Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 152, Issue 2, pp 239–257 | Cite as

Social justice implications of US managed retreat buyout programs

  • A. R. SidersEmail author
Article

Abstract

Global climate change poses significant risks to coastal and riverine communities. Managed retreat, the purposeful movement of people and infrastructure out of vulnerable floodplains, is one possible adaptation strategy. The USA has already engaged in a limited amount of retreat by providing federal funds to purchase and demolish or relocate vulnerable properties. As retreat programs are expected to expand in size and frequency to address the increased risks posed by climate change, a review of how such property acquisition programs have been implemented is timely. Specifically, decisions made by government officials regarding where to acquire properties have significant potential social justice implications, as buyouts could promote or reduce existing social inequities, but it is unclear how such decisions are being made. A review of eight US buyout programs suggests that buyouts, as practiced, lack transparency, which may increase public distrust of the process and reduce participation. Moreover, decisions often involve political motivations and rely on cost-benefit logic that may promote disproportionate retreat in low-income or minority communities, continuing historic patterns of social inequity. However, as low-income communities in the USA also tend to be highly vulnerable to climate-exacerbated hazards, a decision not to relocate may also promote disproportionate harm. The buyout programs reviewed provide examples of how to mitigate these concerns through increased transparency, emphasis on relocation, explicit focus on social inequality, longer-term and larger-scale holistic approaches, and participatory pre-disaster planning. Further research on past programs is needed to evaluate outcomes and processes to improve future adaptation efforts.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Morgridge Family Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) at Stanford University. Alex Brady, Robin Bronen, Cassandra Brooks, Amanda Cravens, Kristen Green, Miyuki Hino, Monica McCann, Devon McGhee, Christine Muñoz, and Jesse Reiblich provided comments that improved this manuscript, as did participants at the Notre Dame Climate Adaptation Workshop, led by Debra Javeline, Aseem Prakash, and Nives Dolsak.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2272_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. Alexander K, Ryan A (2012) Using a social functionalist framework to understand responses to projected sea level rise and managed retreat policies in Australia. Int J Clim Chang Impacts Responses 3:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker WS (1983) Come rain, come shine: A case study of a floodplain relocation project at Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin. Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder SB, Greer A (2016) The devil is in the details: Linking home buyout policy, practice, and experience after hurricane Sandy. Polit Gov 4:97.  https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i4.738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder SB, Baker CK, Barile JP (2015) Rebuild or relocate? Resilience and postdisaster decision-making after hurricane Sandy. Am J Community Psychol 56:180–196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9727-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolin RC, Bolton PA (1986) Race, religion, and ethnicity in disaster recovery. University of Colorado, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd E (2011) Community Development Block Grant funds in disaster relief and recovery. Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Brady AF (2015) Buyouts and beyond: Politics, planning, and the future of Staten Island’s east shore after superstorm Sandy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Bukvic A, Owen G (2016) Attitudes towards relocation following hurricane Sandy: Should we stay or should we go? Disasters 41:101–123.  https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campanella R (2002) Time and place in New Orleans: Past geographies in the present day. Pelican Publishing Co., GretnaGoogle Scholar
  10. Chetty R, Hendren N (2018) The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility I: Childhood exposure effects. Q J Econ 133:1107–1162.  https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conrad DR, McNitt B, Stout M (1998) Higher ground: A report on voluntary buyouts in the nation’s floodplains. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Crompton JL (2005) The impact of parks on property values: Empirical evidence from the past two decades in the United States. Manag Leis 10:203–218.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13606710500348060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. David E, Mayer J (2007) Comparing costs of alternative flood hazard mitigation plans: The case of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin. J Am Plann Assoc 50(1):22–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Vries DH, Fraser JC (2012) Citizenship rights and voluntary decision making in post-disaster U.S. floodplain buyout mitigation programs. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 30:1–33Google Scholar
  15. de Vries DH, Fraser JC (2017) Historical waterscape trajectories that need care: The unwanted refurbished flood homes of Kinston’s devolved disaster mitigation program. J Pol Ecol 24:932–949.  https://doi.org/10.2458/v24i1.20976 Google Scholar
  16. Dyckman CS, St. John C, London JB (2014) Realizing managed retreat and innovation in state-level coastal management planning. Ocean Coast Manag 102:212–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. FEMA (2001) Mitigation case studies: Surviving and building better: The new Grand Forks, North Dakota. FEMA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. FEMA (2007) Hazard mitigation assistance (HMA) guidance on property acquisition and relocation for the purpose of open space. FEMA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. FEMA (2015) Hazard mitigation assistance guidance. FEMA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. FEMA (2016) Mitigation best practices: Buyouts a win-win for Harris County and residents. FEMA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. FEMA (2017) Fact sheet: Elevating your flood damaged home to avoid future damage. FEMA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  22. Flavelle C (2016) The toughest climate dilemma: Who gets saved? Bloom. ViewGoogle Scholar
  23. Fothergill A (2004) Heads above water: Gender, class, and family in the Grand Forks flood. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. Fraser JC, Elmore R, Godschalk DD, Rohe W (2003) Implementing floodplain land acquisition programs in urban localities. University North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NCGoogle Scholar
  25. Fraser JC, de Vries D, Young H (2006a) Mitigating repetitive loss properties. University North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NCGoogle Scholar
  26. Fraser JC, Doyle MW, Young H (2006b) Creating effective flood mitigation policies. Eos 87(27):265–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freudenberg BR, Calvin E, Tolkoff L, Brawley D (2016) Buy-in for buyouts: The case for managed retreat from flood zones. Lincoln Institute, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Furman Center (2013) Sandy’s effects on housing in new York City. Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. New York University, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  29. Godschalk D, Beatley T, Berke P, Brower D, Kaiser E (1999) Natural hazard mitigation: Recasting disaster policy and planning. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  30. GOSR (2015) NY Rising buyout and acquisition program policy manual, Version 3.0. Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery. Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  31. GOSR (2016) Build it Back Progress Update, October 2016. Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  32. Gotham KF (2014) Reinforcing inequalities: The impact of the CDBG program on post-Katrina rebuilding. Hous Policy Debate 24:192–212.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2013.840666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gotham KF, Greenberg M (2014) Crisis cities: Disaster and redevelopment in New York and New Orleans. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greer A, Binder SB (2016) A historical assessment of home buyout policy: Are we learning or just failing? Hous Policy Debate Online.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1245209
  35. Grisez Kweit M, Kweit RW (2007) Participation, perception of participation, and citizen support. Am Polit Res 35:407–425.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X06296206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hallegatte S, Green C, Nicholls RJ, Corfee-Morlot J (2013) Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat Clim Chang 3:802–806.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hauer ME, Evans JM, Mishra DR (2016) Millions projected to be at risk from sea-level rise in the continental United States. Nat Clim Chang 6:5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hood C, Heald D (eds) (2006) Transparency: The key to better governance? In: Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  39. HUD (2015) National Disaster Resilience Competition: Phase 2 fact sheet. HUD, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  40. HUD (2017b) CDBG-DR: Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg-dr/
  41. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Kabisch N, Qureshi S, Haase D (2015) Human-environment interactions in urban green spaces—a systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ Impact Assess Rev 50:25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kates RW, Colten CE, Laska S, Leatherman SP (2006) Reconstruction of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina: A research perspective. PNAS 103:14653–14660.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605726103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelman S (1981) Cost benefit analysis: An ethical critique. Regulation 5:33Google Scholar
  45. Kick EL, Fraser JC, Fulkerson GM et al (2011) Repetitive flood victims and acceptance of FEMA mitigation offers: An analysis with community-system policy implications. Disasters 35:510–539.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01226.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kim HC, Karp CA (2012) When retreat is the better part of valor: A legal analysis of strategies to motivate retreat from the shore. Sea Grant Law Policy J 5:169–209Google Scholar
