In May, the PEAK Rocky Mountain and PEAK Northern California chapters hosted a panel discussion where grants professionals shared how their respective organizations are operationalizing the principles of trust-based philanthropy. Over the course of an hour, Stupski Foundation Program Officer of Postsecondary Success\u00a0Malila Becton-Consuegra,\u00a0San Francisco Foundation Chief of Staff and Interim Vice President of Programs\u00a0Brandi Howard,\u00a0General Service Foundation Grants and Operations Manager\u00a0Elaine Mui, and\u00a0Stupski Foundation Grants Associate\u00a0Daniel Oviedo\u00a0offered insights to help others find ways to start rethinking their practices and implementing change. As they each shared their stories, three themes emerged.<\/em><\/p>Have a north star\u2014and ensure you stay on course\u00a0<\/strong>\nHoward shared that the San Francisco Foundation\u2019s equity agenda commitment to ensuring that Bay Area residents are \u201ceconomically secure, rooted in vibrant communities, and civically engaged\u201d enabled the organization to organize and frame their work. \u201cWe created grantmaking strategies that were directly informed by communities,\u201d Howard said. \u201cListening\u2014which is a core piece of the learning journey\u2014transparency, and relationships have been constants that we\u2019ve been growing into.\u201d<\/p>Rethink reporting<\/strong>\n\u201cAct on feedback,\u201d Mui said. \u201cIf you get a sense that something isn\u2019t right or is cumbersome, see if you can make changes internally.\u201d All panelists shared that they built in greater flexibility in their reporting processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and they did so in ways that not only reduced grantee burden, but they deepened funder-grantee relationships. Oviedo commented that this can look like single-page award letters, removing time-bound terms to provide maximum flexibility, and prioritizing flexibility around disbursements and report due dates. \u201cWe don\u2019t ask grantees to tailor a final report to us,\u201d he said. \u201cWe accept reports that grantees might have prepared for other funders or even annual reports that they\u2019ve created for the community at large.\u201d<\/p>Provide support beyond the grant<\/strong>\nOviedo noted that granting multiyear, general operating support can have a huge impact on an organization\u2019s sustainability, especially if it needs to suddenly alter its strategy to best serve communities, as was the case with the pandemic. Absent a crisis, multi-year support also empowers organizations to plan for the long term. Either way, in terms of relationship building, providing this kind of support communicates trust that the grant partner will make the best use of that money and reduces power imbalances.<\/p>Read the full article about trust-based philanthropy by Malila Becton-Consuegra, Brandi Howard, Elaine Mui, Daniel Oviedo PEAK Grantmaking.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"In May, the PEAK Rocky Mountain and PEAK Northern California chapters hosted a panel discussion where grants professionals shared how their respective organizations are operationalizing the principles of trust-based philanthropy. Over the course of an hou","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"PEAK Grantmaking","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/how-to-operationalize-trust-based-philanthropy-practices","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":112,"name":"Impact Philanthropy","slug":"impact-philanthropy"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","region","north-america","impact-philanthropy"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208560,"title":"Food Sovereignty Programs Should Be Collaborative","summary":"\r\n \tCollaborative, partnerships for food sovereignty are emerging in New York as a way to address food insecurity.<\/li>\r\n \tHow can donors support local, collaborative food efforts?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn more about food insecurity.<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"FIG\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article","html_content":"FIG<\/a>\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.<\/p>\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.<\/p>Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.<\/p>Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.<\/p>\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.<\/p>To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program<\/a>\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.<\/p>Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"FIG \u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarit","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Food Tank","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-human-services.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/food-sovereignty-programs-should-be-collaborative","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":54,"name":"Human Services","slug":"human-services"},{"id":55,"name":"Food and Nutrition","slug":"food-and-nutrition"},{"id":76,"name":"Human Rights","slug":"human-rights"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":160,"name":"Race and Ethnicity","slug":"race-and-ethnicity"},{"id":259854,"name":"Public Opinion and Policies","slug":"public-opinion-policies"},{"id":259856,"name":"Organizing and Activism","slug":"organizing-activism"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["human-services","food-and-nutrition","human-rights","region","north-america","race-and-ethnicity","public-opinion-policies","organizing-activism"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208567,"title":"Climate Funding Doesn't Match Urgency","summary":"Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy reveals that American foundations are not funding climate change despite the urgency and importance of the issue.<\/li>What role can you play in supporting climate change solutions? How can you best advance the work that leaders have already begun?<\/li>Learn about\u00a0funding innovation for climate breakthroughs<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy\u00a0finds.Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201dBut while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article","html_content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Have a north star\u2014and ensure you stay on course\u00a0<\/strong>\nHoward shared that the San Francisco Foundation\u2019s equity agenda commitment to ensuring that Bay Area residents are \u201ceconomically secure, rooted in vibrant communities, and civically engaged\u201d enabled the organization to organize and frame their work. \u201cWe created grantmaking strategies that were directly informed by communities,\u201d Howard said. \u201cListening\u2014which is a core piece of the learning journey\u2014transparency, and relationships have been constants that we\u2019ve been growing into.\u201d<\/p>Rethink reporting<\/strong>\n\u201cAct on feedback,\u201d Mui said. \u201cIf you get a sense that something isn\u2019t right or is cumbersome, see if you can make changes internally.\u201d All panelists shared that they built in greater flexibility in their reporting processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and they did so in ways that not only reduced grantee burden, but they deepened funder-grantee relationships. Oviedo commented that this can look like single-page award letters, removing time-bound terms to provide maximum flexibility, and prioritizing flexibility around disbursements and report due dates. \u201cWe don\u2019t ask grantees to tailor a final report to us,\u201d he said. \u201cWe accept reports that grantees might have prepared for other funders or even annual reports that they\u2019ve created for the community at large.\u201d<\/p>Provide support beyond the grant<\/strong>\nOviedo noted that granting multiyear, general operating support can have a huge impact on an organization\u2019s sustainability, especially if it needs to suddenly alter its strategy to best serve communities, as was the case with the pandemic. Absent a crisis, multi-year support also empowers organizations to plan for the long term. Either way, in terms of relationship building, providing this kind of support communicates trust that the grant partner will make the best use of that money and reduces power imbalances.<\/p>Read the full article about trust-based philanthropy by Malila Becton-Consuegra, Brandi Howard, Elaine Mui, Daniel Oviedo PEAK Grantmaking.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"In May, the PEAK Rocky Mountain and PEAK Northern California chapters hosted a panel discussion where grants professionals shared how their respective organizations are operationalizing the principles of trust-based philanthropy. Over the course of an hou","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"PEAK Grantmaking","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/how-to-operationalize-trust-based-philanthropy-practices","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":112,"name":"Impact Philanthropy","slug":"impact-philanthropy"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","region","north-america","impact-philanthropy"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208560,"title":"Food Sovereignty Programs Should Be Collaborative","summary":"\r\n \tCollaborative, partnerships for food sovereignty are emerging in New York as a way to address food insecurity.<\/li>\r\n \tHow can donors support local, collaborative food efforts?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn more about food insecurity.<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"FIG\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article","html_content":"FIG<\/a>\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.<\/p>\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.<\/p>Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.<\/p>Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.<\/p>\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.<\/p>To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program<\/a>\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.<\/p>Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"FIG \u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarit","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Food Tank","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-human-services.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/food-sovereignty-programs-should-be-collaborative","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":54,"name":"Human Services","slug":"human-services"},{"id":55,"name":"Food and Nutrition","slug":"food-and-nutrition"},{"id":76,"name":"Human Rights","slug":"human-rights"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":160,"name":"Race and Ethnicity","slug":"race-and-ethnicity"},{"id":259854,"name":"Public Opinion and Policies","slug":"public-opinion-policies"},{"id":259856,"name":"Organizing and Activism","slug":"organizing-activism"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["human-services","food-and-nutrition","human-rights","region","north-america","race-and-ethnicity","public-opinion-policies","organizing-activism"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208567,"title":"Climate Funding Doesn't Match Urgency","summary":"Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy reveals that American foundations are not funding climate change despite the urgency and importance of the issue.<\/li>What role can you play in supporting climate change solutions? How can you best advance the work that leaders have already begun?<\/li>Learn about\u00a0funding innovation for climate breakthroughs<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy\u00a0finds.Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201dBut while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article","html_content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Rethink reporting<\/strong>\n\u201cAct on feedback,\u201d Mui said. \u201cIf you get a sense that something isn\u2019t right or is cumbersome, see if you can make changes internally.\u201d All panelists shared that they built in greater flexibility in their reporting processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and they did so in ways that not only reduced grantee burden, but they deepened funder-grantee relationships. Oviedo commented that this can look like single-page award letters, removing time-bound terms to provide maximum flexibility, and prioritizing flexibility around disbursements and report due dates. \u201cWe don\u2019t ask grantees to tailor a final report to us,\u201d he said. \u201cWe accept reports that grantees might have prepared for other funders or even annual reports that they\u2019ve created for the community at large.