However, the model results clearly indicate that the most land projected to be abandoned (not protected) is in areas with high or highest social vulnerability. Similarly, a large proportion of highly socially vulnerable people live in areas likely to be slated for abandonment. At the same time, less socially vulnerable areas are likely to benefit from protection.

Figure 2 illustrates the roughly comparable number of people at risk between the Gulf and the North Atlantic, but strikingly different response options, all under a medium sea level rise scenario. With increasing social vulnerability, the proportion of areas likely to be abandoned increases as well. The underlying assumption is that in areas where “the cost of protective measures is less than the benefit of avoided property value loss”, protection (armor) will occur or, in the case of beach frontage, nourishment. Where the cost of protection exceeds benefit (especially given low property value or low‐value land), structures and land will be abandoned and hence lost. Additional factors not included in this analysis, such as sites of cultural values or local zoning laws, could add further nuances to the results.

<!-- Start of picture text --> increases as well. The underlying assumption is that in areas where “the cost of protective<br>measures is less than the benefit of avoided property value loss”, protection (armor) will occur<br>or, in the case of beach frontage, nourishment. Where the cost of protection exceeds benefit<br>(especially given low property value or low‐value land), structures and land will be abandoned<br>and hence lost. Additional factors not included in this analysis, such as sites of cultural values or<br>local zoning laws, could add further nuances to the results.<br><!-- End of picture text --> Figure 2: Number of people at risk from medium sea level rise, as simulated, and differential response options with increasing social vulnerability between the Gulf region and the North Atlantic. (Source: Martinich et al. 2013) The results of this simulation suggest that the poor and other socially disadvantaged Americans along the Gulf coast are not only more exposed to the impacts of sea level rise but also and, most disturbingly, not worth protecting, at least not from an economic efficiency perspective. The relative higher merit of protecting the higher‐value properties and prevent the comparatively much larger losses of the least vulnerable (the affluent populations) directly impacts what residual resources would be available to invest in adaptation of those most vulnerable and hence most in need. This dilemma illustrates the relational mechanism of vulnerability, poverty, and adaptation. Differential adaptive capacities do not only result from differential asset bases, investments, or risk‐taking behavior. They can be and in many cases are a direct result of uneven power structures that profit the rich at the expense of the poor. The former is not independent of the latter. To counter this imbalance, large investments would be <!-- Start of picture text --> The relative higher merit of protecting the higher‐value properties and prevent the<br>comparatively much larger losses of the least vulnerable (the affluent populations) directly<br>impacts what residual resources would be available to invest in adaptation of those most<br>vulnerable and hence most in need. This dilemma illustrates the relational mechanism of<br>vulnerability, poverty, and adaptation. Differential adaptive capacities do not only result from<br>differential asset bases, investments, or risk‐taking behavior. They can be and in many cases are<br>a direct result of uneven power structures that profit the rich at the expense of the poor. The<br>former is not independent of the latter. To counter this imbalance, large investments would be<br><!-- End of picture text --> 12