Homes are collapsing in North Carolina. It could spell trouble for other coastal areas, too – CNN

Report on Coastal Erosion and its Implications for Sustainable Development in North Carolina

1.0 Introduction: A Failure in Coastal Resilience and Climate Adaptation

Accelerated coastal erosion on Hatteras Island, North Carolina, has resulted in the collapse of numerous beachfront homes, highlighting critical failures in achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The events in the villages of Buxton and Rodanthe serve as a case study on the cascading impacts of climate change, affecting community sustainability, economic stability, and environmental health. This report analyzes the situation through the lens of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

2.0 Impact on Sustainable Communities and Infrastructure (SDG 11 & SDG 13)

The destruction of residential properties directly undermines the objective of creating safe, resilient, and sustainable human settlements as outlined in SDG 11. Climate-related hazards, exacerbated by a lack of decisive climate action (SDG 13), are rendering coastal communities increasingly vulnerable.

• Infrastructure Loss: Since 2020, 27 beachfront homes have collapsed into the ocean, with 16 of these losses occurring since September of the reporting year.
• Accelerated Climate Hazards: Experts attribute the rapid erosion to the combined effects of rising sea levels and more powerful storms, which are direct consequences of climate change. This demonstrates a critical lack of adaptive capacity to climate-related disasters, a core target of SDG 13.
• Community Vulnerability: The Cape Hatteras National Seashore has issued warnings that additional homes are at imminent risk of collapse, indicating an ongoing and escalating threat to community safety and stability (Target 11.5).
• A Precedent for Other Regions: Experts warn that the events on Hatteras Island are a “canary in the coal mine,” foreshadowing similar crises in other coastal areas if climate adaptation and resilience measures are not urgently implemented globally.

3.0 Institutional Failures and Economic Vulnerability (SDG 16 & SDG 1)

The crisis has exposed significant weaknesses in institutional frameworks designed to protect homeowners, hindering disaster recovery and proactive adaptation. These failures threaten the economic well-being of residents, conflicting with the principles of SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions).

3.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Inadequacies

1. Lack of Proactive Support: The NFIP, managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), does not provide financial assistance for homeowners to proactively relocate their properties. Payouts are typically reserved for properties that have already been destroyed.
2. Perverse Incentives: This policy structure inadvertently encourages homeowners to wait for a total loss rather than undertaking costly preventative measures, such as a home relocation estimated at $55,000 in one case.
3. Institutional Paralysis: An ongoing government shutdown has rendered the NFIP unable to issue, renew, or modify policies, leaving homeowners in a state of uncertainty and unable to secure adequate financial protection at a time of heightened risk. This highlights a failure to maintain effective and accountable institutions (Target 16.6).

4.0 Environmental Degradation and Ineffective Mitigation (SDG 14 & SDG 13)

The collapse of homes and the inadequacy of current erosion control methods have direct negative consequences for the marine environment and demonstrate a reactive, rather than strategic, approach to climate adaptation.

• Marine Pollution: Collapsing structures release debris and pollutants into the Atlantic Ocean, contributing to marine pollution from land-based activities and threatening coastal ecosystems, in direct opposition to the goals of SDG 14 (Target 14.1).
• Failure of Mitigation Efforts: Beach nourishment projects, including a recent $18 million initiative, have proven insufficient to counteract the rate of erosion. This indicates that current adaptation strategies are not keeping pace with the escalating impacts of climate change (SDG 13).
• Unsustainable Solutions: Experts note that engineered structures like jetties or groins would not solve the erosion problem but merely shift it to other areas of the coastline, underscoring the need for holistic and sustainable coastal management plans.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several issues that connect directly to multiple Sustainable Development Goals. The primary themes of climate change impacts, destruction of housing, community vulnerability, and institutional failures are central to the following SDGs:

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This goal is central to the article, which focuses on the loss of homes and the increasing vulnerability of coastal communities in North Carolina. The collapse of houses directly threatens the safety and sustainability of these human settlements.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article explicitly identifies climate change as the root cause of the problems. It states, “climate change fuels more powerful storms and hastens erosion,” and mentions “Rising sea levels” as a key factor, linking the local disaster directly to the global need for climate action and adaptation.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: While the homeowners may not be in poverty, the article discusses significant economic shocks and losses that increase financial vulnerability. The loss of a primary asset (a house worth $495,000) and the lack of adequate financial safety nets can push individuals and families towards economic hardship, which is relevant to the broader aims of SDG 1.
• SDG 14: Life Below Water: The environmental consequences of the collapsing homes are mentioned. The article notes the problem of “debris” and “pollution” from the collapsed structures entering the ocean, which directly impacts marine ecosystems and aligns with the goal of reducing marine pollution.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article points to significant failures in institutional response. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is described as having rules that disincentivize proactive measures and being non-operational due to a “government shutdown,” highlighting a lack of effective and accountable institutions to support citizens in times of crisis.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.5: “By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses…caused by disasters, including water-related disasters…” The article is entirely focused on the impact of a water-related disaster (coastal erosion and storms), detailing the number of people affected (homeowners) and the direct economic losses (27 collapsed homes, including one purchased for $495,000).
   • Target 11.b: “…implementing integrated policies and plans towards…adaptation to climate change, disaster risk reduction…” The article discusses local adaptation plans like “beach nourishment” but notes they “aren’t keeping up.” It also highlights the failure of insurance policies to support proactive disaster risk reduction, such as relocating homes.
2. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.1: “Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.” The events in Buxton and Rodanthe are a clear example of a failure to strengthen resilience. The community’s adaptive capacity is overwhelmed by accelerating erosion and storms, leading to the loss of homes.
3. Under SDG 1 (No Poverty):
   • Target 1.5: “By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.” The homeowners are in a vulnerable situation due to their coastal location. The article details their exposure to climate-related events and the severe economic shock from losing their homes, compounded by inadequate insurance support.
4. Under SDG 14 (Life Below Water):
   • Target 14.1: “By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris…” The article directly mentions the consequences of collapsing homes, which include “the debris, you’ve got pollution…damaging neighboring structures and all the mess that goes with it,” which enters the ocean.
5. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article critiques the effectiveness and accountability of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which “won’t help cover the cost of relocating his home” and is unable to modify policies “during the ongoing government shutdown.” This points to an institutional failure to serve the public effectively.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators for the identified targets:

• For Target 11.5 (Reduce disaster losses):
  • Indicator (Implied): Number of housing units destroyed or damaged by disasters. The article provides a precise number: “27 beachfront homes…have collapsed into the ocean since 2020,” with “Sixteen of the 27 homes” collapsing since September.
  • Indicator (Implied): Direct economic loss from disasters. The article provides a specific example of economic loss: a house “purchased for $495,000” was lost. It also mentions the cost of adaptation: relocating a home costs about “$55,000.”
• For Target 13.1 (Strengthen resilience):
  • Indicator (Implied): Effectiveness of local disaster risk reduction strategies. The article mentions a “$18 million project for beach nourishment” but includes expert testimony that these efforts “aren’t keeping up,” indicating that the strategy is insufficient to build resilience against the rate of erosion.
• For Target 1.5 (Build resilience of the vulnerable):
  • Indicator (Implied): Number of people directly affected by disasters. The article focuses on the stories of affected homeowners like Stacy Morgan, Brandon Dodick, and Lat Williams, representing the human impact. The collapse of 27 homes implies at least 27 households have been directly affected.
• For Target 14.1 (Reduce marine pollution):
  • Indicator (Implied): Amount of land-based debris entering the marine environment. While not quantified, the article clearly identifies a source of pollution: debris from 27 collapsed homes. The number of collapsed structures serves as a proxy indicator for the scale of the pollution event.
• For Target 16.6 (Effective institutions):
  • Indicator (Implied): Public satisfaction with government services. The frustration expressed by homeowners serves as a qualitative indicator. Statements like, “it frustrates him that the National Flood Insurance Program…won’t help,” and “now we see nobody is helping us. It feels like nobody is doing anything to help the situation,” directly measure public perception of institutional effectiveness.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cnn.com