\u201d<\/p>Provide support beyond the grant<\/strong>\nOviedo noted that granting multiyear, general operating support can have a huge impact on an organization\u2019s sustainability, especially if it needs to suddenly alter its strategy to best serve communities, as was the case with the pandemic. Absent a crisis, multi-year support also empowers organizations to plan for the long term. Either way, in terms of relationship building, providing this kind of support communicates trust that the grant partner will make the best use of that money and reduces power imbalances.<\/p>Read the full article about trust-based philanthropy by Malila Becton-Consuegra, Brandi Howard, Elaine Mui, Daniel Oviedo PEAK Grantmaking.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"In May, the PEAK Rocky Mountain and PEAK Northern California chapters hosted a panel discussion where grants professionals shared how their respective organizations are operationalizing the principles of trust-based philanthropy. Over the course of an hou","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"PEAK Grantmaking","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/how-to-operationalize-trust-based-philanthropy-practices","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":112,"name":"Impact Philanthropy","slug":"impact-philanthropy"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","region","north-america","impact-philanthropy"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208560,"title":"Food Sovereignty Programs Should Be Collaborative","summary":"\r\n \tCollaborative, partnerships for food sovereignty are emerging in New York as a way to address food insecurity.<\/li>\r\n \tHow can donors support local, collaborative food efforts?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn more about food insecurity.<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"FIG\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article","html_content":"FIG<\/a>\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.<\/p>\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.<\/p>Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.<\/p>Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.<\/p>\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.<\/p>To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program<\/a>\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.<\/p>Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"FIG \u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarit","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Food Tank","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-human-services.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/food-sovereignty-programs-should-be-collaborative","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":54,"name":"Human Services","slug":"human-services"},{"id":55,"name":"Food and Nutrition","slug":"food-and-nutrition"},{"id":76,"name":"Human Rights","slug":"human-rights"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":160,"name":"Race and Ethnicity","slug":"race-and-ethnicity"},{"id":259854,"name":"Public Opinion and Policies","slug":"public-opinion-policies"},{"id":259856,"name":"Organizing and Activism","slug":"organizing-activism"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["human-services","food-and-nutrition","human-rights","region","north-america","race-and-ethnicity","public-opinion-policies","organizing-activism"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208567,"title":"Climate Funding Doesn't Match Urgency","summary":"Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy reveals that American foundations are not funding climate change despite the urgency and importance of the issue.<\/li>What role can you play in supporting climate change solutions? How can you best advance the work that leaders have already begun?<\/li>Learn about\u00a0funding innovation for climate breakthroughs<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy\u00a0finds.Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201dBut while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article","html_content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Provide support beyond the grant<\/strong>\nOviedo noted that granting multiyear, general operating support can have a huge impact on an organization\u2019s sustainability, especially if it needs to suddenly alter its strategy to best serve communities, as was the case with the pandemic. Absent a crisis, multi-year support also empowers organizations to plan for the long term. Either way, in terms of relationship building, providing this kind of support communicates trust that the grant partner will make the best use of that money and reduces power imbalances.<\/p>Read the full article about trust-based philanthropy by Malila Becton-Consuegra, Brandi Howard, Elaine Mui, Daniel Oviedo PEAK Grantmaking.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"In May, the PEAK Rocky Mountain and PEAK Northern California chapters hosted a panel discussion where grants professionals shared how their respective organizations are operationalizing the principles of trust-based philanthropy. Over the course of an hou","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"PEAK Grantmaking","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/how-to-operationalize-trust-based-philanthropy-practices","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":112,"name":"Impact Philanthropy","slug":"impact-philanthropy"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","region","north-america","impact-philanthropy"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208560,"title":"Food Sovereignty Programs Should Be Collaborative","summary":"\r\n \tCollaborative, partnerships for food sovereignty are emerging in New York as a way to address food insecurity.<\/li>\r\n \tHow can donors support local, collaborative food efforts?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn more about food insecurity.