Thoughts on the habitability concept
Alex de Sherbinin
Alex
Thoughts on the PERN panel at Managed Retreat 2023
· Approaches to defining habitability
o O’Bryne writes that habitability is a normative construct – we see high habitability as good. Thus we need to address its definition normatively. He writes “the most habitable region is the one that allows the greatest freedom to its inhabitants”. He reminds us that the state has an important role in determining habitability (as does Sterly), so habitability is a political consideration as well.
o Habitability is an emergent property (see Sterly; Gavonel uses the term “latent”) – a place cannot easily be defined as habitable or uninhabitable, but its habitability is revealed through other variables, or after successive shocks. Gavonel: “Habitability should then be understood as a continuum where in the upper end there is a SES that allows its population to thrive and in the lower end, one that prevents its inhabitants from doing so.”
o Wrathall’s bottom up approach suggests that habitability can be ascertained as an accumulation of individually based determinations of habitability (personal assessments). Further, he suggests there are three dimensions: collective ability to respond to risk (governance), livelihood resilience (including food security), physical and psychological safety
o Gavonel’s approach focuses on thresholds that address climate risk (hazard, exposure, vulnerability), adaptive capacity, and place attachment. She writes, “climate change is likely to raise the risks for affected populations, reducing the level of habitability of a SES up to a point at which a small perturbation (for example, a marginal increase in temperature variability) could trigger a social tipping point.”
o In both these definitions, ability of societies to respond and adapt is critical. Where there is a breakdown in AC, then there is increased likelihood of either out-migration or involuntary immobility.
o Across the contributions is the idea that habitability of SESes have a physical dimension, a socially constructed dimension (related to capabilities), and an emotive dimension (place attachment or a sense that a place is “home”).
o Sterly points out that teleconnections also affect habitability – in the extreme, some places rely entirely on trade connections to support people locally (UAE or McMurdo research station in Antarctica), but most places have support through remittances (translocality), trade, etc.
o Sterly also brings up the question of habitability being socially differentiated, which raises questions of for who and which groups?
· Where are the examples of passing thresholds?
o Are there places in the world where today we can say with any confidence that their habitability has reached advanced thresholds as described by Wrathall and Gavonel?
o David describes the area of the Garifuna in Honduras as affected by SLR and declining H
o Breakdown of governance and conflict certainly seem to be associated with declining habitability, but does calling Haiti, Somalia, or the Lake Chad Basin “uninhabitable” or “areas of rapidly declining habitability” really tell us something new or point to novel policy responses? Or is “habitability” only useful in describing SESes that are under threat somehow where proactive interventions could be taken to prevent chaotic situations? (Almost 30 years ago I looked at the habitability of Haiti from a historic perspective in this article.)
· Indeed, what does the concept of habitability add that other concepts don’t already capture?
o Should we focus on risk and uncertainty in an era where both seem to be increasing at a disconcerting rate? (per Kemp’s contribution)
o Should we retain older concepts such as carrying capacity? Is declining habitability purely a function of too many people seeking to subsist on a limited resource base? (per Sullivan’s contribution)
· On the question of social tipping points
o In some places, as youth depart for cities or overseas, only the old, or mothers with young children are left. I think of parts of Senegal. The places are far from being physically uninhabitable, there is land to cultivate, but from a social standpoint (as Jesse Ribot has suggested) young people who do not migrate face a kind of “social death” through humiliation. In other areas of West Africa the message to young people is that there is no way to make a proper living in agriculture, and elders push young people to leave the village in order to send remittances. How do these cultural / psychological aspects play out at scale? Do others have evidence from other regions where this kind of dynamic is at play?
o China has made a determination that some places are no longer viable economically, and many are drylands, so environmental factors must be at play as well. Through a process of “ecological migration” people are being moved (or incentivized to move) to places where the economies of scale for service provision (and provision of livelihood infrastructure such as irrigation or large-scale animal husbandry) are better. Yet these places (though populated) still have a somewhat soulless and desolate quality, which generally prompts onward migration by young people. Is this top-down approach desirable or antithetical to "freedoms" a la Sen?
· This cyberseminar is co-hosted by the Columbia Climate School Managed Retreat conference. How could the habitability concept be helpful (or not) in the context of Managed Retreat (MR)?
o MR tends to focus rather narrowly on a subset of geographic areas where risk is particularly magnified – e.g. low elevation coastal zones subject to cyclones and storm surge, or the urban-wildland interface.
o MR tends to focus more on advanced developed country regions with a well developed governmental administrative apparatus (from local to national), well developed risk-mitigation strategies (e.g. insurance, hard infrastructure), etc.
o Would a more technical definition of habitability help administrative agencies to make “scientifically grounded” determinations as to when an area is habitable or not, in ways that trigger policy responses? What are the pros and cons of such an approach? Should governments continue to use zoning and set asides to reduce the likelihood of property loss and death from injury?
o On the other hand, what are the pros and cons of a laissez-faire approach that just leaves it to individuals and the market to determine if a place is habitable, even though latent risks are very high?
Alex de Sherbinin, PhD (he/him/his)
Deputy Director and Senior Research Scientist
CIESIN, the Columbia Climate School at Columbia University
Tel. +1-845-365-8936, ORCID and web site