Conor here: Conducting a personal risk assessment in the U.S. can be quite challenging, primarily because there are no publicly available, model-based maps that outline these risks. Instead, we are presented with information from private vendors, each with unique interests that may downplay potential dangers, leading to confusion for homebuyers. The primary focus seems to be on maintaining revenue; for instance, Zillow recently removed climate risk scores from its home listings following complaints that these metrics were negatively impacting sales.
Creating publicly funded, model-based maps in the U.S. is feasible. Susan Crawford at Moving Day outlines the essential steps:
We urgently need a fully funded, modernized federal flood mapping program designed to not only depict current risks but also project how flooding patterns may evolve in the future. A robust federal mapping initiative should serve as the national default, providing accessible and well-documented datasets, along with clear explanations of the methods and sources employed. Such a framework would establish an official, verified basis for floodplain development regulations, mortgage flood insurance mandates, and standards for elevation and flood-proofing in building codes.
This initiative could cost up to $12 billion.
By Ivis García, an associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning at Texas A&M University. Originally published at The Conversation.
Imagine this scenario: You’re in the market for a new home and faced with two choices.
Option A is a stunning residence in California, located near quality schools and ample job opportunities. However, it is priced at nearly a million dollars – the median home in California sells for US$906,500, and the mortgage costs have surged by 82% since January 2020.
Option B presents a similar property in Texas, where the median home price is less than half: just $353,700. The downside? This option lies in an area at considerable risk for hurricanes and floods.
As a professor of urban planning, I recognize that this scenario is far from hypothetical. It reflects the challenging choices millions of Americans grapple with daily as the U.S. housing crisis intersects with climate change. Unfortunately, we are not managing this situation effectively.
The Numbers Tell the Story
The migration trends tell a clear story. California, for example, lost 239,575 residents in 2024—the highest out-migration of any state. High housing costs drive this trend: the median home price in California is more than double the national median.
Many of these displaced residents are relocating to southern and western states like Florida and Texas. Texas, in particular, has become the primary destination for former California residents, gaining 85,267 new residents in 2024 through domestic migration, largely attracted by the more affordable housing market.
This is not simply about individuals seeking lower taxes. It illustrates an unfolding housing affordability crisis. In June 2025, a recent analysis found that the annual household income needed to qualify for a mortgage on a mid-tier California home stood at approximately $237,000—over twice the state’s median household income.
More than 21 million renter households across the nation spent over 30% of their income on housing costs in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. For them and others struggling to make ends meet, the financial calculations may be straightforward, even if the risk assessments are not.
This situation is concerning. Essentially, the United States is fostering a system where an individual’s income dictates their exposure to climate-related disasters. When housing in safer areas becomes unaffordable, viable options tend to be in risk-prone locales—such as low-lying regions susceptible to flooding in Houston and coastal Texas, or expansion into fire-prone foothills in California.
Climate Risk Becomes Part of the Equation
Those relocating aren’t necessarily moving to safe havens. Research indicates that counties in the U.S. with high fire risks attracted 63,365 more residents than they lost in 2023, much of it moving towards Texas. Furthermore, my own studies and other post-disaster recovery research have consistently shown that the most vulnerable communities—low-income residents, people of color, renters—confront the greatest hurdles in rebuilding after disasters strike.
Consider the brewing insurance crisis in these destination states. Over recent years, numerous insurers in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and beyond have collapsed, unable to handle the increasing claims stemming from more frequent and severe disasters like wildfires and hurricanes. Economists Benjamin Keys and Philip Mulder, who examine climate impacts on real estate, refer to the insurance markets in certain high-risk areas as “broken”. Between 2018 and 2023, nearly 2 million homeowner policies were canceled nationwide—four times the usual rate.
Nevertheless, people continue to migrate to these high-risk regions. Recent research highlights a trend where individuals are moving toward areas at high risk of wildfires, even when wealth and other variables remain unchanged. The allure of the natural beauty present in fire-prone regions, along with housing accessibility and affordability, likely contribute to this pattern.
The Policy Failures Behind the False Choice
In my opinion, this issue extends beyond individual decision-making; it underscores a failure in policy. California aims to add 2.5 million new homes by 2030, which would require an increase of over 350,000 units annually. Yet in 2024, the state only managed to add around 100,000 homes—significantly falling short of requirements. When local governments impose restrictions on housing development through exclusionary zoning, they effectively make housing unattainable for working families, pushing them toward riskier options.
My research on disaster recovery illustrates how housing policies intersect with climate vulnerability. Communities with restricted housing options prior to disasters find themselves facing even tighter constraints afterward. People can’t select resilience if policies prevent them from building affordable housing in secure locations.
While the federal government has started to recognize this connection, albeit to a limited degree, there are still setbacks. For example, in 2023, the Federal Emergency Management Agency encouraged communities to incorporate “social vulnerability” in their disaster planning, alongside geographic risks. Social vulnerability includes socioeconomic factors such as poverty, transportation barriers, or language obstacles that hinder communities from effectively addressing disasters.
However, the agency recently reversed some of these progressions—just as the 2025 hurricane season commenced.
In my view, when society compels individuals to choose between securing housing and ensuring safety, it signifies a failure of that society. Housing should be considered a fundamental right, rather than a factor in risk assessment.
Unless policymakers address the root causes of housing scarcity in safe areas and protect vulnerable populations, climate change will persist in influencing where individuals can live—often leaving the most marginalized behind in the wake of future disasters.