<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"FIG\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article","html_content":"FIG<\/a>\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.<\/p>\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.<\/p>Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.<\/p>Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.<\/p>\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.<\/p>To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program<\/a>\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.<\/p>Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"FIG \u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarit","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Food Tank","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-human-services.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/food-sovereignty-programs-should-be-collaborative","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":54,"name":"Human Services","slug":"human-services"},{"id":55,"name":"Food and Nutrition","slug":"food-and-nutrition"},{"id":76,"name":"Human Rights","slug":"human-rights"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":160,"name":"Race and Ethnicity","slug":"race-and-ethnicity"},{"id":259854,"name":"Public Opinion and Policies","slug":"public-opinion-policies"},{"id":259856,"name":"Organizing and Activism","slug":"organizing-activism"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["human-services","food-and-nutrition","human-rights","region","north-america","race-and-ethnicity","public-opinion-policies","organizing-activism"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208567,"title":"Climate Funding Doesn't Match Urgency","summary":"Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy reveals that American foundations are not funding climate change despite the urgency and importance of the issue.<\/li>What role can you play in supporting climate change solutions? How can you best advance the work that leaders have already begun?<\/li>Learn about\u00a0funding innovation for climate breakthroughs<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy\u00a0finds.Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201dBut while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article","html_content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Read the full article about trust-based philanthropy by Malila Becton-Consuegra, Brandi Howard, Elaine Mui, Daniel Oviedo PEAK Grantmaking.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"In May, the PEAK Rocky Mountain and PEAK Northern California chapters hosted a panel discussion where grants professionals shared how their respective organizations are operationalizing the principles of trust-based philanthropy. Over the course of an hou","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"PEAK Grantmaking","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/how-to-operationalize-trust-based-philanthropy-practices","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":112,"name":"Impact Philanthropy","slug":"impact-philanthropy"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","region","north-america","impact-philanthropy"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208560,"title":"Food Sovereignty Programs Should Be Collaborative","summary":"\r\n \tCollaborative, partnerships for food sovereignty are emerging in New York as a way to address food insecurity.<\/li>\r\n \tHow can donors support local, collaborative food efforts?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn more about food insecurity.<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"FIG\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article","html_content":"FIG<\/a>\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.<\/p>\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.<\/p>Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.<\/p>Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.<\/p>\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.<\/p>To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program<\/a>\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.<\/p>Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"FIG \u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarit","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Food Tank","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-human-services.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/food-sovereignty-programs-should-be-collaborative","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":54,"name":"Human Services","slug":"human-services"},{"id":55,"name":"Food and Nutrition","slug":"food-and-nutrition"},{"id":76,"name":"Human Rights","slug":"human-rights"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":160,"name":"Race and Ethnicity","slug":"race-and-ethnicity"},{"id":259854,"name":"Public Opinion and Policies","slug":"public-opinion-policies"},{"id":259856,"name":"Organizing and Activism","slug":"organizing-activism"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["human-services","food-and-nutrition","human-rights","region","north-america","race-and-ethnicity","public-opinion-policies","organizing-activism"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208567,"title":"Climate Funding Doesn't Match Urgency","summary":"Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy reveals that American foundations are not funding climate change despite the urgency and importance of the issue.<\/li>What role can you play in supporting climate change solutions? How can you best advance the work that leaders have already begun?<\/li>Learn about\u00a0funding innovation for climate breakthroughs<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy\u00a0finds.Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201dBut while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article","html_content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
