Aaron Lampman, Washington College – Perceptions of Risk and Sea-Level Rise
On Washington College Week: Rising sea levels are already affecting communities.
Aaron Lampman, associate professor in the department of anthropology at Washington College, examines why coastal residents don’t accept this fact.
Aaron Lampman, Chair and Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology, is conducting ethnographic research in communities on Maryland’s Eastern Shore that are most vulnerable to dramatic sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay in the next 50 years. He and students are learning that how people perceive the risk associated with rising water levels is nuanced and complicated, deeply enfolded in their sense of place, their religious faith, their generational memories, and their way of life. Their research is helping local, state, and federal planners better understand how to communicate and plan for the effects caused by a changing sea level in the Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere.
Perceptions of Risk and Sea-Level Rise
In the low-lying communities along the Chesapeake Bay, high tides routinely drown parking lots and roads, and surge from hurricanes or even strong storms transform waterfront neighborhoods into open water. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the rate of sea level rise on the Chesapeake could reach 11 mm per year by 2050. Whole communities will soon be underwater. And much of the time, many of them already are.
Resource managers and planners are trying to help people with “managed retreat”—an organized method to move communities to higher ground. But they’re running into resistance, and a new research project into perceptions of risk that I have undertaken with my students and my colleague David Casagrande of Lehigh University is helping them learn why.
Students last summer conducted ethnographic interviews of residents in several vulnerable communities on Maryland’s Eastern Shore to gauge their perception of risk related to sea level rise and to learn what adaptations they are already making. Students transcribed 25 interviews, then uploaded them into a text analysis data package to identify and code for certain terms or combinations of words, enabling them to come up with a qualitative analysis of terms.
What they found is that most residents do not accept the terms or concepts of sea level rise or climate change. Instead, they use historic evidence and multigenerational memory to point to erosion or flooding as the cause. They exhibit a structural bias, seeking structural or technological fixes, such as seawalls, rather than retreating. They modify their behavior to deal with the problem—for instance, buying an old car to use when the water is high, rather than submerge their better vehicles.
People’s history, sense of place, religion, and way of life all come into play in how they perceive the risk of sea level rise in these communities. Our research is helping local, state, and federal officials better navigate those complex relationships.
I would be interested in learning more about the research. I have a paper in the next edition of ‘Coastal Management’ entitled “How to Retreat”. I acknowledge the bias towards protection works but we know that, for financial or technical reasons, protection cannot work everywhere. The alternative is retreat and the ‘assumed’ arrangement is for abandoned property to be acquired by government at a pre-hazard price. I look at the moral hazard and market distortion of buyouts by government. I think that perceptions of risk may indeed be related to a rejection of climate science or sea level rise projections but more importantly they reflect a view that government will bail them out, regardless of whether it is caused by climate change or just regular erosion. That is where the real problem sits.
Actually, the reason astute residents don’t accept such projections is that the scientific data does not support them. Predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise and “whole communities soon underwater” are based on superstition, not science.
Thanks to its unique geology (google search for “Chesapeake bolide”), the Chesapeake is sinking, faster than anywhere in America except the Mississippi Delta. That causes local or “relative” sea-level rise, which affects local communities, but it is unrelated to climate change, it is not accelerating, and there no evidence to suggest that the rate of rise “could reach 11 mm per year by 2050.”
The best/longest measurement Chesapeake sea-level measurement record is at Sewell’s Point, where we have 90 years of measurements. The sea-level trend there is about 4.6 mm/year, and it has not accelerated significantly over that 90 years, despite the large increase in atmospheric CO2 emissions and levels, and the attendant global warming. Here’s a graph, contrasting sea-level at Sewell’s Point with CO2:
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8638610&g_date=1920/1-2019/12&c_date=1920/1-2019/12&s_date=1920/1-2019/12&trend_noaa=0&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3&thick
About two-thirds of the local sea-level rise at Sewell’s Point is due to subsidence. The other one-third is global sea-level rise.
Although the Chesapeake’s local sea-level trend is much larger than typical, the lack of “acceleration” (rate change) is perfectly typical. All around the world, the story is the same: regardless of whether sea-level is rising or falling, the rate has been largely unchanged since the 1920s or before. Here are some more graphs:
http://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_Wismar_Stockholm_vs_CO2_annot3.png
https://sealevel.info/154_thumbnails.png
BTW, if you’re befuddled by this talk of “acceleration,” or you don’t understand how to recognize it in a graph, or it’s not clear to you that these graphs prove that CO2 level has little effect on sea-level rise, this little primer should help:
https://sealevel.info/acceleration_primer.html