Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCA5 Logo
    • About This Report
    • Guide to the Report
    • Report Credits
    • Companion Podcast
    • Additional Resources
    • About this Report
    • Guide to this Report
    • OVERVIEW
    • Physical Science
    • 2. Climate Trends
    • 3. Earth Systems Processes
    • National Topics
    • 4. Water
    • 5. Energy
    • 6. Land
    • 7. Forests
    • 8. Ecosystems
    • 9. Coasts
    • 10. Oceans
    • 11. Agriculture
    • 12. Built Environment
    • 13. Transportation
    • 14. Air Quality
    • 15. Human Health
    • 16. Indigenous Peoples
    • 17. International
    • 18. Complex Systems
    • 19. Economics
    • 20. Social Systems and Justice
    • Regions
    • 21. Northeast
    • 22. Southeast
    • 23. US Caribbean
    • 24. Midwest
    • 25. Northern Great Plains
    • 26. Southern Great Plains
    • 27. Northwest
    • 28. Southwest
    • 29. Alaska
    • 30. Hawai'i and US-Affiliated Pacific Islands
    • Responses
    • 31. Adaptation
    • 32. Mitigation
    • Focus On
    • F1. Compound Events
    • F2. Western Wildfires
    • F3. COVID-19 and Climate Change
    • F4. Risks to Supply Chains
    • F5. Blue Carbon
    • Appendices
    • A1. Process
    • A2. Information Quality
    • A3. Scenarios and Datasets
    • A4. Indicators
    • A5. Glossary

    • All Figures
    • All Key Messages
    • View All Report Downloads
    • Download Full Chapter PDF
    • Download Chapter Handout
    • Download Chapter Figures (.zip)
    • Download Chapter Presentation Package
    • Descargar en Español
  • Art × Climate
  • NCA Atlas
  • EN ESPAÑOL
Southeast
i

Thumbnail and enlarged maps of the US show the National Climate Assessment Southeast region highlighted in blue. The region comprises the following states: Kentucky, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida. Orange shading in the enlarged map indicates Federally Recognized Tribal Land.

Fifth National Climate Assessment
22. Southeast

  • SECTIONS
  • Introduction
  • 22.1. Regional Growth
  • 22.2. Human Health
  • 22.3. Economic Security
  • 22.4. Agriculture
  • Traceable Accounts
  • References
Previous Chapter
View All Figures
Next Chapter
The Southeast’s growing population faces increasing threats from climate change, with impacts on human health, ecosystems, economies, infrastructure, and food systems. While there have been notable advancements in adaptation throughout the region, these efforts tend to be concentrated in wealthier coastal and metropolitan areas, leaving rural and other under-resourced communities at risk. Coordinated climate strategies could improve equity, well-being, and economic vitality.

INTRODUCTION

Patterns of climate risk, social vulnerability, and climate adaptation in the Southeast echo centuries of human history. The region consists of highly diverse communities and landscapes, including one of the most biodiverse areas in the continental United States. The Southeast’s ecosystems, stewarded for generations by Indigenous Peoples, are now in a precarious state. Centuries of political and land-use decisions have threatened the landscape and the people, with a few prospering at the expense of many. These decisions, shaped by a long history of systemic and structural racial discrimination and aggression, continue to have lasting harmful effects on the preparedness of Southeast communities for mounting climate change threats. The institutions of slavery and intergenerational ownership of individuals as property, Jim Crow segregation, and housing discrimination have resulted in many BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities living in neighborhoods that are disproportionately exposed to environmental risks and with fewer resources to address them when compared to majority White communities (Figure 32.18).1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Furthermore, these frontline communities—those with higher exposures, greater vulnerability, and less adaptive capacity to climate change impacts—continue to face forms of discrimination that increase their vulnerability to climate risks and reduce their options for resilience (Figure 20.1).1,14,15 These inequities are further complicated by the Southeast’s population changes, economic investments, and rising tax revenues in urban and suburban areas. Wealthier communities are able to seek out external resources needed to implement innovative climate resilience and adaptation projects.16,17 Meanwhile, smaller and more rural communities often lack the capacity to receive and spend funding, train leadership, and advocate for climate adaptation planning.18

Authors
Federal Coordinating Lead Author
Steven G. McNulty, USDA Forest Service
Chapter Lead Author
Jeremy S. Hoffman, Groundwork USA
Chapter Authors
Claudia Brown, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Kathie D. Dello, North Carolina State University, State Climate Office of North Carolina
Pamela N. Knox, University of Georgia
Aranzazu Lascurain, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Carl Mickalonis, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Gary T. Mitchum, University of South Florida, College of Marine Science
Louie Rivers III, US Environmental Protection Agency
Marie Schaefer, US Geological Survey, Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center
Gavin P. Smith, North Carolina State University
Janey Smith Camp, Vanderbilt University
Kimberly M. Wood, Mississippi State University
Contributors
Technical Contributors
William D. Bryan, Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
Ryan E. Emanuel, Duke University
Adam D. Griffith, North Carolina State University
Dionne L. Hoskins-Brown, NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center
Solomon Hsiang, University of California, Berkeley
Evan Mallen, Georgia Institute of Technology, Urban Climate Lab
Megan McLaughlin, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
William Sweet, NOAA National Ocean Service
Peter E. Thornton, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Aaron van Donkelaar, Washington University in St. Louis
Review Editor
Tisha Joseph Holmes, Florida State University
USGCRP Coordinators
Joshua Hernandez, US Global Change Research Program / ICF
Allyza R. Lustig, US Global Change Research Program / ICF
Recommended Citation

Hoffman, J.S., S.G. McNulty, C. Brown, K.D. Dello, P.N. Knox, A. Lascurain, C. Mickalonis, G.T. Mitchum, L. Rivers III, M. Schaefer, G.P. Smith, J.S. Camp, and K.M. Wood, 2023: Ch. 22. Southeast. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment. Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH22

Download citation: BibTeX     |     RIS

With virtually no exceptions, climate change in the Southeast continues to exhibit the trends that were reported in the last National Climate Assessment (NCA).19 We now better understand the increasing intensity of climate stressors in the Southeast, including extreme heat, extreme precipitation events, drought persistence and strength, sea level change, and tropical cyclones (Table A4.1), as well as decreases in the intensity and frequency of disruptive cold-season events like snowfall and frost days (Ch. 2).20

There have been notable advancements in Southeast climate change adaptation in recent years.19 For example, adaptation plans created by Tribal Nations have contributed to those Nations’ cultural continuance in a changing climate—that is, their “capacity to maintain members’ cultural integrity, health, economic vitality, and political order into the future and avoid having members experience preventable harms” (KM 16.3).21,22 Indigenous stewardship continues in the Southeast in many contemporary Indigenous “cultural landscapes,” or places where Tribal members have centuries-old connections (Box 22.3). In these places, members continue cultivating cultural practices including hunting, fishing, foraging, and ceremony.23 The increasing hazards of climate change, pollution, and threats to land and water rights–which may be underestimated by existing environmental justice analyses24,25–put a strain on Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty and their ability to have high levels of cultural continuance.21,22,26

Moreover, communities throughout the Southeast are exploring how to spur action through communicating about climate change science across both formal (classroom) and informal (outside of classrooms) learning,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 setting clear climate goals,34 and responding to the mounting threats and stressors that climate change presents (Figure 31.1).35 However, there has been an equal, if not a greater, number of failures to adequately prepare the region’s homeplaces, infrastructure, economy, and livelihoods for the threats of a warming climate, seen in the poorly coordinated responses to hurricanes over many years, from Hurricanes Katrina36 to Florence37 and Ida,38 especially for frontline communities.39 Moreover, uncoordinated adaptation efforts across municipal and state boundaries to address climate change may hinder the long-term efficacy of any individual project while delaying the shared goal of securing the vitality of the Southeast.

Art × Climate
Acrylic painting depicts an aerial view of an oceanside housing development, with many structures showing storm damage.

Joan Hart
After Irma
(2022, acrylic on canvas)

Artist’s statement: This painting was inspired by aerial photos of damage in the Florida Keys following Hurricane Irma. As hurricanes become more powerful due to climate change, and as people continue to build along the coast in vulnerable areas, these scenes will repeat. My intention with this painting was to draw people in with strong colors and what seem, at a distance, to be abstract shapes. Upon closer look, the damaged houses, boats, and debris left in the wake of this horrendous storm become apparent. Can hope be found amidst disaster?

View the full Art × Climate gallery.

Artworks and artists’ statements are not official Assessment products.

Regional Growth Increases Climate Risks

The Southeast’s population has grown and is expected to continue growing, mostly in metropolitan areas and along its coastline , putting more communities and their assets into harm’s way from increasing risks related to climate and land-use changes . Conversely, many rural places are facing declining populations with a growing percentage of older residents , making these areas particularly vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate . At the same time, decision-makers frequently use outdated and/or limited information on climate-related risks to inform adaptation plans, which as a result fail to account for worsening future conditions . These climate adaptation efforts also tend to be concentrated in wealthier communities, leaving under-resourced and more rural populations, communities of color, and Tribal Nations at growing and disproportionate risk .

A Growing Region Means Increased Climate Risks

All but one of the Southeast’s states—Mississippi—experienced population growth over the last decade, and most of the fastest-growing large US cities are located in the region.40 Even under scenarios with moderate population growth (e.g., Shared Socioeconomic Pathway [SSP] 2), the region’s population is expected to increase (Figure 22.1).41

URL
Alternative text
Population Change in the Southeast
Two county-level maps of the Southeast region show observed and projected changes in population, as described in the caption. The map on the left shows percent change in county population in 2020 compared to 2010. A legend shows observed percent change, with values ranging from negative 50 or lower to positive 50 or higher. About half of the region’s counties shows decreases of 0 to 25 percent, with the greatest number of these located in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Kentucky. Increases of up to 50 percent are shown in northern Arkansas; coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia; central and Eastern Tennessee; central Kentucky; northern Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia; central and western North Carolina; northwestern South Carolina; and the majority of Florida. The map on the right shows projected change in county population (under Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2) by 2050 compared to 2010. A legend shows projected percent change, with values ranging from negative 50 or lower to positive 50 or higher. The majority of counties show decreases of up to 50 percent, with some isolated counties showing decreases of 50 percent or more. Areas with increases generally show large increases of 25 to 50 percent or more. Many of these are in the same areas of the Southeast that experienced growth of up to 50 percent between 2020 and 2010; however the clusters of growth in central Kentucky, central and eastern Tennessee, northern Georgia, central North Carolina, and south-central Florida have shrunk, with some counties in those areas now showing decreases of up to 50 percent.
Population change in the Southeast exposes more people to climate threats along the coast and in cities while leaving rural areas with limited capacity.
Figure 22.1. (a) Between 2010 and 2020, unequal population change occurred in the Southeast, with coastal and metropolitan counties growing while many rural counties’ populations declined. (b) This pattern is expected to continue through 2050 (under SSP2) and will expose more people to climate threats. Diminishing populations reduce the capacity of rural counties to adapt to climate threats by reducing critical financial and social resources, such as tax bases and community care organizations. Figure credit: Groundwork USA, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

Southeast land cover equal to about 1.7 million football fields changed from forested to developed between 1985 and 2019, more than in any other NCA region (Figure 22.2a; Ch. 6). Urbanized land cover is estimated to increase by more than 9% throughout the region by 2060, based on urban area growth trends during 1990–2010,42 further threatening the region’s unique terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity (Figure 22.2b; KM KM 8.1).

URL
Alternative text
Land-Cover Change and Biodiversity
Two state-level maps of the Southeast illustrate the risks to biodiversity in the region, as described in the caption. The map on the left illustrates land that changed from forest to developed and other types of land cover between 1985 and 2020. Inset maps are included for Richmond, Virginia; Jacksonville, Florida; and Atlanta, Georgia. A scale for the inset maps ranges from 0 to 100 miles. A legend titled “forest land transitions” shows the following color-coded categories: 1) green: forest in both 1985 and 2020; 2) red: forest in 1985 to developed in 2020; 3) yellow: forest in 1985 to other in 2020; and 4) gray: not forest in 1985. Much of the southeast is shown as being forest throughout the time period, but red areas of conversion to developed land are visible as red areas around many urban areas, including the three urban areas shown in insets. The map on the right shows areas of unprotected biodiversity importance (abbreviated A U B I), which appear in yellow on the map. AUBIs are shown in southeastern and northern Arkansas; central southwestern as well as southeastern Louisiana; western Mississippi; southern and north-central Kentucky; central and eastern Tennessee; scattered areas of Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina; western, central, and eastern Virginia; central-western and eastern South Carolina; and western, northern, and central Florida, as well as isolated areas in the south of Florida.
Land cover change and sprawling development threaten unprotected biodiversity hotspots in the Southeast.
Figure 22.2. (a) The Southeast has lost more forested area to development and other land uses (cropland, grass/shrub, and water) than any other National Climate Assessment region since 1985. (b) Many of the region’s most biodiverse landscapes remain unprotected, threatening unique species of birds, fish, and amphibians. Future sprawl may threaten these landscapes, known as Areas of Unprotected Biodiversity Importance (AUBIs). Figure credits: (a) Groundwork USA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC; (b) adapted with permission from Hamilton et al. 2022.43

Unconstrained exurban and suburban sprawl will further expose human development to weather- and climate-related risks such as wildfire,44 hurricanes,45 floods,13,46 intensifying thunderstorms,47 and tornadoes.48 Growth along the region’s coastlines49 has increased the population exposed to coastal-specific climate threats.13,50,51,52,53 Although the Southeast has historically experienced more billion-dollar disaster events than the rest of the country54 and has weathered multiple hurricanes since 2018 (Figure 22.3), there is considerable regional variation among residents’ perceptions of whether climate change will personally harm them.55,56

URL
Alternative text
Billion-Dollar Disasters and Hurricanes in the Southeast
Two state-level maps of the Southeast region illustrate the number of billion-dollar disasters and hurricanes affecting the region, as described in the text and caption. The map on the left shows billion-dollar disasters by state between 1980 and 2022. A legend titled “number of events” shows values ranging from 75 (lightest shading of red) to 107 (darkest shading of red). The number of billion-dollar disasters by state (in ascending order) is as follows: Florida, 75; Kentucky, 78; Arkansas, 85; South Carolina, 89; Louisiana, 91; Mississippi and Tennessee, 97 each; Virginia, 98; Alabama, 102; North Carolina, 105; and Georgia, 107. The map on the right shows Southeast hurricane landfalls from 2018 to 2022. A legend shows the following storm categories: tropical storm, white; Category 1, light pink; Category 2, medium pink; Category 3, dark pink; Category 4, fuschia; and Category 5, purple. An asterisk denotes storms that made multiple landfalls. Following are the affected states, storm names, storm categories, and years of occurrence, in that order: Louisiana, Hurricane Barry, Category 1, 2019; Hurricane Delta, Category 2, 2020; Hurricane Laura, Category 4, 2020; Hurricane Zeta, Category 3, 2020; Tropical Storm Cristobal, 2020; Tropical Storm Claudette, 2021; and Hurricane Ida, Category 4, 2021. Mississippi: Tropical Storm Gordon, which made landfall at the coastal borders of Mississippi and Alabama and also made landfall twice in Florida, 2018. Alabama: Hurricane Sally, Category 2, 2020. Florida: Tropical Storm Alberto, 2018; Hurricane Michael, Category 5, 2018; Tropical Storm Eta, which made landfall twice in Florida, 2020; Tropical Storm Fred, 2021; Tropical Storm Mindy, 2021; Tropical Storm Elsa, 2021; Hurricane Nicole, Category 1, 2022; and Hurricane Ian, Category 4, which also made landfall in South Carolina as a Category 1 hurricane, 2022. South Carolina: Tropical Storm Bertha, 2020; Tropical Storm Isaias, which made landfall at the border of South and North Carolina, 2020; and Tropical Storm Danny, 2021. North Carolina: Hurricane Florence, Category 1, 2018; and Hurricane Dorian, Category 2, 2019.
The Southeast frequently experiences costly weather-related disasters, which are worsened by climate change.
Figure 22.3. (a) The map shows NOAA billion-dollar disasters by state during 1980–2022 in the Southeast. The map adds up billion-dollar events for each state affected (i.e., it does not mean that each state shown suffered at least $1 billion in losses for each event). (b) The map shows Southeast hurricane landfalls during 2018–2022. Since 1980, the Southeast has had a higher frequency of billion-dollar disasters than other National Climate Assessment regions. Disasters attributed to hurricanes have been particularly damaging. Hurricane impacts can spread far inland and even outside the region, including major flooding, which is not captured in the Saffir–Simpson Scale depicting hurricane landfall intensity (b). Because map (b) is limited to 2018–2022, it excludes prior billion-dollar hurricanes that hit the Southeast, including Hugo (1989), Andrew (1992), Fran (1996), Floyd (1999), Charley (2004), Rita (2005), Katrina (2005), Matthew (2016), and Irma (2017). Figure credit: Mississippi State University.

Some of the Southeast’s growth follows patterns of urban renewal, with affluent and young people returning to urban areas and displacing under-resourced communities to suburban and rural areas.57 As a result of this displacement and long-standing underinvestment, under-resourced communities face more environmental hazards and increasing risks (Figure 22.4b)3,13 but have less access to climate-ready infrastructure such as housing (Figure 22.4a), dwellings with strong building codes58 that minimize disruption during storms,59,60 public transit,61 community resource centers for heat and cold relief,62 and up-to-date stormwater management systems.63 These communities often also lack a well-resourced local and/or state governmental workforce64 to analyze, plan for, and mitigate risks (KM 20.1).16,17,18,65,66

Inland and Coastal Flooding Threatens the Present and Future

Southeast flood risk is inequitably distributed due to both climate and non-climate stressors. Physical stressors such as increases in rainfall, temperatures, and sea level, in addition to land cover change, exacerbate flood risks (KM 4.2),13,50,67,68 while social and economic policies, including institutional investments and disinvestments, differentially shape risk, vulnerability, and exposure to flooding.69,70,71 Compounding preexisting social and economic disparities are changes in precipitation patterns. For instance, shifting autumn precipitation patterns have been attributed to human-caused climate change,72 and some Southeast counties with higher social vulnerability are experiencing more frequent flooding.73

Mandatory flood risk disclosure requirements largely depend on state-by-state policies,74 and virtually all requirements apply only to home sales. Millions of rental housing units in the region are within counties that have high Expected Annual Loss ratings from FEMA,75 and confidence is growing that areas currently populated by communities of color, who also are more often renters, will face disproportionately high future flood risks (Figure 22.4).3,13 Furthermore, other forms of housing that are vulnerable to climate risks include mobile homes and manufactured housing, which are concentrated in the Southeast.40,76,77 These populations tend to face more barriers to accessing flood insurance and federal flood disaster assistance and more often experience adverse outcomes during disaster recovery, due in part to the lack of disaster relief programs for renters and the rising cost of flood insurance.78,79,80 Additionally, the potential overvaluation of coastal residential housing stock makes it even more challenging to move people out of harm’s way due to the upper limits placed on the amount of compensation these programs can offer and peoples’ reluctance to sell these properties and lose rental revenue. For example, in Miami-Dade County, Florida, the total overvaluation of properties is $3.9 billion, and in nearby Duval County, where Jacksonville is the county seat (Figure 22.5), overvaluation exceeds $420 million.81 Across the Southeast, the average total overvaluation of properties is estimated to be around $110 million per county. Florida has the highest statewide total average overvaluation at $749 million, while Mississippi has an undervaluation of $20 million.81

URL
Alternative text
Current and Projected Risks to Homes
Two county- and state-level maps of the Southeast region illustrate current and projected risks to homes, as described in the text and caption. The map on the left shows rental housing units at risk. A legend shows thousands of housing units, ranging from 0 (light yellow) to 20 or more (dark orange). Most counties show up to 2,000 or 10,000 units at risk. Counties with the highest number of at-risk units, from 10,000 to 20,000 or higher, appear in isolated areas in northwestern and central Arkansas; northern and southern Louisiana; southern Mississippi; northern and southeastern Alabama; north-central and south-central Kentucky; southwestern, central, and southeastern Tennessee; northwestern Georgia; eastern North Carolina; and north-central and eastern South Carolina. Florida shows 20,000 or more units at risk for many counties along the Atlantic coast and a few counties on the Gulf Coast. The map on the right shows projected changes in flood-related average annual losses by 2050 as compared to 2020. A legend shows thousands of dollars, ranging from 0 or less (white) to positive 5,000 or more (darkest shade of green). Counties showing the lowest projected changes, with decreases or increases of 100,000 dollars or less, are shown across most of Arkansas; northern Louisiana; most of central and western Kentucky; and portions of western and eastern Tennessee, northwestern and east-central Mississippi, and northeastern and southwestern Georgia. Counties showing projected losses of 100,000 to 5 million dollars appear in northern Arkansas, northwestern and southern Louisiana, eastern Kentucky, central and eastern Tennessee, most of Alabama, northwestern and southern Georgia, northwestern and central Florida, northwestern and southeastern South Carolina, and most of North Carolina and Virginia. The highest losses, of more than 5 million dollars, are shown for almost all coastal counties across the region, along with a small scattering of inland counties.
Vulnerable homes in the Southeast will face increasing climate threats in the future.
Figure 22.4. (a) Thousands of rental housing units across the Southeast are located in counties with at least a “relatively moderate” Expected Annual Loss score in FEMA’s National Risk Index. (b) Projected future increases to flood-related average annual losses by 2050 compared to 2020 under an intermediate scenario (RCP4.5) disproportionately affect under-resourced populations and communities of color and are amplified by population growth, exposing more people to increased flood risk. (a) Adapted with permission from Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, America’s Rental Housing, © 2022 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, www.jchs.harvard.edu. All rights reserved;75 (b) adapted from Wing et al. 202213 [CC BY 4.0].

Flooding impacts infrastructure and, in turn, public health. Injury, illness, and death can result from exposure to mold from floodwater damage,82,83 onsite wastewater treatment system failures,84 and carbon monoxide poisoning from misuse of generators for emergency power.85,86,87 In addition, healthcare facilities may be damaged by flooding or unable to handle an influx of demand.88,89 Damage to roads and bridges might prevent access to these facilities, disrupt the supply of medications and equipment,90 and hinder a community’s lifeline to emergency services and evacuation routes.91

Tropical storms and hurricanes have been responsible for some of the Southeast’s biggest and most damaging flooding events since 2018 (Figure 22.3). The likelihood of hurricanes slowing down or stalling near the coast has increased, exacerbating the rainfall-related flooding threat from these systems.92 However, the impact of climate change on slowing down or stalling tropical storms remains uncertain,92 although some simulations indicate a potential slowdown of Atlantic storms due to climate change,93,94 including near the Southeast US coast.95,96 In addition, rapidly intensifying hurricanes have presented challenges for implementing evacuations,97 and the frequency with which Atlantic hurricanes rapidly intensify may be increasing in response to long-term human-caused climate change.98 Also, there is evidence of increased intensification rates near the US Atlantic coast, which may continue into the future.99 There have been significant improvements in understanding how nontropical systems,100 atmospheric rivers,101,102,103,104,105 past and future El Niño–Southern Oscillation patterns,106,107 flash flooding,73,108 and urban environments109,110,111,112,113 add to the Southeast’s risk of extreme precipitation and flooding.