FIG<\/a>\u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarity, they focus on developing strategies that address environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, racial equity, and economic justice.<\/p>\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.<\/p>Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.<\/p>Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.<\/p>\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.<\/p>To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program<\/a>\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.<\/p>Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"FIG \u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarit","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Food Tank","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-human-services.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/food-sovereignty-programs-should-be-collaborative","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":54,"name":"Human Services","slug":"human-services"},{"id":55,"name":"Food and Nutrition","slug":"food-and-nutrition"},{"id":76,"name":"Human Rights","slug":"human-rights"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":160,"name":"Race and Ethnicity","slug":"race-and-ethnicity"},{"id":259854,"name":"Public Opinion and Policies","slug":"public-opinion-policies"},{"id":259856,"name":"Organizing and Activism","slug":"organizing-activism"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["human-services","food-and-nutrition","human-rights","region","north-america","race-and-ethnicity","public-opinion-policies","organizing-activism"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208567,"title":"Climate Funding Doesn't Match Urgency","summary":"Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy reveals that American foundations are not funding climate change despite the urgency and importance of the issue.<\/li>What role can you play in supporting climate change solutions? How can you best advance the work that leaders have already begun?<\/li>Learn about\u00a0funding innovation for climate breakthroughs<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy\u00a0finds.Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201dBut while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article","html_content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
\u201cThe whole ethos and purpose of FIG is making the radical practical,\u201d Ora Wise, Co-Founder of FIG and Director of Organizational Development and Partnerships tells Food Tank.<\/p>
Wise co-founded FIG after working in media and arts-based education. She aimed to build connections between the movement for self-determination and land protection in Palestine and the fight against the criminalization, displacement, and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and migrant communities in the United States.<\/p>
Wise explains that her Jewish heritage helped her \u201cunderstand food as a central tool for community building.\u201d This, combined with her work with marginalized communities\u2019 movements for sovereignty, influenced her decision to organize an anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty collective with a food systems lens.<\/p>
\u201cFood has been, both here in Turtle Island and in Palestine, a central tool of the colonizing system in suppressing, displacing, and destroying the bodies, communities, cultures, and lives of the original peoples,\u201d Wise tells Food Tank. But according to Wise, food can also be \u201can incredible, powerful, beautiful tool of resistance.\u201d Communities around the world are using it \u201cdespite and in opposition to corporate capitalism, extractive agriculture, and extremely brutal colonial systems,\u201d she says.<\/p>
To cultivate food sovereignty in communities in New York, FIG organizes through a collaborative, partnership-based model. Its\u00a0Food Security Program<\/a>\u00a0exemplifies the collective\u2019s dedication to co-creating ideas and partnering with the people facing food insecurity and those working in food production and distribution.<\/p>Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"FIG \u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarit","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Food Tank","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-human-services.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/food-sovereignty-programs-should-be-collaborative","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":54,"name":"Human Services","slug":"human-services"},{"id":55,"name":"Food and Nutrition","slug":"food-and-nutrition"},{"id":76,"name":"Human Rights","slug":"human-rights"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":160,"name":"Race and Ethnicity","slug":"race-and-ethnicity"},{"id":259854,"name":"Public Opinion and Policies","slug":"public-opinion-policies"},{"id":259856,"name":"Organizing and Activism","slug":"organizing-activism"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["human-services","food-and-nutrition","human-rights","region","north-america","race-and-ethnicity","public-opinion-policies","organizing-activism"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208567,"title":"Climate Funding Doesn't Match Urgency","summary":"Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy reveals that American foundations are not funding climate change despite the urgency and importance of the issue.<\/li>What role can you play in supporting climate change solutions? How can you best advance the work that leaders have already begun?<\/li>Learn about\u00a0funding innovation for climate breakthroughs<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy\u00a0finds.Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201dBut while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article","html_content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Read the full article about food sovereignty at Food Tank.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"FIG \u00a0is a multi-racial, multi-gender grassroots collective of food and hospitality workers that hopes to transform the food system through knowledge sharing and mutual aid. Based in New York City\/Lenapehoking and founded with a vision of global solidarit","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Food Tank","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-human-services.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/food-sovereignty-programs-should-be-collaborative","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":54,"name":"Human Services","slug":"human-services"},{"id":55,"name":"Food and Nutrition","slug":"food-and-nutrition"},{"id":76,"name":"Human Rights","slug":"human-rights"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":160,"name":"Race and Ethnicity","slug":"race-and-ethnicity"},{"id":259854,"name":"Public Opinion and Policies","slug":"public-opinion-policies"},{"id":259856,"name":"Organizing and Activism","slug":"organizing-activism"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["human-services","food-and-nutrition","human-rights","region","north-america","race-and-ethnicity","public-opinion-policies","organizing-activism"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208567,"title":"Climate Funding Doesn't Match Urgency","summary":"Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy reveals that American foundations are not funding climate change despite the urgency and importance of the issue.<\/li>What role can you play in supporting climate change solutions? How can you best advance the work that leaders have already begun?<\/li>Learn about\u00a0funding innovation for climate breakthroughs<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy\u00a0finds.Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201dBut while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article","html_content":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0Center for Effective Philanthropy<\/a>\u00a0finds.<\/p>Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Funded by the\u00a0William and Flora Hewlett Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and based on a survey conducted between January and March 2022, the report,\u00a0Much Alarm, Less Action: Foundations & Climate Change<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(43 pages, PDF), found that 60 percent of foundation leaders (69 percent of climate funders and 43 percent of non-climate funders) and 60 percent of nonprofit leaders (80 percent of climate-focused nonprofits and 53 percent of non-climate nonprofits) believe that climate change is \u201can extremely urgent problem,\u201d while 29 percent and 22 percent believe it is \u201ca very urgent problem.\u201d<\/p>But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
But while 72 percent of foundation leaders and 68 percent of nonprofit leaders overall agreed that \u201cclimate change is one of the top three most important problems to address right now,\u201d only 9 percent and 10 percent said that it was \u201cthe most important\u201d problem. According to the survey, a larger share of foundation leaders and 33 percent of nonprofit leaders said they believe that climate change would have a significant negative effect on the lives of the people they serve (60 percent and 33 percent), their geographic rea (59 percent and 49 percent), their issue area (36 percent and 9 percent), and their organization\u2019s ability to achieve its goals (28 percent and 9 percent).<\/p>
Read the full article about\u00a0climate funding at Philanthropy News Digest.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"While U.S. foundation leaders see climate change as an urgent problem, foundation efforts to address climate change are relatively limited, a report from the\u00a0 Center for Effective Philanthropy \u00a0finds. Funded by the\u00a0 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Philanthropy News Digest","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-philantropy.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/climate-funding-doesnt-match-urgency","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":46,"name":"Philanthropy","slug":"philantropy"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":114,"name":"Philanthropy (Other)","slug":"philanthropy"},{"id":122,"name":"Global","slug":"global"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["philantropy","environment","climate","region","philanthropy","global"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208565,"title":"Building Resilience to Extreme Heat and Heat Waves","summary":"\r\n \tLocal, state, and federal governments must strategize how to address extreme heat and provide guidance on resilience to heat waves.<\/li>\r\n \tWhat is the role of donors in supporting heat-resilient efforts and infrastructure? What communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat?<\/li>\r\n \tLearn how to address extreme heat with equitable solutions.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article","html_content":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change,\u00a0local, state and federal governments need to work together to address the issue and advance heat governance to create more resilient communities.<\/p>
Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the U.S., leading to\u00a0more than 1,300 deaths per year<\/a>. It can cause heat exhaustion and heat stroke, exacerbate preexisting conditions like diabetes, and increase the risk for\u00a0preterm births<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hospital admissions<\/a>\u00a0for mental health-related issues. Heat also affects quality of life, economic activity, infrastructure, and energy and water use.<\/p>In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
In cities, increasing heat due to climate change is worsened by the urban heat island effect, where natural vegetation is replaced with pavement and buildings, leading to higher absorption and retention of heat. This disproportionately impacts marginalized and lower-income communities and compounds other systemic inequities, increasing impacts for those without reliable access to healthcare, energy for indoor cooling, quality housing, and thermally safe school and workplace conditions.<\/p>
At the local level, policymakers can lessen the impact of extreme heat by\u00a0using a framework<\/a>\u00a0to advance heat resilience that addresses historical injustices and the diverse needs of their communities. It\u2019s vital that all levels of government implement a range of metrics that span scales and sectors to assess progress toward heat resilience goals. These metrics should be agreed on, collected consistently, and evaluated to better measure progress.<\/p>Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Read the full article about extreme heat by Ladd Keith at Smart Cities Dive.Read the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>","excerpt":"Historically, heat has received less attention than hazards such as hurricanes or wildfires, whose visible damage to physical property draws more attention.\u00a0But as extreme heat has become more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate ","byline":"","author":"Giving Compass","author_bio":null,"author_img_url":null,"publisher":"Smart Cities Dive","type":"post","gc_medium_image":"https:\/\/cdn.www.hbhuluo.com\/images\/categories\/featured-category-environment.jpg","img_alt":"","img_caption":"","gc_selection":false,"url":"\/\/www.hbhuluo.com\/article\/building-resilience-to-extreme-heat-and-heat-waves","is_gc_original":false,"is_evergreen":false,"footnotes":null,"audio":false,"pdf":null,"video":false,"date_added":"Jul 13, 2022","date_modified":"Jul 13, 2022","categories":[{"id":26,"name":"Health","slug":"health"},{"id":53,"name":"Public Health","slug":"public-health"},{"id":58,"name":"Environment","slug":"environment"},{"id":59,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate"},{"id":110,"name":"Region","slug":"region"},{"id":111,"name":"North America","slug":"north-america"},{"id":33179,"name":"Infrastructure","slug":"infrastructure"},{"id":248177,"name":"Urban Infrastructure","slug":"urban-infrastructure"}],"_date_added":1657670400,"_date_modified":1657670400,"_categories":["health","public-health","environment","climate","region","north-america","infrastructure","urban-infrastructure"],"_tags":[]},{"id":208568,"title":"A Case for Retreat in the Age of Fire","summary":"\u00a0Emily E. Schlickman, Brett Milligan, and Stephen M. Wheeler argue that in some places, not rebuilding after fires may be the best way to address increasing fire risks.<\/li>What role can you play in helping communities prepare for climate-related disasters, even to the point of relocating?<\/li>Read the full article extraordinary landscape fires becoming more ordinary<\/a>.<\/li><\/ul>","intro":null,"content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space around homes.But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died.Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%.Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire ModelIt has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.Limiting future developmentOn one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside.While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.\nEmily SchlickmanHalting new constructionFurther along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973.Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.\nEmily SchlickmanTo assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts, on wetlands and along earthquake faults.Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk propertiesThreehigh-profile projects in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that...","html_content":"Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Wildfires in the American West are getting larger, more frequent and more severe<\/a>. Although efforts are underway to create fire-adapted communities, it\u2019s important to realize that we cannot simply design our way out of wildfire \u2013 some communities will need to begin planning a retreat.<\/p>Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Paradise, California, is an example. For decades, this community has worked to reduce<\/a> dry grasses, brush and forest overgrowth in the surrounding wildlands that could burn. It built firebreaks to prevent fires from spreading, and promoted defensible space<\/a> around homes.<\/p>But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
But in 2018, these efforts were not enough. The Camp Fire started from wind-damaged power lines, swept up the ravine and destroyed over 18,800 structures. Eighty-five people died<\/a>.<\/p>Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Across the America West, thousands of communities like Paradise<\/a> are at risk. Many, if not most, are in the wildland-urban interface, a zone between undeveloped land and urban areas where both wildfires and unchecked growth are common. From 1990 to 2010, new housing in the wildland-urban interface in the continental U.S. grew by 41%<\/a>.<\/p>Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Whether in the form of large, master-planned communities or incremental, house-by-house construction, developers have been placing new homes in danger zones.<\/p><\/a>First Street Foundation created a national wildfire model that assesses fire risk at the local level to help communities understand and prepare. The map reflects the probability wildfire will occur in an area in 2022.<\/span>\nFirst Street Foundation Wildfire Model<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was<\/a>. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.<\/p>But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>Limiting future development<\/h2>On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
But retreat isn\u2019t only about wholesale moving. Here are four forms of retreat being used to keep people out of harm\u2019s way.<\/p>
On one end of the wildfire retreat spectrum are development-limiting policies that create stricter standards for new construction. These might be employed in moderate-risk areas or communities disinclined to change.<\/p>
An example is San Diego\u2019s steep hillside guidelines that restrict construction in areas with significant grade change, as wildfires burn faster uphill. In the guidelines, steep hillsides have a gradient of at least 25% and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet. In most cases, new buildings cannot encroach into this zone and must be located at least 30 feet from the hillside<\/a>.<\/p>While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
While development-limiting policies like this prevent new construction in some of the most hazardous conditions, they often cannot eliminate fire risk.<\/p>Development-limiting policies can include stricter construction standards. The illustration shows the difference between a home on a steep hillside that is hard to defend from fire and one farther from the slope.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Halting new construction<\/h2>Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Further along the spectrum are construction-halting measures, which prevent new construction to manage growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface.<\/p>
