities. This will intensify inequality and threaten to displace working-class residents and communities of color. The cumulative impact of these disasters could result in large swaths of the state where only the wealthy can afford to live.

But as receiving cities begin to see influxes of domestic climate migrants, they risk experiencing the third pathway of climate gentrification, “resilient investment.” So far, policymakers in these cities have the chance to adopt measures that prevent displacement of vulnerable populations.

Flagstaff, a mountain city in northern Arizona, is emblematic of the type of climate gentrification receiving cities will face. It sits at higher elevation and maintains cooler temperatures year-round compared to the scorching Phoenix metro area. As a result, Flagstaff has experienced an influx of wealthy residents from the Valley of the Sun who are buying property to escape extreme heat, in turn posing challenges for long-time and lower-income residents. In December 2020, the Flagstaff City Council declared a housing emergency due to a severe shortage of affordable housing in the city, reflecting rising rents and property values.

Academic research predicts that mid-sized Rust Belt cities such as Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Buffalo, New York; Madison, Wisconsin; and Toledo, Ohio will similarly experience large relative gains in population from climate migrants. A few of these cities are anticipating and preparing for this growth, to various degrees. Local government and economic development organizations in Buffalo, for example, have promoted the idea that their city is better protected from climate impacts than the rest of the United States. Duluth, Minnesota has already absorbed new residents seeking a cooler environment. Cincinnati’s 2018 resilience plan focused on leveraging its location to become a climate haven for domestic migrants and set out a road map for accommodating new arrivals. Yet some observers note limitations and obstacles to these plans. No city is fully insulated from climate change, and potential receiving cities must carefully consider equity concerns. They need to invest in housing and infrastructure that can accommodate both newcomers and a changing climate, while preventing the displacement of longtime residents due to gentrification.

To promote sustainable and equitable growth amid demographic change, these cities should consider community-led planning in anticipation of climate migration, particularly in neighborhoods identified as vulnerable to gentrification, and engage with local organizations to create actionable plans. Leaders can expand access to planning tools and provide opportunities for collaboration with residents and groups passionate about climate, housing, and other community development issues. Local advocates, well acquainted with on-the-ground realities, can help to identify where development or population shifts are causing, or could cause, displacement.

Such approaches are already in action around the country. Miami, for instance, added a seat for social and climate justice to the city’s Sea Level Rise Committee. Leaders in Seattle have pursued community events, outreach, and programs to improve flood resilience in South Park, Georgetown, Port of Seattle, and SoDo (“South of Downtown”), neighborhoods that are largely home to minority and low-income families and also vulnerable to sea-level rise.

Further, cities can incorporate existing anti-gentrification tools into their climate adaptation plans. Planners should consider how adaptation measures might increase home values in certain areas, ultimately squeezing out affordable and low-income housing. Providing financial incentives for real estate developers to maintain or increase levels of affordable housing in less-risky areas should be a priority. Local property tax policies can also help preserve or boost affordable housing. Officials in Miami have proposed using this tool specifically to measure and tackle the effects of climate change.

Community land trusts—nonprofits that hold and manage land and property to ensure long-term housing affordability—are another promising option. Both local governments and federal policymakers could support land trusts through a grant program, low-interest loans, or via tax breaks. In Liberty City, a historically Black and higher-elevation Miami neighborhood at risk of climate gentrification, an anti-displacement organization called Struggle for Miami’s Affordable and Sustainable Housing (SMASH) has worked to create a community land trust. Their goal is to develop new affordable units, create community wealth through more stable housing, and prevent larger developers from monopolizing the area with expensive homes. Where land trusts aren’t feasible, localities can explore using community benefit agreements and zoning code updates to preserve and expand affordable housing.

Finally, urban policy planners should work with cities to track demographic data, including income, gender, and ethnicity, to understand population shifts and their impact on different neighborhoods, informing responses.

Climate change is remaking our world, but we don’t have to passively watch it happen—we can adapt to protect our communities and make sure they grow equitably.