With additional global warming, more North Atlantic hurricanes are expected to strengthen to at least Category 4 intensity and to undergo rapid intensification, sea level rise is expected to worsen storm surge inundation, and tropical cyclone–related rainfall is expected to increase.93,114,115,116,117 The likelihood of storms making landfall could increase, which may offset the potential decrease in the total number of storms and overall exacerbate impacts.118 However, some uncertainty remains regarding the expected degree of change in hurricane activity impacting the Southeast. Additionally, estimates suggest that some seasonal, annual average, and extreme precipitation amounts across the Southeast will increase, driven mainly by more extreme events (e.g., precipitation of 3 inches or more in 24 hours) at higher levels of warming.20,67,119

Some Southeast communities plan for these extreme events with an outdated understanding of climate-related risks.68,120,121 Sewer infrastructure is built to accommodate a particular amount of rainfall over a specified time, and current estimates of precipitation intensity, frequency, and duration generally do not consider future projections of these metrics, posing a significant challenge to civil engineers.122,123 Estimating future precipitation characteristics and their impact on sewer infrastructure in the Southeast is primarily conducted on a state-by-state basis and relies on different scientific approaches,121,124 further complicating the development of design standards for climate-ready infrastructure (Figure 22.5; KM 12.2).120

Extreme rainfall that occurs at the same time that ocean water inundates populated areas (e.g., because of high tides or storm surges) creates compound flooding events, which can result in decreased property values125 and roadway obstructions that can hinder first responders (KM 9.2).66,126 Compound flooding events already affect low-lying areas in the coastal plain,93,127 and the Intermediate-Low and Intermediate sea level rise scenarios for the Southeast project a higher frequency of compound flooding by midcentury in regions along the Atlantic coast.128

Tide gauges throughout the Southeast indicate that relative sea level rose by 6 inches during the 1970–2020 time period, with some variation across the region.51 The average range of sea level rise by 2050 relative to 2000 in the Southeast (Low to High scenarios)51 is 16–23 inches (0.40–0.58 m). This increases to a range of 2.2–7.3 feet in 2100 relative to 2000 under the same scenarios.51 These regional estimates are higher than the projected global average rise due to regional variations in land motion, excessive groundwater pumping,129 and the effects of sea level changes caused by changes in ocean currents.51 For example, overall sea level rise projections by 2050 are 22–32 inches for Grand Isle, Louisiana, 10–19 inches for Jacksonville, Florida, and 15–22 inches for Outer Banks, North Carolina. High tide flooding events in the Southeast may increase by a factor of 5–10 by 2050 due to sea level rise (Figure 22.5).51 However, many communities will experience comparable increases in these events before 2050 due to changes in tides that exacerbate sea level rise.52 Saltwater intrusion from rising sea levels has already degraded the health of coastal forests and estuaries while reducing their ability to store carbon,130,131 and increased soil salinity has reduced yields in the remaining range and farmland.132 While there is uncertainty in how global ice sheets will respond to additional global warming and thus ultimately determine longer-term sea level rise, the Southeast could experience 3.1–13.2 feet of sea level rise by 2150.51

URL
Alternative text
Sea Level Rise and Flooding in the Southeast
A satellite image and a photograph illustrate the threats of sea level rise and flooding to Jacksonville, Florida, as described in the caption and text. On the left, an annotated satellite image of Jacksonville shows areas projected to be exposed to high tide flooding by midcentury. A legend at the bottom of the image shows three types of high tide flooding: minor (red), moderate (orange), and major (yellow). Areas of minor high high tide flooding appear along all of the Atlantic coast, along the Saint Johns River and its tributaries, and along the intracoastal waterway. The greatest concentration of minor high tide flooding appears northeast and east of the city. Narrow regions of moderate and major flooding exposure adjoin the higher elevation areas along the edges of the areas of minor flooding. On the right, a photo shows a truck partially submerged by water. In the foreground, three people wearing life vests walk knee-deep in the water, pulling a small boat filled with drinking water and other supplies.
Major flood events in Jacksonville, Florida, could become about 5 times more likely by 2050 under an Intermediate-High sea level rise scenario.
Figure 22.5. Sea level rise under an Intermediate-High scenario51 would drastically increase the likelihood of flood conditions by 2050. For Jacksonville, Florida (a), this would mean that “minor” flood conditions (red colors) will be about 30 times more likely, “moderate” (orange colors) will be about 20 times more likely, and “major” (yellow colors) will be about 5 times more likely. This would translate to more than 250 minor floods, 10–50 moderate floods, and about 1 major flood per decade in 2050. (b) Major flooding impacts would resemble those experienced during Hurricane Irma in 2017, when Jacksonville experienced record-high flooding conditions. (a) Adapted from NOAA/NOS/CO-OPS 2023.133 Data layers provided by © Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. (b) Photo credit: Department of Homeland Security.
Art × Climate
Black-and-white photograph shows a damaged one-story structure on pylons standing in the surf on a sandy seashore.

Daniel Kariko
Last Camp on Isle Derniere, Louisiana
(2017, photography)

Artist’s statement: Louisiana is experiencing the highest rate of coastal erosion in America. Major storms, including Katrina and Rita in 2005, and Ida in 2021, have drastically changed the geography of Louisiana’s coast. Many of South Louisiana’s communities, including Indigenous Americans, Cajuns, and Asian Americans are affected by loss of natural resources, economic impact, and direct loss of property. People of Louisiana are closely defined by the landscape they inhabit. Yet every year, small local communities gradually sink into the wetlands. This subject is a proverbial “canary in the mine” for issues that affect the entire planet.

View the full Art × Climate gallery.

Artworks and artists’ statements are not official Assessment products.

Indigenous Communities: Loss and Leadership in a Rapidly Changing Region

Indigenous communities have long faced displacement from and loss of cultural and desirable lands from settlers and government (Figure 16.1). Settler colonialism and climate change are forcing the displacement of Indigenous communities once again, causing stress and grief (KM 16.1). Indigenous communities experience substandard housing and infrastructure, as well as limited insurance coverage, which increases their vulnerability to climate stressors (KM 16.2).134 In addition, land dispossession in the Southeast has impeded Indigenous Peoples from enduring climate hazards and deprived them of the benefits of the natural environments they once stewarded.135,136,137,138

Climate change and a shift from Indigenous-managed cultural landscapes to settler-managed landscapes threaten cultural knowledge and practices.136 This shift can be seen in the loss of plants and animals of cultural significance to Southeast Indigenous communities (Figure 22.2; Box 22.3). This loss has contributed to decreased physical and mental well-being as Tribal citizens have had to shift away from subsistence lifestyles that connect them to their cultural landscapes and contribute to cultural continuance.22,139 Climate change also alters the ranges of native plants while enhancing the growth of invasive species that may out-compete them.140 The loss of native species adversely affects Indigenous populations who rely on these resources for subsistence or cultural value,141 such as coastal communities with economies driven by forests or fisheries.142 However, Tribal Nations are finding ways to lead in responding to climate change (KM 16.3) while exercising their rights to cultural continuance and sovereignty through numerous actions and projects, including revitalizing rivercane ecosystems (Box 22.3).

Southeastern archaeological sites reveal a rich history of how Tribal Nations have met challenges similar to those they are experiencing now by using their Indigenous Knowledges.143 However, many of these sites are exposed to the threat of rising sea level because they are located in coastal lowlands.144 A sea level rise of approximately 3 feet (about 1 m) could result in the loss of more than 13,000 historic and prehistoric archaeological sites (with significantly more lost under more severe scenarios) while directly harming contemporary Indigenous communities across the Southeast.144 Sea level rise also threatens coastal marshes in the Southeast more than anywhere else in the US.145 The potential loss of these marshes, teeming with biodiversity and critical ecosystem services, could adversely affect the communities that depend on them. The ability of marshes to move (or “migrate”) landward in response to sea level rise will depend on the availability of onshore land that in many cases is already developed. Planning for the migration of marshes will require a further understanding of their dynamics, as well as social trade-offs to accommodate their migration into new areas.145

Moving Out of Harm’s Way, Protecting Existing Communities, and Planning Ahead for Growth and Potential Resettlement

The Southeast is responding to climate threats; however, these actions are spread unevenly across the region (Figure 31.1). Many communities are adopting adaptation plans, including anticipating population growth due to climate-driven relocation.146,147,148 Tribal governments achieve greater success in developing comprehensive climate adaptation plans when joining strong cross-Tribal networks that share knowledge of effective strategies.149 However, Southeastern adaptation plans (especially for drought and heat) are less comprehensive than those in other regions.150,151,152,153

Adaptation actions include avoidance, planned relocation, protection, accommodation, or some combination of these. Avoidance involves limiting development in hazardous areas. Retreat from the coast or riverine floodplains involves removing infrastructure, housing, and public facilities from hazardous areas over time while limiting future development. Protection strategies use physical infrastructure like seawalls, levees, and beach nourishment, although these may not provide long-term protection if designed for past climate conditions.154 Accommodation involves elevating structures or using building materials that can withstand being submerged by floodwaters or are less prone to damage when exposed to fire (Figures 22.6, 22.7).

Funding needed to implement adaptation projects remains elusive for many communities, especially those with limited resources and high levels of preexisting social vulnerability.80,155 One strategy for advancing climate adaptation is applying for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants.156,157,158 However, state hazard mitigation officers who manage these grant programs have described differing levels of capacity to help local governments develop and implement HMA grants.16 While FEMA updated its hazard mitigation planning guidance in 2022 to require that local governments and states address equity and future conditions as part of their new strategic plans,156 the impacts of these changes have yet to be effectively assessed relative to the quality of the plans. Despite these challenges, a growing number of localities are factoring intensifying climate-related stressors into adaptation plans35,159,160,161 and helping guide new policy (Box 22.2).

Current Tools Could Ensure Equitable Adaptation

There are several types of climate adaptation tools available to communities in the Southeast, including buyouts, information clearinghouses, land use policies, and city design and planning (Figures 22.6, 22.7).

Buyouts—acquiring hazard-prone housing that is demolished and converted to open space—are widely recognized as one of the most cost-effective strategies for reducing future losses,162,163 including those associated with adapting to a changing climate.164 However, while buyouts do require that the land be converted to open space after purchase, applying other proactive land-use planning techniques that guide development to safer locations or limit future growth in hazard-prone areas remains an uncommon practice.165,166 As a result, there remains considerable uncertainty around whether communities are actually reducing risk when accounting for the losses avoided with buyouts relative to increased hazard exposure associated with new development in hazard-prone areas.167,168,169 For example, some buyouts resulted in people relocating to an area of similar risk as their original dwelling,170,171 and relocation in a broader context has meant moving from one risk zone to another.172 Buyouts can also reduce a community’s tax base, which can be particularly devastating in smaller jurisdictions with limited revenue to support governmental services.173 Questions of equity in buyouts include whether buyouts are preferred by residents, whether choosing to participate in buyouts is in their best interest, and whether frontline communities are involved in deciding how and where buyouts occur (KM 20.5; Figure 20.3).174,175,176,177,178,179 Additional buyout challenges include the long-term management of resulting open spaces, tracking buyout land in a given area, and strategies to achieve co-benefits such as creating climate-resilient recreation amenities like parks, greenways, water retention areas, and ballfields.180,181,182 Buyout migration and relocation from one place may also exacerbate local housing pressure in another. For example, in Miami, wealthier individuals are moving from higher-flood-risk coastal areas to safer higher-elevation areas, increasing inland property values and displacing residents,183,184,185 although the exact pressures driving gentrification and displacement within any community are complex.186,187 There is evidence that points to the migration of some Black residents out of floodplains in the Southeast, including the case of Edgecombe County, North Carolina, where the Town of Princeville, discussed in Box 22.1, is located.53

A growing number of climate adaptation resource clearinghouses are available (KM 31.4), and they include Southeast case studies.188,189 In addition, Southeast-focused organizations like the Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, USDA Southeast Climate Hub, and the Southeast and Caribbean Disaster Resilience Partnership provide resources needed to advance adaptation strategies, including resources for rural and/or under-resourced communities.18,64 Some climate change planning documents even now center on additional considerations such as equity in their frameworks.190 However, inequitable access to resources and constraints on workforce capacity to effectively use these tools can also lead to unequal progress toward implementing strategies across communities.

Climate-resilient community design principles are being employed by urban planners, landscape architects, and architects, as well as by an increasing number of municipalities (Figures 22.6, 22.7, 12.8).

URL
Alternative text
Climate-Resilient Neighborhood Design
An illustration of a coastal city highlights features of climate-resilient neighborhood design, as described in the text and caption. Three types of climate resilient design follow. 1) Examples of nature-based solutions (in green icons and text) include green roofs, green walls, urban tree cover, living shorelines, and flood gardens. 2) Examples of engaged, informed, and co-leading residents (purple) include community-led equitable development and community centers that distribute emergency kits. 3) Examples of climate-resilient infrastructure (orange) include flood culverts, pedestrian and bicycle access, and transit infrastructure.
Climate-resilient community design can ensure the long-term vitality of cities.
Figure 22.6. Climate-resilient urban design may incorporate nature-based, infrastructural, and community-based solutions to alleviate the harm from climate stressors such as extreme heat and flooding. Participatory processes can foster shared ownership of climate resilience strategies and promote the distribution of resources to where they’re needed most. Equitable reduction of climate risks and ensuring the reliability of critical services can create social benefits. Figure credit: Groundwork USA and North Carolina State University.

Box 22.1. Reducing Flood Risk in Princeville, North Carolina

Land-use decisions dating back to the post–Civil War Reconstruction era placed Black communities in lower-lying, historically flood-prone areas across the Southeast. One example is the community of Princeville, North Carolina, located along the Tar River.191 Princeville is the oldest incorporated independent Black community in the United States, originally settled by formerly enslaved people.192 The town, located entirely in a floodplain, has flooded numerous times. In 1967 the US Army Corps of Engineers constructed a levee that protected Princeville until Hurricane Floyd struck in 1999 and caused widespread flood damage to the town.192 Research suggests that repeated exposure to varied water levels over time has reduced the levee’s protective capacity.193 Although state officials offered to use buyouts to move the town to higher ground following Hurricane Floyd, residents refused due to their deep attachment to the place.194 In 2016, Hurricane Matthew flooded Princeville again. Residents then accepted the state’s offer to fund several risk-reduction measures, including buyouts, converting acquired land to open space, elevating homes, and building replacement housing in compliance with local flood standards. The state also purchased a 52-acre parcel of land adjacent to the town’s borders but located outside of the 100-year floodplain where critical facilities, businesses, and new housing are to be built.173 Princeville provides a powerful example of how existing post-disaster funding programs and policies can guide risk reduction and adaptation in the face of a changing climate. The long-term impact of these programs on the community’s overall social and physical cohesion, as well as their resilience to future storms, remains an open question.

Box 22.2 Reshaping FEMA Policy to Aid Disaster Recovery in the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

The Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor is a National Heritage Area established by Congress to recognize the unique culture of the Gullah Geechee people who have traditionally resided in the coastal areas and the sea islands of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida —from Pender County, North Carolina, to St. Johns County, Florida.

Communities often consist of coastal families who represent five or more generations of Gullah Geechee heritage and whose quality of life is inextricably connected to the environment and the ecosystem services it provides. Gullah Geechee residents and other coastal citizens who reside on heirs’ property, or property passed down through family members by inheritance, are highly vulnerable to negative impacts associated with extreme weather events and changing climate and ocean conditions. One such impact was former federal disaster aid policies that did not recognize the uniqueness of heirs’ property, where possession is authentic but documentation can be complicated. The Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor worked with FEMA to identify policy barriers and revisions for Gullah Geechee citizens seeking disaster and recovery aid. The Corridor used its communication network to educate communities about the newly created disaster aid revisions made to support owners of heirs' property before the 2022 hurricane season. When powerful storms struck communities in South Carolina, the Corridor team reached out to families and directed FEMA representatives to areas that were hardest hit. Through its community-driven ad hoc subcommittee on natural resources and climate change, the Corridor has also used a similar grass-roots approach to understand how climate change may be experienced differently in the coastal communities of the Corridor and has worked to identify nature-based solutions that may benefit some communities.

URL
Alternative text
Climate Resilience in the Southeast
Four photos illustrate efforts to increase resilience in the Southeast region, as described in the caption. (top left) An aerial view shows a reservoir facility and adjacent pools surrounded by white walls and some vegetation. Wetlands appear in the background. (top right) People gather around a roofed bus stop next to a road lined with parked cars. Several people are standing or sitting under the shade provided by the roof, while one person stands on the unshaded sidewalk. A legend shows the temperature in degrees Fahrenheit for the street (101), shaded area (88.6), and unshaded sidewalk (109). (bottom left) A worker kneeling on a street curb plants a variety of leafy vegetation in a garden bed along the road. (bottom right) An older house is shown propped up on supporting structures. Wires hang from its base, and the door is covered with Tyvek-brand building wrap material.
Southeast communities are adapting to climate threats in a number of ways.
Figure 22.7. (top left) A 60,000-acre-foot stormwater reservoir in Palm Beach County, Florida, temporarily stores peak stormwater flows. (top right) Transit advocates in Richmond, Virginia, document the cooling efficiency of shade structures at public bus stops. (bottom right) Construction workers prepare to raise a home’s foundation along Virginia’s Eastern Shore. (bottom left) Rain gardens like this one can be highly place- and community-driven projects to absorb excess stormwater and improve green space, while nonprofits like Groundwork RVA build skills for a green economy. Photo credits: (top left) South Florida Water Management District [CC BY-ND 2.0]; (top right) © Jeremy Hoffman, Science Museum of Virginia; (bottom left) © Robert Jones; (bottom right) Aileen Devlin, Virginia Sea Grant [CC BY-ND 2.0].


Climate Change Worsens Human Health and Widens Health Inequities

Human health and climate stressors are intimately linked in the Southeast . Community characteristics such as racial and ethnic population, chronic disease prevalence, age, and socioeconomic status can influence how climate change exacerbates, ameliorates, or introduces new health issues . Climate change is already impacting health in the region . There are effective strategies to address the health impacts of climate change in the Southeast that have multiple benefits across social and environmental contexts .

Underlying Health Issues and History in the Southeast

Public health status is an important indicator of vulnerability to climate stressors,190,195 and Southeasterners are consistently ranked among the unhealthiest in the Nation, with shorter life expectancies than the US average (Figure 22.8).196 Health disparities in the Southeast are related to various social determinants of health, such as lack of access to healthcare, low socioeconomic status, and poor health behaviors (e.g., smoking and drug and alcohol abuse).197 Sedentary lifestyles are reinforced by the quality of the surrounding built environment: the Southeast is home to 8 of the 10 least-walkable cities,198 15 of the 20 most dangerous cities for pedestrians,199 and 4 of the top 10 deadliest states for cyclists in the United States.200

URL
Alternative text
Present-Day Health Inequities
Two county- and state-level maps of the Southeast region show present-day health inequities in the Southeast region, as described in the caption and text. The map on the left shows life expectancy rates. A legend shows years ranging from 72.5 or less (pale blue) to 78.5 or more (dark green). Gray indicates that No data were available. Counties with the lower life expectancy rates, from 72.5 years or lower to 74.5 years, are shown in eastern and southern Arkansas; most of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee; eastern Kentucky; southern Georgia; and portions of northern and southwestern South Carolina. Higher life expectancy rates of up to 78.5 years or more are shown across most of Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida; portions of northwestern and southern Louisiana; western Kentucky; northern, south-central, and coastal Georgia; and northwestern and coastal South Carolina. The map on the right shows social vulnerability index (abbreviated S V I) scores. A legend of SVI values ranges from 0.2 or lower (pale purple) to 0.8 (reddish pink). The legend for the right map shows SVI scores ranging from 0.2 or lower (light pink) to 0.8 or higher (dark red). Counties with higher SVI scores, ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 or higher, generally mirror the counties with lower life expectancies in the left map; likewise, the counties with lower SVI scores, ranging from 0.4 to 0.2 or lower, mirror those with higher life expectancies.
Present-day health inequities in the Southeast exacerbate climate-related risks.
Figure 22.8. (left) Southeastern states rank among the lowest in the Nation for life expectancy, although there is considerable variation within the region and within individual states. These patterns in life expectancy are reflected in estimates of social vulnerability (right)—a measure of how societal stressors like poverty, crowded housing, older populations, and lack of access to transportation may diminish a community’s ability to avoid human distress and financial damages in a disaster like those made worse by climate change. Figure credits: (left) Groundwork USA, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC; life expectancy data from University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, County Health Rankings & Roadmaps 2022, www.countyhealthrankings.org; (right) Science Museum of Virginia, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

The Southeast has more Black residents than any other NCA region,40 and health-related challenges faced by communities with majority Black populations differ from those with majority White, Hispanic, or Asian populations.201 Communities with majority Black populations tend to have even lower life expectancies and less access to resources that promote health, such as grocery stores, safe places to exercise, and quality healthcare than whiter and wealthier populations.202 These communities also have fewer opportunities for economic prosperity (Figure 22.12), fewer employment opportunities, limited access to quality education, and higher unemployment rates, all of which shape health outcomes.11 Black communities in the Southeast, therefore, shoulder a disproportionate level of health risk associated with climate change.3,12

Keeping Cool as Temperatures Rise

Extreme heat affects everyone, but particularly at risk are pregnant people;203,204,205 people with heart and lung conditions;206,207 older adults and young children;208,209 people with mental health conditions;210,211 outdoor workers in construction, agriculture, and the service industry;212,213 athletes;214,215,216 and populations who lack adequate shelter or are incarcerated.217,218

Southeasterners rely on air-conditioning to cool living spaces, and air-conditioning demand is expected to grow across the Southeast as the climate warms.219 However, air-conditioning prevalence varies along racial and economic lines.220 Furthermore, the Southeast has high rates of households that experience energy insecurity.221 While the Southeast has the lowest energy rates in the US, households there pay the country’s highest energy bills.222 High energy bills disproportionately impact rural and under-resourced residents, elderly residents on fixed incomes, and communities of color (Figure 22.9).222 Historical de facto as well as de jure segregation policies such as redlining—the New Deal–era practice of classifying communities with significant Black, Asian, and immigrant populations as hazardous for financial investment—neighborhood housing covenants, and urban renewal have had lingering effects on frontline communities in the Southeast, resulting in their low proportion of homes that are energy efficient and affordable.222 There is evidence that the number of blackout events (power outages) affecting more than 1,000 residents for more than one hour due to increasing energy demands and extreme weather events is increasing.223,224,225 The Southeast has experienced many such blackout events annually and during the warm season (May–September) since 2011 (Figure 22.10).226

URL
Alternative text
Inequitable Heat Burden and Future Heat Exposure
Two maps of the Southeast region illustrate inequitable heat burden and future heat exposure, as described in the caption and text. The county- and state-level map on the left is titled “energy-burdened households overlap with communities of color.” A bivariate legend grid appears below the map. The y-axis shows percent of energy-burdened households, with values ranging from 0 to 30, and the x-axis shows percent Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (abbreviated B I P O C) population, with values ranging from 0 to 90. Counties with high (10 to 30 percent) energy-burdened households and high (40 to 90 percent) BIPOC population are shown in southern Arkansas; northern and southeastern Louisiana; northwestern, central, and southwestern Mississippi; southern Alabama; southwestern Tennessee; southern Georgia; southeastern Virginia; eastern North Carolina; northeastern and southwestern South Carolina; and portions of northern and south-central Florida. The state-level map on the right is titled “projected change in extreme heat days, 2050 compared to 1991–2020.” A legend shows the change in the number of days at or above 95 degrees Fahrenheit, with values ranging from 0 to 10 (yellow) to 50 or higher (dark red). Extreme heat days are projected to increase throughout the region, particularly in the southern portion of the region. Increases of up to 20 days are seen in eastern Kentucky, central and eastern Tennessee, northern Georgia, most of Virginia, western and eastern North Carolina, portions of Arkansas, and along the Atlantic coastline. An increase of 20 to 40 days is shown across most of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida, as well as western Kentucky and Tennessee, southern Georgia, central North Carolina, and portions of eastern Virginia. An increase of 40 to 50 or more days is shown across northern, central, and southern portions of the Florida peninsula, as well as portions of southern Louisiana.
Projected increases in heat extremes disproportionately affect communities of color and other energy-burdened groups.
Figure 22.9. Present-day inequities will be amplified by the increased threat of extreme heat in the future. Panel (a) shows overlap between the percentage of the population that is BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and the percentage of low- and moderate-income households with a high energy burden, or households that spend a disproportionately high amount of money on energy costs relative to their income. The dark purple areas show high overlaps between BIPOC households and high energy burden. Panel (b) shows the projected increase in the number of extreme heat days (maximum temperature at or above 95°F) in 2050 relative to 1991–2020 under a high scenario (SSP3-7.0). Figure credits: (a) adapted from Bryan 2020;227 (b) NOAA NCEI and CISESS NC.
URL
Alternative text
Blackouts Affecting More than 1,000 Residents for More than 1 Hour
A bar graph shows the number of blackouts affecting more than 1,000 Southeast residents for more than one hour between 2011 and 2021, as described in the caption and text. Y-axis values range from 0 to 50 events and x-axis labels identify the Southeast states. Bars show the number of events, with blue segments of each bar indicating non-warm-season events and orange segments indicating warm-season events. Following are the number of warm-season events and non-warm-season events, respectively, by state: Tennessee, 3 and 17; Kentucky, 11 and 12; Mississippi, 8 and 16; Florida, 9 and 10; South Carolina, 11 and 19; Arkansas, 14 and 6; Alabama, 15 and 13; Georgia, 18 and 13; Virginia, 21 and 27; North Carolina, 21 and 24; and Louisiana, 23 and 16.
Warm-season blackouts add to heat-related risks for residents in Southeast.
Figure 22.10. For several Southeast states, major blackout events occur most often during the warm season (May–September). Major blackouts during the warm season generally occur during heatwaves, placing people at higher risk of heat exposure and heat-related illness because they do not have access to air-conditioning. The figure shows reported major blackout events—defined as electrical grid failures affecting more than 1,000 residents for more than 1 hour—in Southeast states during 2011–2021. Data are presented as warm season (orange, May through September) and non-warm season (blue, October through April). Figure credit: Georgia Institute of Technology, Groundwork USA, CDC, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

Public cooling centers are temporary health interventions for those without adequate air-conditioned shelter on exceptionally hot days (KM 15.3). However, in some areas of the Southeast, these centers are not located within walking distance of the populations most in need.228 Furthermore, the Southeast has the lowest public transportation access for households without a private vehicle.229

Heatwaves in the Southeast are happening more frequently and are occurring during a longer heat season, with some cities also showing increasing trends in their duration and intensity (Ch. 2).3,230,231 The number of extreme warm days (above 95°F) is expected to continue increasing with every increment of global warming (Figure 22.9b; Ch. 2). Wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT)—which measures the combined effects of temperature, humidity, wind, and sunlight on thermal comfort and which may be a better metric for the Southeast than more traditional measures of extreme heat232,233—has already increased due to anthropogenic climate change in parts of the region234,235 and is expected to increase across the region throughout this century.230,235 Additional heat stress within cities can be attributed to the urban heat island effect (Figure A4.4), whereby cities experience warmer temperatures than outlying rural areas and some neighborhoods within a city are hotter than others.236,237 Heat island intensities across the Southeast are systematically higher in formerly redlined communities5 and in counties with higher proportions of Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents, people with education no higher than a high school diploma, people with lower median incomes, and single-parent households.238 However, there is a lack of consistent and appropriate thresholds used to evaluate heat risk. For example, most work-related heat illnesses across five Southeast states occurred below the heat index range designated as dangerous by the National Weather Service.239

Climate change is increasing the risk of multiple dangerous weather events occurring simultaneously or in close proximity, resulting in worsened health effects (Ch. 15). An example of this is when a heatwave occurred after Hurricane Laura devastated the coast of Louisiana in 2020, resulting in at least eight deaths due to heat and an increased risk of heat-related illness, particularly for those who lost electricity and outdoor workers assisting with the recovery.240

In response to heat threats, Miami has institutionalized the first city heat officer to coordinate heat preparedness and response efforts to reduce impacts to the most vulnerable.

Blowing in the Wind

In the Southeast, climate change threatens Clean Air Act improvements by creating favorable conditions for increases in smog241,242,243 and wildland fire emissions.244,245,246 The Southeast already has significant amounts of particulate matter (PM2.5; Figure 22.11a) as a result of anthropogenic pollutants247 and extensive vegetation,248 and the associated health effects are experienced disproportionately by communities of color and populations with lower socioeconomic status (Ch. 14).249,250 Future premature deaths due to PM2.5 in the region could be avoided through significant emissions reductions, even when considering future warming (Figure 22.11b; KM 14.3).3,251,252 This is particularly relevant to the Southeast, which is projected to have the highest number of premature deaths due to climate-induced increases in PM2.5 and ozone exposure.3,251,252

URL
Alternative text
Current PM2.5 Levels and Projected Change in Deaths due to PM2.5 at 2°C of Global Warming
Two state-level maps of the Southeast region illustrate current fine particulate matter (abbreviated PM 2.5) levels and projected change in premature deaths due to PM 2.5, as described in the caption and text. The map on the left shows present-day (2000 to 2019) average PM 2.5 levels. A legend shows PM 2.5 in micrograms per square meter, with values ranging from 5.0 (dark blue) to 15.0 (dark red). Lower values of PM 2.5, ranging from 5.0 to about 10.0 micrograms per square meter, are shown across most of Arkansas, Louisiana, Virginia, and Florida, as well as eastern Kentucky, central Tennessee, and western and eastern North Carolina. Higher PM 2.5 values ranging from about 10.0 to 15.0 micrograms are shown in northeastern Arkansas, southern Louisiana, northern Mississippi, most of Alabama, central and western Kentucky, most of Tennessee, northern and southwestern Georgia, central North Carolina, northwestern South Carolina, and northeastern and southeastern Virginia. The map on the right shows projected changes in annual premature deaths due to climate-driven effects on PM 2.5 at global warming of 2 degrees Celsius. A legend shows change in the number of premature deaths per 100,000 people aged 65 and older, with values ranging from negative 10 (gray) to positive 90 (dark orange). Almost the entire region shows increases of at least 0 to 10. Large increases of 10 to 30 premature deaths are shown across most of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, as well as northern and southern Alabama and Georgia. Increases of 30 to 90 deaths are shown in south-central Arkansas, north central Louisiana, and east-central Mississippi; in a band stretching across central parts of Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina, and into southeastern Virginia; and in most of South Carolina. Decreases of up to 10 premature deaths appear only in a few small, isolated portions of most Southeast states, with a larger area in northwest Arkansas.
Rising levels of air pollution from a warming climate pose profound threats to human health.
Figure 22.11. (a) Present-day (2000–2019) patterns of particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution in the air are associated with excess mortality. (b) Potential future patterns (projected changes at 2°C of global warming relative to the 1986–2005 average) of premature deaths in people aged 65 and older due to PM2.5 show that even when accounting for reduced particulate emissions in the future due to developments such as vehicle electrification, the Southeast is particularly sensitive to increases in PM2.5 from increased temperature alone. (a) Adapted from van Donkelaar et al. 2019.247 (This is an unofficial adaptation of an article that appeared in an ACS publication. ACS has not endorsed the content of this adaptation or the context of its use.) (b) Adapted from EPA 2021.3

In addition, airborne pollen can pose significant health risks to populations living in the southeastern United States.253 Since 1992 in Atlanta, tree pollen concentrations have increased by approximately 4% in the spring and 10% in the fall, and weed pollen has increased by approximately 5% in the spring.254 Some species of trees and weeds are exhibiting an earlier and longer pollen season, correlating with warmer spring temperatures.254 Pollen increases pose significant health risks, including aggravating respiratory conditions such as asthma, which has been linked to a loss of school and work days (KM 14.4). These health risks are expected to worsen as pollen seasons shift earlier and lengthen due to climate change (KM 14.4; Figure 8.2).

Fire Danger

Wildfire risk disproportionately disrupts the lives of socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in the Southeast.2 As more people inhabit forested areas, there is an attendant increase in wildfire risks to human health and property.255 More hot days may also exacerbate soil moisture deficits, leading to heightened wildfire risk in the region.244,256 Rural, mountainous portions of the Southeast are more exposed to and less equipped for mitigating wildfire.257

Forest managers conduct controlled, low-intensity fires, known as prescribed burns, to reduce the amount of deadwood and vegetation, thereby managing wildfire risk.258 While the impacts of wildfires on air quality are widely recognized (KM 14.2), less is known about the impacts of prescribed burns versus wildfires on air quality.246,259 Prescribed burns reduce the risk of wildfire damage to the environment, homes, and infrastructure, although areas with intensive prescribed burning tend to be near communities with higher social vulnerability scores, which subsequently experience more negative health outcomes from the smoke.260,261 As conditions favorable for wildfire and unfavorable for prevention become a greater risk for southeastern communities due to a warming and drying climate,256,262 communities may need to invest in more robust equipment and infrastructure. In 2016, wildfires in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee highlighted the connection between exceptional drought and fire in the Appalachians.263 Power outages and damage to PVC pipelines that supplied water to sprinkler systems led to a lack of water to combat fires, resulting in more significant damages.264,265 That year, nearly 50% of US wildfires occurred in the Southeast, yet these fires contributed to only 29% of the total area burned that year, indicating that southeastern wildfires are smaller.244,246,258

Rolling Red Tides

Harmful algal blooms (HABs), also known as red tides or brown tides, occur in fresh, brackish, and salt water.266 HABs result from the overgrowth of algae due to runoff water containing excess nutrients from agriculture and lawn maintenance, rising water temperatures, and other land-use development.267 Since 2011, large masses of sargassum, which can fall under a HAB classification, have been increasing from Florida across the Caribbean, causing harm to coastal social–ecological systems. This problem could be intensified by rising temperatures from climate change.268,269 HABs have significant negative impacts on human and animal health, as well as broad-reaching environmental and economic effects.270,271,272,273

Humans may experience various health issues from HAB exposure, such as diarrhea and headache.273 HAB events also threaten national and local economies, as tourist areas become less desirable to visit.271 Fisheries and aquaculture industries suffer from the loss of marine life and decreased species diversity as ecosystems are disrupted and hypoxic conditions occur,274,275,276 and consumers are potentially exposed to seafood poisoning.277,278 On Florida’s Gulf Coast, prolonged algal events have caused a devaluation of coastal properties.270,272

More Than Just a Bug Bite

Temperature and precipitation changes are anticipated to shift the geographic distribution and season of certain disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks in the Southeast (KMs 15.1, 8.2). For ticks that carry diseases such as Lyme and Rocky Mountain spotted fever, models project varying shifts in ecosystem suitability in the Southeast depending on the species, land-use changes, and host abundance.279,280,281,282,283 Of particular concern are mosquito-borne diseases such as chikungunya, dengue, malaria, West Nile virus, and Zika virus. All have been documented in the Southeast and pose potential risks to human health.284 Black and under-resourced neighborhoods in Chatham County, Georgia, were identified as hotspots for West Nile virus, as well as being home to communities with limited understanding of personal risk and protective measures against mosquitoes.285,286

The Mind–Climate Connection

The Southeast is home to 5 out of the 10 highest-ranked states for the prevalence of mental illness287 and 8 out of the 10 lowest-ranked states for access to mental healthcare services.288

Climate change significantly affects mental health as a result of 1) acute disaster events such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires (KM 15.1); 2) long-term changes such as drought289 and heat stress;210 and 3) existential threats of long-lasting climate change impacts that make people feel less secure in their physical environment.290 Those who are either directly impacted by or concerned about the threat of climate change to themselves or others may experience “eco-anxiety” or “climate anxiety.”291,292

While extreme weather events commonly occur in the Southeast, climate change has increased their frequency and magnitude (Ch. 2), causing residents to face repeated trauma and displacement at an unprecedented level, which can lead to stress and the onset of new psychiatric disorders or the worsening of preexisting mental health conditions,293 especially among children and under-resourced and BIPOC residents.290,294,295 The Florida Department of Health in Monroe County conducted an evaluation of its emergency shelter effectiveness in serving people with particular access and functional needs and found significant room for improvement, leading to updates to strategic planning processes and procedures related to the operation and communication of specialty emergency shelters to ensure more equitable access to shelter services.


Climate Change Disproportionately Damages Southeastern Jobs, Households, and Economic Security

Over the last few decades, economic growth in the Southeast has been concentrated in and around urban centers that depend on climate-sensitive infrastructure and regional connections to thrive . Simultaneously, rural and place-based economies that rely on the region’s ecosystems are particularly at risk from current and future climate changes . Global warming is expected to worsen climate-related impacts on economic systems, labor, and regional supply chains in the Southeast, with disproportionate effects on frontline communities . A coordinated approach that recognizes present-day inequities and the interdependencies between rural and urban communities will be necessary to secure the region’s economic vitality .

Economic Risks in the Southeast: “Less Money, More Problems”

Across the Southeast, disaster losses have increased over the last several decades, primarily due to rapid growth in hazardous areas that are driven, in part, by national, state, and local policies that incentivize development in such areas.166,296,297 Rising disaster costs negatively impact local and regional economies, some of which are already affected by limited upward economic mobility for their population, as well as by limited administrative, institutional, and social capacity (Figure 22.12). Moreover, these multisectoral impacts are expected to worsen substantially due to climate change,298 especially in the Southeast region (Figures 22.13, 22.14, 19.1; KM 19.1).

URL
Alternative text
Household Income and Rural Capacity for Action
A county-level map of the Southeast region illustrates the overlap between household income and rural capacity for action, as described in the caption. A bivariate grid legend appears below the map. The y-axis shows household income at age 35 in 2015 US dollars, with three categories of values ranging from 0 to 37,400. The x-axis shows Rural Capacity Index, with three categories of values ranging from 0 to 100. Counties with the lowest household incomes (0 to 16,400 dollars) and lowest rural capacity index scores (0 to 60) are shown in portions of eastern and southern Arkansas, northern and northeastern Louisiana, northern Mississippi, central Alabama, and southern Georgia, as well as isolated counties in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida. Counties with the highest household incomes (24,000 to 37,400 dollars) and rural capacity index scores (80 to 100) are shown in northern Arkansas; Southeastern Louisiana; southern Mississippi; Southern Alabama; western Kentucky; central Tennessee; northwestern Georgia; northern, southwestern, and southeastern Virginia; southwestern South Carolina; and central and southern portions of the Florida peninsula.
Counties where low-income households overlap with limited community capacity (shown in light gray) highlight rural climate risk challenges.
Figure 22.12. In the Southeast, children born to parents who make the lowest incomes also tend to earn low incomes as adults (blue hues), especially within frontline communities. These pockets of limited generational upward mobility may also overlap with lower scores on the Rural Capacity Index (red hues), as measured by under-resourced governance structures and limited public participation in civic processes like voting.64 This lack of resources may leave these communities more at risk from damage due to climate change. Figure credit: EPA, Groundwork USA, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

Losses attributed to climate change are expected to increase as rapid development continues to occur in hazardous areas, particularly along coasts (Figure 22.4b),299 while rural residents face increasing levels of isolation and economic decline (Figure 22.12).62

URL
Alternative text
Projected Annual Economic Damages from Unmitigated Climate Change
A county- and state-level map of the Southeast region illustrates the projected annual economic damages from unmitigated climate change in 2099 under a very high scenario (RCP8.5), as described in the caption. A legend shows total damages as a percent of county gross domestic product, with values ranging from 3 or lower (light yellow) to 15 or higher (dark red). Counties with the lowest projected damages (3 percent or lower to 6 percent) are concentrated in north-central and southeastern Kentucky, north-central and northeastern Tennessee, northern Georgia, western and central North Carolina, and most of Virginia. Damages of 6 to 12 percent are shown in northern and southeastern Arkansas, northwestern and southern Louisiana, northern Mississippi, northern and southeastern Alabama, western and eastern Kentucky, most of Tennessee and South Carolina, eastern and south-central North Carolina, southeastern Virginia, and portions of northern and southwestern Georgia. Counties with damages of 12 to 15 percent or more are shown in southwestern and east-central Arkansas, northern and south-central Louisiana, most of Mississippi and Florida, western and southern Alabama, southern Georgia, and isolated counties in northern and southwestern South Carolina.
The Southeast region faces substantial economic risks from climate change impacts.
Figure 22.13. Direct annual climate damages, as measured by the percent of county GDP, are projected to be especially large in the Southeast. The map shows damages under a very high scenario (RCP8.5) at the end of the century. Adapted from Hsiang et al. 2017.300
URL
Alternative text
Regional Impacts of Extreme Weather Events
Four photos illustrate the impacts of extreme weather events in the Southeast region, as described in the caption. (top left) A residential area shows houses with dry driveways abutting a flooded street. (top right) A small herd of cattle is gathered on a parched field. (bottom left) An aerial view shows flooding that has submerged buildings, roads, and agricultural fields. (bottom right) An annotated satellite image shows a river intersecting agricultural fields, with dry banks visible along several portions of the river. An inset image shows barges waiting along the shore, and an arrow labeled “barges” points to their location in the larger image. A label in the lower right of the larger image identifies a town as Vicksburg.
The Southeast is impacted by a wide variety of extreme weather events.
Figure 22.14. The impacts of weather and climate extremes can be seen in photos from the Southeast (clockwise from top left): A flooded neighborhood in Kissimmee, Florida, is shown after Hurricane Ian (2022), which heavily impacted local livelihoods. Drought conditions in Alabama (2016) directly impacted farmers’ incomes and potentially increased prices for customers. Regional drought-induced low-flow conditions on the Mississippi River caused barges and towboats to become stranded for several days (2022). Flood damage in northeast Arkansas impacted transportation infrastructure and crops and may have impacted supply chains (2017). Image credits: (top left) Robert Kaufmann/FEMA, DHS; (top right) Bruce Dupree, Alabama Extension [CC0 1.0]; (bottom left) Sonny Perdue, USDA; (bottom right) adapted from NASA Earth Observatory.

Place-based economies that are located in hazardous areas and are reliant on unique ecological systems (e.g., aquaculture, farming, and recreation/tourism) face numerous challenges, including the uncertainties associated with the stability of freshwater and saltwater ecosystem services that support business and cultural attachment to place.301 For example, some fishing communities are facing threats to fishing infrastructure due to sea level rise and more intense coastal storms, as well as threats to fisheries stock habitats that are vulnerable to the effects of a changing climate, such as increasing bottom-water temperatures.142,302,303 Meanwhile, inland towns and cities with ecotourism attractions also face significant economic losses due to increased flash flooding,73,108 including lower-income rural areas in Appalachia, as exemplified by the 2022 floods in eastern Kentucky. Rapidly growing urban centers in the Southeast are increasingly vulnerable to drought and the challenges tied to the provision of water for residents and businesses.304,305,306,307 The Southeast is more drought-prone than other parts of the eastern US due to higher rates of evapotranspiration.308,309 Evapotranspiration is expected to increase due to future climate warming (Ch. 2). Alabama cities’ drought plans were evaluated as less comprehensive and lacking pre-drought preparation compared to those of California cities.152 In rural, agriculturally dependent economies, increased heat, drought, and water-laden tropical storms currently threaten the productivity of crops and livestock (KM 22.4),310,311 as well as the health and livelihoods of workers, who tend to be Latino migrants.312 Future global warming will increase this threat, potentially further reducing labor productivity and costing billions of dollars, particularly in the already hot and humid Southeast (KM 2.2).212,313 The Southeast’s economy relies on the region’s ports, rivers, rail, air, and road networks, which are at risk from sea level rise, flooding, extreme heat, drought, and other climate-related hazards.61,314 However, proactive adaptation can offset potential future climate-related damages substantially (Figures 22.13, 22.15, 22.17). Unplanned disruptions to these systems can potentially affect consumer pricing of goods, services, and livelihoods throughout the region and elsewhere (Figure 22.16).315,316

URL
Alternative text
Proactive Adaptation Offsets Future Transportation Infrastructure Costs
Four state-level maps of the Southeast region illustrate projected transportation infrastructure damages and the benefits of proactive adaptation in 2050 under an intermediate scenario (RCP4.5), as described in the caption. A legend for the maps shows average annual costs in thousands of dollars, with values ranging from 0 (white) to 10,000 or more (brownish red). The two top maps show projected costs for rail transportation with no adaptation (left) and with proactive adaptation (right). With no adaptation, most of the region is projected to see average annual costs ranging from 250,000 to 5 million dollars. Areas with the highest projected costs, ranging from 5 to 10 million dollars or more, are shown in northeastern Arkansas, central Kentucky, and eastern Tennessee, as well as in isolated locations in northern Alabama and northeastern Virginia. Areas with the lowest projected costs, up to 250,000 dollars, are shown in portions of all the Southeast states but particularly Southern Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, as well as nearly all of Florida. With proactive adaptation, projected costs are lower across the region; costs of up to 250,000 dollars (as compared to 250,000 to 5 million dollars in the left map) are shown for the majority of the Southeast, while areas showing the highest costs (5 to 10 million dollars) in the left map generally show costs ranging from 250,000 to 2 million dollars. The two bottom maps show projected costs for roads with no adaptation (left) and with proactive adaptation (right). With no adaptation, projected costs for most of the Southeast are at least 1 million dollars or more, with much of the region showing costs of 10 million or more. With proactive adaptation, projected costs for most of the region are much lower almost everywhere, ranging from 500,000 to 5 million dollars.
Proactive adaptation to climate change could save millions of dollars in future transportation infrastructure costs.
Figure 22.15. Future climate change impacts (under RCP4.5) may cost US transportation infrastructure billions in damages by 2050, with especially high costs in the Southeast. The left panels show the additional annual average system costs (as compared to 1986–2005 in 2018 dollars) to rail infrastructure (top) and road networks (bottom) in 2050, assuming no adaptation. Proactive adaptation—anticipating climate risks and investing up front in strengthening these systems before damage occurs—could reduce significantly, but not eliminate, these costs (right panels). Proactive adaptation strategies include temperature sensors for railroad tracks and working to reduce disruption times for roads undergoing repairs. Adapted from Neumann et al. 2021317 [CC BY 4.0].

Supply Chain Impacts Affect Places Outside the Southeast

There is an urgent need to address climate change risks to global supply chains (Focus on Risks to Supply Chains; KM 19.1).318 In the Southeast, climate change–induced transportation infrastructure risks affect all modes (e.g., air, water, highway, rail, and even pipelines; Figures 22.15, 22.16; Ch. 13). Transportation agencies across the region appear to be planning for infrastructure improvements on different schedules and often lack the capacity to include climate data in the planning process (Ch. 13).319 Coordinated and proactive adaptation strategies could offset significant future damage to these systems (Figures 22.15, 22.17).317,320,321

Many Southeast roadways and rail lines are located along waterways and frequently cross bodies of water, making them vulnerable to potential floods and heat-related impacts. High future costs are expected if no adaptive investments are made today (Figures 22.15, 22.17).317 Inland navigation and the Mississippi River are critical to supply chains in the Southeast and much of the central portion of the United States, as evidenced by the 2021 closure of the Interstate 40 bridge over the Mississippi River at Memphis, Tennessee.322 Unscheduled lock outages resulting from floods, droughts, earthquakes, or hurricanes can cause cascading impacts. For example, an unplanned outage of the Calcasieu Lock in southern Louisiana would affect economies in 170 counties and 18 states (Figure 22.16).315,323 In the Southeast, manufacturing facilities for industries such as automotive (including electric vehicles and charging stations),324 solar panels, agriculture,325 and construction often rely on parts or materials originating from other locations, including some from international sources. The Mississippi River serves as a gateway to the Nation for imports of such materials and exports of goods such as agricultural products. In recent years, low-flow conditions due to regional droughts on Southeast waterways such as the Mississippi have halted or delayed the movement of barges carrying bulk goods, with regional and national implications (Figures 22.14, 22.16).326,327

Disruptions can impact not only the delivery of finished goods and products to customers but also production and the livelihoods of individuals working in jobs dependent on materials from other locations that may not arrive in time, leading to revenue loss and even potential job loss if disruptions become regular and significant enough. The impacts of climate change on supply chains include not only disruption to systems and additional costs associated with the transportation of goods but also potential health impacts to workers in industries that require working outdoors, such as agriculture,325 fisheries, construction, and last-mile delivery,328,329 who may be exposed to extreme heat or cold. Workers in these jobs may require additional heating or cooling or adjustments in shift times to avoid exposure to adverse weather conditions (KM 22.2; Ch. 19).330

URL
Alternative text
Expected Impacts of an Unplanned Calcasieu Navigation Lock Closure
A state- and region-level map of the eastern half of the United States illustrates the expected impacts of an unplanned closure of the Calcasieu navigation lock, as described in the caption. A legend for the map shows 2014 commodity flows through the lock. Dark green shading indicates counties with top 10 percent of tonnages by volume, and light green shading indicates counties with commodities utilizing the Calcasieu lock. A yellow dot in southwestern Louisiana shows the location of Calcasieu. Counties with the top 10 tonnages by volume are concentrated predominantly along the Gulf coastline of Texas, southeastern Louisiana, and southern Mississippi and Alabama, as well as isolated counties in northeastern Arkansas and northeastern Illinois. Counties with commodities utilizing Calcasieu are concentrated along the Mississippi River from Minnesota south to Louisiana, and the Ohio River from western Pennsylvania west to where it meets the Mississippi River. Additional counties with commodities utilizing Calcasieu are scattered across northern Illinois, northwestern Indiana, northern Missouri, eastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, northern and central Louisiana, northeastern Mississippi, northern Alabama. central and eastern Tennessee, and southwestern West Virginia. Text alongside the map reads: “An unplanned closure would immediately affect commerce in 170 counties in 18 states, cost the public more than 1.1 billion dollars annually in additional transport charges, require the availability and use of 10,000 additional rail cars and several hundred locomotives, and result in the loss of 17,000 full-time, highly compensated jobs."
An unplanned closure of the Calcasieu Navigation Lock would have impacts that extend well beyond the Southeast.
Figure 22.16. The commodity flow impacts associated with an unplanned shutdown of Calcasieu Lock extend well outside the Southeast, affecting 170 counties across 18 states. Weather and climate extremes such as regional drought and low-flow conditions on the Mississippi River can result in unplanned shutdowns of the Calcasieu Lock. Adapted with permission from Burton et al. 2017.315

Furthermore, the Southeast is a hub of activity for oil refineries that provide fuel to the eastern half of the United States.331 Climate change is expected to negatively impact not only refineries that are located along the Gulf Coast but also the distribution networks of the petroleum products that many rely on for emergency services, backup power generation, air travel, and more.60,332,333

URL
Alternative text
Projected Annual Energy Infrastructure Costs
Two state-level maps of the Southeast illustrate projected annual energy infrastructure costs in 2050 under an intermediate scenario (RCP4.5), as described in the caption. A legend shows millions of dollars, with values ranging from 50 or less (light tan) to 1,600 or more (brownish red). White text in black boxes overlaid on each state shows projected costs with adaptation (left map) and with no adaptation (right map) as follows: Arkansas, 11 million dollars with proactive adaptation versus 57 million dollars without adaptation; Mississippi, 43 versus 103 million; Louisiana, 47 versus 134 million; Georgia, 97 versus 255 million; Kentucky, 111 versus 217 million; Virginia, 115 versus 272 million; North Carolina, 177 versus 347 million; South Carolina, 216 versus 333 million; Alabama, 327 versus 520 million; Tennessee, 463 versus 741 million; and Florida, 1,105 versus 1,787 million.
Proactively investing in strengthening our electrical infrastructure offsets significant future costs due to climate change damage.
Figure 22.17. The Southeast faces some of the highest economic risks related to energy infrastructure damage without proactive adaptation measures in place—such as energy utilities and policymakers’ anticipating climate risks to electrical grid infrastructure and investing upfront in strengthening these systems in advance of any damages. As shown in the maps, in 2050 under an intermediate scenario (RCP4.5), proactive adaptation (a) could save as much as twice the total costs (in 2017 dollars) of no adaptation (b). These costs could be passed onto consumers. Adapted from Fant et al. 2020320 [CC BY 4.0].

