As the impacts of climate change become more emergent and costly, op-eds have attempted to answer questions of distributive justice. Recently, the most common argument is that we shouldn’t subsidize rebuilding for populations living in high-risk or hazardous areas or areas that require a significant amount of federal aid or compensation post-natural disaster (e.g., populations in the Gulf South). Instead, the op-eds have recommended that the federal government subsidize relocation. But what about when these impacted communities don’t opt-in to these programs? How can we reduce the costs of individuals choosing to rebuild instead of relocating?
These are important questions that the op-eds simply cannot answer because their recommendations are based on what they believe impacted communities ought to do, not what impacted communities actually want to do. Although these recommendations fail, they still provide an opportunity for people to consider the (possible) solutions to ameliorate the costs of climate change.
A Philosophical Framework
How can philosophy help policymakers and those concerned about the costs of climate change develop recommendations that get closer to what impacted communities want to do in ways that are cost-effective and agency-enhancing? Philosopher Dr. Kristin Voigt’s application of the expected utility theory can serve as an entry point to developing inexpensive, agency-enhancing alternative solutions for when communities opt-in to rebuild. Additionally, the framework can help those outside these hazardous areas better discern why populations choose to remain and opt-in to rebuild in these areas despite the risks and the mounting costs. This is important because it can be really confusing for those outside of these high-risk areas to understand why individuals wouldn’t opt-in to a federally subsidized opportunity to move to a safer, less costly area.
Voigt argues that there are four elements that influence an individual’s choice: available option sets, probabilities, utilities and costs, and information. This framework can help us to see the factors that can influence an individual’s choice and to understand why some people choose to rebuild instead of relocating.
Available Option Sets
Even in cases in which there are options that are available to everyone, depending on their circumstances some individuals may genuinely believe that a certain set of options is not open to them. As a result, conditions beyond the individual’s control can render those options “invisible” to them, which can result in the individual not being informed about available alternative choices. When they go on to deliberate between a set of options that are “visible” to them, these choices may not always be the optimal ones they could have made had they had full information.
For example, low-income families in New Orleans suffer the second worst energy burden in the United States with 19,500 families spending more than 28% of their income on energy. Similarly, households predominately headed by people of color suffer from plumbing poverty as well as from poor access to water and sanitation. Populations in Carencro and Enterprise, Louisiana both have municipalities that are too poor and too far in debt to be eligible for state and federal assistance. As a result, they deal with the added expenses from the impacts of aging water infrastructure. Financial restrictions, such as energy burden and plumbing poverty, can, then, influence the individual to view relocation as unrealistic because they may think they cannot afford what it entails (e.g., having a certain amount of emergency money available until they get a job in the new area, rent or mortgage down payments, etc.) However, local thin civic associations, environmental groups that push for better water policy and management, or clean water organizations, such as Plumbers Without Borders can help provide alternatives that reduce the costs of rebuilding while enhancing the impacted population’s agency through making more options “visible” to them.
Probabilities
An additional element is the probabilities an individual associates with the outcome of a choice. An example Voigt provides is the anticipated discrimination that the individual may face as a result of choosing. So, if the option was “visible” to them, such as accepting the federal assistance to relocate, LGBTQIA communities and racial and ethnic minority communities may still hesitate to relocate to areas they associate doing so with a high probability of becoming victims of discrimination and violence. If the federal government decides to subsidize relocation to an area that is known for racial and anti-LGBTQIA violence, then although the option was “visible,” the probabilities of being victimized may outweigh the benefits. Thus, the individual may still choose to opt-out of relocating. Therefore, the recommendation in these op-eds still fails to solve the problem of addressing the costs of individuals choosing to rebuild instead of relocate.
Utilities and Cost
An individual will also need to balance the utility and cost of either rebuilding or relocating. If they find that, through relocating, they could lower the risk of being subjected to hurricane or flood-related damage, the cost to relocate may outweigh the benefits. If the individual opts-in to the federal program, they still need to consider factors beyond the relocation, beyond getting dropped off at the airport or bus station, such as job prospects, state taxes, cost of living, quality of schools, healthcare infrastructure, and culture. For instance, if the federal government’s relocation program was zoned for an area that was considered LGBTQIA-friendly and had low rates of hate crimes, it still may have high taxes or high costs of living that would make it very difficult for the individual to be genuinely able to opt-in to the program. Therefore, for the individual, rebuilding in Louisiana may appear to be the better choice because the costs of relocation outweigh any sort of utility the individual would receive.
Information
The fourth element Voigt believes falls within the expected utility theory is information. Expected utility theory assumes that the individual involved has a general sense of the probabilities with which particular events will occur. However, in practice, ambiguity and information asymmetry impact whether the individual receives the relevant information. This means that certain individuals will have access to both informal and formal information, while others don’t. This can be costly for those who do not have family, peer, or institutional assistance in acquiring the relevant information needed to help inform their decision to relocate. Thus, it may be possible that the individual knows of the federal relocation program but may not know they are (in)eligible for it.
Proposal
If a policymaker is trying to figure out why individuals in Louisiana are not opting-in to the federal relocation program, I propose that they use Voigt’s framework. Each element provides a helpful launching point from which to move toward low-cost alternatives that realistically enhance the agency of members of these populations. By doing so, not only do we reduce harm (e.g., heteronomous recommendations or policies), but we also make these options less expensive for those individuals from whom compensation is owed (e.g., taxpayers, the federal government, etc.).
If the policymaker comes to understand that an option is “invisible” to the impacted population, they can find ways to make the option visible. This can include either free or sponsored ads on social media about the program, lunch and learns, community-engaged programs such as sponsoring an art family day at a local park, or building rapport with local civic associations or environmental groups. Importantly, these are alternatives that enhance an individual’s agency regardless of whether they end up opting-in to the program. Because more choices are made clear, individuals are more informed about alternative options than they were before.
On other hand, if the individual chooses to opt-out of the federal relocation program, then local policymakers can still reference Voigt’s framework as a starting point to find alternatives that make rebuilding a less expensive choice. For example, a policymaker can determine that information asymmetry is an issue between renters and homeowners regarding the associated risks of living in a hazardous area. The policymaker in high-risk areas can, then, establish a mandate that all property managers and realtors include an informed consent and assumption of risk clause in their lease agreements and closing documents if the apartment or house does not have hurricane-proof windows and doors or is not elevated or stilted.
Thus, if any internal damage occurs due to a broken window or door from debris, weather, or floods because it is in a low-lying area, then the individual acknowledges they are (in)eligible for “x” assistance. They have the renter or prospective homeowner acknowledge and consent to this information, which would be similar to what we do when we sign in for our appointments with our primary care doctors. This allows both the renter and homeowner to understand what aid they are (in)eligible for based upon the risks they assumed when they signed the contract, and the risks themselves.
In closing, Voigt’s work provides a philosophical framework that can help policymakers and those concerned about the costs of climate change develop recommendations that align more closely with the decisions that impacted communities are making that are also cost-effective and agency-enhancing. However, this may mean that the recommendation goes against popular proposals and instead endorses rebuilding as the better and most cost-effective option for individuals in hazardous areas to choose.
Siobhain Lash
Siobhain Lash is a Business and Environmental Ethicist Research Fellow at the Kendrick Center for an Ethical Economy in the John Chambers College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University. Dr. Lash completed her PhD in Philosophy in two years at Tulane University under the direction of Chad Van Schoelandt, Oliver Sensen, and Caroline Arruda. Her work has appeared, among other places, in Constitutional Political Economy and Public PhilosophyJournal. Dr. Lash works at the intersection of political economy and environmental, spatial, and climate justice, urban ecology, community-engaged scholarship, and information and artificial intelligence(AI) ethics.
