Advertisement

Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 264–278 | Cite as

Integrated framework for the Relocation Potential Assessment of Coastal Communities (RPACC): application to Hurricane Sandy-affected areas

  • Anamaria Bukvic
Article

Abstract

Coastal communities represent aggregates of wealth, economic activity, and population, but also of emerging physical hazards that can undermine their long-term vitality and prosperity. The 2012 Hurricane Sandy event is in many ways indicative of what may become a major issue in densely populated coastal centers whose unsustainable land use patterns often dictate their inherently low resilience to coastal hazards. Ideally, disaster-affected communities should recognize this window of opportunity to reverse said trends, establish realistic linkages between risks and response options, and engage in innovative adaptation. Despite increasing exposure to repetitive hazards and new risk information, many places still prefer to simply rebuild, maintain status quo, or support only conservative in situ adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies. However, some circumstances call for more drastic and permanent solutions, such as relocation. This paper presents a novel integrated framework for the Relocation Potential Assessment of Coastal Communities designed to inform dilemma whether to rebuild or relocate from coastal areas devastated by a disaster. The main objective of this early effort is to propose metrics for the development of comprehensive assessment tool that will help identify areas of heightened social and physical vulnerabilities for which relocation may represent a more viable adaptation option. The proposed two-pronged approach promulgates the need for the integration of qualitative secondary data on socioeconomic profile, physical risks, and disaster exposure, with the bottom-up generated information on additional household-specific concerns that would improve accuracy and validity of considered stressors and therefore the usability of relocation potential assessment tool.

Keywords

Coastal Relocation Retreat Hurricane Sandy Resilience 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author is very thankful to Erin Puckett for her dedication to this project and more specifically, development of GIS maps and data management.