Securing Economic Vitality

Protecting businesses and urban and rural infrastructure investments may require adopting a combination of adaptation measures (KM 22.1). However, to avoid unintended disparities in service provision, these infrastructure investments should consider the needs of frontline communities in their design criteria.334 For instance, Charleston, South Carolina, has explored questions surrounding the appropriate selection of adaptation measures, including protection techniques such as a seawall versus a greater reliance on nature-based solutions.

Justly transitioning to a low-carbon economy provides opportunities for businesses335 as well as labor,336 assuming that marginalized populations and women are included in this workforce to avoid the inequities of our current energy labor markets.337 Business and governmental agencies could commit to workforce programs for employees in the oil, gas, and coal-producing industries,336,338 as workforce training in green technology must address challenges associated with transitioning away from economies that are closely tied to a community’s way of life.339,340 Additionally, ecosystem restoration and nature-based green infrastructure solutions (e.g., urban forestry, stormwater retention gardens, green roofs) may also provide meaningful job opportunities (Ch. 19).341 Key to adapting to climate change and leveraging new opportunities is the need for training and workforce development, which will require investment and prioritization (Ch. 19).


Agriculture Faces Growing Threats, but Innovations Offer Help

Changes in temperature, drought, extreme rainfall, and sea levels are already threatening the Southeast’s agriculture and other food-related systems . Moreover, these climate-related hazards are expected to worsen with every increment of global warming, disproportionately harm farmers and small-scale operations, and increase the competition between urban and rural communities for valuable resources such as water and land . However, innovative agricultural techniques such as precision farming show promise for adapting to future climate changes in the region .

Agriculture is critical to the economy of the Southeast through its production of food and fiber and employment. In the United States as a whole, agriculture, food, and related industries contributed $1.26 trillion (in 2022 dollars; a 5.2% share) to the gross domestic product in 2019.342 In the Southeast, nearly 500,000 farms produced market sales of more than $83.8 billion (in 2022 dollars),343 and the region’s agricultural products are consumed locally and exported throughout the United States and the world.344 Food systems distribute agricultural products throughout the region, although food deserts are present in urban and rural areas.345 Disparities in food distribution are especially pronounced in areas with concentrations of Black, Indigenous, and under-resourced communities.345

Climate Stressors on Agriculture and Food Systems

Climate change stresses agriculture and food systems (Ch. 11). Threats from a changing climate include both direct threats through impacts of climate extremes on crops, forests, ecosystems, and livestock and indirect threats through impediments to transportation, the health of outdoor workers and animals, degradation and loss of natural ecosystems, reduced productivity and loss of traditional crops, increased threats from invasive species and weeds, and loss of livelihood for vulnerable communities such as rural BIPOC farmers. For example, increased average and extreme high temperatures346 have led to increased heat stress on livestock325,347 and outdoor workers. Warmer winter temperatures have reduced the number of chill hours (the total number of hours a plant experiences temperatures below 45°F over the winter months), which are essential for fruit production,348 and have caused unusually early blooming of crops such as peaches and blueberries, which makes them vulnerable to damaging frost events. In spite of warmer winters, however, the change in the average date of the last spring frost is not consistent across the region.349

Higher temperatures, particularly overnight temperatures, have reduced crop yields,350 and these impacts are projected to worsen with additional global warming (Figure 22.19; Ch. 11). They have also led to an increase in the occurrence of drought in the region (Figure 22.18).351,352,353 The Southeast is the only region in the eastern half of the United States that is prone to extreme drought,308 and flash droughts occur with higher frequency there than in any other region.354 Longer-term droughts in the Southeast appear to be increasing in severity but do not appear to be occurring more frequently.355 Changes in climate conditions have also contributed to increased pressure by invasive species that have resulted in crop yield losses and damaged productive natural ecosystems.356,357 Increases in the frequency of heavy rain events358 and lengthening of dry spells between rain events at some locations in the region359,360,361 make water resources unpredictable. Hurricanes and tropical storm winds, as well as increasing accumulated rainfall in coastal areas, pose unique threats to agriculture.92,362 For example, following Hurricane Florence, swine feces markers were detected in surface waters in North Carolina, suggesting that management practices should be examined in areas at risk of increased extreme precipitation.363 Rising sea levels have increased saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers, reducing the extent of available forests and farmland130,131 and threatening seafood harvesting in estuaries by altering the salinity and turbidity in freshwater streams and marine nurseries.364 Extreme weather and coastal stressors have also disrupted food distribution by closing ports and highways,365,366,367 reduced the catch of fish, and diminished crop production.140

URL
Alternative text
Droughts and Black Farmers in the Southeast
A county-level map of the Southeast region illustrates the overlap between Black-owned farms and drought events, as described in the caption. A bivariate grid legend appears below the map. The y-axis shows percent of total farms owned by Black farmers, with values ranging from 0 to 54, and the x-axis shows average count of drought events for 2000 to 2019, with values ranging from 0 to 25. Counties with the highest percentages of Black-owned farms (7 to 54 percent) and highest numbers of drought events (12 to 25) are shown in portions of eastern and southern Arkansas; western and east-central Mississippi; central Alabama; southwestern Tennessee; southern Georgia; northern Florida; southern and northeastern Virginia; northeastern North Carolina; and northern, central, and southern South Carolina. Areas showing the lowest percentage of black-owned farms (0 to 7 percent) and lowest number of drought events (0 to 12) are shown in portions of northwestern and northeastern Kentucky, western Tennessee, east-central Mississippi, northern Alabama, northern Georgia, northwestern and southeastern Virginia, eastern North Carolina, and central Florida.
The Southeast’s Black farmers face disproportionate weather and climate risks.
Figure 22.18. In the Southeast, areas with a higher number of drought events from 2000 through 2019 often overlapped with counties that are home to relatively higher proportions of Black producers, as identified in the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture. The Southeast has the highest proportion of Black producers when compared to any other National Climate Assessment region, highlighting how disparities in climate risks require innovation and equitable adaptation, especially for those producers who have smaller operations and fewer resources to adopt new technologies. Figure credit: Groundwork USA, University of Georgia, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

Disproportionate Impacts on Under-Resourced Communities

Climate stressors such as drought have a disproportionate impact on small-scale, Black, Indigenous, and economically disadvantaged farmers, who are more concentrated in the Southeast compared to other NCA regions (Figure 22.18).368,369,370 These groups are under-resourced, making adaptation to climate change more difficult.371 Knowledge gaps in best practices for small-farm management complicate information-sharing among communities across the region. Access to broadband in rural areas may limit producers’ ability to monitor their fields and make appropriate management decisions.372,373 Small-farm owners also have limited financial resources, which means they have less ability to invest in necessary farm equipment, insurance, and other risk-reduction methods such as irrigation that could mitigate climate stress and reduce farmland value losses.374,375 Small-scale farmers and those with limited resources may find targeted USDA programs as well as innovative techniques such as organic farming and agroforestry to be well-suited to use on their smaller farms in the future.376,377

Competition for Resources

Southeastern agriculture and food systems are further stressed by land, water, and resource competition between urban and rural areas.378 Competition is highlighted by decades of lawsuits in the Southeast involving the appropriate distribution of water resources among municipal water users in large cities, agricultural producers using irrigation to protect against drought, and coastal fisheries that rely on balanced salinity levels to maintain the health of estuarine systems.379 Sprawl is expanding into farmland, reducing the land available for food production and increasing the area affected by urban heat islands.380 Similarly, native forests have been developed or replaced by commercial forests, which may lack biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.381

Regional Dependencies

Climate stressors in other regions can have cascading effects on the Southeast and in turn the entire United States. For example, sea level rise is expected to hinder the operation of ports where food, other agricultural products, and other needed supplies are imported and exported (KM 22.3). Additionally, low and high flows from droughts and floods may hamper the movement of food and agricultural products within and through the region, especially in highly urban and rural areas.382,383 Climate extremes can also reduce crop yields elsewhere and thus the availability of food products for the Southeast, potentially increasing stress on under-resourced populations through cost hikes and decreasing access to nutritious food.384,385

How Agriculture and Food Systems Are Adapting in the Southeast

Agricultural producers are using various techniques to respond to increased climate stress, which is expected to result in decreased crop yields in many parts of the Southeast (Figure 22.19).300 Precision agriculture can minimize water use through the timely and appropriate irrigation of crops based on growth stage and soil moisture.386 The use of cover crops to preserve soil moisture and nutrients reduces the impacts of soil erosion and the leaching of nitrate into waterways and coastal estuaries, as well as the need for expensive inputs of fertilizer and irrigation water (Ch. 11).387,388,389 Other innovative agricultural techniques such as organic farming, advanced grazing management, silvopasture, agroforestry, and other agroecological systems (Box 22.3) also show promise for adapting to future climate changes in the region through a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases and increased carbon sequestration in the soil and vegetation.376 New crops such as olives and satsuma citrus have been introduced to some areas to take advantage of the shifting plant hardiness zones and favorable market value of the crops.390,391,392,393 Genetically modified organisms and new cultivars of perennial crops can contribute to reduced emissions of greenhouse gases through reductions in fieldwork and may reduce the need for inputs such as pesticides, as well as provide additional resilience to expected increases in temperature and drought that may threaten long-term yields.394,395,396 A longer growing season also allows some producers to grow two crops in a year instead of one, reducing the likelihood of a weather catastrophe destroying a year’s harvest in a single event.397

URL
Alternative text
Projected Changes in Agricultural Yields Under Unmitigated Climate Change
A county- and state-level map of the Southeast region shows projected changes in agricultural yields in 2099 under unmitigated climate change, based on a very high scenario (RCP8.5), as described in the caption. A legend shows projected percent change in agricultural yields, with values ranging from decreases of 60 percent or more (dark orange) to increases of 20 or more (dark green). Gray shading indicates no data. Most of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina show decreases of 0 to 20 percent, with some areas showing decreases of 20 to 40 percent. A few counties across all three states show increases of 0 to 20 percent, and a few western counties in each state show no data. Southern Georgia shows mostly decreases of 0 to 20 percent, with some larger decreases in the southeast but with a band of increases of more than 20 percent across north central Georgia, with some decreases and no data areas further north. Most of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama show decreases of 0 to 20 or 20 to 40 percent, with several areas with no data, but with some areas of increases of 0 to 20 percent in southern Alabama. Florida mostly shows no data, with a few areas of small decreases in the north and increases of up to 20 percent or more in a few counties in the panhandle. There are large areas with no data across Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, but about half of these states show decreases, mostly in the 20 to 40 or 40 to 60 percent range, with a handful showing decreases of more than 60 percent.
Agricultural yields are expected to decrease under very high warming.
Figure 22.19. Agricultural yields (area-weighted average for corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton) in the Southeast are expected to decrease due to the warmer climate in the future by 2099 under a very high scenario (RCP8.5). Some areas, however, may see yield increases due to less severe climate changes in these places, as well as limited impacts due to sea level rise and tropical storm damage. Decreases in crop yield are expected to negatively impact regional and national food supplies while threatening agricultural lifestyles and traditions. Adapted from Hsiang et al. 2017.300

Box 22.3. Indigenous Stewardship of Southeast Ecosystems: Rivercane

Rivercane (Arundinaria gigantea) is a Tribal cultural keystone species398 and one of only three North American native bamboos. Once abundant and now critically endangered at just 2% of its original range, the species is still found throughout the Southeast.399 Tribal Nations including the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Chitimacha, Choctaw, Houma, Koasati, and Seminole400 value rivercane in cultural lifeways. It is used for food, textiles, basketry, medicine, weapons and hunting, and musical instruments. Many Tribal elders have a relationship with rivercane as a non-human relative.401 Before settler colonialism, rivercane formed canebrakes, thickets of grasses that extended for miles, forming a feature from the South’s deepest history.

Native peoples actively managed or tended canebrakes through consistent thinning to provide habitat and the required culms (stems) for cultural uses.401 Canebrakes competed with European agriculture: cattle readily ate cane, particularly young shoots; pigs rooted for rhizomes,402 killing the plant; and crops were planted where cane once thrived. Urbanization, removal of fire from the landscape as a management practice, overgrazing by cattle, and lack of public knowledge of rivercane’s indigenousness have led to the plant’s diminishment. The significantly reduced range of the rivercane is now further threatened by invasive species that are thriving under climate change.403 Where it still exists, rivercane provides prime habitat for more than 50 animal species,400 and at least six species require rivercane to complete their life cycles.404

Rivercane provides ecosystem benefits such as soil and water quality improvements and river and stream bank stabilization.405 Rivercane produces seeds during rare mass fruiting events, the timing of which is unknown. For this reason, controlled reproduction has been limited and requires more research if the plant is to thrive in the future.401 Current efforts are underway to restore rivercane, especially large swaths of canebrakes, as part of Tribal efforts to maintain sovereignty and cultural continuance.

I feel like we have to educate the public of Cherokee culture, foods, and artisan resources. It is not just rivercane affected by climate change, loss of habitat, and the public’s lack of understanding of their cultural significance to our Tribal members, and other Tribes of the Southeast. — Mary W. Thompson, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians406

URL
Alternative text
Rivercane in North America
Two photos show (left) spindly bamboo-like vegetation growing on the banks of a river and (right) a close-up of the hands of a person weaving a basket out of red and green strips of fiber.
Rivercane, a native bamboo, is culturally important to many Tribes in the Southeast.
Figure 22.20. (left) Rivercane grows by the French Broad River in Buncombe County, North Carolina. (right) Basket weaver Ramses King (Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians) creates a “double-weave” basket (2014). The significantly reduced range of rivercane, largely due to land cover changes and agriculture, is now further threatened by invasive species that are thriving under climate change. Photo credits: (left) © Adam Griffith, Revitalization of Traditional Cherokee Artisan Resources; (right) Lance Cheung, USDA.


TRACEABLE ACCOUNTS

Process Description

Author selection for the Southeast chapter began with assessing the geographic distribution, career level, and academic expertise of the individuals listed in the Federal Register Notice nomination list. The chapter lead author (CL) then also assessed a number of other characteristics including demographics and previous experience with National Climate Assessment (NCA) chapter development. Initial invitations were sent following US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) guidance. The CL extended multiple rounds of invitations until the final list of authors for the Zero Order Draft (ZOD) was complete in February 2022, achieving a distribution of career stages, expertise, and geographic representation. Additional authors were added after ZOD reviews from USGCRP agencies were assessed. Author team meetings were held virtually and were used primarily to gather consensus on the direction of the chapter content. In preparation for the public engagement workshops that were held in January and February 2022, the author team worked through the format of the engagement and how feedback would be gathered and summarized. The CL also gathered ZOD feedback from regionally focused organizations: the Southeast Sustainability Directors Network (January 18, 2022) and the Southeast and Caribbean Disaster Resilience Partnership (January 26, 2022), as well as a youth-focused event put on by the Youth Environmental Alliance in Higher Education (February 15, 2022).

Subsequent drafts of this report reflected changes and edits agreed upon by a simple majority of authors in response to several dozen comments and suggestions from public, National Academies, and USGCRP Agency reviews. Consensus on chapter-wide changes was usually unanimous, with very few changes needing considerable discussion. The largest changes to the chapter occurred during the drafting of the Fourth Order Draft (4OD), as this was the draft that would need to respond to a large number of public and National Academies comments. Many of the changes would be instituted during the All-Author Meeting in April 2023. Review Editor Tisha Holmes ratified that the changes satisfied all public and NASEM comments before submission of the 4OD for Technical Support Unit editorial review.


KEY MESSAGES

KEY MESSAGE 22.1

Regional Growth Increases Climate Risks

The Southeast’s population has grown and is expected to continue growing, mostly in metropolitan areas and along its coastline , putting more communities and their assets into harm’s way from increasing risks related to climate and land-use changes . Conversely, many rural places are facing declining populations with a growing percentage of older residents , making these areas particularly vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate . At the same time, decision-makers frequently use outdated and/or limited information on climate-related risks to inform adaptation plans, which as a result fail to account for worsening future conditions . These climate adaptation efforts also tend to be concentrated in wealthier communities, leaving under-resourced and more rural populations, communities of color, and Tribal Nations at growing and disproportionate risk .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Population growth and land-use change in the Southeast have been widely reported on in a variety of contexts, including in previous NCAs. This evidence has only gotten more detailed since NCA4.19

The relationship between global warming and increases in regional sea level trends has recently been substantially improved, allowing for highly detailed descriptions of future relative sea level and thus flood risks.51 Other advances related to projections of future rainfall intensity, duration, and frequency tied to both nontropical100 and tropical systems92 have greatly improved our understanding of future changes in the Southeast, including its potential downstream impacts on frontline communities.13,53

A wide body of quantitative research and qualitative practice has shown that the proactive adoption of risk reduction measures can significantly reduce future losses tied to natural hazards, including those exacerbated by a changing climate.154 Furthermore, there is widespread agreement that natural hazards and climate change is disproportionately impacting socially vulnerable populations.3 Planning and the distribution of funding have the potential to significantly reduce hazard risk, including that associated with climate change. However, the application of land-use planning techniques varies widely, and access to external grant funding is more often obtained by wealthier communities.16,17

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Projections of future population are based on many assumptions. Research on how future land-use change will exacerbate particular climate stressors in southeastern cities and across the region could help inform the best use of interventions and application of growth strategies. There have been limited analyses of adaptation activities in the Southeast, data inputs used, and evaluation of impacts. Downscaling global climate change models to inform geospatially targeted adaptation tools and techniques at the neighborhood and parcel scale is improving. However, the use of this downscaled information requires continued refinement to improve accuracy; in addition, better processes for sharing this information would help local officials, including low-wealth jurisdictions with limited staff and technical expertise. There still exists uncertainty regarding how future intensification of storms will impact design standards, such as determining the appropriate design standard in an era of climate change, who makes these decisions, and who pays for the additional costs. These questions apply to housing, public facilities, and infrastructure. It remains uncertain how well communities are reducing hazard risk when accounting for both individual projects (which have been captured effectively in terms of future losses avoided) and ongoing development, which includes a variety of standards, ordinances, and public investments. There is limited literature estimating sub-daily precipitation metric projections for the Southeast. The degree to which future land use and urbanization will exacerbate or overpower climate change–intensified risks at the local level, especially in frontline communities, is under-explored in the current literature.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Population trends from the US Census Bureau are highly reliable through time and space, and as such, we ascribe very high confidence to reporting their data as well as future population estimates that virtually without exception agree on continued regional growth, warranting a very likely assessment. Risk management and assessment literature is extremely consistent on how sprawl and development relate to natural disaster risk, earning these statements very high confidence and likely assessments. That governance structures of varying scales are using outdated and/or limited information on climate-related risks is a well-reported feature within the flooding, disaster preparedness, and urban planning literature, so we assign high confidence to these statements. There is overwhelming consensus that climate adaptation efforts are concentrated in wealthier, more resourced communities, and therefore we assign assessments of high confidence and likely. There is overwhelming consensus that under-resourced, older, and marginalized communities are at higher and increasing risk from present and future climate extremes, although the risk in rural areas is less fully assessed quantitatively, thus resulting in our assignment of high confidence and likely.

KEY MESSAGE 22.2

Climate Change Worsens Human Health and Widens Health Inequities

Human health and climate stressors are intimately linked in the Southeast . Community characteristics such as racial and ethnic population, chronic disease prevalence, age, and socioeconomic status can influence how climate change exacerbates, ameliorates, or introduces new health issues . Climate change is already impacting health in the region . There are effective strategies to address the health impacts of climate change in the Southeast that have multiple benefits across social and environmental contexts .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

There is strong evidence and consensus that climate change is already affecting the health and well-being of populations in the Southeast.19 There is also strong evidence and consensus that climate-related environmental health stressors are projected to worsen.19

There is evidence that residents in the Southeast have poorer health in general compared to other US regions196 and have limited access to healthcare resources.202,288

It is well established that there are preexisting inequities in health and healthcare access, safe and affordable housing, and access to resources to adapt to climate change, and that these inequities are associated with communities with a high proportion of under-resourced and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) residents.3,12,202,220

The occurrence and projection of more frequent and intense extreme heat events are well documented by temperature models of the Southeast.3,230,231 The literature assesses the disproportionate health impacts of heat on those most affected, including people who work outdoors,212,213 student and nonstudent athletes,214,215,216 and those who do not have adequate housing or cannot afford the energy costs of air-conditioning their homes.218,220,222

The literature outlines the causal pathway of how climate change is compromising air quality in the Southeast as a result of increasing favorable conditions for wildfires,244,245,246,256,262 longer and more intense pollen seasons,253,254,407 and increased production of smog,241,242,243 as well as the subsequent health impacts. There is some evidence that warmer temperatures are associated with an increase in harmful algal bloom events,267 which occur in fresh, brackish, and salt water, commonly occur in coastal areas in Florida, and can have detrimental effects on ecosystems, affecting plant, animal, and human health.273

The literature has established that climate change broadens the geographic distribution and season of certain disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks, particularly in the Southeast, for tick-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease281,282,283 and mosquito-borne illnesses such as West Nile virus and Zika virus.284

Mental health data have established that the Southeast ranks worst among all regions of the US in the prevalence of mental illness and access to mental health care services,287,288 which is of particular concern as extreme weather events occur more frequently and intensely in the Southeast, causing displacement and stress.293

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

The degree to which health will be affected by climate change and climate adaptations is uncertain, due to various compounding factors that can influence health effects. There are few studies that quantify the health impacts of climate adaptation interventions in the Southeast, so there is a limited understanding of effective public health strategies for addressing climate change.

Because there is limited data on pollen and vector-borne diseases in the Southeast, it is challenging to fully understand the impacts of climate change on these disease exposures.

There is also limited quantitative data on the mental health impacts of climate change. This information tends to rely on survey data, qualitative data, and anecdotal information.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

There is a high degree of agreement in the scientific literature that climate change will impact and is already impacting extreme temperature and precipitation events, air quality, water quality, the spread of vector-borne diseases, and the prevalence of algal blooms, all of which have an impact on the health of people in the Southeast, as evidenced by health outcome information including health impact assessments of recent events, health projections of future events, and environmental health trends in the Southeast. Based on this information, the authors assigned very high confidence that the changes in temperature and precipitation due to climate change, in conjunction with changes in air quality, water quality, the spread of vector-borne diseases, and the prevalence of algal blooms, will impact, and is very likely already impacting, the health and well-being of people in the Southeast.

It is well established that the conditions in which people live and work have an impact on health, which is understood as the social determinants of health. It is also well established by the literature and lived experience that marginalized populations will experience disproportionate health impacts, as that is seen consistently across public health and particularly in environmental health. For this reason, as well as because of the breadth of literature on the disproportionate impacts of climate change on the health of marginalized populations, the authors assigned very high confidence that community characteristics such as racial and ethnic population, chronic disease prevalence, age, and socioeconomic status, can influence how climate change exacerbates, ameliorates, or introduces new health issues, widening the gap in health status.

Based on models of health impacts under varying climate scenarios, it is well-established that lower emission scenarios will result in less severe health outcomes. The literature is less established on the health benefits of climate adaptation efforts, as there is not a breadth of literature or evaluations on this topic, although from the literature that is available it is apparent that climate adaptation actions can improve health. For this reason, the authors assigned high confidence that climate mitigation and adaptation efforts can save lives and reduce the public health burden of climate change, particularly around reducing air pollutants and targeting already-marginalized communities, which is where the literature is more established.

