MANAGED RETREAT AS PREVENTATIVE CONSERVATION?

Collections Corner | Martin Bierens

---

In order to mitigate the risk that climate change poses to museums, should museums in coastal areas begin a managed retreat?

One of the proposed solutions for dealing with climate change, specifically the threat of rising sea levels is managed retreat. This involves a coordinated movement of people, and if possible, buildings away from threatened areas. Unfortunately, if we continue to ignore the warning signs of climate change and do not change our behaviour, this may become our only choice.

Climate change is a global issue facing many museums. In the United States, over a third of museums in the US are within 100km of the coast, and a quarter of these museums are located in high-risk areas. This means that they will almost certainly have to deal with potentially permanent flooding and increased severe weather that posses a massive threat of damaging or destroying museum collections.

Museums within 100km of the Gulf Coast and associated risk level of sea-level rise. (Source)

There are various pros and cons that museums will need to consider if they decide that a managed retreat is necessary.

Pros:

• Lowers the risk of environmental damage.
• It may be the only available option to save the museum.

Cons:

• The cost of a total collection move, and a new building.
• High risk of potentially damaging the collection during the move.
• Abandonment of community connections.

Flood Damage at the 9/11 Memorial Museums in New York City after Hurricane Sandy in 2012. (Source)

Along with the pros and cons of a managed retreat, there are also significant obstacles that will make the process extremely difficult.

• Coastal areas currently offer massive benefits to museums, they have high tourism, and the coast is the location of major economic centres.
• Currently there is no political agreement on the best course of action for undertaking a managed retreat. (Or responding to climate change in general.)
• There is still uncertainly of the level of risk.
• We are attached to our homes.
• Finally, and must crucially, museums abandoning communities which they have been situated in for years sends a bad message to those that they are leaving behind. This will clearly make evident the economic inequity of the organization compared to those who do not have the opportunity to retreat despite the risk.

It is difficult to argue for or against a managed retreat. On the collections management and preservation side of the argument, a managed retreat may be the only way to ensure the preservation of museum collections in the future. If this is considered the main purpose of a museum then a managed retreat is what is best for the museum. But, if the purpose of a museum is a place to bring together diverse voices, participatory experiences, and as a centre for community togetherness, then a managed retreat is abandoning the people who we should be serving.

I really hope that this is a theoretical situation and that collectively we will find other ways to address climate change before it gets to the point of having to abandon entire cities. But, if one day in the future it gets to the tipping point where managed retreat is necessary, I do not envy whoever has to make the ultimate decision.