These first two levels of action could both be implemented using basic urban planning tools, starting with county and city general plans and zoning, and subdivision ordinances. For example, Los Angeles County recently updated its general plan to limit new sprawl in wildfire hazard zones<\/a>. Urban growth boundaries could also be adopted locally, as many suburban communities north of San Francisco have done, or could be mandated by states, as Oregon did in 1973<\/a>.<\/p>Halting construction and managing growth in high-risk parts of the wildland-urban interface is another retreat tool.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
To assist the process, states and the federal government could designate fire-risk areas<\/a>, similar to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. California already designates zones<\/a> with three levels of fire risk: moderate, high and very high.<\/p>They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
They could also develop fire-prone landscape zoning acts, similar to legislation that has helped limit new development along coasts<\/a>, on wetlands<\/a> and along earthquake faults<\/a>.<\/p>Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Incentives for local governments to adopt these frameworks could be provided through planning and technical assistance grants or preference for infrastructure funding. At the same time, states or federal agencies could refuse funding for local authorities that enable development in severe-risk areas.<\/p>
In some cases, state officials might turn to the courts<\/a> to stop county-approved projects to prevent loss of life and property and reduce the costs that taxpayers might pay to maintain and protect at-risk properties<\/p>Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Three<\/a>high-profile<\/a> projects<\/a> in California\u2019s wildland-urban interface have been stopped in the courts because their environmental impact reports fail to adequately address the increased wildfire risk that the projects create. (Full disclosure: For a short time in 2018, one of us, Emily Schlickman, worked as a design consultant on one of these \u2013 an experience that inspired this article.)<\/p>Incentives to encourage people to relocate<\/h2>In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
In severe risk areas, the technique of \u201cincentivized relocating\u201d could be tested to help people move out of wildfire\u2019s way through programs such as voluntary buyouts. Similar programs have been used after floods.<\/p>
Local governments would work with FEMA to offer eligible homeowners the pre-disaster value of their home in exchange for not rebuilding<\/a>. To date, this type of federally backed buyout program has yet to be implemented for wildfire areas, but some vulnerable communities have developed their own.<\/p>The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
The city of Paradise created a buyout program funded with nonprofit grant money and donations. However, only 300 acres of patchworked parcels have been acquired<\/a>, suggesting that stronger incentives and more funding may be required.<\/p>Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Removing government-backed fire insurance plans or instituting variable fire insurance rates based on risk could also encourage people to avoid high-risk areas.<\/p>
Another potential tool is a \u201ctransferable development rights\u201d framework. Under such a framework, developers wishing to build more intensively in lower-risk town centers could purchase development rights from landowners in rural areas where fire-prone land is to be preserved or returned to unbuilt status. The rural landowners are thus compensated for the lost use of their property. These frameworks have been used for growth management purposes in Montgomery County, Maryland<\/a>, and in Massachusetts<\/a> and Colorado<\/a>.<\/p>Incentivized relocating can be used in severe risk areas by subsidizing the movement of some people out of wildfire\u2019s way. The illustrations show what before and after might look like.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Moving entire communities, wholesale<\/h2>Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Vulnerable communities may want to relocate but don\u2019t want to leave neighbors and friends. \u201cWholesale moving\u201d involves managing the entire resettlement of a vulnerable community.<\/p>
While this technique has yet to be implemented for wildfire-prone areas, there is a long history of its use after catastrophic floods<\/a>. One place it is currently being used is Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, which has lost 98% of its landmass since 1955 because of erosion and sea level rise<\/a>. In 2016, the community received a federal grant to plan a retreat to higher ground, including the design of a new community center<\/a> 40 miles north and upland of the island.<\/p>This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
This technique, though, has drawbacks \u2013 from the complicated logistics and support needed to move an entire community to the time frame needed to develop a resettlement plan to potentially overloading existing communities with those displaced.<\/p>In extreme risk areas, wholesale moving could be an approach \u2013 managing the resettlement of an entire vulnerable community to a safer area.<\/span>\nEmily Schlickman<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
Even with ideal landscape management, wildfire risks to communities will continue to increase, and retreat from the wildland-urban interface will become increasingly necessary. The primary question is whether that retreat will be planned, safe and equitable, or delayed, forced and catastrophic.<\/p>
Emily E. Schlickman<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>; Brett Milligan<\/a>, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em>, and Stephen M. Wheeler<\/a>, Professor of Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, University of California, Davis<\/a><\/em><\/p>This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>
This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.\nRead the full article<\/a><\/button><\/p>