Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Paying to save the beach: effects of local finance decisions on coastal management

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As sea level rises and storm frequency and severity increase, communities worldwide are investing in coastline management projects to maintain beach widths and dunes that support recreational amenities and mitigate storm risks. These projects are costly, and differences in property owners’ returns from maintaining wide beaches will influence community-level support for investment in shoreline defense. One way to account for these differences is by funding the project through a tax instrument that imposes the heaviest cost on residents who benefit most from beach nourishment. Some communities along the US east coast have adopted this approach. We use an agent-based model to evaluate how the imposition of project costs affects coastline management over the long-term. Charging higher tax rates on oceanfront properties reduces desired beach width among those owners but increases desired width for owners of inland properties. The aggregate impact on beach width depends on coastline shape and development patterns that determine the balance between these two groups, heterogeneity of beach width preferences and climate change beliefs, and levels of participation in local politics. Overall, requiring property owners who benefit most from beach nourishment to bear the highest cost results in wider beaches. The result suggests that delineating tax rates to account for unequal benefits of local public goods across taxpayers could facilitate local investment in climate change adaptation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alesina A, Tabellini G (1990) A positive theory of fiscal deficits and government debt. Rev Econ Stud 57:403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altshuler AA, Gomez-Ibañez JA (2000) Regulation for revenue: the political economy of land use exactions. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf HS, Oates WE, Sanchirico JN (2010) Success and design of local referenda for land conservation. J Pol Anal Manag 29:769–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bin O, Crawford TW, Kruse JB, Landry CE (2008) Viewscapes and flood hazard: coastal housing market response to amenities and risk. Land Econ 84:434–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean RG (2003) Beach nourishment: theory and practice, vol 18 World Scientific, Singapore

  • Dundas SJ (2017) Benefits and ancillary costs of natural infrastructure: evidence from the New Jersey coast. J Environ Econ Manag 85:62–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischel WA (2001) The homevoter hypothesis: how home values influence local government taxation, school finances, and land-use policies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber ER, Phillips JH (2003) Development ballot measures, interest group endorsements, and the political geography of growth preferences. Am J Polit Sci 47:625–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan S, Smith MD, Slott JM, Murray AB (2011) The value of disappearing beaches: a hedonic pricing model with endogenous beach width. J Environ Econ Manag 61:297–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan S, Landry CE, Smith MD, Whitehead JC (2016) Economics of coastal erosion and adaptation to sea level rise. Annu Rev Resour Econ 8:119–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan S, McNamara D, Smith MD, Murray AB (2017) Decentralized management hinders coastal climate adaptation: the spatial-dynamics of beach nourishment. Environ Resour Econ 67:761–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan S, Landry CE, Smith MD (2018) Climate change adaptation in coastal environments: modeling challenges for resource and environmental economists. Rev Environ Econ Pol 12:48–68

  • Hinkel J, Nicholls RJ, Tol RS, Wang ZB, Hamilton JM, Boot G et al (2013) A global analysis of erosion of sandy beaches and sea-level rise: an application of DIVA. Glob Planet Chang 111:150–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkel J, Lincke D, Vafeidis AT, Perrette M, Nicholls RJ, Tol RS et al (2014) Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111:3292–3297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javeline D (2014) The most important topic political scientists are not studying: adapting to climate change. Perspect Polit 12:420–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotchen MJ, Powers SM (2006) Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. J Environ Econ Manag 52:373–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lay R (2014) “Sand tax” would have helped cover full cost of nourishment. Outer Banks Voice (September 22)

  • McNamara DE, Gopalakrishnan S, Smith MD, Murray AB (2015) Climate adaptation and policy-induced inflation of coastal property value. PLoS One 10:e0121278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara DE, Keeler A (2013) A coupled physical and economic model of the response of coastal real estate to climate risk. Nat Clim Chang 3:559–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara DE, Murray AB, Smith MD (2011) Coastal sustainability depends on how economic and coastline responses to climate change affect each other. Geophys Res Lett 38:L07401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore LJ, McNamara DE, Murray AB, Brenner O (2013) Observed changes in hurricane-driven waves explain the dynamics of modern cuspate shorelines. Geophys Res Lett 40:5867–5871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullin M (2009) Governing the tap: special district governance and the new local politics of water. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Neal WJ, Bush DM, Pilkey OH (2005) Managed retreat. In: Schwartz ML (ed) Encyclopedia of coastal science. Springer, Netherlands, pp 602–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons GR, Massey DM, Tomasi T (1999) Familiar and favorite sites in a random utility model of beach recreation. Mar Resour Econ 14:299–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson P (1981) City limits. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pilkey OH, Neal WJ (2009) North Topsail Beach, North Carolina: a model for maximizing coastal hazard vulnerability. In: Kelley JT, Pilkey OH, Cooper JAG (eds) America’s most vulnerable coastal communities. Geol S Am S 460:73–90

  • Rogoff K (1990) Equilibrium political budget cycles. Am Econ Rev 80:21–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Slott JM, Murray AB, Ashton AD, Crowley TJ (2006) Coastline responses to changing storm patterns. Geophys Res Lett 33:L18404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slott JM, Smith MD, Murray AB (2008) Synergies between adjacent beach-nourishing communities in a morpho-economic coupled coastline model. Coast Manage 36:374–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JJ, Gihring TA (2006) Financing transit systems through value capture: an annotated bibliography. Am J Econ Soc 65:751–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MD, Slott JM, McNamara D, Murray AB (2009) Beach nourishment as a dynamic capital accumulation problem. J Environ Econ Manag 58:58–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speybroeck J, Bonte D, Courtens W, Gheskiere T, Grootaert P, Maelfait J-P, Mathys M, Provoost S, Sabbe K, Stienen WM, Van Lancker V, Vincx M, Degraer S (2006) Beach nourishment: an ecologically sound coastal defence alternative? A review. Aquat Conserv 16:419–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone C (1989) Regime politics: governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC, Dumas CF, Herstine J, Hill J, Buerger B (2008) Valuing beach access and width with revealed and stated preference data. Mar Resour Econ 23:119–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yohe G, Neumann J, Ameden H (1995) Assessing the economic cost of greenhouse-induced sea level rise: methods and application in support of a national survey. J Environ Econ Manag 29:S78–S97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang K, Douglas BC, Leatherman SP (2004) Global warming and coastal erosion. Climat Change 64:41–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Debra Javeline, Aseem Prakash, Nives Dolsak, two anonymous reviewers, and discussants and participants at the Vanderbilt Urban Political Economy Conference, the Adapting to Climate Change Workshop at University of Notre Dame, and the mini-conference on collaboration at the 2017 American Political Science Association annual meeting for helpful feedback.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation grant CNH 1715638.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan Mullin.

Additional information

This article is part of a Special Issue on “Adapting to Water Impacts of Climate Change” edited by Debra Javeline, Nives Dolšak, and Aseem Prakash.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mullin, M., Smith, M.D. & McNamara, D.E. Paying to save the beach: effects of local finance decisions on coastal management. Climatic Change 152, 275–289 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2191-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2191-5

Keywords

Navigation