References

  1. Abel N, Gorddard R, Harman B, Leitch A, Langridge J, Ryan A, Heyenga S (2011) Sea level rise, coastal development and planned retreat: analytical framework, governance principles and an Australian case study. Environ Sci Policy 14(3):279–288. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaskan Department of Commerce (2007) Community and economic development: a brief history of the settlement of Newtok and Village Relocation Efforts. Newtok Planning GroupGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander KS, Ryan A, Measham TG (2011) Managed retreat of coastal communities: understanding responses to projected sea level rise. Socio-Economics and Environment in Discussion, SCIRO Working Paper SeriesGoogle Scholar
  4. American Community Survey (2011) 2011 Data release. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2011_release/. Accessed 18 June 2014
  5. Barnett J, Webber M (2010) Accommodating migration to promote adaptation to climate change. Commission on Climate Change and Development, A policy brief prepared for the Secretariat of the Swedish Commission on Climate Change and Development and the World Bank ReportGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett J, Waters E, Pendergast S, Puleston A (2013) Barriers to adaptation to sea level rise: The legal, institutional and cultural barriers to adaptation to sea-level rise in Australia. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, p 85Google Scholar
  7. Beever JW III, Gray W, Trescott D, Cobb D, Utley J, Hutchinson D, Gibbons J et al (2009) City of Punta Gorda Adaptation Plan. SWFRPC and CHNEP, Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Recommended Actions in Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Executive Office of the President of the United StatesGoogle Scholar
  8. Black R, Kniveton D, Schmidt-Verkerk K (2011) Migration and Climate Change: towards an integrated assessment of sensitivity. Environment and Planning-Part A 43(2):431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogardi JJ, Renaud F (2006) Migration dynamics generated by environmental problems. In: 2nd international symposium on desertification and migrations, Almeria, pp 25–27Google Scholar
  10. Bossel H (1999) Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method, applications : a report to the Balaton Group. International Institute for Sustainable Development, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourque LB, Regan R, Kelley MM, Wood MM, Kano M, Mileti DS (2013) An examination of the effect of perceived risk on preparedness behavior. Environment and Behavior 45:615–649. doi: 10.1177/0013916512437596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brody SD, Zahran S, Vedlitz A, Grover H (2008) Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment and Behavior 40:72. doi: 10.1177/0013916506298800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown O (2007) Climate change and forced migration: observations, projections and implications. Human Development Report, UNDPGoogle Scholar
  14. Bukvic A, Owen G (2014) Should we stay or should we go: attitudes towards relocation post-Hurricane Sandy. Disasters (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Blake ES, Kimberlain TB, Berg RJ, Cangialosi, JP, Beven JL II (2013) Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Sandy (AL182012) 22–29 October 2012 National Hurricane CenterGoogle Scholar
  16. Carter TR, Mäkinen K (2011) Approaches to climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability assessment: towards a classification framework to serve decision-making. MEDIATION Technical Report No. 2.1, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Helsinki, Finland, p 70Google Scholar
  17. Carter TR, Fronzek S, Mela H, O’Brien K, Rosentrater L, Simonsson L (2010) Climate change vulnerability mapping for the Nordic Region. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Castles S, Miller MJ (1993) The age of migration: international population movements in the modern world. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Cole WD (2008) Sea level rise: Technical guidance for Dorchester County. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management DivisionGoogle Scholar
  20. Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Roman J, Sutton P (2011) Migration and global environmental change. DR7a: changes in ecosystem services and migration in low-lying coastal areas over the next 50 years, Government Office for Science, Foresight, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Cronin V, Guthrie P (2011) Community-led resettlement: from a flood-affected slum to a new society in Pune. India. Environmental Hazards 10(3–4):310–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cruz AM, Okada N (2008) Methodology for preliminary assessment of Natech risk in urban areas. Nat Hazards 46:199–220. doi: 10.1007/s11069-007-9207-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. CSI International, Inc (2008) Sea level rise response strategy: Worcester County. Department of Comprehensive Planning, Worchester CountyGoogle Scholar
  24. Curry C (2013) NJ residents faring worse than neighbors in Hurricane Sandy recovery. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-residents-waiting-hurricane-sandy-rebuilding-money/story?id=20371933. Accessed 28 Oct 2013
  25. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Hirley LW (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84(2):242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. de Sherbinin A, Warner K, Ehrhart C (2011) Casualties of climate change. Sci Am 304:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deyle RE, Bailey KC, Matheny A (2007) Adaptive Response Planning to Sea Level Rise in Florida and Implications for Comprehensive and Public-Facilities Planning. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, Florida Planning and Development LabGoogle Scholar
  28. Donahue A (2012) Disaster risk perception, preferences, and preparedness. University of Connecticut, Department of Public Policy, West Hartford, Connecticut. http://dpp.uconn.edu/PDFs/Risk-Perceptions-andPreparedness-Volume-3.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2015
  29. FEMA, see: Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012) FEMA MOTF Hurricane Sandy impact analysis. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=307dd522499d4a44a33d7296a5da5ea0. Accessed 16 Dec 2012
  30. FEMA, see: Federal Emergency Management Agency (2015) Hazard Mitigation assistance—property acquisition (buyouts). https://www.fema.gov/application-development-process/hazard-mitigation-assistance-property-acquisition-buyouts. Accessed 18 Feb 2015
  31. FoxBeach165 (2015) Fox Beach 165: Oakwood Beach buyout. http://foxbeach165.com/. Accessed 07 March 2015
  32. Fritz C (2010) Climate change and migration: sorting through complex issues without the hype. Migration Information Source, Migration Policy InstituteGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldenberg S (2013) Alaska on the edge: Newtok’s residents race to stop village falling into the sea. GuardianGoogle Scholar
  34. Groen JA, Polivka AE (2010) Going home after Hurricane Katrina: determinants of return migration and changes in affected areas. Demography 47(4):821–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harvey N, Clouston E, Carvalho P (1999) Improving coastal vulnerability assessment methodologies for integrated coastal zone management: an approach from South Australia. Aust Geogr Stud 37:50–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hinkel J (2011) Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Glob Environ Change 21:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ho M, Shaw D, Lin S, Chiu Y (2008) How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Anal 28(3):635–643. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoch CJ, Dalton LC, So FS (eds) (2000) The practice of local government planning, 3rd edn. International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2008) New Orleans three years after the storm. The Second Kaiser Post-Katrina Survey, Executive Summary, Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaplan T (2013) Cuomo seeking home buyouts in flood zones. New York Times, February 3, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/nyregion/cuomo-seeking-home-buyouts-in-flood-zones.html?_r=0. Accessed 16 Oct 2014
