Urban Sustainability

Climate-Resilient Land Use

Cities globally are expanding outward and consuming land resources at rates 50 percent faster than their population growth, while green space in urban areas continues to decline. Current land use and planning policies, and the institutions responsible for developing and implementing them, fail to adequately consider climate impacts and the need for rapid and deep decarbonization. The resulting patterns of urbanized sprawl not only contribute to growing carbon emissions, but often place people in harm’s way, exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities, and degrade valuable natural habitat.

Yet, urban areas and local jurisdictions are also where change is most possible. We focus on innovative land use tools — including land use policy, zoning, and energy transition frameworks—that subnational governments can use to enhance climate mitigation and adaptation in ways that avoid undermining other important goals.

Our work on climate-resilient land use documents how and where cities are growing, and which policy tools are most effective in different contexts; it also builds the local capacity needed to turn good ideas into lasting change. Here you’ll find research, policy recommendations, and practical resources for planners and communities working to build decarbonized places that foster environmental, economic, and social resilience.

Fostering Climate-Resilient Development

Land use policy is one of the few tools that can address climate risk, greenhouse gas emissions, and social equity simultaneously. Despite this potential, urban land use remains one of the most underutilized tools in the climate policy toolkit, due to gaps in spatial data, context-appropriate policy recommendations, and public narratives. Our work seeks to close these gaps by spatially analyzing how current and projected urban development patterns intersect with major climate hazards—flooding, landslides, sea level rise, wildfire, and extreme heat—starting with the United States and Central America. From this comparative analysis, we are identifying the land use policies that most effectively support climate-resilient development in diverse institutional and geographic contexts.

• Climate-resilient land use and development refers to the planning, design, and development of urban areas in ways that reduce vulnerability to climate impacts, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and promote long-term environmental, social, and economic sustainability. It encompasses:
• What we develop: Compact, mixed-use, and energy-efficient buildings and infrastructure that support low-carbon lifestyles and reduce resource consumption; and integrated green and blue infrastructure (e.g., parks, green roofs, wetlands) to manage stormwater, reduce urban heat, and enhance biodiversity, with a design meant to withstand climate hazards such as heatwaves, flooding, wildfires, and storms.
• Where we develop: In lower-risk areas away from floodplains, wildfire-prone zones, and coastal areas vulnerable to sea level rise; we do this while promoting location-efficient housing near jobs, transit, and services to reduce car dependency and emissions, limit urban sprawl, and protect natural ecosystems and carbon sinks.
• How we develop: By ensuring that all communities—especially historically marginalized or climate-vulnerable populations—have access to safe, affordable housing; reliable transportation; and healthy environments. We do this through inclusive governance, community participation, and investment in adaptive capacity, to be sure the benefits of resilience are shared equitably.

Our work focuses on four broad policy pathways:

1. Steering development away from high-risk areas through zoning and land use regulations;
2. promoting compact, transit-accessible growth that reduces emissions and provides a high quality of life;
3. building resilience into the urban fabric through green and blue infrastructure and climate-responsive building standards; and
4. strengthening the planning institutions and land-based finance systems that make sustained implementation possible.

On all four paths, we assess not just which instruments and policies exist, but which ones have proven effective and under what conditions.