KEY MESSAGE 22.3

Climate Change Disproportionately Damages Southeastern Jobs, Households, and Economic Security

Over the last few decades, economic growth in the Southeast has been concentrated in and around urban centers that depend on climate-sensitive infrastructure and regional connections to thrive . Simultaneously, rural and place-based economies that rely on the region’s ecosystems are particularly at risk from current and future climate changes . Global warming is expected to worsen climate-related impacts on economic systems, labor, and regional supply chains in the Southeast, with disproportionate effects on frontline communities . A coordinated approach that recognizes present-day inequities and the interdependencies between rural and urban communities will be necessary to secure the region’s economic vitality .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

There is a rapidly growing literature presenting both qualitative and quantitative evidence that livelihoods across the Southeast are already being impacted by climate change in a variety of important ways (Ch. 19),298 including place-based economies such as construction, tourism, and agriculture and aquaculture (e.g., fisheries are being impacted not only by significant hurricanes but also by geographical shifts among species in ocean waters),408,409 as well as systems like transportation infrastructure317 and electrical grid infrastructure320 that undergird the distribution of goods and services in these places. Extreme weather-related disruptions and adverse working conditions created by climate change can affect both people and infrastructure systems that support local and regional economies by impacting the local community as well as regional and global supply chains.326,327 References and figures included in Chapter 19 were instrumental to establishing author team consensus around key statements related to economic impacts being relatively larger in the Southeast than in other NCA regions.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Localized impacts on inland agriculture and tourism are not fully understood to date. The relocation of individuals and households away from climate-affected areas to other locations and their need to establish new livelihoods are not well understood, nor is the effectiveness of federal funding to support the construction of new settlements in less hazardous areas. The degree to which small and midsized businesses are adapting to climate change–related threats remains uncertain. The extent to which climate changes will impact large-scale agriculture is fairly well established, but the fiscal impact on small-scale family farms is not as well understood. There is limited research on the low-flow conditions and projections related to drought and its impacts on the Mississippi River and its tributaries as well as on the potential impacts to economies, despite how disruptive the events are to the regional, national, and global economy.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Based on the author team consensus reached through evaluating the evidence base presented in the literature as well as through direct and related experience in recent extreme weather and climate events impacting the Southeast, the authors have assigned high confidence to the statements surrounding the concentration of economic growth in urban centers, the climate-related risks to place-based economies that rely on ecosystems and to southeastern economies and labor, and the need for coordinated strategies to prepare for the shocks and stressors of the future. Medium confidence was assigned to the evaluation of the extent to which urban centers depend on the interregional connections to more rural places and other urban centers due to limited peer-reviewed literature in this area. While there are reports and white papers on this subject from nonprofits and research think tanks that largely agree on the potential for disruptions to these systems to have impacts on both rural and urban centers, limited peer-reviewed studies seeking to isolate urban/rural dependencies in the face of climate change support at least medium confidence. Projections of future climate impacts in the Southeast are particularly robust in their evaluation of future heat and extreme precipitation risks; we assign very likely and high confidence to our Key Message statements that seek to link climate impacts to economic outcomes in the Southeast. Chapter 19 (Economics) was especially helpful in establishing our very likely and high confidence assessments.

KEY MESSAGE 22.4

Agriculture Faces Growing Threats, but Innovations Offer Help

Changes in temperature, drought, extreme rainfall, and sea levels are already threatening the Southeast’s agriculture and other food-related systems . Moreover, these climate-related hazards are expected to worsen with every increment of global warming, disproportionately harm farmers and small-scale operations, and increase the competition between urban and rural communities for valuable resources such as water and land . However, innovative agricultural techniques such as precision farming show promise for adapting to future climate changes in the region .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Evidence of trends in temperature, precipitation, and growing season are well documented in sources such as the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information’s Climate at a Glance Tool and in the scientific literature.346,350 This literature base is extensive and covers individual states, the Southeast region, the United States, and the globe. Earlier concerns about temperature trends from satellite observations, which did not match surface-based observations, have largely been resolved by improved calibration of satellite measurements.

Trends in precipitation show changes in both amount and temporal and spatial distribution that are more difficult to separate out due to the nature of precipitation in the Southeast and its ties to sub-grid-scale processes like convection and tropical systems.358,359,360,361 Evidence of trends in drought are less certain because of the combination of interacting contributions from temperature, precipitation variability, and soil characteristics, but are becoming more apparent in recent modeling efforts that are documented in the scientific literature.351,352

The impacts of climate variability and change on agricultural production have been well documented in the scientific literature in agricultural journals in recent years.350,356 More work is ongoing as better methods for collecting in-field measurements are used to fine-tune the relationships between plant physiology and climate variables.

The assessment of the impacts of climate change on the health of workers and livestock, transportation pathways for agricultural production, and economic losses to both large-production farmers and small BIPOC farming communities has increased greatly in the last four years and is being reported in scientific journal articles in health, infrastructure, economic, and other social science–oriented journals.325,347

Many examples of agricultural producers implementing climate adaptation in farming exist, suggesting a willingness to address the impacts of a changing climate across diverse land ownerships.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

There is significant uncertainty regarding the ability of crop species to keep pace with changes in climate (based on temperature and precipitation), although plant breeders have a long history of producing new hybrids that can improve responses to changing climate conditions. The ability of new crops to be productive in an altered climate is also uncertain due to concurrent changes in temperature, precipitation, humidity, and soil characteristics, which interact with plant growth patterns. This leads to considerable uncertainty in the extent to which changes in crop choice and management can adapt to the future climate.

There is also uncertainty in the knowledge of carbon interactions between soils and crops, but numerous studies are underway to better document these interactions to improve future predictions.376

Since agriculture is a global endeavor, changes in market pricing and availability of inputs such as fertilizer, as well as outputs such as crop variety and yield, interact in a way that hinders the prediction of future agricultural outputs, droughts, and the economic effects of agricultural sales.410 As a result, economic impacts on both large-scale farmers and economically disadvantaged farmers with small-scale operations are difficult to predict with high confidence.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Based on the high degree of agreement in agricultural and climate science journal articles in the scientific literature and assessments of recent events, there is very high confidence that the interactions of warming temperatures, precipitation changes, sea level, and drought with insect pests, invasive plants, and plant pathogens are already threatening the region’s agriculture and food-related systems and will likely lead to decreased yields of many crops and production of other agricultural goods.356,357 Evaluations of recent past storm events coupled with the strong agreement in related journal articles resulted in an assignment of very high confidence that rising sea levels and impacts from tropical storms will disrupt coastal and port activities.325,347 Studies by social scientists published in the literature also demonstrate that small-scale BIPOC producers, as well as those who have limited financial resources, will be disproportionately affected by climate-related hazards;366,367 on that basis, the authors have described this as very likely with high confidence in the expected impacts. Additionally, based on examples in the scientific literature of adaptations that producers are already making in response to changes in the climate, the authors assigned a level of high confidence that producers in the Southeast will be able to adapt to those changes using techniques such as precision agriculture, changes in crop type, and innovative management of fisheries, livestock, and ecosystems, and a likelihood level of likely was assigned based on less agreement in the scientific literature about the degree to which they will be able to do so.386,390,394