  41. Kienberger S, Lang S, Zeil P (2009) Spatial vulnerability units – expert-based spatial modeling of socio-economic vulnerability in the Salzach Catchment, Austria. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9:767–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krausmann E, Mushtaq F (2008) A qualitative natech damage scale for the impact of floods on selected industrial facilities. Nat Hazards 46:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laczko F, Aghazarm C (2009) Migration, environment and climate change: Assessing the evidence. International Organization for Migration, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  44. Landry CE, Bin O, Hindsley P, Whitehead JC, Wilson K (2007) Going home: evacuation-migration decisions of Hurricane Katrina survivors. Working Paper 07-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Lausche JB (2009) Synopsis of an assessment: Policy tools for local adaptation to sea level rise. Marine Policy Institute at Mote Marine Laboratory, Technical Report #1419Google Scholar
  46. Lonergan S (1998) The role of the environmental degradation in population displacement. Environmental Change and Security Project Report 41:5–15Google Scholar
  47. Martin SF (2010) Climate change, migration and adaptation. Background papers of the study team on climate change and migration, German Marshall Fund, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  48. Martinich J, Neumann J, Ludwig L, Jantarasami L (2013) Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the United States. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 18:169–185. doi: 10.1007/s11027-011-9356-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tegart McGWJ, Sheldon GW (eds) (1992) Climate change 1992: the supplementary report to the IPCC impacts assessment. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  50. McLeman R, Smit B (2006) Migration as an adaptation to climate change. Clim Change 76:31–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Messner F, Meyer V (2005) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception—challenges for flood damage research. UFZ Discussion Papers, Department of Economics, 13/2005Google Scholar
  52. Moser SC, Williams SJ, Boesch DF (2012) Wicked challenges at land’s end: managing coastal vulnerability under climate change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:51–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. N.C. Finance Housing Efforts (n.d.) Community Partners Loan Pool. http://www.nchfa.com/Nonprofits/HPcommunitypartnersloan.aspx. Accessed 12 March 2015
  54. National Park Service (2015) Moving the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. http://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/historyculture/movingthelighthouse.htm. Accessed 04 March 2015
  55. NCA, see: National Climate Assessment (2014) http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/coasts. Accessed 05 March 2015
  56. NCADAC, see: National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (2013) Federal Advisory Committee draft climate assessment draft report. http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/. Accessed 23 May 2013
  57. NIH, see: National Institute of Health (2013) TOXMAP: environmental health maps. http://toxmap-classic.nlm.nih.gov/toxmap/main/index.jsp. Accessed 14 March 2013
  58. NOAA, see: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2012) Incorporating sea level change scenarios at the local level. Report prepared by NOAA Coastal Services Center. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/SLCScenariosLL.pdf. Accessed 06 March 2014
  59. NYS 2100 Commission (2013) Recommendations to improve the strength and resilience of the Empire State’s infrastructure. The Commission’s recommendations to Governor Andrew CuomoGoogle Scholar
  60. OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009) Policy guidance on integrating climate change adaptation into development co-operation. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  61. Picou JC (2009) Katrina as a natech disaster: toxic contamination and long-term risks for residents of New Orleans. Journal of Applied Social Science 3(2):39–55Google Scholar
  62. Piguet E, Pécoud A, de Guchteneire P (eds) (2011) Migration and climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  63. Polefka S (2013) Moving out of harm’s way. Center for American Progress, December 12, 2013. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/12/12/81046/moving-out-of-harms-way/. Accessed 02 March 2015
  64. Riad JK, Norris FH, Ruback RB (1999) Predicting evacuation of two-major disasters: risk perception, social influence, and access to resources. J Appl Soc Psychol 29(5):918–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environ Chang 16:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spanger-Siegfried E, Fitzpatrick M, Dahl K. (2014) Encroaching tides: How sea level rise and tidal flooding threaten U.S. east and gulf coast communities over the next 30 years. Union of Concerned Scientists, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Stanton EA, Ackerman F (2007) Florida and climate change: the costs of inaction. Tufts University, Global Development and Environment Institute and the Stockholm Environment Institute–US CenterGoogle Scholar
  68. Steinberg LJ, Sengul H, Cruz AM (2008) Natech risk and management: an assessment of the state of the art. Nat Hazards 46:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sweet WV, Park J (2014) From the extreme to the mean: acceleration and tipping points of coastal inundation from sea level rise. Earth’s Future 2(12):579–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tegart, McG WJ, Sheldon GW, Griffiths DC (1990) Climate change: the IPCC impacts assessment, report prepared for IPCC by Working Group II. Australian Government Publishing Service, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  71. Titus JG, Anderson KE, Cahoon DR, Gesch DB, Gill SK, Gutierrez BT, Thieler ER, Williams SJ (2009) Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: a focus on the mid-Atlantic region. U.S. climate change science program: synthesis and assessment product 4.1, 2009Google Scholar
  72. UO and USADA, see: University of Oregon and USDA Forest Service (2011) Climate change: realities of relocation for Alaska Native Villages. Tribal climate change profile: relocation of Alaska Native Communities, University of Oregon Environmental Studies Program and USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  73. U.S. Census Bureau/data (2010) United States Census 2010. http://www.census.gov/2010census/. Accessed 10 June 2014
  74. Van Voorhis S (2014) Boston’s rising tide isn’t dampening development. http://www.boston.com/real-estate/news/2014/10/04/boston-rising-tide-isn-damping-development/NA9BoaMvmb1kG8EetEWloN/story.html. Accessed 03 March 2015
  75. Warner K (2010) Assessing Institutional and Governance Needs Related to Environmental Change and Human Migration. The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Study Team on Climate Induced Migration, June 2010Google Scholar
  76. White House (2012) The Hurricane Sandy funding needs. In a letter from the Executive Office of the Presidents, Office of Management and Budget, to members of the House of RepresentativesGoogle Scholar
  77. Wong PP, Losada IJ, Gattuso JP, Hinkel J, Khattabi A, McInnes KL, Saito Y, Sallenger A (lead authors) (2014) Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectorial aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp 361–409Google Scholar
  78. Zillow (2014) What is waterfront worth? http://www.zillow.com/research/what-is-waterfront-worth-7540/. Accessed 03 March 2015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urban Affairs and PlanningVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations