In the context of increasing climate-related disasters, experts are calling for a transformative approach to recovery that goes beyond merely restoring communities to their previous states. Sarah Labowitz and Katie Mears of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argue for what they term “adaptation through shock,” suggesting that disasters present opportunities for proactive change in community design and resilience.

The premise is grounded in the recognition that future environmental conditions will significantly alter the habitability of many regions. Rising temperatures, higher sea levels, and shifting agricultural zones mean some current settlements may become unsustainable or vanish altogether. According to Labowitz and Mears, disasters represent critical junctures when resources are mobilized and decisions made—choices that can either reinforce outdated vulnerabilities or pivot toward more sustainable futures.

This recovery model advocates for a broader vision of rebuilding, where protecting human well-being takes precedence over merely restoring real estate values. It might involve expanding food aid or providing direct cash assistance to those whose livelihoods are disrupted. More ambitiously, it could necessitate relocating populations from high-risk areas, an approach sometimes controversially labeled “managed retreat.” For example, in fire-prone communities such as Palisades or Altadena, recovery plans could incorporate redesigned street layouts that reduce vulnerability to wildfire winds, or the strategic acquisition of land to establish firebreaks. Offering buyouts to homeowners at pre-disaster values might facilitate relocation, while insurance reforms could discourage rebuilding in areas likely to be affected again.

Currently, recovery efforts often keep residents anchored in vulnerable zones. Migration tends to favor moving toward risk-prone areas where hazards are underpriced, perpetuating cycles of damage and costly reconstruction. Recent wildfires in Lahaina and Spokane, widespread destruction from storms such as Hurricane Helene, and growing losses from intense thunderstorms demonstrate the persistence—and sometimes expansion—of disaster exposure.

Contrary to common assumptions that funding limitations chiefly hamper recovery efforts, federal disaster relief spending in the United States has been substantial. Over the past decade, nearly $558 billion has been allocated nationwide. However, distribution has at times been uneven and politically influenced; during the Trump administration’s second term, for instance, states affected by Hurricane Helene received almost 40 times more aid than California did following its wildfires. Labowitz emphasizes that since substantial funds are already expended, the focus should shift toward optimizing their use.

“Why are we spending so much money?” Labowitz asks. “It’s because it’s the right thing to do,” she answers, highlighting the moral imperative of collective risk-sharing in a wealthy society. But she adds that the investment should aim not only to rebuild what existed but also to prepare communities for future shocks. This approach envisions recovery as an opportunity to redesign and harden communities, fostering long-term resilience rather than cyclical vulnerability.