Page - 437 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

18 LossandDamage in theRapidlyChangingArctic 437 catedforrebuildinghomesaspartofthepost-disasterrecoverymeasuresonlyintheir current location, not in anew location.This creates aproblem if the land is lost for good, suchas in thecaseofcoastal erosionor sea level rise (seealsoBronen2015). Full integrationofhazardmitigationplanning intocomprehensive riskassessments is consideredexpensive, and time intensive.Also, allocationof funding isbasedon cost-benefit ratioswhichmeans that for exampleAlaskan communities, such as in Newtokcannotcompeteforhazardmitigationfundsduetotheirremotelocationand low population density, which equals to high costs and low benefits (Bronen and Chapin III 2013). These kinds of barriers (more examples inTable 18.2) represent driversofLossandDamagebecause theyhinder implementationofadaptation. TheyactaslimitstoadaptationandcanthusleadtoLossandDamagebecausethey prevent communities from takingaction. Interpreted in thisway,Loss andDamage can arise not only from climate impacts per se, but also from the socio-economic constraints thathinder adaptationof local communities. In thenextsubsection,wepresentexamplesofrelocationandoutmigrationin the Arcticshowingexampleswhenadaptationinsituisnotpossibleandleadsto(forced) relocation andoutmigration and can cause societal and cultural Loss andDamage. These examplesprovide evidence thatwith insufficient institutional, organisational and jurisdictional support relocationandmigrationactions cannotbeconsideredas adaptation. Fig.18.2 Institutionalandjurisdictionalframework,aswellassocio-economic,culturalandpolit- ical settings affect adaptation threshold of Arctic communities, and can be drivers of Loss and Damage