Finding the higher ground : assessing contrasting approaches to planning for climate change induced resettlement

Abstract

Climate change induced resettlement (CCIR) is emerging as an issue that planners will need to address. It is expected that how planners in different political and economic contexts around the world respond will be shaped in large part by how they have traditionally planned. If so, it is important to consider the strengths and weaknesses of these different planning frameworks when applied to CCIR. This is a particularly important question in this context because of the unique nature of climate change, particularly the fact that it is typically less clear when resettlement is the right response. This thesis examines climate change induced resettlement in two very different contexts, which could be considered archetypes of two very different planning frameworks - the resettlement of Tibetan nomads in Qinghai, China, and the response in the United States, and New Orleans in particular, to Hurricane Katrina. The Chinese approach can be typified as authoritarian in nature, favoring scientific management by a cadre of professional, centralized planners. The American approach can be considered market-oriented and laissez faire, minimizing government intervention. The conclusion reached is that both planning frameworks have strengths and weakness, and should be learned from. The Chinese approach is better able to tackle the resettlement question proactively, using information to make decisive decisions. In contrast, uncertainty around the impacts of climate change, the inadequate dissemination and consideration of information, and resistance to government intervention make proactive decision making in the American context difficult.

(cont.) The Chinese approach does, however, have shortcomings; resettlement plans are largely generic and thus insensitive to individual needs and preferences, and planners hold a great deal of power that can be used nefariously. In terms of resettlement itself, the American approach allows for a greater diversity of responses, better matching household preferences, as most decisions are made at the household level. The Chinese approach is highly standardized, reflecting the centralized and comprehensive nature of planning. The American approach does, however, arguably fail to provide satisfactory options for the marginalized while the Chinese approach provides the same resettlement scheme to all.