  47. Kind J, Wouter Botzen WJ, Aerts JCJH (2017) Accounting for risk aversion, income distribution and social welfare in cost-benefit analysis for flood risk management. WIREs Clim Chang 8:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kousky C (2014) Managing shoreline retreat: A US perspective. Clim Chang 124:9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1106-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mahler J (2012) How the coastline became a place to put the poor. New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  50. Martinich J, Neumann J, Ludwig L, Jantarasami L (2013) Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the United States. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9356-0
  51. McCann MO (2006) Case study of floodplain acquisition/relocation project in Kinston, NC after Hurricane Fran (1996) and Hurricane Floyd (1999). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NCGoogle Scholar
  52. McGhee D (2017) Were the post-Sandy Staten Island buyouts successful in reducing national vulnerability? Duke UniversityGoogle Scholar
  53. Menoni S, Pesaro G (2008) Is relocation a good answer to prevent risk? Disaster Prev Manag An Int J 17:33–53.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560810855865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mileti DS (1999) Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  55. Mountain BG (1995) How a public/privae partnership transformed the flood-damaged Levee District 8 in Louisa County, Iowa, into the Horseshoe Bend Division, Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge. Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Des Moines, IAGoogle Scholar
  56. Muñoz CE, Tate E (2016) Unequal recovery? Federal resource distribution after a Midwest flood disaster. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(5):507.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13050507
  57. Neal WJ, Bush DM, Pilkey OH (2005) Managed retreat. In: Schwartz ML (ed) Encyclopedia of coastal science. Springer, Netherlands, pp 602–606Google Scholar
  58. Nussbaum MC (2000) The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. J Legal Stud 29:1005–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1086/468103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Grady B (2014) FEMA updates its benefit cost analysis toolkit. Secur. Notes Assoc. State Drink. Water AdmGoogle Scholar
  60. Oliver-Smith A (1990) Post-disaster housing reconstruction and social inequality: A challenge to policy and practice. Disasters J Disaster Stud Manag 14:7–19Google Scholar
  61. Paavola J, Adger WN (2006) Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol Econ 56:594–609.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peloso ME, Caldwell MR (2011) Dynamic property rights: The public trust doctrine and takings in a changing climate. Stanford Environ Law J 30:51–120Google Scholar
  63. Phillips B, Stukes PA, Jenkins P (2012) Freedom Hill is not for sale-and neither is the Lower Ninth Ward. J Black Stud 43:405–426.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934711425489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rakow LF (2005) Why did the scholar cross the road? Community action research and the citizen-scholar. In: Priest SH (ed) Communication impact: Doing research that matters. Rownman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  65. Rakow LF, Belter B, Dyrstad H et al (2003) The talk of movers and shakers: Class conflict in the making of a community disaster. South Commun J 69:37–50.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940309373277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rivlin G (2015) Why the plan to shrink New Orleans failed. FiveThirtyEightGoogle Scholar
  67. SAMHSA (2017) Greater impact: How disasters affect people of low socioeconomic status. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Support Administration, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  68. Sarmiento C, Miller TE (2006) Inequities in flood management protection outcomes. American Agricultural Economics Association. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/21042/1/sp06sa08.pdf
  69. Shelby A (2008) Red River rising: The anatomy of a flood and the survival of an American city. Minnesota Historical Society Press, Saint Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  70. Siders AR (2013a) Managed coastal retreat: A legal handbook on shifting development away from vulnerable areas. Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  71. Siders AR (2013b) Anatomy of a buyout: New York post-Superstorm Sandy. 16th Annual Conference on Litigating Takings Challenges to Land Use and Environmental Regulations, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  72. Tate E, Strong A, Kraus T, Xiong H (2016) Flood recovery and property acquisition in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Nat Hazards 80:2055–2079.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2060-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thomas DSG, Twyman C (2005) Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Glob Environ Chang 15:115–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tobin G (1992) Community reponse to floodplain relocation in Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 80:87–96Google Scholar
  75. Upton J (2017) When Atlantic City floods, low-income neighborhoods are left underwater. Clim, CentGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilcox R (2007) Housing in post-Katrina New Orleans: Legal rights and recourses for displaced African American residents. Northwest J Law Soc Policy 2:105–124Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and ResourcesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations