Something that’s becoming increasingly clear in 2026 is the need for cities to start preparing for the future. To be specific, preparing for climate change. As data from UN-Habitat’s World Cities Report 2024 notes, over 600 million people live in cities that are less than 10 meters above sea level.
They project that by 2030, billions of people will be exposed to flood risk, especially in Asia. The report also states that cities would need up to $5.4 trillion per year to build climate-resilient infrastructure. Unfortunately, current spending only sits at $0.8 trillion.
Even if every city were to somehow receive the funding it needs, what should they focus on? This is exactly what we’ll be exploring in this article.
#1. Investing in Better Drainage Systems
Given the above statistic on flood risk, the most important preventive steps that cities can take are with drainage systems. Thankfully, it does seem like this is one area where the government is taking things seriously.
Data from 360 Research Reports shows that the adoption of permeable pavements, rain-absorbing green corridors, and urban wetlands has increased by 30%. What’s more, 28% of city resilience projects during the period of 2023 and 2025 incorporated integrated stormwater-climate adaptation systems.
More cities should be focusing on modern public sector stormwater solutions for flood risks. Sure, we can’t expect Netherlands-level flood prevention infrastructure, but there are plenty of steps that can still be taken.
As NDS notes, these can include products like channel drains that can capture and divert stormwater runoff into pipes for release downstream. Other viable options also include underground storage and infiltration systems, rain gardens, and regional stormwater ponds.
#2. Ensuring Roads Don’t Turn Into Chokepoints in Emergencies
One of the most common problems that can be observed in climate incidents is how the event affects road traffic. In an emergency situation, it’s expected that civilians attempt to escape the city. However, what often seems to happen is that the early leavers escape quickly, while the rest get stuck in traffic jams.
People are aware of this and hence are in a rush, which also makes the problem worse. In the worst-case scenarios, we’ve seen people forced to abandon their vehicles and continue on foot. This isn’t just a trope from post-apocalyptic movies. Just look at the Palisades fire in LA last year.
According to Thomas Cova, professor of geography at the University of Utah, the roads in the region weren’t designed for many to leave at once. Even Cova was shocked by how people abandoned their cars to run from the flames. The same situation happened with the Maui fires in 2023.
While we can’t rewind time, the best we can do is to reevaluate how road planning occurs in the future. This might involve avoiding funnel neighborhoods that have only one exit. Likewise, building evacuation corridors instead of having civilians use the main arterial road is a good idea.
#3. Not Leaving Trapped Residents at the Mercy of FEMA
While there are certainly many hardworking people within the organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has acquired a bit of a reputation. Across multiple disasters, FEMA's response has been slow, inefficient, and overly bureaucratic.
Unfortunately, they are the primary responders that people can rely on if they’re trapped at home in flood or hurricane situations. City planners have a unique opportunity to create systems that would ensure civilians still have access to basic amenities. The ideal option in this regard is to design critical infrastructure, such as power and water supply, with some redundancy.
Most urban systems rely on central hubs. They have one main power substation or water treatment plant. If the disaster disrupts that singular facility, everything is affected. In natural disasters, access to clean water and power can help them hold out for weeks until FEMA or other teams arrive to help.
This would mean avoiding the convention of long transmission lines and favoring microgrid-type solutions for power. Likewise, water supply could be made redundant by building secondary pumping stations, having backup systems in place for treatment plants, and more.
At the end of the day, there’s still time to start designing cities to adapt to climate change. However, that window won’t be open forever. With disasters like the Palisades fire, the estimated cost to the city in damages was over $25 billion. Even half that amount, if invested in preventive city works, would yield great results.
Of course, the true cost is in terms of human lives that these disasters take. If good city planning can save even one life, it’s worth the money it takes to redesign things. What’s more, many reports list 2030 or 2040 as dates when climate change is felt more strongly. Hopefully, our cities are prepared well in advance of these dates.