REFERENCES

  1. Aaronson, D., J. Faber, D. Hartley, B. Mazumder, and P. Sharkey, 2021: The long-run effects of the 1930s HOLC “redlining” maps on place-based measures of economic opportunity and socioeconomic success. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 86, 103622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2020.103622
  2. Davies, I.P., R.D. Haugo, J.C. Robertson, and P.S. Levin, 2018: The unequal vulnerability of communities of color to wildfire. PLoS ONE, 13 (11), 0205825. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205825
  3. EPA, 2021: Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the United States: A Focus on Six Impacts. EPA 430-R-21-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/cira/social-vulnerability-report
  4. Gonzalez, D.J.X., A. Nardone, A.V. Nguyen, R. Morello-Frosch, and J.A. Casey, 2023: Historic redlining and the siting of oil and gas wells in the United States. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 33 (1), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-022-00434-9
  5. Hoffman, J.S., V. Shandas, and N. Pendleton, 2020: The effects of historical housing policies on resident exposure to intra-urban heat: A study of 108 US urban areas. Climate, 8 (1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010012
  6. Holifield, R., 2023: American landscapes of environmental injustice. In: The Routledge Companion to the American Landscape. Post, C.W., A.L. Greiner, and G.L. Buckley, Eds. Taylor & Francis, 10. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003121800-8
  7. KC, B., J.M. Shepherd, and C.J. Gaither, 2015: Climate change vulnerability assessment in Georgia. Applied Geography, 62, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.04.007
  8. Lane, H.M., R. Morello-Frosch, J.D. Marshall, and J.S. Apte, 2022: Historical redlining is associated with present-day air pollution disparities in U.S. cities. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 9 (4), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c01012
  9. Lee, E.K., G. Donley, T.H. Ciesielski, I. Gill, O. Yamoah, A. Roche, R. Martinez, and D.A. Freedman, 2022: Health outcomes in redlined versus non-redlined neighborhoods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 294, 114696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114696
  10. Liu, J., L.P. Clark, M.J. Bechle, A. Hajat, S.Y. Kim, A.L. Robinson, L. Sheppard, A.A. Szpiro, and J.D. Marshall, 2021: Disparities in air pollution exposure in the United States by race/ethnicity and income, 1990–2010. Environmental Health Perspectives, 129 (12), 127005. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp8584
  11. O’Connell, H.A., 2012: The impact of slavery on racial inequality in poverty in the contemporary U.S. South. Social Forces, 90 (3), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sor021
  12. Shepherd, M. and B. KC, 2015: Climate change and African Americans in the USA. Geography Compass, 9 (11), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12244
  13. Wing, O.E.J., W. Lehman, P.D. Bates, C.C. Sampson, N. Quinn, A.M. Smith, J.C. Neal, J.R. Porter, and C. Kousky, 2022: Inequitable patterns of US flood risk in the Anthropocene. Nature Climate Change, 12 (2), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01265-6
  14. Jurjonas, M., E. Seekamp, L. Rivers, and B. Cutts, 2020: Uncovering climate (in)justice with an adaptive capacity assessment: A multiple case study in rural coastal North Carolina. Land Use Policy, 94, 104547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104547
  15. Ueland, J. and B. Warf, 2006: Racialized topographies: Altitude and race in southern cities. Geographical Review, 96 (1), 50–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2006.tb00387.x
  16. Smith, G. and O. Vila, 2020: A national evaluation of state and territory roles in hazard mitigation: Building local capacity to implement FEMA hazard mitigation assistance grants. Sustainability, 12 (23), 10013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310013
  17. Vilá, O., G. Smith, B. Cutts, S. Gyawali, and S. Bhattarai, 2022: Equity in FEMA hazard mitigation assistance programs: The role of state hazard mitigation officers. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 632–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.07.027
  18. Cain, C., 2021: Ch. 33. Developing climatic capacity in rural places. In: Investing In Rural Prosperity. Dumont, A. and D.P. Davis, Eds. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 475–486. https://www.stlouisfed.org/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/files/pdfs/community-development/investing-rural/chapters/chapter33.pdf
  19. Carter, L.M., A. Terando, K. Dow, K. Hiers, K.E. Kunkel, A. Lascurain, D.C. Marcy, M.J. Osland, and P.J. Schramm, 2018: Ch. 19. Southeast. In: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 743–808. https://doi.org/10.7930/nca4.2018.ch19
  20. IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2391 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
  21. Whyte, K., 2018: Ch. 16. Food sovereignty, justice, and Indigenous peoples: An essay on settler colonialism and collective continuance. In: The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics. Barnhill, A., M. Budolfson, and T. Doggett, Eds. Oxford University Press, 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372263.013.34
  22. Whyte, K.P., 2013: Justice forward: Tribes, climate adaptation and responsibility. Climatic Change, 120 (3), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0743-2
  23. Emanuel, R.E., 2018: Climate change in the Lumbee River watershed and potential impacts on the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 163 (1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704x.2018.03271.x
  24. Emanuel, R., L. Rivers, B. Cutts, and G. Blank, 2020: Data Analytics for Environmental Justice and Indigenous Rights: Early Warning Systems or Blind Spots? Earth and Space Science Open Archive. https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10501690.1
  25. Emanuel, R.E., 2017: Flawed environmental justice analyses. Science, 357 (6348), 260–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2684
  26. Redvers, N., Y. Celidwen, C. Schultz, O. Horn, C. Githaiga, M. Vera, M. Perdrisat, L. Mad Plume, D. Kobei, M.C. Kain, A. Poelina, J.N. Rojas, and B.S. Blondin, 2022: The determinants of planetary health: An Indigenous consensus perspective. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6 (2), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00354-5
  27. Bartels, W.-L., C.A. Furman, D.C. Diehl, F.S. Royce, D.R. Dourte, B.V. Ortiz, D.F. Zierden, T.A. Irani, C.W. Fraisse, and J.W. Jones, 2013: Warming up to climate change: A participatory approach to engaging with agricultural stakeholders in the Southeast US. Regional Environmental Change, 13 (1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0371-9
  28. Buckley, G.A. and M.M. Moore-Driskell, 2021: Challenges in teaching climate science literacy in Alabama, Part I: Climate change and the Southeast U.S. warming hole. Journal of Sustainability Studies, 2 (1). https://ir.una.edu/work/ns/9825ae03-4f07-414b-a81b-ee4d92b71867
  29. Lee, H., K. Calvin, D. Dasgupta, G. Krinner, A. Mukherji, P. Thorne, C. Trisos, J. Romero, P. Aldunce, K. Barrett, G. Blanco, W.W.L.C. Cheung, S.L. Connors, F. Denton, A. Diongue-Niang, D. Dodman, M. Garschagen, O. Geden, B. Hayward, C. Jones, F. Jotzo, T. Krug, R. Lasco, J.-Y. Lee, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Meinshausen, K. Mintenbeck, A. Mokssit, F.E.L. Otto, M. Pathak, A. Pirani, E. Poloczanska, H.-O. Pörtner, A. Revi, D.C. Roberts, J. Roy, A.C. Ruane, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, R. Slade, A. Slangen, Y. Sokona, A.A. Sörensson, M. Tignor, D. van Vuuren, Y.-M. Wei, H. Winkler, P. Zhai, and Z. Zommers, 2023: Summary for policymakers. In: Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Arias, P., M. Bustamante, I. Elgizouli, G. Flato, M. Howden, C. Méndez, J. Pereira, R. Pichs-Madruga, S.K. Rose, Y. Saheb, R. Sánchez, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, C. Xiao, and N. Yassaa, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
  30. McNeal, K.S., J.K.L. Hammerman, J.A. Christiansen, and F.J. Carroll, 2014: Climate change education in the southeastern U.S. through public dialogue: Not just preaching to the choir. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62 (4), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-061.1
  31. Monroe, M.C., A. Oxarart, and R.R. Plate, 2013: A role for environmental education in climate change for secondary science educators. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12 (1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015x.2013.795827
  32. Panos, A. and M.B. Sherry, 2023: Ch. 7. Storying climate change: Discursive possibilities for teaching climate justice literacies. In: Critical Perspectives on Global Literacies: Bridging Research and Practice. Kerkhoff, S.N. and H.A. Spires, Eds. Routledge, 124–139. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003320142
  33. Stewart, H. 2022: Co-Developing Climate-Smart Strategies: Enhancing Resiliency Among Alabama Row Crop Producers and Agricultural Stakeholders. Master of Science in Rural Sociology, Auburn University. https://etd.auburn.edu//handle/10415/8323
  34. Rudd, M.A., A.F.P. Moore, D. Rochberg, L. Bianchi-Fossati, M.A. Brown, D. D’Onofrio, C.A. Furman, J. Garcia, B. Jordan, J. Kline, L.M. Risse, P.L. Yager, J. Abbinett, M. Alber, J.E. Bell, C. Bhedwar, K.M. Cobb, J. Cohen, M. Cox, M. Dormer, N. Dunkley, H. Farley, J. Gambill, M. Goldstein, G. Harris, M. Hopkinson, J.-A. James, S. Kidd, P. Knox, Y. Liu, D.C. Matisoff, M.D. Meyer, J.D. Mitchem, K. Moore, A.J. Ono, J. Philipsborn, K.M. Sendall, F. Shafiei, M. Shepherd, J. Teebken, and A.N. Worley, 2018: Climate research priorities for policy-makers, practitioners, and scientists in Georgia, USA. Environmental Management, 62 (2), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1051-4
  35. Meerow, S. and L. Keith, 2022: Planning for extreme heat. Journal of the American Planning Association, 88 (3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2021.1977682
  36. Sobel, R.S. and P.T. Leeson, 2006: Government's response to Hurricane Katrina: A public choice analysis. Public Choice, 127 (1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-7730-3
  37. Crowley, J., 2021: Social vulnerability factors and reported post-disaster needs in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 12 (1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00315-5
  38. Shultz, J.M., E.J. Trapido, J.P. Kossin, C. Fugate, L. Nogueira, A. Apro, M. Patel, V.J. Torres, C.K. Ettman, Z. Espinel, and S. Galea, 2022: Hurricane Ida's impact on Louisiana and Mississippi during the COVID-19 Delta surge: Complex and compounding threats to population health. The Lancet Regional Health - Americas, 12, 100286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100286
  39. Sanders, M.C., 2021: Equity in addressing climate change: Using law and policy to serve frontline communities. Traumatology, 27, 48–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000284
  40. U.S. Census Bureau, 2021: Race and Ethnicity in the United States: 2010 Census and 2020 Census. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/race-and-ethnicity-in-the-united-state-2010-and-2020-census.html
  41. Jiang, L., B.C. O’Neill, H. Zoraghein, and S. Dahlke, 2020: Population scenarios for U.S. states consistent with Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (9), 094097. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba5b1
  42. Nowak, D.J. and E.J. Greenfield, 2018: US urban forest statistics, values, and projections. Journal of Forestry, 116 (2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvx004
  43. Hamilton, H., R.L. Smyth, B.E. Young, T.G. Howard, C. Tracey, S. Breyer, D.R. Cameron, A. Chazal, A.K. Conley, C. Frye, and C. Schloss, 2022: Increasing taxonomic diversity and spatial resolution clarifies opportunities for protecting US imperiled species. Ecological Applications, 32 (3), e2534. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2534
  44. Strader, S.M., 2018: Spatiotemporal changes in conterminous US wildfire exposure from 1940 to 2010. Natural Hazards, 92 (1), 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3217-z
  45. Freeman, A.C. and W.S. Ashley, 2017: Changes in the US hurricane disaster landscape: The relationship between risk and exposure. Natural Hazards, 88 (2), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2885-4
  46. Ferguson, A.P. and W.S. Ashley, 2017: Spatiotemporal analysis of residential flood exposure in the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area. Natural Hazards, 87 (2), 989–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2806-6
  47. Ashley, W.S., A.M. Haberlie, and V.A. Gensini, 2023: The future of supercells in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 104 (1), E1–E21. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-22-0027.1
  48. Strader, S.M., W.S. Ashley, T.J. Pingel, and A.J. Krmenec, 2017: Observed and projected changes in United States tornado exposure. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9 (2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1175/wcas-d-16-0041.1
  49. U.S. Census Bureau, 2019: Coastline America. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2019/demo/coastline-america.html
  50. Collins, E.L., G.M. Sanchez, A. Terando, C.C. Stillwell, H. Mitasova, A. Sebastian, and R.K. Meentemeyer, 2022: Predicting flood damage probability across the conterminous United States. Environmental Research Letters, 17 (3), 034006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4f0f
  51. Sweet, W.V., B.D. Hamlington, R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, P.L. Barnard, D. Bekaert, W. Brooks, M. Craghan, G. Dusek, T. Frederikse, G. Garner, A.S. Genz, J.P. Krasting, E. Larour, D. Marcy, J.J. Marra, J. Obeysekera, M. Osler, M. Pendleton, D. Roman, L. Schmied, W. Veatch, K.D. White, and C. Zuzak, 2022: Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines. NOAA Technical Report NOS 01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD, 111 pp. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report-sections.html
  52. Thompson, P.R., M.J. Widlansky, B.D. Hamlington, M.A. Merrifield, J.J. Marra, G.T. Mitchum, and W. Sweet, 2021: Rapid increases and extreme months in projections of United States high-tide flooding. Nature Climate Change, 11 (7), 584–590. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01077-8
  53. Titus, J.G., 2023: Population in floodplains or close to sea level increased in US but declined in some counties—Especially among black residents. Environmental Research Letters, 18 (3), 034001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acadf5
  54. Smith, A.B. 2020: U.S. Billion-dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, 1980 - Present. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information. https://doi.org/10.25921/stkw-7w73
  55. Howe, P.D., M. Mildenberger, J.R. Marlon, and A. Leiserowitz, 2015: Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5 (6), 596–603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2583
  56. Marlon, J., L. Neyens, M. Jefferson, P. Howe, M. Mildenberger, and A. Leiserowitz, 2022: Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2021. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
  57. Richardson, J., B. Mitchell, and J. Franco, 2019: Shifting Neighborhoods: Gentrification and Cultural Displacement in American Cities. National Community Reinvestment Coalition. https://ncrc.org/gentrification/
  58. Wilbanks, T.J. and R.W. Kates, 2010: Beyond adapting to climate change: Embedding adaptation in responses to multiple threats and stresses. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100 (4), 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.500200
  59. Jufri, F.H., V. Widiputra, and J. Jung, 2019: State-of-the-art review on power grid resilience to extreme weather events: Definitions, frameworks, quantitative assessment methodologies, and enhancement strategies. Applied Energy, 239, 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.017
  60. Schaeffer, R., A.S. Szklo, A.F. Pereira de Lucena, B.S. Moreira Cesar Borba, L.P. Pupo Nogueira, F.P. Fleming, A. Troccoli, M. Harrison, and M.S. Boulahya, 2012: Energy sector vulnerability to climate change: A review. Energy, 38 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.11.056
  61. DOT, 2019: Rural Public Transportation Systems. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Rural-Public-Transportation-Systems
  62. Gutierrez, K.S. and C.E. LePrevost, 2016: Climate justice in rural southeastern United States: A review of climate change impacts and effects on human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13 (2), 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020189
  63. Hendricks, M.D. and S. Van Zandt, 2021: Unequal protection revisited: Planning for environmental justice, hazard vulnerability, and critical infrastructure in communities of color. Environmental Justice, 14 (2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2020.0054
  64. Hernandez, P., B. Daigle, T. Preston, K. Pohl, K. Smith, B. Powell, and S. Story, 2022: A Rural Capacity Map. Headwaters Economics, Bozeman, MT. https://headwaterseconomics.org/equity/rural-capacity-map/
  65. Allen, M., L. Gillespie-Marthaler, M. Abkowitz, and J. Camp, 2020: Evaluating flood resilience in rural communities: A case-based assessment of Dyer County, Tennessee. Natural Hazards, 101 (1), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03868-2
  66. Allen, T., J. Behr, A. Bukvic, R.S.D. Calder, K. Caruson, C. Connor, C. D’Elia, D. Dismukes, R. Ersing, R. Franklin, J. Goldstein, J. Goodall, S. Hemmerling, J. Irish, S. Lazarus, D. Loftis, M. Luther, L. McCallister, K. McGlathery, M. Mitchell, W. Moore, C.R. Nichols, K. Nunez, M. Reidenbach, J. Shortridge, R. Weisberg, R. Weiss, L.D. Wright, M. Xia, K. Xu, D. Young, G. Zarillo, and J.C. Zinnert, 2021: Anticipating and adapting to the future impacts of climate change on the health, security and welfare of low elevation coastal zone (LECZ) communities in southeastern USA. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9 (11), 1196. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9111196
  67. Kunkel, K.E., S.E. Stevens, L.E. Stevens, and T.R. Karl, 2020: Observed climatological relationships of extreme daily precipitation events with precipitable water and vertical velocity in the contiguous United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 47 (12), 2019GL086721. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl086721
  68. Neupane, B., T.M. Vu, and A.K. Mishra, 2020: Evaluation of land-use, climate change, and low-impact development practices on urban flooding. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 65 (S3), 1729–1742. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2021.1954650
  69. Chakraborty, J., W. Collins Timothy, C. Montgomery Marilyn, and E. Grineski Sara, 2014: Social and spatial inequities in exposure to flood risk in Miami, Florida. Natural Hazards Review, 15 (3), 04014006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000140
  70. Collins, T.W., S.E. Grineski, J. Chakraborty, and A.B. Flores, 2019: Environmental injustice and Hurricane Harvey: A household-level study of socially disparate flood exposures in Greater Houston, Texas, USA. Environmental Research, 179, 108772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108772
  71. Tate, E., M.A. Rahman, C.T. Emrich, and C.C. Sampson, 2021: Flood exposure and social vulnerability in the United States. Natural Hazards, 106 (1), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04470-2
  72. Knutson, T.R. and F. Zeng, 2018: Model assessment of observed precipitation trends over land regions: Detectable human influences and possible low bias in model trends. Journal of Climate, 31 (12), 4617–4637. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0672.1
  73. Khajehei, S., A. Ahmadalipour, W. Shao, and H. Moradkhani, 2020: A place-based assessment of flash flood hazard and vulnerability in the contiguous United States. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57349-z
  74. FEMA, 2022: Flood Risk Disclosure: Model State Requirements for Disclosing Flood Risk During Real Estate Transactions. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_state-flood-risk-disclosure-best-practices_07142022.pdf
  75. Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2022: America’s Rental Housing 2022. Harvard University. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing-2022
  76. Bathi, J.R. and H.S. Das, 2016: Vulnerability of coastal communities from storm surge and flood disasters. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13 (2), 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020239
  77. Kusenbach, M., J.L. Simms, and G.A. Tobin, 2010: Disaster vulnerability and evacuation readiness: Coastal mobile home residents in Florida. Natural Hazards, 52 (1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9358-3
  78. Emrich, C.T., S.K. Aksha, and Y. Zhou, 2022: Assessing distributive inequities in FEMA's disaster recovery assistance fund allocation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 74, 102855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102855
  79. Thomson, H., H.B. Zeff, R. Kleiman, A. Sebastian, and G.W. Characklis, 2023: Systemic financial risk arising from residential flood losses. Earth's Future, 11 (4), e2022EF003206. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ef003206
  80. Wilson, B., E. Tate, and C.T. Emrich, 2021: Flood recovery outcomes and disaster assistance barriers for vulnerable populations. Frontiers in Water, 3, 752307. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.752307
  81. Gourevitch, J.D., C. Kousky, Y. Liao, C. Nolte, A.B. Pollack, J.R. Porter, and J.A. Weill, 2023: Unpriced climate risk and the potential consequences of overvaluation in US housing markets. Nature Climate Change, 13 (3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01594-8
  82. Chew, G.L., J. Wilson, F.A. Rabito, F. Grimsley, S. Iqbal, T. Reponen, M.L. Muilenberg, P.S. Thorne, D.G. Dearborn, and R.L. Morley, 2006: Mold and endotoxin levels in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A pilot project of homes in New Orleans undergoing renovation. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114 (12), 1883–1889. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9258
  83. Ebi, K.L., J. Vanos, J.W. Baldwin, J.E. Bell, D.M. Hondula, N.A. Errett, K. Hayes, C.E. Reid, S. Saha, J. Spector, and P. Berry, 2021: Extreme weather and climate change: Population health and health system implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 42 (1), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-012420-105026
  84. Vorhees, L., J. Harrison, M. O’Driscoll, C. Humphrey, and J. Bowden, 2022: Climate change and onsite wastewater treatment systems in the coastal Carolinas: Perspectives from wastewater managers. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14 (4), 1287–1305. https://doi.org/10.1175/wcas-d-21-0192.1
  85. Paterson, D.L., H. Wright, and P.N.A. Harris, 2018: Health risks of flood disasters. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 67 (9), 1450–1454. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy227
  86. Ramesh, B., M.A. Jagger, B. Zaitchik, K.N. Kolivras, S. Swarup, L. Deanes, and J.M. Gohlke, 2021: Emergency department visits associated with satellite observed flooding during and following Hurricane Harvey. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 31 (5), 832–841. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00361-1
  87. Stearns, D. and K. Sircar, 2019: National unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning estimates using hospitalization and emergency department data. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 37 (3), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.06.002
  88. Alderman, K., L.R. Turner, and S. Tong, 2012: Floods and human health: A systematic review. Environment International, 47, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.06.003
  89. Melin, K. and N. Conte, 2018: Community pharmacists as first responders in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 58 (2), 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2017.12.014
  90. Azziz-Baumgartner, E., A. Wolkin, C. Sanchez, T. Bayleyegn, S. Young, S. Kieszak, K. Oberst, D. Batts, C.C. Thomas, and C. Rubin, 2005: Impact of Hurricane Ivan on pharmacies in Baldwin County Alabama. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 45 (6), 670–675. https://doi.org/10.1331/154434505774909634
  91. Tarabochia-Gast, A.T., D.R. Michanowicz, and A.S. Bernstein, 2022: Flood risk to hospitals on the United States Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from hurricanes and sea level rise. GeoHealth, 6 (10), e2022GH000651. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022gh000651
  92. Hall, T.M. and J.P. Kossin, 2019: Hurricane stalling along the North American coast and implications for rainfall. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 2 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0074-8
  93. Gori, A., N. Lin, D. Xi, and K. Emanuel, 2022: Tropical cyclone climatology change greatly exacerbates US extreme rainfall–surge hazard. Nature Climate Change, 12 (2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01272-7
  94. Zhang, G., H. Murakami, T.R. Knutson, R. Mizuta, and K. Yoshida, 2020: Tropical cyclone motion in a changing climate. Science Advances, 6 (17), 7610. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz7610
  95. Balaguru, K., W. Xu, C.-C. Chang, L.R. Leung, D.R. Judi, S.M. Hagos, M.F. Wehner, J.P. Kossin, and M. Ting, 2023: Increased U.S. coastal hurricane risk under climate change. Science Advances, 9 (14), 0259. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adf0259
  96. Garner, A.J., R.E. Kopp, and B.P. Horton, 2021: Evolving tropical cyclone tracks in the North Atlantic in a warming climate. Earth's Future, 9 (12), e2021EF002326. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ef002326
  97. Hotakainen, R., 2021: Ida’s rapid intensification an ominous sign of climate future. E&E News, August 30, 2021. https://www.eenews.net/articles/idas-rapid-intensification-an-ominous-sign-of-climate-future/
  98. Bhatia, K.T., G.A. Vecchi, T.R. Knutson, H. Murakami, J. Kossin, K.W. Dixon, and C.E. Whitlock, 2019: Recent increases in tropical cyclone intensification rates. Nature Communications, 10 (1), 635. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08471-z
  99. Balaguru, K., G.R. Foltz, L.R. Leung, W. Xu, D. Kim, H. Lopez, and R. West, 2022: Increasing hurricane intensification rate near the US Atlantic coast. Geophysical Research Letters, 49 (20), e2022GL099793. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022gl099793
  100. Bishop, D.A., A.P. Williams, and R. Seager, 2019: Increased fall precipitation in the southeastern United States driven by higher‐intensity, frontal precipitation. Geophysical Research Letters, 46 (14), 8300–8309. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl083177
  101. Gershunov, A., T. Shulgina, F.M. Ralph, D.A. Lavers, and J.J. Rutz, 2017: Assessing the climate-scale variability of atmospheric rivers affecting western North America. Geophysical Research Letters, 44 (15), 7900–7908. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl074175
  102. Mahoney, K., D.L. Jackson, P. Neiman, M. Hughes, L. Darby, G. Wick, A. White, E. Sukovich, and R. Cifelli, 2016: Understanding the role of atmospheric rivers in heavy precipitation in the southeast United States. Monthly Weather Review, 144 (4), 1617–1632. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-15-0279.1
  103. Maxwell, J.T., P.A. Knapp, J.T. Ortegren, D.L. Ficklin, and P.T. Soulé, 2017: Changes in the mechanisms causing rapid drought cessation in the southeastern United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 44 (24), 12476–12483. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl076261
  104. Miller, D.K., D. Hotz, J. Winton, and L. Stewart, 2018: Investigation of atmospheric rivers impacting the Pigeon River Basin of the southern Appalachian Mountains. Weather and Forecasting, 33 (1), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1175/waf-d-17-0060.1
  105. Miller, D.K., C.F. Miniat, R.M. Wooten, and A.P. Barros, 2019: An expanded investigation of atmospheric rivers in the southern Appalachian Mountains and their connection to landslides. Atmosphere, 10 (2), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10020071
  106. Mahajan, S., Q. Tang, N.D. Keen, J.-C. Golaz, and L.P. van Roekel, 2022: Simulation of ENSO teleconnections to precipitation extremes over the United States in the high-resolution version of E3SM. Journal of Climate, 35 (11), 3371–3393. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-20-1011.1
  107. Patricola, C.M., J.P. O’Brien, M.D. Risser, A.M. Rhoades, T.A. O’Brien, P.A. Ullrich, D.A. Stone, and W.D. Collins, 2020: Maximizing ENSO as a source of western US hydroclimate predictability. Climate Dynamics, 54 (1), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-05004-8
  108. Alipour, A., A. Ahmadalipour, and H. Moradkhani, 2020: Assessing flash flood hazard and damages in the southeast United States. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 13 (2), 12605. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12605
  109. Debbage, N. and J.M. Shepherd, 2019: Urban influences on the spatiotemporal characteristics of runoff and precipitation during the 2009 Atlanta flood. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 20 (1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-18-0010.1
  110. Forney, R.K., N. Debbage, P. Miller, and J. Uzquiano, 2022: Urban effects on weakly forced thunderstorms observed in the Southeast United States. Urban Climate, 43, 101161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101161
  111. Liu, J. and D. Niyogi, 2019: Meta-analysis of urbanization impact on rainfall modification. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 7301. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42494-2
  112. McLeod, J., M. Shepherd, and C.E. Konrad, 2017: Spatio-temporal rainfall patterns around Atlanta, Georgia and possible relationships to urban land cover. Urban Climate, 21, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2017.03.004
  113. Naylor, J. and A.D. Kennedy, 2021: Variability in isolated convective activity between Louisville, Kentucky, and nearby rural locations. Earth Interactions, 25 (1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1175/ei-d-20-0012.1
  114. Bhatia, K., G. Vecchi, H. Murakami, S. Underwood, and J. Kossin, 2018: Projected response of tropical cyclone intensity and intensification in a global climate model. Journal of Climate, 31 (20), 8281–8303. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0898.1
  115. Knutson, T., S.J. Camargo, J.C.L. Chan, K. Emanuel, C.-H. Ho, J. Kossin, M. Mohapatra, M. Satoh, M. Sugi, K. Walsh, and L. Wu, 2019: Tropical cyclones and climate change assessment: Part I: Detection and attribution. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100 (10), 1987–2007. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-18-0189.1
  116. Knutson, T., S.J. Camargo, J.C.L. Chan, K. Emanuel, C.H. Ho, J. Kossin, M. Mohapatra, M. Satoh, M. Sugi, K. Walsh, and L. Wu, 2020: Tropical cyclones and climate change assessment: Part II: Projected response to anthropogenic warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101 (3), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-18-0194.1
  117. Wright, D.B., T.R. Knutson, and J.A. Smith, 2015: Regional climate model projections of rainfall from U.S. landfalling tropical cyclones. Climate Dynamics, 45 (11), 3365–3379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2544-y
  118. Knutson, T.R., J.J. Sirutis, M.A. Bender, R.E. Tuleya, and B.A. Schenkel, 2022: Dynamical downscaling projections of late twenty-first-century U.S. landfalling hurricane activity. Climatic Change, 171 (3), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03346-7
  119. Martel, J.L., F.P. Brissette, P. Lucas-Picher, M. Troin, and R. Arsenault, 2021: Climate change and rainfall intensity–duration–frequency curves: Overview of science and guidelines for adaptation. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 26 (10), 03121001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0002122
  120. Cook, L.M., S. McGinnis, and C. Samaras, 2020: The effect of modeling choices on updating intensity-duration-frequency curves and stormwater infrastructure designs for climate change. Climatic Change, 159 (2), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02649-6
  121. Miro, M., A.T. DeGaetano, T. Lopez-Cantu, C. Samaras, M. Webber, and K.R. Grocholski, 2021: Developing Future Projected Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves: A Technical Report on Data, Methods, and IDF Curves for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Virginia. TL-A1365-1. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 62 pp. https://doi.org/10.7249/tla1365-1
  122. Lopez-Cantu, T. and C. Samaras, 2018: Temporal and spatial evaluation of stormwater engineering standards reveals risks and priorities across the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (7), 074006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac696
  123. Vu, T.M. and A.K. Mishra, 2019: Nonstationary frequency analysis of the recent extreme precipitation events in the United States. Journal of Hydrology, 575, 999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.090
  124. Jalowska, A.M., T.L. Spero, and J.H. Bowden, 2021: Projecting changes in extreme rainfall from three tropical cyclones using the design-rainfall approach. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 4 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00176-9
  125. Bin, O. and J.B. Kruse, 2006: Real estate market response to coastal flood hazards. Natural Hazards Review, 7 (4), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1527-6988(2006)7:4(137)
  126. Wang, Z., S. Zlatanova, and P. van Oosterom, 2017: Path planning for first responders in the presence of moving obstacles with uncertain boundaries. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 18 (8), 2163–2173. https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2016.2634079
  127. Gori, A., R. Blessing, A. Juan, S. Brody, and P. Bedient, 2019: Characterizing urbanization impacts on floodplain through integrated land use, hydrologic, and hydraulic modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 568, 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.053
  128. Ghanbari, M., M. Arabi, S. Kao, J. Obeysekera, and W. Sweet, 2021: Climate change and changes in compound coastal-riverine flooding hazard along the U.S. coasts. Earth’s Future, 9 (5), e2021EF002055. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ef002055
  129. Fiaschi, S. and S. Wdowinski, 2020: Local land subsidence in Miami Beach (FL) and Norfolk (VA) and its contribution to flooding hazard in coastal communities along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Ocean & Coastal Management, 187, 105078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105078
  130. Smart, L.S., P.J. Taillie, B. Poulter, J. Vukomanovic, K.K. Singh, J.J. Swenson, H. Mitasova, J.W. Smith, and R.K. Meentemeyer, 2020: Aboveground carbon loss associated with the spread of ghost forests as sea levels rise. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (10), 104028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba136
  131. Tully, K., K. Gedan, R. Epanchin-Niell, A. Strong, E.S. Bernhardt, T. BenDor, M. Mitchell, J. Kominoski, T.E. Jordan, S.C. Neubauer, and N.B. Weston, 2019: The invisible flood: The chemistry, ecology, and social implications of coastal saltwater intrusion. BioScience, 69 (5), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz027
  132. Gibson, N., S. McNulty, C. Miller, M. Gavazzi, E. Worley, D. Keesee, and D. Hollinger, 2021: Identification, Mitigation, and Adaptation to Salinization on Working Lands in the U.S. Southeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-259. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, 69 pp. https://doi.org/10.2737/srs-gtr-259
  133. CO-OPS, 2023: Annual High Tide Flooding Outlook. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, accessed August 15, 2023. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/high-tide-flooding/annual-outlook.html
  134. Findling, M.T.G., R.J. Blendon, J.M. Benson, and C. Miller, 2022: The unseen picture: Issues with health care, discrimination, police and safety, and housing experienced by Native American populations in rural America. The Journal of Rural Health, 38 (1), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12517
  135. Ching, A., L. Morrison, and M. Kelley, 2020: Living with natural hazards: Tropical storms, lava flows and the resilience of island residents. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 47, 101546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101546
  136. Farrell, J., P.B. Burow, K. McConnell, J. Bayham, K. Whyte, and G. Koss, 2021: Effects of land dispossession and forced migration on Indigenous peoples in North America. Science, 374 (6567), 4943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe4943
  137. King, D.N., J. Goff, and A. Skipper, 2007: Māori environmental knowledge and natural hazards in Aotearoa‐New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 37 (2), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220709510536
  138. Oliver-Smith, A., 2009: Sea Level Rise and the Vulnerability of Coastal Peoples: Responding to the Local Challenges of Global Climate Change in the 21st Century. InterSecTions: ‘Interdisciplinary Security ConnecTions'. United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security, Bonn, Germany. https://www.unisdr.org/files/14028_4097.pdf
  139. Burnette, C.E., 2018: Family and cultural protective factors as the bedrock of resilience and growth for Indigenous women who have experienced violence. Journal of Family Social Work, 21 (1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2017.1402532
  140. Weiskopf, S.R., M.A. Rubenstein, L.G. Crozier, S. Gaichas, R. Griffis, J.E. Halofsky, K.J. Hyde, T.L. Morelli, J.T. Morisette, R.C. Muñoz, A.J. Pershing, D.L. Petersone, R. Poudel, M.D. Staudinger, A.E. Sutton-Grier, L. Thompson, J. Vose, J.F. Weltzin, and K.P. Whyte, 2020: Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. Science of The Total Environment, 733, 137782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137782
  141. Whitney, C.K., A. Frid, B.K. Edgar, J. Walkus, P. Siwallace, I.L. Siwallace, and N.C. Ban, 2020: "Like the plains people losing the buffalo”: Perceptions of climate change impacts, fisheries management, and adaptation actions by Indigenous peoples in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Ecology and Society, 25 (4), 33. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12027-250433
  142. Rogers, L.A., R. Griffin, T. Young, E. Fuller, K.S. Martin, and M.L. Pinsky, 2019: Shifting habitats expose fishing communities to risk under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 9 (7), 512–516. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0503-z
  143. Pearson, J., G. Jackson, and K.E. McNamara, 2023: Climate-driven losses to Indigenous and local knowledge and cultural heritage. The Anthropocene Review, 10 (2), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196211005482
  144. Anderson, D.G., T.G. Bissett, S.J. Yerka, J.J. Wells, E.C. Kansa, S.W. Kansa, K.N. Myers, R.C. DeMuth, and D.A. White, 2017: Sea-level rise and archaeological site destruction: An example from the southeastern United States using DINAA (Digital Index of North American Archaeology). PLoS ONE, 12 (11), e0188142. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188142
  145. Osland, M.J., B. Chivoiu, N.M. Enwright, K.M. Thorne, G.R. Guntenspergen, J.B. Grace, L.L. Dale, W. Brooks, N. Herold, J.W. Day, F.H. Sklar, and C.M. Swarzenzki, 2022: Migration and transformation of coastal wetlands in response to rising seas. Science Advances, 8 (26), 5174. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo5174
  146. Aune, K.T., D. Gesch, and G.S. Smith, 2020: A spatial analysis of climate gentrification in Orleans Parish, Louisiana post-Hurricane Katrina. Environmental Research, 185, 109384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109384
  147. Bonjour, R., 2019: Flooding the cities: How land use policies contribute to climate gentrification. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 44 (1), 91–114. https://scholarship.shu.edu/shlj/vol44/iss1/4
  148. Marandi, A. and K.L. Main, 2021: Vulnerable city, recipient city, or climate destination? Towards a typology of domestic climate migration impacts in US cities. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 11 (3), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00712-2
  149. Evans, L.E., N. Dolšak, M.T. Plog, and A. Prakash, 2020: Native American tribal governments, cross-sectoral climate policy, and the role of intertribal networks. Climatic Change, 160 (1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02641-0
  150. Constible, J., 2022: Hazard planners aren’t planning for heat hazards. Natural Resources Defense Council Blog. https://www.nrdc.org/bio/juanita-constible/hazard-planners-arent-planning-heat-hazards
  151. Horney, J., M. Nguyen, D. Salvesen, C. Dwyer, J. Cooper, and P. Berke, 2017: Assessing the quality of rural hazard mitigation plans in the southeastern United States. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37 (1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x16628605
  152. Moore, M., P. Chaney, E. Brantley, and C. Burton, 2021: Drought management plans of major cities in Alabama v. California. Southeastern Geographer, 61, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2021.0003
  153. Moore, M.K. 2019: Drought Management Plans in Major Cities of the Southeastern U.S. v. Western U.S. Master of Science, Auburn University. https://etd.auburn.edu//handle/10415/6686
  154. Mach, K.J. and A.R. Siders, 2021: Reframing strategic, managed retreat for transformative climate adaptation. Science, 372 (6548), 1294–1299. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh1894
  155. Weber, A., 2021: Building resilience, BRIC by BRIC. Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anna-weber/building-resilience-bric-bric
  156. FEMA, 2021: 2022–2026 FEMA Strategic Plan: Building the FEMA Our Nation Needs and Deserves. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. https://www.fema.gov/about/strategic-plan
  157. FEMA, 2021: FEMA Resources for Climate Resilience. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_resources-climate-resilience.pdf
  158. IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/managing-the-risks-of-extreme-events-and-disasters-to-advance-climate-change-adaptation/
  159. Meerow, S. and S.C. Woodruff, 2020: Seven principles of strong climate change planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 86 (1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1652108
  160. Woodruff, S., A.O. Bowman, B. Hannibal, G. Sansom, and K. Portney, 2021: Urban resilience: Analyzing the policies of U.S. cities. Cities, 115, 103239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103239
  161. Woodruff, S., S. Meerow, P. Gilbertson, B. Hannibal, M. Matos, M. Roy, M. Malecha, S. Yu, and P. Berke, 2021: Is flood resilience planning improving? A longitudinal analysis of networks of plans in Boston and Fort Lauderdale. Climate Risk Management, 34, 100354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100354
  162. Freudenberg, R., E. Calvin, L. Tolkoff, and D. Brawley, 2016: Buy-In for Buyouts: The Case for Managed Retreat from Flood Zones. Lincoln Institute of Land and Policy, Cambridge, MA. https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/buy-in-for-buyouts-full.pdf
  163. Godschalk, D.R., A. Rose, E. Mittler, K. Porter, and C.T. West, 2009: Estimating the value of foresight: Aggregate analysis of natural hazard mitigation benefits and costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52 (6), 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903083715
  164. Mach, K.J., C.M. Kraan, M. Hino, A.R. Siders, E.M. Johnston, and C.B. Field, 2019: Managed retreat through voluntary buyouts of flood-prone properties. Science Advances, 5 (10), 8995. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax8995
  165. Berke, P.R., W. Lyles, and G. Smith, 2014: Impacts of federal and state hazard mitigation policies on local land use policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34 (1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x13517004
  166. Burby, R.J., 2006: Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604 (1), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205284676
  167. Butler, W.H., R.E. Deyle, and C. Mutnansky, 2016: Low-regrets incrementalism: Land use planning adaptation to accelerating sea level rise in Florida's coastal communities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36 (3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x16647161
  168. Smith, G., J. Whitehead, N. Kaza, J. Park, J. Pine, R. Kolar, D. Sandler, and E. Thomas, 2013: Aggregate Flood Hazard Risk Reduction Scoping Project. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Coastal Resilience Center. http://coastalhazardscenter.org/dev/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Final_GS_12_16_13.pdf
  169. Young, A.W., 2018: How to retreat: The necessary transition from buyouts to leasing. Coastal Management, 46 (5), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2018.1498716
  170. McGhee, D.J., S.B. Binder, and E.A. Albright, 2020: First, do no harm: Evaluating the vulnerability reduction of post-disaster home buyout programs. Natural Hazards Review, 21 (1), 05019002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000337
  171. Zavar, E. and L.A. Fischer, 2021: Fractured landscapes: The racialization of home buyout programs and climate adaptation. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 100043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100043
  172. Clark, M.B., E. Nkonya, and G.L. Galford, 2022: Flocking to fire: How climate and natural hazards shape human migration across the United States. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 4, 886545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2022.886545
  173. Smith, G.P. and M.T. Nguyen, 2021: University-public partnerships for disaster recovery: Promoting community resilience through research, teaching, and engagement. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 14 (1), 4. https://jces.ua.edu/articles/10.54656/NPFV8067
  174. Baker, C.K., S.B. Binder, A. Greer, P. Weir, and K. Gates, 2018: Integrating community concerns and recommendations into home buyout and relocation policy. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 9 (4), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12144
  175. Binder, S.B. and A. Greer, 2018: Exploring the Role of Implementing Agencies in Home Buyouts: Process, Equity, and Inclusion in Program Design and Implementation. Natural Hazards Center Quick Response Grant Report Series, 281. University of Colorado Boulder, Natural Hazards Center, Boulder, CO. https://hazards.colorado.edu/quick-response-report/exploring-the-role-of-implementing-agencies-in-home-buyouts-process-equity-and-inclusion-in-program-design-and-implementation
  176. de Vries, D.H. and J.C. Fraser, 2012: Citizenship rights and voluntary decision making in post-disaster U.S. floodplain buyout mitigation programs. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 30 (1). https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.369610
  177. Elliott, J.R., P.L. Brown, and K. Loughran, 2020: Racial inequities in the federal buyout of flood-prone homes: A nationwide assessment of environmental adaptation. Socius, 6, 2378023120905439. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120905439
  178. Fraser, J., R. Elmore, D. Godschalk, and W. Rohe, 2003: Implementing Floodplain Land Acquisition Programs in Urban Localities. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Center for Urban & Regional Studies, Chapel Hill, NC. https://www.academia.edu/27892388/implementing_floodplain_land_acquisition_programs_in_urban_localities
  179. Nguyen, C.N., 2020: Homeowners’ choice when the government proposes a managed retreat. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 47, 101543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101543
  180. Flink, C.A., 2020: The Greenway Imperative: Connecting Communities and Landscapes for a Sustainable Future. University of Florida Press, 344 pp. https://upf.com/book.asp?id=9781683401155#
  181. Highfield, W., A. Kayode, S. Brody, C. Shepard, and L. Verdone, 2019: Strategic Property Buyouts to Enhance Flood Resilience: Creating a Model for Flood Risk Reduction, Community Protection and Environmental Gains. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/harveybuyoutsummary.pdf
  182. Kihslinger, R., A. Streitwieser, M. Lerner, N. Moraga-Lewy, K. James-Kavanaugh, D. Salvesen, J. Anagnost, T. Chandler, C. Foster, and S. Liu, 2017: Floodplain Buyouts: An Action Guide for Local Governments on How to Maximize Community Benefits, Habitat Connectivity, and Resilience. Environmental Law Institute and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Washington, DC and Chapel Hill, NC. https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/actionguide-web.pdf
  183. Keenan, J.M., T. Hill, and A. Gumber, 2018: Climate gentrification: From theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (5), 054001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabb32
  184. Taylor, Z.J. and M.B. Aalbers, 2022: Climate gentrification: Risk, rent, and restructuring in Greater Miami. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 112 (6), 1685–1701. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.2000358
  185. Treuer, G., K. Broad, and R. Meyer, 2018: Using simulations to forecast homeowner response to sea level rise in South Florida: Will they stay or will they go? Global Environmental Change, 48, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.10.008
  186. Anguelovski, I., J.J.T. Connolly, H. Cole, M. Garcia-Lamarca, M. Triguero-Mas, F. Baró, N. Martin, D. Conesa, G. Shokry, C.P. del Pulgar, L.A. Ramos, A. Matheney, E. Gallez, E. Oscilowicz, J.L. Máñez, B. Sarzo, M.A. Beltrán, and J.M. Minaya, 2022: Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nature Communications, 13 (1), 3816. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1
  187. Melix, B.L., A. Jackson, W. Butler, T. Holmes, and C.K. Uejio, 2022: Locating neighborhood displacement risks to climate gentrification pressures in three coastal counties in Florida. The Professional Geographer, 75 (1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2022.2087695
  188. Gardiner, E.P., D.D. Herring, and J.F. Fox, 2019: The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit: Evidence of progress. Climatic Change, 153 (4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2216-0
  189. Resilient Cities Network, 2022: Resilient Cities Network [Website]. https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/
  190. APHA, 2021: Climate Change and Health Playbook: Adaptation Planning for Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. American Public Health Association. https://apha.org/topics-and-issues/climate-change/jedi
  191. Grace-McCaskey, C.A., S.C. Pearce, L. Harris, M. Corra, and K.J. Evans, 2021: Finding voices in the floods of Freedom Hill: Innovating solutions in Princeville, North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 11 (3), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00701-5
  192. Blue, V.E., 2000: Reclaiming sacred ground: How Princeville is recovering from the flood of 1999. NC Crossroads, 4 (3). https://www.ncpedia.org/anchor/reclaiming-sacred-ground-how
  193. Jadid, R., B.M. Montoya, V. Bennett, and M.A. Gabr, 2020: Effect of repeated rise and fall of water level on seepage-induced deformation and related stability analysis of Princeville levee. Engineering Geology, 266, 105458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105458
  194. Phillips, B., P.A. Stukes, and P. Jenkins, 2012: Freedom Hill is not for sale—And neither is the Lower Ninth Ward. Journal of Black Studies, 43 (4), 405–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934711425489
  195. Ebi, K.L. and J.J. Hess, 2020: Health risks due to climate change: Inequity in causes and consequences. Health Affairs, 39 (12), 2056–2062. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01125
  196. Dwyer-Lindgren, L., A. Bertozzi-Villa, R.W. Stubbs, C. Morozoff, J.P. Mackenbach, F.J. van Lenthe, A.H. Mokdad, and C.J.L. Murray, 2017: Inequalities in life expectancy among US counties, 1980 to 2014: Temporal trends and key drivers. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177 (7), 1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0918
  197. Gong, G., S.G. Phillips, C. Hudson, D. Curti, and B.U. Philips, 2019: Higher US rural mortality rates linked to socioeconomic status, physician shortages, and lack of health insurance. Health Affairs, 38 (12), 2003–2010. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00722
  198. Walk Score, 2022: Most Walkable Cities in the United States, Canada, and Australia on Walk Score. Redfin. https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/
  199. Smart Growth America, 2021: Dangerous by Design. Smart Growth America and National Complete Streets Coalition, 38 pp. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/dangerous-by-design-2021-report/
  200. NHTSA, n.d.: Fatality Analysis Reporting System. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, accessed November 28, 2022. https://www.nhtsa.gov/crash-data-systems/fatality-analysis-reporting-system
  201. Meyer, P.A., P.W. Yoon, and R.B. Kaufmann, 2013: Introduction: CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report—United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 62 (3), 3–5. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6203.pdf
  202. Yearby, R., 2018: Racial disparities in health status and access to healthcare: The continuation of inequality in the United States due to structural racism. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77 (3–4), 1113–1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12230
  203. Savitz, D.A. and H. Hu, 2021: Ambient heat and stillbirth in northern and central Florida. Environmental Research, 199, 111262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111262
  204. Son, J.-Y., H.M. Choi, M.L. Miranda, and M.L. Bell, 2022: Exposure to heat during pregnancy and preterm birth in North Carolina: Main effect and disparities by residential greenness, urbanicity, and socioeconomic status. Environmental Research, 204, 112315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112315
  205. Syed, S., T.L. O’Sullivan, and K.P. Phillips, 2022: Extreme heat and pregnancy outcomes: A scoping review of the epidemiological evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (4), 2412. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042412
  206. Cheng, J., Z. Xu, H. Bambrick, V. Prescott, N. Wang, Y. Zhang, H. Su, S. Tong, and W. Hu, 2019: Cardiorespiratory effects of heatwaves: A systematic review and meta-analysis of global epidemiological evidence. Environmental Research, 177, 108610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108610
  207. Uejio, C.K., A.P. Joiner, E. Gonsoroski, J.D. Tamerius, J. Jung, T.P. Moran, and A.H. Yancey, 2022: The association of indoor heat exposure with diabetes and respiratory 9-1-1 calls through emergency medical dispatch and services documentation. Environmental Research, 212, 113271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113271
  208. Sheffield, P.E., M.T. Herrera, E.J. Kinnee, and J.E. Clougherty, 2018: Not so little differences: Variation in hot weather risk to young children in New York City. Public Health, 161, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.06.004
  209. Ebi, K.L., A. Capon, P. Berry, C. Broderick, R. de Dear, G. Havenith, Y. Honda, R.S. Kovats, W. Ma, A. Malik, N.B. Morris, L. Nybo, S.I. Seneviratne, J. Vanos, and O. Jay, 2021: Hot weather and heat extremes: Health risks. The Lancet, 398 (10301), 698–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01208-3
  210. Nori-Sarma, A., S. Sun, Y. Sun, K.R. Spangler, R. Oblath, S. Galea, J.L. Gradus, and G.A. Wellenius, 2022: Association between ambient heat and risk of emergency department visits for mental health among US adults, 2010 to 2019. JAMA Psychiatry, 79 (4), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4369
  211. Thompson, R., R. Hornigold, L. Page, and T. Waite, 2018: Associations between high ambient temperatures and heat waves with mental health outcomes: A systematic review. Public Health, 161, 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.06.008
  212. Atlantic Council, 2021: Extreme Heat: The Economic and Social Consequences for the United States. Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center, Washington, DC. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Extreme-Heat-Report-2021.pdf
  213. Dahl, K. and R. Licker, 2021: Too Hot to Work: Assessing the Threats Climate Change Poses to Outdoor Workers. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.47923/2021.14236
  214. Adams, W.M., 2019: Exertional heat stroke within secondary school athletics. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 18 (4), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1249/jsr.0000000000000585
  215. Cooper, E.R., M.S. Ferrara, D.J. Casa, J.W. Powell, S.P. Broglio, J.E. Resch, and R.W. Courson, 2016: Exertional heat illness in American football players: When is the risk greatest? Journal of Athletic Training, 51 (8), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-51.8.08
  216. Yeargin, S.W., T.P. Dompier, D.J. Casa, R.M. Hirschhorn, and Z.Y. Kerr, 2019: Epidemiology of exertional heat illnesses in National Collegiate Athletic Association athletes during the 2009–2010 through 2014–2015 academic years. Journal of Athletic Training, 54 (1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-504-17
  217. Holt, D., 2015: Heat in US Prisons and Jails: Corrections and the Challenge of Climate Change. Columbia Law School, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, New York, NY, 144 pp. https://nicic.gov/heat-us-prisons-and-jails-corrections-and-challenge-climate-change
  218. Schwarz, L., E.M. Castillo, T.C. Chan, J.J. Brennan, E.S. Sbiroli, G. Carrasco-Escobar, A. Nguyen, R.E.S. Clemesha, A. Gershunov, and T. Benmarhnia, 2022: Heat waves and emergency department visits among the homeless, San Diego, 2012–2019. American Journal of Public Health, 112 (1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2021.306557
  219. Obringer, R., R. Nateghi, D. Maia-Silva, S. Mukherjee, V. Cr, D.B. McRoberts, and R. Kumar, 2022: Implications of increasing household air conditioning use across the United States under a warming climate. Earth’s Future, 10 (1), e2021EF002434. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ef002434
  220. Romitti, Y., I. Sue Wing, K.R. Spangler, and G.A. Wellenius, 2022: Inequality in the availability of residential air conditioning across 115 US metropolitan areas. PNAS Nexus, 1 (4), 210. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac210
  221. EIA. 2020: Forms EIA-457A and EIA-457C of the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Demand and Integrated Statistics. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/hc%2011.1.pdf
  222. Bryan, W. and M. Kelley, 2021: Energy Insecurity Fundamentals for the Southeast. Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance, 19 pp. https://issuu.com/seealliance/docs/report_energyinsecurity_02_15_2021_v1
  223. Stone Jr., B., E. Mallen, M. Rajput, A. Broadbent, E.S. Krayenhoff, G. Augenbroe, and M. Georgescu, 2021: Climate change and infrastructure risk: Indoor heat exposure during a concurrent heat wave and blackout event in Phoenix, Arizona. Urban Climate, 36, 100787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100787
  224. Stone Jr., B., E. Mallen, M. Rajput, C.J. Gronlund, A.M. Broadbent, E.S. Krayenhoff, G. Augenbroe, M.S. O’Neill, and M. Georgescu, 2021: Compound climate and infrastructure events: How electrical grid failure alters heat wave risk. Environmental Science & Technology, 55 (10), 6957–6964. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00024
  225. van Vliet, M.T.H., J.R. Yearsley, F. Ludwig, S. Vögele, D.P. Lettenmaier, and P. Kabat, 2012: Vulnerability of US and European electricity supply to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2 (9), 676–681. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1546
  226. Mallen, E., 2022: U.S. Blackout Tracker. Urban Climate Lab, accessed November 18, 2022. https://urbanclimate.gatech.edu/current-projects/blackout-tracker/
  227. Bryan, W.D., 2020: Energy Insecurity in the Southeast [Story Map]. Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance, accessed August 16, 2023. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ce22fa68b37141f388d8df06c9bd4fb1
  228. Allen, M., J. Hoffman, J.L. Whytlaw, and N. Hutton, 2022: Assessing Virginia cooling centers as a heat mitigation strategy. Journal of Emergency Management, 20 (3), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0671
  229. Tomer, A. and R. Puentes, 2011: Transit Access and Zero-Vehicle Households. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/transit-access-and-zero-vehicle-households/
  230. Coffel, E.D., R.M. Horton, and A. Sherbinin, 2018: Temperature and humidity based projections of a rapid rise in global heat stress exposure during the 21st century. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (1), 014001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa00e
  231. EPA, 2021: Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
  232. Heo, S., M.L. Bell, and J.-T. Lee, 2019: Comparison of health risks by heat wave definition: Applicability of wet-bulb globe temperature for heat wave criteria. Environmental Research, 168, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.032
  233. Rennie, J.J., M.A. Palecki, S.P. Heuser, and H.J. Diamond, 2021: Developing and validating heat exposure products using the U.S. Climate Reference Network. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 60 (4), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-20-0282.1
  234. Knutson, T.R. and J.J. Ploshay, 2016: Detection of anthropogenic influence on a summertime heat stress index. Climatic Change, 138 (1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1708-z
  235. Li, C., X. Zhang, F. Zwiers, Y. Fang, and A.M. Michalak, 2017: Recent very hot summers in northern hemispheric land areas measured by wet bulb globe temperature will be the norm within 20 years. Earth's Future, 5 (12), 1203–1216. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ef000639
  236. Oke, T.R., 1982: The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 108 (455), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710845502
  237. Shandas, V., J. Voelkel, J. Williams, and J. Hoffman, 2019: Integrating satellite and ground measurements for predicting locations of extreme urban heat. Climate, 7 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7010005
  238. Benz, S.A. and J.A. Burney, 2021: Widespread race and class disparities in surface urban heat extremes across the United States. Earth's Future, 9 (7), e2021EF002016. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ef002016
  239. Shire, J., A. Vaidyanathan, M. Lackovic, and T. Bunn, 2020: Association between work-related hyperthermia emergency department visits and ambient heat in five southeastern states, 2010–2012—A case-crossover study. GeoHealth, 4 (8), 2019GH000241. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gh000241
  240. Lancet Countdown, 2020: Compounding Crises of Our Time During Hurricane Laura. 2020 Case Study 1. Lancet Countdown. https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2020-case-study-1/
  241. Baublitz, C.B., A.M. Fiore, O.E. Clifton, J. Mao, J. Li, G. Correa, D.M. Westervelt, L.W. Horowitz, F. Paulot, and A.P. Williams, 2020: Sensitivity of tropospheric ozone over the Southeast USA to dry deposition. Geophysical Research Letters, 47 (7), 2020GL087158. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl087158
  242. Fu, T.M. and H. Tian, 2019: Climate change penalty to ozone air quality: Review of current understandings and knowledge gaps. Current Pollution Reports, 5 (3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-019-00115-6
  243. Zhang, Y. and Y. Wang, 2016: Climate-driven ground-level ozone extreme in the fall over the southeast United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113 (36), 10025–10030. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602563113
  244. Brey, S.J., E.A. Barnes, J.R. Pierce, C. Wiedinmyer, and E.V. Fischer, 2018: Environmental conditions, ignition type, and air quality impacts of wildfires in the southeastern and western United States. Earth’s Future, 6 (10), 1442–1456. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ef000972
  245. Guan, S., D.C. Wong, Y. Gao, T. Zhang, and G. Pouliot, 2020: Impact of wildfire on particulate matter in the southeastern United States in November 2016. Science of The Total Environment, 724, 138354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138354
  246. Jaffe, D.A., S.M. O’Neill, N.K. Larkin, A.L. Holder, D.L. Peterson, J.E. Halofsky, and A.G. Rappold, 2020: Wildfire and prescribed burning impacts on air quality in the United States. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 70 (6), 583–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2020.1749731
  247. van Donkelaar, A., R.V. Martin, C. Li, and R.T. Burnett, 2019: Regional estimates of chemical composition of fine particulate matter using a combined geoscience-statistical method with information from satellites, models, and monitors. Environmental Science & Technology, 53 (5), 2595–2611. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06392
  248. Pye, H.O.T., C.K. Ward-Caviness, B.N. Murphy, K.W. Appel, and K.M. Seltzer, 2021: Secondary organic aerosol association with cardiorespiratory disease mortality in the United States. Nature Communications, 12 (1), 7215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27484-1
  249. Boing, A.F., P. deSouza, A.C. Boing, R. Kim, and S.V. Subramanian, 2022: Air pollution, socioeconomic status, and age-specific mortality risk in the United States. JAMA Network Open, 5 (5), e2213540. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.13540
  250. Colmer, J., I. Hardman, J. Shimshack, and J. Voorheis, 2020: Disparities in PM2.5 air pollution in the United States. Science, 369 (6503), 575–578. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9353
  251. Fann, N.L., C.G. Nolte, M.C. Sarofim, J. Martinich, and N.J. Nassikas, 2021: Associations between simulated future changes in climate, air quality, and human health. JAMA Network Open, 4 (1), e2032064. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32064
  252. Saari, R.K., Y. Mei, E. Monier, and F. Garcia-Menendez, 2019: Effect of health-related uncertainty and natural variability on health impacts and cobenefits of climate policy. Environmental Science & Technology, 53 (3), 1098–1108. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05094
  253. Anderegg, W.R.L., J.T. Abatzoglou, L.D.L. Anderegg, L. Bielory, P.L. Kinney, and L. Ziska, 2021: Anthropogenic climate change is worsening North American pollen seasons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118 (7), e2013284118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013284118
  254. Manangan, A., C. Brown, S. Saha, J. Bell, J. Hess, C. Uejio, S. Fineman, and P. Schramm, 2021: Long-term pollen trends and associations between pollen phenology and seasonal climate in Atlanta, Georgia (1992–2018). Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 127 (4), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2021.07.012
  255. Radeloff, V.C., D.P. Helmers, H.A. Kramer, M.H. Mockrin, P.M. Alexandre, A. Bar-Massada, V. Butsic, T.J. Hawbaker, S. Martinuzzi, A.D. Syphard, and S.I. Stewart, 2018: Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115 (13), 3314–3319. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718850115
  256. Gao, P., A.J. Terando, J.A. Kupfer, J. Morgan Varner, M.C. Stambaugh, T.L. Lei, and J. Kevin Hiers, 2021: Robust projections of future fire probability for the conterminous United States. Science of The Total Environment, 789, 147872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147872
  257. Andersen, L.M. and M.M. Sugg, 2019: Geographic multi-criteria evaluation and validation: A case study of wildfire vulnerability in western North Carolina, USA following the 2016 wildfires. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 39, 101123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101123
  258. James, N.A., K.L. Abt, G.E. Frey, X. Han, and J.P. Prestemon, 2020: Fire in the Southern Appalachians: Understanding Impacts, Interventions, and Future Fire Events. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-249. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, 34 pp. https://doi.org/10.2737/srs-gtr-249
  259. Haikerwal, A., F. Reisen, M.R. Sim, M.J. Abramson, C.P. Meyer, F.H. Johnston, and M. Dennekamp, 2015: Impact of smoke from prescribed burning: Is it a public health concern? Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65 (5), 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2015.1032445
  260. Afrin, S. and F. Garcia-Menendez, 2021: Potential impacts of prescribed fire smoke on public health and socially vulnerable populations in a southeastern U.S. state. Science of The Total Environment, 794, 148712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148712
  261. Afrin, S. and F. Garcia‐Menendez, 2020: The influence of prescribed fire on fine particulate matter pollution in the southeastern United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 47 (15), e2020GL088988. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl088988
  262. Kupfer, J.A., A.J. Terando, P. Gao, C. Teske, and J.K. Hiers, 2020: Climate change projected to reduce prescribed burning opportunities in the south-eastern United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 29 (9), 764–778. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf19198
  263. Park Williams, A., B.I. Cook, J.E. Smerdon, D.A. Bishop, R. Seager, and J.S. Mankin, 2017: The 2016 southeastern U.S. drought: An extreme departure from centennial wetting and cooling. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122 (20), 10888–10905. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd027523
  264. Gabbert, B., 2016: Analyzing the fire that burned into Gatlinburg. Wildfire Today, December 5, 2016. https://wildfiretoday.com/2016/12/05/analyzing-the-fire-that-burned-into-gatlinburg/
  265. Gaines, J., 2018: Gatlinburg wildfire, two-year mark: Safety changes made, rebuilding continues. Knox News, November 27, 2018. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2018/11/28/gatlinburg-wildfire-sevier-county-smoky-mountains-two-years-later/2029279002/
  266. Dai, Y., S. Yang, D. Zhao, C. Hu, W. Xu, D.M. Anderson, Y. Li, X.-P. Song, D.G. Boyce, L. Gibson, C. Zheng, and L. Feng, 2023: Coastal phytoplankton blooms expand and intensify in the 21st century. Nature, 615 (7951), 280–284. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05760-y
  267. Anderson, D.M., E. Fensin, C.J. Gobler, A.E. Hoeglund, K.A. Hubbard, D.M. Kulis, J.H. Landsberg, K.A. Lefebvre, P. Provoost, M.L. Richlen, J.L. Smith, A.R. Solow, and V.L. Trainer, 2021: Marine harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the United States: History, current status and future trends. Harmful Algae, 102, 101975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2021.101975
  268. Gobler, C.J., 2020: Climate change and harmful algal blooms: Insights and perspective. Harmful Algae, 91, 101731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2019.101731
  269. Heil, C.A. and A.L. Muni-Morgan, 2021: Florida's harmful algal bloom (HAB) problem: Escalating risks to human, environmental and economic health with climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 646080. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.646080
  270. Bechard, A., 2020: External costs of harmful algal blooms using hedonic valuation: The impact of Karenia brevis on Southwest Florida. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 5, 100019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100019
  271. Bechard, A., 2020: The economic impacts of harmful algal blooms on tourism: An examination of Southwest Florida using a spline regression approach. Natural Hazards, 104 (1), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04182-7
  272. Bechard, A., 2021: Gone with the wind: Declines in property values as harmful algal blooms are blown towards the shore. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 62 (2), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-020-09749-6
  273. Vigar, M., M. Thuneibat, A. Jacobi, and V.A. Roberts, 2021: Summary Report–One Health Harmful Algal Bloom System (OHHABS), United States, 2019. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA, 26 pp. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/112313
  274. Brown, A.R., M. Lilley, J. Shutler, C. Lowe, Y. Artioli, R. Torres, E. Berdalet, and C.R. Tyler, 2020: Assessing risks and mitigating impacts of harmful algal blooms on mariculture and marine fisheries. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12 (3), 1663–1688. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12403
  275. Mishra, A., A. Alnahit, and B. Campbell, 2021: Impact of land uses, drought, flood, wildfire, and cascading events on water quality and microbial communities: A review and analysis. Journal of Hydrology, 596, 125707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125707
  276. Parasiewicz, P., E.L. King, J.A. Webb, M. Piniewski, C. Comoglio, C. Wolter, A.D. Buijse, D. Bjerklie, P. Vezza, and A. Melcher, 2019: The role of floods and droughts on riverine ecosystems under a changing climate. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 26 (6), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12388
  277. Foss, A.J., E.J. Phlips, M. Yilmaz, and A. Chapman, 2012: Characterization of paralytic shellfish toxins from Lyngbya wollei dominated mats collected from two Florida springs. Harmful Algae, 16, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2012.02.004
  278. Reis Costa, P., 2016: Impact and effects of paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins derived from harmful algal blooms to marine fish. Fish and Fisheries, 17 (1), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12105
  279. Alkishe, A., R.K. Raghavan, and A.T. Peterson, 2021: Likely geographic distributional shifts among medically important tick species and tick-associated diseases under climate change in North America: A review. Insects, 12 (3), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030225
  280. Couper, L.I., A.J. MacDonald, and E.A. Mordecai, 2021: Impact of prior and projected climate change on US Lyme disease incidence. Global Change Biology, 27 (4), 738–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15435
  281. Lantos, P.M., J. Tsao, M. Janko, A. Arab, M.E. Fricken, P.G. Auwaerter, L.E. Nigrovic, V. Fowler, F. Ruffin, D. Gaines, J. Broyhill, and J. Swenson, 2021: Environmental correlates of Lyme disease emergence in southwest Virginia, 2005–2014. Journal of Medical Entomology, 58 (4), 1680–1685. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjab038
  282. Seukep, S.E., K.N. Kolivras, Y. Hong, J. Li, S.P. Prisley, J.B. Campbell, D.N. Gaines, and R.L. Dymond, 2015: An examination of the demographic and environmental variables correlated with Lyme disease emergence in Virginia. EcoHealth, 12 (4), 634–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-015-1034-3
  283. Stevens, L.K., K.N. Kolivras, Y. Hong, V.A. Thomas, J.B. Campbell, and S.P. Prisley, 2019: Future Lyme disease risk in the south-eastern United States based on projected land cover. Geospatial Health, 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2019.751
  284. Morse, W., K. Izenour, B. McKenzie, S. Lessard, and S. Zohdy, 2019: Perceptions and practices of mosquito-borne diseases in Alabama – Is concern where it should be? BMC Public Health, 19 (1), 987. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7308-x
  285. Kollars, T.M., 2017: Identifying health disparities of mosquito-borne diseases in low and medium income communities in Savannah, Georgia, USA. Annals of Community Medicine and Practice, 3 (2), 1025. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/public/assets/articles/communitymedicine-3-1024.pdf
  286. Kollars, T.M., 2017: Identifying high risk areas of West Nile Virus in minority and low-income neighborhoods. Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2 (1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.15761/cmid.1000123
  287. Mental Health America, 2020: 2020 Prevalence Data. Mental Health America. https://www.nssbehavioralhealth.com/blog-nss-the-state-of-mental-health-in-america-2020-adult-prevalence-and-access-to-care/
  288. Mental Health America, 2020: 2020 Access to Care Data. Mental Health America. https://www.nssbehavioralhealth.com/blog-nss-the-state-of-mental-health-in-america-2020-adult-prevalence-and-access-to-care/
  289. Sugg, M., J. Runkle, R. Leeper, H. Bagli, A. Golden, L.H. Handwerger, T. Magee, C. Moreno, R. Reed-Kelly, M. Taylor, and S. Woolard, 2020: A scoping review of drought impacts on health and society in North America. Climatic Change, 162 (3), 1177–1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02848-6
  290. Palinkas, L.A. and M. Wong, 2020: Global climate change and mental health. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.023
  291. Clayton, S., 2020: Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 74, 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263
  292. Panu, P., 2020: Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability, 12 (19), 7836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197836
  293. Espinel, Z., J.P. Kossin, S. Galea, A.S. Richardson, and J.M. Shultz, 2019: Forecast: Increasing mental health consequences from Atlantic hurricanes throughout the 21st century. Psychiatric Services, 70 (12), 1165–1167. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900273
  294. Orengo-Aguayo, R., R.W. Stewart, M.A. Arellano, J.L. Suárez-Kindy, and J. Young, 2019: Disaster exposure and mental health among Puerto Rican youths after Hurricane Maria. JAMA Network Open, 2 (4), 192619. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2619
  295. Scaramutti, C., C.P. Salas-Wright, S.R. Vos, and S.J. Schwartz, 2019: The mental health impact of Hurricane Maria on Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico and Florida. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 13 (1), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2018.151
  296. Kunreuther, H.C., E.O. Michel-Kerjan, N.A. Doherty, M.F. Grace, R.W. Klein, and M.V. Pauly, 2009: At War with the Weather: Managing Large-Scale Risks in a New Era of Catastrophes. The MIT Press, 440 pp. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhn3h
  297. Mileti, D., 1999: Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, 371 pp. https://doi.org/10.17226/5782
  298. Martinich, J. and A. Crimmins, 2019: Climate damages and adaptation potential across diverse sectors of the United States. Nature Climate Change, 9 (5), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0444-6
  299. Grinsted, A., P. Ditlevsen, and J.H. Christensen, 2019: Normalized US hurricane damage estimates using area of total destruction, 1900−2018. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116 (48), 23942–23946. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912277116
  300. Hsiang, S., R. Kopp, A. Jina, J. Rising, M. Delgado, S. Mohan, D.J. Rasmussen, R. Muir-Wood, P. Wilson, M. Oppenheimer, K. Larsen, and T. Houser, 2017: Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science, 356 (6345), 1362–1369. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4369
  301. Bhattachan, A., M.D. Jurjonas, P.R. Morris, P.J. Taillie, L.S. Smart, R.E. Emanuel, and E.L. Seekamp, 2019: Linking residential saltwater intrusion risk perceptions to physical exposure of climate change impacts in rural coastal communities of North Carolina. Natural Hazards, 97 (3), 1277–1295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03706-0
  302. Colburn, L.L., M. Jepson, C. Weng, T. Seara, J. Weiss, and J.A. Hare, 2016: Indicators of climate change and social vulnerability in fishing dependent communities along the Eastern and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Marine Policy, 74, 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.030
  303. Seara, T., M. Jepson, and M. McPherson, 2022: Community Climate Change Vulnerability in the South Atlantic, Florida Keys and Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-754. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, FL, 40 pp. https://doi.org/10.25923/0wqe-3511
  304. Pederson, N., A.R. Bell, T.A. Knight, C. Leland, N. Malcomb, K.J. Anchukaitis, K. Tackett, J. Scheff, A. Brice, B. Catron, W. Blozan, and J. Riddle, 2012: A long-term perspective on a modern drought in the American Southeast. Environmental Research Letters, 7 (1), 014034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014034
  305. Raczynski, K. and J. Dyer, 2022: Variability of annual and monthly streamflow droughts over the southeastern United States. Water, 14 (23). https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233848
  306. Sohn, J., 2011: Watering cities: Spatial analysis of urban water use in the southeastern United States. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54 (10), 1351–1371. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.575188
  307. Sun, G., S.G. McNulty, J.A. Moore Myers, and E.C. Cohen, 2008: Impacts of multiple stresses on water demand and supply across the southeastern United States. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44 (6), 1441–1457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00250.x
  308. Bolinger, B., 2019: How Drought Prone Is Your State? A Look at the Top States and Counties in Drought over the Last Two Decades. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Integrated Drought Information System. https://www.drought.gov/news/how-drought-prone-your-state-look-top-states-and-counties-drought-over-last-two-decades
  309. Engström, J., K. Jafarzadegan, and H. Moradkhani, 2020: Drought vulnerability in the United States: An integrated assessment. Water, 12 (7), 2033. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12072033
  310. Alexandrov, V.A. and G. Hoogenboom, 2000: Vulnerability and adaptation assessments of agricultural crops under climate change in the southeastern USA. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 67 (1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007040070015
  311. Shortridge, J., 2019: Observed trends in daily rainfall variability result in more severe climate change impacts to agriculture. Climatic Change, 157 (3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02555-x
  312. Castillo, F., A.M. Mora, G.L. Kayser, J. Vanos, C. Hyland, A.R. Yang, and B. Eskenazi, 2021: Environmental health threats to Latino migrant farmworkers. Annual Review of Public Health, 42 (1), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-012420-105014
  313. Zhang, Y. and D.T. Shindell, 2021: Costs from labor losses due to extreme heat in the USA attributable to climate change. Climatic Change, 164 (3), 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03014-2
  314. DOT, 2021: Climate Action Plan: Revitalizing Efforts to Bolster Adaptation & Increase Resilience. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Washington, DC. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/66379
  315. Burton, M., J. Camp, C. Philip, and L. Bray, 2017: The Impacts of Unscheduled Lock Outages. National Waterways Foundation and U.S. Maritime Administration. https://www.nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org/file/2/low%20res%20lock%20outage%20nwf_final_report%202017.pdf
  316. Pinkley, S.G.N., K.M. Sullivan, B.R. Runkle, H.T. Bui, J. Khatamov, J. Camp, K. Turner, and N. Laning, 2021: Informing Post-Disaster Restoration Through Modeling Interdependent Agriculture and Transportation Networks. Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/61007
  317. Neumann, J.E., P. Chinowsky, J. Helman, M. Black, C. Fant, K. Strzepek, and J. Martinich, 2021: Climate effects on US infrastructure: The economics of adaptation for rail, roads, and coastal development. Climatic Change, 167 (3), 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03179-w
  318. Ghadge, A., H. Wurtmann, and S. Seuring, 2020: Managing climate change risks in global supply chains: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Production Research, 58 (1), 44–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1629670
  319. Camp, J., M. Abkowitz, G. Hornberger, L. Benneyworth, and J.C. Banks, 2013: Climate change and freight-transportation infrastructure: Current challenges for adaptation. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 19 (4), 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000151
  320. Fant, C., B. Boehlert, K. Strzepek, P. Larsen, A. White, S. Gulati, Y. Li, and J. Martinich, 2020: Climate change impacts and costs to U.S. electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure. Energy, 195, 116899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.116899
  321. Larsen, P.H., B. Boehlert, J. Eto, K. Hamachi-LaCommare, J. Martinich, and L. Rennels, 2018: Projecting future costs to U.S. electric utility customers from power interruptions. Energy, 147, 1256–1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.081
  322. Polansek, T., 2021: US Coast Guard shuts part of lower Mississippi River as bridge cracks. Reuters, May 12, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/coast-guard-shuts-portion-lower-mississippi-river-due-bridge-crack-2021-05-12/
  323. Prida, A., 2021: How Does Climate Change Affect Inland Waterway Transport in the Mississippi river? AXA Climate. https://www.climate.axa/articles/how-does-climate-change-affect-inland-waterway-transport-in-the-mississippi-river
  324. Nakano, K., 2021: Risk assessment for adaptation to climate change in the international supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 319, 128785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128785
  325. Godde, C.M., D. Mason-D’Croz, D.E. Mayberry, P.K. Thornton, and M. Herrero, 2021: Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply chain; a review of the evidence. Global Food Security, 28, 100488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100488
  326. BTS, 2022: Low Water on the Mississippi Slows Critical Freight Flows. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, accessed April 27, 2023. https://www.bts.gov/data-spotlight/low-water-mississippi-slows-critical-freight-flows
  327. CoFiRES, 2023: Characterizing and Managing the Financial Risks of Drought Along the Mississippi River. University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Center on Financial Risk in Environmental Systems, accessed May 18, 2023. https://sph.unc.edu/cfres/mississippi-river/
  328. Neidell, M., J.G. Zivin, M. Sheahan, J. Willwerth, C. Fant, M. Sarofim, and J. Martinich, 2021: Temperature and work: Time allocated to work under varying climate and labor market conditions. PLoS ONE, 16 (8), 0254224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254224
  329. Rode, A., R.E. Baker, T. Carleton, A. D'Agostino, M. Delgado, T. Foreman, D.R. Gergel, M. Greenstone, T. Houser, S. Hsiang, A. Hultgren, A. Jina, R.E. Kopp, S.B. Malevich, K.E. McCusker, I. Nath, M. Pecenco, J. Rising, and J. Yuan, 2022: Labor Disutility in a Warmer World: The Impact of Climate Change on the Global Workforce. Social Science Research Network, 96 pp. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4221478
  330. Karthick, S., S. Kermanshachi, B. Rouhanizadeh, and M. Namian, 2021: Short- and long-term health challenges of transportation workforce due to extreme weather conditions. In: Tran-SET 2021. American Society of Civil Engineers, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483787.005
  331. EIA, 2022: Gulf of Mexico Fact Sheet. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. http://www.eia.gov/special/gulf_of_mexico/
  332. Burkett, V., 2011: Global climate change implications for coastal and offshore oil and gas development. Energy Policy, 39 (12), 7719–7725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.016
  333. Cruz, A.M. and E. Krausmann, 2008: Damage to offshore oil and gas facilities following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: An overview. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21 (6), 620–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2008.04.008
  334. Coleman, N., A. Esmalian, and A. Mostafavi, 2020: Equitable resilience in infrastructure systems: Empirical assessment of disparities in hardship experiences of vulnerable populations during service disruptions. Natural Hazards Review, 21 (4), 04020034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000401
  335. Sussman, F.G. and J.R. Freed, 2008: Adapting to Climate Change: A Business Approach. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/global_warming/businessadaptationpdf.pdf
  336. Louie, E.P. and J.M. Pearce, 2016: Retraining investment for U.S. transition from coal to solar photovoltaic employment. Energy Economics, 57, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.05.016
  337. Carley, S. and D.M. Konisky, 2020: The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nature Energy, 5 (8), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6
  338. Tomer, A., J. Kane, and C. George, 2021: How Renewable Energy Jobs Can Uplift Fossil Fuel Communities and Remake Climate Politics. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-renewable-energy-jobs-can-uplift-fossil-fuel-communities-and-remake-climate-politics/
  339. Abraham, J., 2017: Just transitions for the miners: Labor environmentalism in the Ruhr and Appalachian coalfields. New Political Science, 39 (2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2017.1301313
  340. Chesmore, G., R. Starr, R. Van Hoeck, and M. Ward, 2021: The crisis of US coal communities: Strategies for a just transition to renewable energy. Journal of Science Policy & Governance, 18 (2). https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg180202
  341. Becker, W.S. and B. McKibben, 2021: The Creeks Will Rise: People Coexisting with Floods. Chicago Review Press, 368 pp. https://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/creeks-will-rise--the-products-9781682752753.php
  342. ERS, 2022: Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/
  343. NASS, 2019: 2017 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data. AC-17-A-51. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/publications/agcensus/2017/index.php
  344. Karakoc, D.B., J. Wang, and M. Konar, 2022: Food flows between counties in the United States from 2007 to 2017. Environmental Research Letters, 17 (3), 034035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5270
  345. Walker, R.E., C.R. Keane, and J.G. Burke, 2010: Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place, 16 (5), 876–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013
  346. DeGaetano, A.T. and R.J. Allen, 2002: Trends in twentieth-century temperature extremes across the United States. Journal of Climate, 15 (22), 3188–3205. DOI:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<3188:titcte>2.0.co;2 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3188_titcte_2.0.co_2.xml
  347. Bernabucci, U., 2019: Climate change: Impact on livestock and how can we adapt. Animal Frontiers: The Review Magazine of Animal Agriculture, 9 (1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy039
  348. Parker, L.E. and J.T. Abatzoglou, 2019: Warming winters reduce chill accumulation for peach production in the southeastern United States. Climate, 7 (8), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7080094
  349. EPA, 2016: Climate Change Indicators: Length of Growing Season. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-length-growing-season
  350. Schaarschmidt, S., L.M.F. Lawas, J. Kopka, S.V.K. Jagadish, and E. Zuther, 2021: Physiological and molecular attributes contribute to high night temperature tolerance in cereals. Plant, Cell & Environment, 44 (7), 2034–2048. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14055
  351. Apurv, T. and X. Cai, 2021: Regional drought risk in the contiguous United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 48 (5), 2020GL092200. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl092200
  352. Ficklin, D.L., J.T. Maxwell, S.L. Letsinger, and H. Gholizadeh, 2015: A climatic deconstruction of recent drought trends in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 10 (4), 044009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044009
  353. Rind, D., R. Goldberg, J. Hansen, C. Rosenzweig, and R. Ruedy, 1990: Potential evapotranspiration and the likelihood of future drought. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 95 (D7), 9983–10004. https://doi.org/10.1029/jd095id07p09983
  354. Leeper, R.D., R. Bilotta, B. Petersen, C.J. Stiles, R. Heim, B. Fuchs, O.P. Prat, M. Palecki, and S. Ansari, 2022: Characterizing U.S. drought over the past 20 years using the U.S. Drought Monitor. International Journal of Climatology, 42 (12), 6616–6630. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7653
  355. Apurv, T., X. Cai, and X. Yuan, 2019: Influence of internal variability and global warming on multidecadal changes in regional drought severity over the continental United States. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 20 (3), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-18-0167.1
  356. Crystal-Ornelas, R., E.J. Hudgins, R.N. Cuthbert, P.J. Haubrock, J. Fantle-Lepczyk, E. Angulo, A.M. Kramer, L. Ballesteros-Mejia, B. Leroy, B. Leung, E. López-López, C. Diagne, and F. Courchamp, 2021: Economic costs of biological invasions within North America. NeoBiota, 67, 485–510. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58038
  357. Paini, D.R., A.W. Sheppard, D.C. Cook, P.J. De Barro, S.P. Worner, and M.B. Thomas, 2016: Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113 (27), 7575–7579. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602205113
  358. Armal, S., N. Devineni, and R. Khanbilvardi, 2018: Trends in extreme rainfall frequency in the contiguous United States: Attribution to climate change and climate variability modes. Journal of Climate, 31 (1), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0106.1
  359. Bartels, R.J., A.W. Black, and B.D. Keim, 2020: Trends in precipitation days in the United States. International Journal of Climatology, 40 (2), 1038–1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6254
  360. Brown, V.M., B.D. Keim, and A.W. Black, 2019: Climatology and trends in hourly precipitation for the southeast United States. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 20 (8), 1737–1755. https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-19-0004.1
  361. Brown, V.M., B.D. Keim, and A.W. Black, 2020: Trend analysis of multiple extreme hourly precipitation time series in the southeastern United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 59 (3), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-19-0119.1
  362. Kossin, J.P., 2018: A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed. Nature, 558 (7708), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0158-3
  363. Harris, A.R., E.N. Fidan, N.G. Nelson, R.E. Emanuel, T. Jass, S. Kathariou, J. Niedermeyer, M. Sharara, F.L. de los Reyes, D.A. Riveros-Iregui, and J.R. Stewart, 2021: Microbial contamination in environmental waters of rural and agriculturally-dominated landscapes following Hurricane Florence. ACS ES&T Water, 1 (9), 2012–2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.1c00103
  364. Paul, M.J., R. Coffey, J. Stamp, and T. Johnson, 2019: A review of water quality responses to air temperature and precipitation changes 1: Flow, water temperature, saltwater intrusion. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 55 (4), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12710
  365. Izaguirre, C., I.J. Losada, P. Camus, J.L. Vigh, and V. Stenek, 2021: Climate change risk to global port operations. Nature Climate Change, 11 (1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00937-z
  366. Markolf, S.A., C. Hoehne, A. Fraser, M.V. Chester, and B.S. Underwood, 2019: Transportation resilience to climate change and extreme weather events—Beyond risk and robustness. Transport Policy, 74, 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.003
  367. Verschuur, J., E.E. Koks, and J.W. Hall, 2020: Port disruptions due to natural disasters: Insights into port and logistics resilience. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 85, 102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102393
  368. Benevolenza, M.A. and L. DeRigne, 2019: The impact of climate change and natural disasters on vulnerable populations: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 29 (2), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2018.1527739
  369. Craig, C.A., S. Feng, and S. Gilbertz, 2019: Water crisis, drought, and climate change in the southeast United States. Land Use Policy, 88, 104110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104110
  370. Harris, G., 2020: Beginning, minority, and other underserved farmers and ranchers in the 2017 Census of Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook Forum. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.320929
  371. Furman, C., C. Roncoli, W. Bartels, M. Boudreau, H. Crockett, H. Gray, and G. Hoogenboom, 2014: Social justice in climate services: Engaging African American farmers in the American South. Climate Risk Management, 2, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2014.02.002
  372. Ali, C., 2021: Farm Fresh Broadband: The Politics of Rural Connectivity. MIT Press, 306 pp. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262543064/farm-fresh-broadband/
  373. Lal, P., J.R.R. Alavalapati, and E.D. Mercer, 2011: Socio-economic impacts of climate change on rural United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16 (7), 819–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9295-9
  374. Leslie, I.S. and M.M. White, 2018: Ch. 19. Race and Food: Agricultural resistance in U.S. history. In: Handbook of the Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations. Batur, P. and J.R. Feagin, Eds. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76757-4_19
  375. Quaye, F., D. Nadolnyak, and V. Hartarska, 2018: Climate change impacts on farmland values in the southeast United States. Sustainability, 10 (10), 3426. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103426
  376. Holka, M., J. Kowalska, and M. Jakubowska, 2022: Reducing carbon footprint of agriculture—Can organic farming help to mitigate climate change? Agriculture, 12 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091383
  377. Jouzi, Z., H. Azadi, F. Taheri, K. Zarafshani, K. Gebrehiwot, S. Van Passel, and P. Lebailly, 2017: Organic farming and small-scale farmers: Main opportunities and challenges. Ecological Economics, 132, 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.016
  378. Flörke, M., C. Schneider, and R.I. McDonald, 2018: Water competition between cities and agriculture driven by climate change and urban growth. Nature Sustainability, 1 (1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0006-8
  379. Schlef, K.E., S. Steinschneider, and C.M. Brown, 2018: Spatiotemporal impacts of climate and demand on water supply in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144 (2), 05017020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000865
  380. Krayenhoff, E.S., M. Moustaoui, A.M. Broadbent, V. Gupta, and M. Georgescu, 2018: Diurnal interaction between urban expansion, climate change and adaptation in US cities. Nature Climate Change, 8 (12), 1097–1103. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0320-9
  381. Napton, D.E., R.F. Auch, R. Headley, and J.L. Taylor, 2010: Land changes and their driving forces in the southeastern United States. Regional Environmental Change, 10 (1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-009-0084-x
  382. Changnon, S.A., 1989: The 1988 drought, barges, and diversion. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 70 (9), 1092–1104. DOI:10.1175/1520-0477(1989)070<1092:tdbad>2.0.co;2 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/70/9/1520-0477_1989_070_1092_tdbad_2_0_co_2.xml
  383. Kemp, G.P., C.S. Willson, J.D. Rogers, K.A. Westphal, and S.A. Binselam, 2014: Adapting to change in the lowermost Mississippi River: Implications for navigation, flood control and restoration of the delta ecosystem. In: Perspectives on the Restoration of the Mississippi Delta: The Once and Future Delta. Day, J.W., G.P. Kemp, A.M. Freeman, and D.P. Muth, Eds. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 51–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8733-8_5
  384. Balbus, J.M. and C. Malina, 2009: Identifying vulnerable subpopulations for climate change health effects in the United States. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51 (1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0b013e318193e12e
  385. Porfirio, L.L., D. Newth, J.J. Finnigan, and Y. Cai, 2018: Economic shifts in agricultural production and trade due to climate change. Palgrave Communications, 4 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0164-y
  386. Balafoutis, A., B. Beck, S. Fountas, J. Vangeyte, T. Van der Wal, I. Soto, M. Gómez-Barbero, A. Barnes, and V. Eory, 2017: Precision agriculture technologies positively contributing to GHG emissions mitigation, farm productivity and economics. Sustainability, 9 (8), 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081339
  387. Kaye, J.P. and M. Quemada, 2017: Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x
  388. Kladivko, E.J., T.C. Kaspar, D.B. Jaynes, R.W. Malone, J. Singer, X.K. Morin, and T. Searchinger, 2014: Cover crops in the upper midwestern United States: Potential adoption and reduction of nitrate leaching in the Mississippi River Basin. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 69 (4), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.4.279
  389. Sarrantonio, M. and E. Gallandt, 2003: The role of cover crops in North American cropping systems. Journal of Crop Production, 8 (1–2), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/j144v08n01_04
  390. Grey, T.L., K. Rucker, T.M. Webster, and X. Luo, 2016: High-density plantings of olive trees are tolerant to repeated applications of indaziflam. Weed Science, 64 (4), 766–771. https://doi.org/10.1614/ws-d-16-00025.1
  391. Hanly, M. and S. Davis, 2010: History of Olive Growing in Georgia: The Past and Future of Olive Tree Production in Georgia. Georgia Olive Growers Association. http://georgiaolivegrowers.com/resources-research/history/
  392. Jacobs, J. and G. Krewer, 2009: An Early Look at Olives in Georgia. The University of Georgia. https://extension.uga.edu/about/our-impact/impact-stories/impact-statement/2393/an-early-look-at-olives-in-georgia.html
  393. Nesbitt, M.L., R.C. Ebel, and W.A. Dozier Jr., 2008: Production practices for satsuma mandarins in the southeastern United States. HortScience, 43 (2), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci.43.2.290
  394. Davis, M., 2020: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Use of Genetically Engineered Agricultural Crops for Natural Resource Management on National Wildlife Refuges in the Southeastern United States. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. https://ecos.fws.gov/servcat/downloadfile/171732
  395. Kovak, E., D. Blaustein-Rejto, and M. Qaim, 2022: Genetically modified crops support climate change mitigation. Trends in Plant Science, 27 (7), 627–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.01.004
  396. Lesk, C., E. Coffel, J. Winter, D. Ray, J. Zscheischler, S.I. Seneviratne, and R. Horton, 2021: Stronger temperature–moisture couplings exacerbate the impact of climate warming on global crop yields. Nature Food, 2 (9), 683–691. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00341-6
  397. Seifert, C.A. and D.B. Lobell, 2015: Response of double cropping suitability to climate change in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 10 (2), 024002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024002
  398. Nabhan, G.P. and J.L. Carr, Eds., 1994: Ironwood: An Ecological and Cultural Keystone of the Sonoran Desert. University of Chicago Press, 92 pp. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/I/bo3634046.html
  399. Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott, 1995: Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Biological Report 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. https://ecos.fws.gov/servcat/downloadfile/101448?reference=61075
  400. Anderson, M.K. and T. Oakes, 2011: Plant Guide for Giant Cane Arundinaria gigantea. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/documentlibrary/plantguide/pdf/cs_argi.pdf
  401. McKenzie, E.R., 2021: Indigenous Approaches to Rivercane Restoration Workshop. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 38 pp. https://www.spa.usace.army.mil/portals/16/docs/tntcx/misc/feb_2022_rr%20workshop%20report_final.pdf?ver=8b900adld-cpycs2bh4x_q%3d%3d
  402. Michaux, F.A. and B. Lambert, 1805: Travels to the Westward of the Allegany Mountains, in the States of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and Return to Charlestown, Through the Upper Carolinas; Containing Details on the Present State of Agriculture and the Natural Production of These Countries; As Well as Information Relative to the Commercial Connections of These States with Those Situated to the Eastward of the Mountains and with Lower Louisiana. Undertaken in the Year X, 1802, Under the Auspices of His Excellency M. Chaptal, Minister of the Interior. With a Very Correct Map of the States in the Centre, West and South of the United States. Mawman, J., Ed., London, UK, 350 pp. [Print].
  403. Aranzazu Lascurain (Author), September 8, 2022: Oral communication/email communication with Mitzi Reed, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
  404. Platt, S.G., C.G. Brantley, and T.R. Rainwater, 2001: Canebrake fauna: Wildlife diversity in a critically endangered ecosystem. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 117 (1), 1–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24335363
  405. Schoonover, J.E., K.W.J. Williard, J.J. Zaczek, J.C. Mangun, and A.D. Carver, 2006: Agricultural sediment reduction by giant cane and forest riparian buffers. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 169 (1), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-006-3111-2
  406. Adam Griffith (Technical Contributor), May 24, 2022: Oral communication/email communication with Mary W. Thompson, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
  407. Schramm, P.J., C.L. Brown, S. Saha, K.C. Conlon, A.P. Manangan, J.E. Bell, and J.J. Hess, 2021: A systematic review of the effects of temperature and precipitation on pollen concentrations and season timing, and implications for human health. International Journal of Biometeorology, 65 (10), 1615–1628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-021-02128-7
  408. Eck, M.A., A.R. Murray, A.R. Ward, and C.E. Konrad, 2020: Influence of growing season temperature and precipitation anomalies on crop yield in the southeastern United States. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 291, 108053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108053
  409. Gordemer, B., 2021: Rising sea levels threaten the lives and livelihood of those on a fragile U.S. coast. NPR, November 7, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/07/1051529051/rising-sea-levels-climate-change-south-carolina-coast
  410. Crespi, J., C. Hart, C. Pudenz, L. Schulz, O. Wongpiyabovorn, and W. Zhang, 2022: An Examination of Recent Fertilizer Price Changes. Staff Report 22-SR 117. Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Ames, IA. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.24806.70720

Previous Chapter
View All Figures
Next Chapter

Likelihood

Virtually Certain Very Likely Likely As Likely as Not Unlikely Very Unikely Exceptionally Unlikely
99%–100% 90%–100% 66%–100% 33%–66% 0%–33% 0%–10% 0%–1%

Confidence Level

Very High High Medium Low
  • Strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, well-documented and accepted methods, etc.)
  • High consensus
  • Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/or documentation limited, etc.)
  • Medium consensus
  • Suggestive evidence (a few sources, limited consistency, methods emerging, etc.)
  • Competing schools of thought
  • Inconclusive evidence (limited sources, extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor documentation and/or methods not tested, etc.)
  • Disagreement or lack of opinions among experts

GlobalChange.gov is made possible by our participating agencies

Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security Department of Interior Department of State Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency NASA National Science Foundation Smithsonian Institute Agency for International Development
  • About USGCRP
  • FOIA requests
  • No FEAR Act
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Contact Us
  • Site Map
Looking for U.S. government information and services?
Visit USA.gov