The Climigration Network is committed to strengthening and connecting organizations and individuals who think about relocation due to climate change. Now, at the outset of 2019, the network is thrilled to introduce its new leadership: an 11-member Steering Committee and a 23-member group of advisors dubbed the Agenda Setters.
Much of the discussion around managed retreat focuses on the anticipation and immediate aftermath of disasters, weighing the difficult choices residents make about whether to stay or leave. But given the far-reaching impacts of that choice, it can be difficult to understand how it changes the lives of those after they make it.
Researchers like Drs. Sherri Brokopp Binder and Alex Greer study the community resilience of those affected by home buyout programs. Along with their colleagues, they have published multiple papers focusing on the spectrum of households and populations affected by retreat: those staying, leaving, and still deciding. In particular, a few of their papers focus on the community experience of buyouts that took place within Staten Island, New York after Superstorm Sandy, from the perspectives of both those who left and stayed.
In one paper published in Environmental Hazards, Binder and her collaborators from the University of Hawaii assessed buyout impacts across three different Staten Island communities, three years after Sandy: Oakwood (a community that rejected retreat), Oakwood Beach (which chose to relocate) and Rockaway Park (which rebuilt in situ). Focusing on three key recovery indicators — social capital, place attachment, and perceived risk — the research found that, a few years after relocating, those who chose to retreat can face worse health and social outcomes than those who chose to stay. In summary, “it is uncertain whether this perceived [lowered risk of future hazards] offsets psycho-social losses such as decreased place attachment and bonding social capital. Taken together, these findings raise important questions about the overall efficacy of home buyout programs, highlighting long-term social costs and the potential implications of losses in social and place-based attachments on recovery and social resilience.”
Below, Drs. Greer and Binder explain how certain aspects of federal buyout policy can undermine social outcomes for those who choose to make this difficult decision. Research like this, that points to the weaknesses of buyout policy, is necessary for the federal program to improve and proactively address the costs of retreat.
Counting the cost: The social and psychological implications of relocation and retreat
Sherri Brokopp Binder, PhD and Alex Greer, PhD
Every time a major natural disaster hits the US, we are reminded of how many of us live in areas that are fundamentally hazardous. Major storm events like Katrina, Sandy and many others have raised the national consciousness around these vulnerabilities, as have projections related to the current and future impacts of sea level rise in densely populated coastal areas. Home buyout programs, which are designed to reduce vulnerability by permanently relocating residents away from areas considered to be at risk of future disaster events, are generally funded by the federal government, though they are managed and implemented locally, typically through a state or county agency. The logic behind buyouts is deceptively simple: in areas where people and property are at risk for repeated or chronic disasters, buyouts allow participating residents to sell their at-risk homes to the government — hopefully, they can then relocate to new, safer communities. The purchased properties are then ideally converted into open space, thereby avoiding any future losses to those residents and providing a natural buffer for future events.
Look a little closer, however, and it soon becomes clear that things are not so simple. Risks associated with hazards are constantly being weighed against investment in and attachment to place, among other factors. In our recent research on a home buyout program implemented after Hurricane Sandy, for example, residents who had established their homes and built their lives in the areas devastated by the storm found the thought of relocating to be enormously disruptive and devastating, even if it seemed like the best available option.
Our research on buyouts has been guided by one overarching question: Are residents better off for having participated in buyout programs? Our findings suggest that, even several years after a disaster, buyout participants fare worse than residents in communities that choose to rebuild on indicators including social capital and place attachment. These findings are significant, as they represent losses in place-based ties and social support systems that disaster survivors typically rely on to cope with disaster impacts and navigate recovery.
Our work, and that of other scholars who have studied buyouts and relocation, has found that relocation is associated with a suite of of losses, including losses in homeownership, employment, income, access to healthcare, and physical and mental health. For example, federal policy requires buyout participants to receive fair, pre-storm market value for their homes, though this does not necessarily protect households from experiencing net losses in weath. Federal policy prohibits the duplication of benefits for disaster survivors, which is intended to avoid repeated government payments for repairs or recovery costs. While this approach makes good sense in many disaster contexts, buyout participants often use disaster aid to rebuild their disaster damaged home while they wait for the buyout to be implemented (a process that can take a year or more, during which time residents exhaust their alternative housing options). The costs of these repairs are later deducted off of the sale price of their home, leaving them with reduced capital when finding a new, post-buyout home. When combined with market and development forces that make higher risk homes relatively more affordable, this can leave buyout participants unable to purchase a comparable home in a comparable community.
These losses, in turn, directly impact residents’ options when choosing their post-buyout homes, and may lead to significant compromises. Homeowners who participated in the post-Sandy buyout in New York, for example, were rarely able to purchase a comparable home in a similar community. Instead, they were left to choose among several less than ideal options; moving to an area that was affordable but far from their critical social networks (family, close friends, social groups); buying a house they couldn’t afford in order to stay near their original community; or moving to a neighborhood that was less desirable socially (such as an area with higher crime rates) in order to buy an affordable home near their original community. All of these options carry social and psychological costs that extend far beyond the implementation of the buyout program.
So, are residents better off for having participated in buyout programs? At this point, the answer to this question is unclear at best. Our research has found buyouts to be associated with a suite of negative consequences for participating households and communities, including losses in homeownership, employment, income, access to healthcare, physical and mental health, and social and place attachments. Other scholars have found similar results when studying relocation programs. While studies have raised a number of concerns about buyouts and relocations as they are currently conceived, we continue to implement such programs nationwide. At present, there are over 40 buyout programs underway in the U.S., several active relocations due to sea level rise, and many other communities facing the prospect of relocation or managed retreat. To ensure the best possible outcomes for these communities and those that will face similar decisions in the future, more research is needed to ensure that the social costs of relocation are accounted for within buyout policy and practice.
For the papers referenced by Brokopp Binder and Greer, see below:
Sherri Brokopp Binder and Alex Greer (2016): “The Devil Is in the Details: Linking Home Buyout Policy, Practice, and Experience After Hurricane Sandy”, Politics and Governance, Volume 4, Issue 4, p. 97–106.
Sherri B. Binder, John P. Barile, Charlene K. Baker & Bethann Kulp (2018): “Home buyouts and household recovery: neighborhood differences three years after Hurricane Sandy”, Environmental Hazards
Climate change isn’t just affecting the natural and built environment, it’s also impacting property values and contributing to displacement. Cities facing “climate gentrification” — a term popularized by climate change scholar Jesse M. Keenan at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design — are seeing neighborhoods change as higher elevations become more valuable, influencing development along the coasts and contributing to complex socio-political stresses.
A recently published study by Keenan and a team of Harvard researchers puts a finer point on climate gentrification, through a focus on Miami Dade County. The study suggest that preferences for single-family properties are correlated to elevation, through two hypotheses: 1) the higher the elevation, the higher the price appreciation rate, and 2) appreciation rates within the lowest elevations have failed to keep up with those of higher elevations. Both hypotheses are confirmed in the study.
We sat down with Keenan to dip a bit deeper into the political and social difficulties of climate change planning, the implications of climate gentrification, and the contentious trade-offs communities face when it comes to resiliency and retreat.
How do you see this research dovetailing with retreat discourse?
Four to five years ago, when I was developing the theory behind climate gentrification and coining the term, I was really thinking about micro, inter-district interactions. But the more I traveled the world and engaged in various experiences related to climate change, the more I understood and developed it to operate across different scales. It isn’t just a “move from one part of town to another” — it has implications regionally, nationally, and internationally in many ways.
Early on, I thought climate gentrification was about movement and mobility; it wasn’t until later on in the development of the theory that the immobility part of it became just as crucial. In terms of retreat or managed retreat, this is a useful analytical theory because it helps you understand the sending zone (including what happens to the place you left), and the receiving zone. I think that’s a really crucial element that creates a kind of bilateralism; that helps us see a broader picture of this movement of people, and a broader set of explanations, about what is perhaps driving people. Migration has degrees of temporality to it, transience even. It isn’t just like “you move somewhere” — there are residual connections. I think in many ways this challenges us to think across scales, and gain a more comprehensive view of migration that isn’t just about a triggering event, like a storm or a conflict, but the incremental steps that build a certain momentum and shape behaviors.
How would you describe the response to this report on climate gentrification within the real estate and political spheres of Miami Dade County?
Those that generally wield the power are usually smaller, family-led enterprises that are multigenerational developers and land holders. Within that cohort, their response has been quite positive. I think what we found is consistent in many ways with their thinking and observations for a number of years. They may have different perspectives or opinions or interpretations as to whether this may be an explanation to adequately describe what’s happening in any given geography or neighborhood, but they appreciate the big picture in terms of the underlying theory, as well as the objective nature of the economic concerns.
I would say politicians have a similar response. What I think unites them is a recognition that they need to consider the provisions and processes that are going to drive sustainable, high density development on high elevation properties. The question becomes: where are you going to shift your tax base and accommodate a shift in population so that you can accommodate this kind of development? In Miami, that’s a unique story because it’s a story historically (and likely in the future) of displacement for other, non-climate related reasons, which makes this a difficult conversation to have. Certainly the existing lobby is one that’s driven by the preservation of existing community, with its own self-interests, and rightly or wrongly there are advantages and disadvantages to that framing of the problem. But at the end of the day, it’s about accommodating development and making investments on high ground, as opposed to making investments in areas that may not be able to support long-term development.
And this is a similar set of considerations that many, if not nearly every, coastal community in the US is having. I try to help them frame that within a context of: here’s an opportunity to have mixed-income high density development that is supported by transit and the other values that we think of in responsible growth patterns. It’s an opportunity but it’s also a challenge.
Can you speak to any short-term responses or avenues for preventing the further onset of climate gentrification?
That presupposes a few things, one of which is that gentrification is a net negative. There’s at least one scenario by which gentrification is actually a mechanism for consolidating value, and you hope to utilize value-capturing methods as a means to redistribute that wealth to accommodate those that have not been as fortunate, that otherwise need economic systems of subsidization. It’s kind of a necessary evil, and if you’re talking about high density development on high ground in Miami, that’s going to lead to gentrification and that’s going to lead to displacement for some. But the question is, will it benefit the many? There are arguments for and against that proposition, and that requires a lot of additional work, research and evaluation, and probably experimentation, to see what that looks like.
There’s no doubt that climate gentrification will be painful, and have significant impacts on some lives and communities and cultures will disappear, and those are all negative things. The question is, what can we do that would benefit the greatest number of people across the greatest distribution of wealth, including a focus on low-to-moderate income populations? I don’t have any clear answers other than to say that Miami has tools and money at its disposal, but it needs to weave a narrative of how to take control of climate gentrification and use it to its advantage. Whether they try to harness that power of development, rightly or wrongly, the redevelopment is going to happen. You may as well try to extract what value you can.
I’ve talked to a number of community activists in Miami about this, some of whom have been quite vocal on climate gentrification, and there are at least two strategies. One is that you fight tooth and nail. The second is you try to negotiate, engage, and extract as much value as you can, and redistribute that among your community with a focus on preservation, cohesion, social capital, etc. But many just want to fight. I think we’ll look back on that as a somewhat failed strategy. I hope that I am wrong. I am not an expert in community advocacy.
What is the political discourse surrounding climate change in Miami Dade County? What are politicians willing to concede, or not, about it?
There’s a natural instinct to delay investment but also an understanding of the costs of delay and prevention, and I think the level of sophistication in Miami is quite high. From a technocratic, analytical point of view, I think Miami is doing the right thing. From a public engagement point of view, in the public narrative, the macro narrative, I think in many ways they’re telling the right story that resonates with people, so I think that awareness and perception is really quite high among residents.
Where I think they fall short, with climate change and climate change adaptation in particular, is with trade-offs. There’s no absolute good about resilience; being resilient doesn’t mean that there aren’t limitations — there absolutely are. But we’re not having a real conversation about what the trade-offs are. There will be winners and losers. There are communities that are going to have to manifest in different ways and in different positions and in some cases they may disappear altogether. The question for Miami is, can they move beyond the biasing of their own interest and status quo, and think about a future generation?
In many ways it’s a tragedy of the commons: if everybody wants their neighborhood protected and there’s not enough money to go around, then you spend lots of money on little projects that add up to nothing, or very little. Is that the trajectory we’re on, or are we going to have a consolidated strategy that is fluid, that takes advantage of the best available science, that also seeks to consolidate limited resources in a way that is optimized for social welfare?
Are you aware of any policies related to keeping small governments solvent in jurisdictions that are unlikely to survive climate change impacts?
There really aren’t any. There are two basic types of bankruptcy in the US for individuals and businesses: you either reorganize your debt, or you liquidate everything you own and pay off the creditors. But one of the shortcomings of municipal bankruptcy code in the US is that it’s really about reorganization not liquidation. It’s never been conceptualized as a matter of public policy that jurisdictions would just disappear. So even in the most dire circumstances of bankruptcy, there’s no help. What you’re looking at are state receiverships, and the state stepping in as the de facto oversight for a particular jurisdiction. Municipal annexation becomes an important driver.
One of the things we’re seeing is that some municipalities are preemptively trying to annex other jurisdictions to make up for a loss in the tax base. It’s hard to anticipate where all of this will end up, but there’s no help, there’s no structure, and it’s “eat what you kill” even in the world of municipal solvency. That may mean other municipalities or the state taking over and breaking up your assets, it may mean receiverships — there are any number of models. Some municipalities may need help, and that help may bring some vitality and get them over difficult points of time, and in the long run that may be a good investment. But there are other jurisdictions who think solvency is equally important. So it’s a kind of discipline, and again, winners or losers, it’s a cold world out there.
Staying up to date with the latest news and thoughts about managed retreat is difficult. To help individuals, communities, and policy makers find the most current reporting and scholarship on managed retreat, climigration.org curates two lists in its News and Reports sections. The pieces gathered on these pages since 2016 have included some outstanding work by journalists and authors who focus their work on climigration, whether from the climate desk, their office in the economics department, or a law firm.
We have highlighted a few authors and one or more of their hallmark contributions below. Please take a look and let us know who we are missing!
The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World (2017)
By Jeff Goodell, contributing editor for Rolling Stone. @jeffgoodell
“We are already engineering the Earth’s operating system by dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into it every year. We’re just doing it badly. Why not get good at it?” - The Water Will Come
Within the next century of sea level rise, massive migration will occur along the globe’s coasts. The Water Will Come peels out the scientific and personal implications of this through reporting from twelve different countries.
Covers climate change and adaptation policy for Bloomberg. @cflav
America’s Last-Ditch Climate Strategy of Retreat Isn’t Going So Well (Bloomberg News, May 2, 2018). The glacial pace of Sidney, NY’s retreat is making some homeowners jump the gun.
The Jersey Shore Would Rather Fight Flooding with Walls than Retreat (Bloomberg Businessweek, May 4, 2017). As local officials push for retreat, some residents are pushing back.
Moody's Warns Cities to Address Climate Risks or Face Downgrades (Bloomberg News, November 29, 2017). Moody’s, one of the Big Three credit rating agencies, will begin to evaluate credit ratings for cities based on climate change preparedness, signaling massive implications for cities trying to balance the books on retreat as an adaptation measures.
Rising: Dispatches from the New American Shore (2018)
By Elizabeth Rush, an author and photographer currently teaching creative nonfiction at Brown University. @elizabetharush
“… My faith in natural processes, in the intricate systems of reciprocity that I was raised to believe keep nature from tilting out of balance, is lost. Gnawing uncertainty takes its place." - Rising
Visiting coastal cities in the US where climate change has wrought catastrophic damage, Rush relates the stories of those facing the life-changing choice of whether to leave or stay.
Retreat from a Rising Sea: Hard Choices in an Age of Climate Change (2016)
By Orrin H. Pilkey, Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, and Keith C. Pilkey.
Orrin is a professor of geology and earth science at Duke University. Linda is the Preparedness Section Manager for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Keith is an Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security Administration.
"Like it or not, we will retreat from most of the world’s nonurban shorelines in the not very distant future. Our retreat options can be characterized as either difficult or catastrophic." - Retreat from a Rising Sea
Focusing on policy, Retreat from a Rising Sea details the urban impacts of rising sea levels, and proposes avenues for meeting the needs of the most vulnerable communities.
Assistant Professor of Justice and the Environment at UCLA Luskin School of Public Policy. @LizKoslov
"Although retreat, often called 'managed retreat,' remains on the fringes of conversations about climate change adaptation, people throughout the world are already moving away from the water out of fear or necessity... I contrast dominant official representations of retreat as marginal, unpopular, and infeasible with existing cases of collective movement away from rising waters that demonstrate just the opposite." - The Case for Retreat
Koslov’s upcoming book based on her dissertation, Retreat: Moving to Higher Ground in a Climate-Changed City, is an ethnographic account of communities relocating due to climate change. Her 2016 paper for Public Culture, “The Case for Retreat”, argued that retreat may actually be distinguished from forced and climate-induced relocation, as something voluntary and community oriented.
Kivalina: A Climate Change Story (2011)
By Christine Shearer, energy researcher and analyst at Coal Swarm. @ChristineSheare
“Janet walked me toward the shoreline and told me Kivalina residents had been advised not to talk about the lawsuit. Great, I thought, wondering why I was there. But as Janet showed me the shrinking coastline and rapidly eroding bank, I realized the real issue for Kivalina is not necessarily the lawsuit. It is the relocation.” - Kivalina
Before the Alaskan Native community of Kivalina began its managed retreat, it was in the midst of a legal battle over fossil fuel companies’ impact on their homeland. This book delves into the history of misinformation around climate change and its impacts that complicate retreat’s discourse today, in Kivalina and generally.
The Law of Adaptation to Climate Change: United States and International Aspects (2012)
Edited by Katrina Fischer Kuh, Professor of Environmental Law at Elisabeth Haub School of Law, and Michael B. Gerrard, Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and professor at Columbia Law School. @MichaelGerrard
“…There is now a growing realization that both mitigation and adaptation must be pursued vigorously. Society barely has the resources today to cope with the climate change that is already occurring … [This book] describes proposals to make the laws that deal with adaptation more rational and comprehensive.” - The Law of Adaptation to Climate Change
This book attempts a comprehensive look at the ways legal systems worldwide are trying to cope with climate change, and the difficulties of coordinating adaptation within a fractured legal approach to the issue. While not limited to the legalities of managed retreat, this text is a must-read for those interested in legal precedents for adaptation policies.
Published in Nature Climate Change, March 2017 by Miyuki Hino, Christopher B. Field and Katharine J. Mach.
Hino is a Ph.D. candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources at Stanford University; Field is the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at Stanford University; Mach is a Senior Research Scientist at Stanford University. @chrfield @katharine_mach
"The model establishes a foundation for understanding and anticipating case-specific complexities. It can be used to unpack the landscape of managed retreat and evaluate its potential future applications." - Managed Retreat as a Response to Natural Hazard Risk
This study evaluates the drivers, barriers, and outcomes of 27 cases of managed retreat in 22 countries, including the relocation of approximately 1.3 million people. The researchers developed a four quadrant model to organize cases based on who benefited from and who initiated retreat.
You can purchase the piece in Nature and read the New Yorker's coverage of the study here.
Know any great pieces or authors covering managed retreat?
Let us know!
Send your recommendation to:
How credit agencies are shifting the perspective on cities' proactive climate change initiatives
By Amelia Taylor-Hochberg, CBI Climigration Intern
It shouldn’t be surprising, but it bears stating outright: retreat is expensive. In the ongoing case of America’s “first climate refugees,” resettling the 99 remaining Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw Native Americans on Louisiana’s Isle de Jean Charles is slated to cost $48 million. Shockingly, however, the cost of doing nothing could likely be even higher, in the form of ever-rising flood insurance payments and rebuilding costly infrastructure after more frequent (and violent) natural disasters.
It’s a familiar struggle, prevalent in industries like healthcare and criminal justice — how to weigh costs of prevention against costs of future, post-disruption reconstruction. Even when it’s shown that preventative measures can result in lower costs than reactive ones, doling out money to prevent something from happening just feels more painful than the same amount of money spent on fixing something. And with retreat, it can feel like only a loss — of land, community and a tax base. But recently, a sea change in the way cities are able to fund their resiliency strategies is gradually emerging.
CBI has covered a variety of methods for financing retreat strategies before, both standard and more creative. But at the end of 2017, Moody’s Investor Service, one of the “big three” credit rating agencies, announced a major change to the way it evaluates state and local bonds, which stands to make a huge impact on retreat financing. According to a report issued in November, Moody’s said it would incorporate local climate change mitigation strategies into its ratings for cities — so if a coastal city isn’t doing anything in response to imminent flooding threats brought on by climate change, their credit rating could suffer, and interest rates could increase.
One of Moody’s managing directors, Lenny Jones, told Bloomberg, "What we want people to realize is: If you’re exposed, we know that. We’re going to ask questions about what you’re doing to mitigate that exposure... That’s taken into your credit ratings." Here’s a tidbit direct from the Moody’s report:
Credit risks resulting from climate change are embedded in our existing approach to analyzing the key credit factors in our methodologies. Our analysis of economic strength and diversity, which signals the speed with which an economy may recover, captures climate-driven credit risks such as economic disruption, physical damage, health and public safety, and population displacement.
Moody’s isn’t the only one of the “Big Three” credit rating agencies taking note of climate change. In October 2017, just a month before Moody’s published its report, Standard & Poor issued a FAQ also explicitly addressing the credit impacts of climate change: “In addition to episodic event risk from natural disasters, S&P Global Ratings believes it is important to consider the current long-term credit implications of the physical impact of climate change that municipal debt issuers must contend with.” And a September 2015 report from Fitch Group points directly to the problem of reactive, vs. preventative, measures when it comes to climate change: “local governments that respond hesitantly to climate change may face higher mitigation costs and potentially much higher disaster recovery costs in the future, particularly should federal support mechanisms decrease over time.”
This could really ratchet up the pressure on cities’ climate-planning initiatives, but how precisely Moody’s evaluates a municipality’s credit worthiness based on such initiatives (or lack thereof) is still not public knowledge. At the very least, this could become a new standard for credit rating companies, as more investors demand to know how climate change impacts are being handled.
But in terms of evaluating specific climate resiliency strategies, how Moody’s will treat retreat is not yet certain — it firstly wants to see that a plan, any plan, is in place. Moody’s 21 page report makes no explicit mention of planning for “retreat”, but does lay out how population displacement and relocation as a result of climate shocks can adversely affect local economies.
John A. Miller, a water resources engineer who has worked on the 2017 reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program and now deals in floodplain management policy, doesn’t think retreat will be encouraged in the credit evaluations: “From a municipal credit rating standpoint, there’s more interest in the adaptation aspect of climate change,” he told CBI in a phone interview. “Their core interest, at the end of the day, is getting paid back — so whatever provides the safest economic returns will be most attractive. It’s harder to balance the books like that with retreat. “Credit rating companies are very myopic,” Miller said. “What they really look at is what can affect revenue — from a municipal standpoint, they want to make sure they get paid back. They only consider things that can affect that, and not necessarily the final horizon of climate change impacts.”
Jenna deAngelo, a program manager at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pointed out that this announcement could also impact how much local governments rely on state and federal aid. As climate change impacts persist and intensify, the aid available is stressed even more, and could potentially run out — FEMA’s flood insurance program is already billions of dollars in debt. DeAngelo told CBI over email, “it’s so important for municipalities to evaluate their own source revenues and how they can put in place policies and systems that will improve their fiscal health.” It’s also up to Moody’s to be critical when evaluating responses to climate change: is a city simultaneously building a floodwall in one area while building new housing within the floodplain of another?
Moody’s announcement could also have political ramifications. In areas that refuse to acknowledge climate change at all, it may be politically disadvantageous (or at least require a lot of euphemisms) to try to push certain initiatives in order to meet Moody’s criteria. There are still many unknowns, but by putting climate change at the forefront of credit rating systems, the money is bound to talk about retreat sometime soon.
Special thanks to Jenna deAngelo at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for her expertise and commentary in contribution to this post.
By Amelia Taylor-Hochberg, CBI Climigration Intern
How Novel Financing Models Could Help Make Managed Retreat More Manageable
When considering migrating entire communities out of natural hazard risk areas, homeowners and local governments deal with a whole new can of financial worms. Governments may lack the funds necessary to buy out all needy areas, and banks aren’t attracted to assets that will literally and figuratively be underwater. Homeowners are between a rock and a hard place: as property values fall due to increasing risks, they may not be able to sell at a price that allows them to buy elsewhere.
This difficult subject has been the focus of CBI’s ongoing webinar series, “Funding & Financing Coastal Retreat”. The latest webinar, held on October 25, focused on creative mechanisms from within the private and public spheres to finance retreat due to climate change. In contrast to the federal government’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, where homeowners can voluntarily seek buyouts with FEMA money (post-disaster), these strategies can be more proactively employed to reduce risk in a wider variety of cases.
A range of financial tools were discussed in the webinar, from more traditional options, like municipal green bonds, to emerging models, like social impact bonds and catastrophe bonds. Green bonds have been used by municipalities and city agencies to finance sustainability projects like infrastructure upgrades, but have not yet been used to finance managed retreat. The more novel solutions for supporting sustainability and climate resilience work — such as catastrophe bonds, conservation mitigation credits, and social impact bonds — may be potential tools for managed retreat projects. However, using any financial tool requires a source of repayment to the investor(s). For managed retreat to access any of the financing tools discussed, an economic value has to be placed on the remediated land, and a repayment source must be identified.
One untested but intriguing avenue brought up by Jenna deAngelo, program manager at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, brought up one intriguing avenue to minimize federal government involvement and taxpayer risk in coastal retreat buyouts: mortgage contingent loans. With these loans, at-risk homeowners cede their property to the government, which then issues them a commercial loan tied to the value of their home, rather than their income. The homeowner can then use the loan to buy another property elsewhere. The government now holds the mortgage to the home, and can sell it on the commercial market, transferring risk from the taxpayer to the private market. If the occupant moves out of the house or passes away, the government retains the net equity and can sell the house and pay off the loan. Alternatively, the government could keep the house and turn it into public housing, as selling it could mean a loss, depending on the real estate market. This possibility in turn brought up a larger discussion of equity issues surrounding climate-related displacement, and how financial support of communities is related to their socioeconomic makeup.
Although these kinds of loans haven’t been tried before within managed retreat strategies, they could offer an innovative approach to financing risky futures, compared to the context of federal funding. Mark Skidmore, professor in Government Finance and Policy at Michigan State University, as well as the Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, pointed out that current federal disaster assistance programs are not risk-adjusted to where they are actually applied — so those living in risky areas (and the state and local governments) have no incentive to take risk-reducing precautions. This ultimately encourages people to to stay in risky areas, rather than seeking safer (both financially and environmentally) land elsewhere.
To learn more about creative financing strategies for managed retreat, you can watch the entire webinar here. Outlines from the featured presentations, as well as cited resources, can be found here. The webinar was hosted by CBI’s Bennett Brooks and Osamu Kumasaka.
Jenna DeAngelo is a program manager at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Prior to joining the Lincoln Institute, Jenna was a senior benefits administration analyst at Xerox Business Services and a human resources analyst at the MBTA. Jenna earned her B.S. in Economics and M.S. in Urban and Regional Policy, both from Northeastern University.
Katie Grace Deane is associate director of research and field development at the Center for Community Investment. Prior to joining the Center, she spent 7 years at the Initiative for Responsible Investment at the Harvard Kennedy School where she led research on public policy and impact investment, sustainable investment trends, and place-based frameworks for community development. Katie began her career as a research analyst at the Tellus Institute, where she researched corporate sustainability performance indicators and the effects of university endowments on employment and the community. Katie has a BA from Williams College in Political Science with a Concentration in Leadership Studies, and is a member of the Miss Hall’s School Board of Trustees.
Mark Skidmore is Professor and Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy at Michigan State University. He is also Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (NCRCRD). Mark holds tenure system appointments in the Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics and Economics. He has served as a consultant on a range of issues including economic development, government public finance and policy, and price determination. Recent research areas include economics of the public sector, economic development, and the economics of natural disasters. He has published the results of his research in journals such as Economic Inquiry, Economics Letters, Journal of Urban Economics, National Tax Journal, and Public Choice. Much of Mark’s research and outreach focuses on public finance policy and the relationship between public finance policy and economic development.
Climate Disasters and Inequality
Earlier this month, climigration issues were front and center in an episode of the ClimateX podcast series, Climate Conversations, sponsored by the MIT Center for Digital Learning.
Check out their original post for the audio and transcript for this wide-ranging interview on the challenges of and strategies for helping communities plan for the risk of climate disasters.
Since late August of this year, three hurricanes – Harvey, Irma, and Marie – have devastated parts of the southern United States and its territories. In the face of the destruction wrought by these powerful storms, we have seen remarkable and heroic efforts by individuals, companies and non-profits, local governments, state governments, and the federal government to respond. In each case, individuals have come to the aid of their neighbors and friends. Businesses and companies have sought to throw their doors and wallets open to provide shelter, food, and rescue. Governors have acted forcefully and with focus before, during, and after the storms. These storms have revealed the strong social networks and incredible importance of social capital in responding to devastating natural events such as these.
Resistance in the face of these natural threats is a powerful and compelling human response. On the one hand, it is a force for good: individuals stocking supplies, boarding, ready to batten down the hatches, survive the storm and, out of the wreckage, help themselves and their neighbors. This is human resilience at its best.
Stories of individual resistance took center stage in news coverage, and were frequently framed as a difficult calculation which could only be made in the moment, based on personal risk tolerance and binding life circumstance. One intrepid Florida Keys resident stayed back to watch over his 50-foot sailboat along with his two dogs, despite the Governor of Florida’s orders. He survived Hurricane Irma dogs and all, and remarked: "Climate change is nothing more than 'Shit happens,'" he said. "And this [storm] right here? Shit happens.”
But resistance, no matter how stoic, does have its costs: during natural disaster events, it can put resistors at risk at the expense of first responders and others when they do not heed the call to evacuate. Over the long term, resistance can leave residents fighting to preserve the past. Resistance, while admirable in many ways, can distract from or preclude the possibility of planning for a future where retreat or relocation may better serve residents, their communities, and their nation.
The last of the three recent storms – Marie – and the unfolding devastation it has wrecked on Puerto Rico, hints at the impacts of unmanaged retreat as tropical storms become more devastating. It is possible that tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans, especially those with means and family connections in the mainland, will move off the Island, draining it of the social capital, labor, and talent needed to rebuild, while simultaneously stressing communities and local governments dealing with unexpected large scale migration of US citizens to the mainland.
What the last month illustrates is how important it is to consider the role of coastal retreat, both now and in the future, as one tool of many to preemptively limit the damages of natural disaster. This is most obvious in neighborhoods for which devastating flood damage has become routine in recent history. Shortly after Harvey’s floodwaters began to recede, Congressman Jep Hensarling from Dallas got himself into trouble—and received a great deal of criticism—for stating that U.S. taxpayers should not have to pay for homes repeatedly flooded via federal flood insurance. He was quoted as saying, “At some point, God is telling you to move.”
While the Congressman perhaps lacked timing and tact in the face of ongoing suffering during early recovery, the difficult truth behind his statement will have to be taken up by communities in the months and years ahead as they are threatened by increasingly frequent, powerful storms.
 "HURRICANE IRMA: Splinters, Cha Cha Cha and a 'rising seas thing’.” Adam Aton, E&E News reporter.
Published: Friday, September 15, 2017 in Climate Wire.
 "Guidance on protecting people from disasters and environmental change through planned relocation.” The Brookings Institute, Georgetown University, Institute for the Study of International Migration, and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Published: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 in The Brookings Institute.
 “Does Harvey Represent a New Normal for Hurricanes?” Robinson Meyer.
Published: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 in The Atlantic.
Published: Monday, April 17, 2017 in Nature.com
 “Amplification of Flood Frequencies with Local Sea Level Rise and Emerging Flood Regimes.” Maya K. Buchanan, Michael Oppenheimer, and Robert E. Kopp.
Published: June 2017 in Environmental Research Letters
 "GOP rep on paying for flood loss: ‘At some point, God is telling you to move’.” Julia Manchester.
Published: Thursday, September 21, 2017 in The Hill.
There are a host of equity and justice issues related to climigration. The simple fact that people and organizations with more resources tend to be better equipped to manage change than those with fewer resources means that differences arise among people exposed to the same climate impacts. So what can we do to anticipate these differences and try to reduce the likelihood that managed retreat will create or further exacerbate inequities?
Lessons from Just Transition and Anti-Gentrification
One idea we’re exploring is learning from other frameworks with equity lenses that have been developed to address population movements. Here we focus on two, just transition and anti-gentrification, and seek to highlight some key strategies from each, and how those same strategies might apply to managed retreat efforts.
Although the subject matters differ – just transition provides a sustainable pathway to a zero-carbon economy and anti-gentrification to urban revitalization – both frameworks devise a set of strategies that maximize benefits and minimize hardships for communities adapting to social, economic, and environmental transformations.
The table below highlights some of the key strategies from both frameworks relative to funding, policy, and engagement to match the organization of this site around possible solutions. We elaborate on these ideas below the table.
Funding & Financing
Just transition emphasizes the need to support communities early, and in ways that address the problems they are likely to face as jobs shift from carbon-dependent to carbon-free industries and practices. Similarly, investing in education, training, job-searching, and general community building for those who may have to move due to climate change could ease the transition and level the playing field for those with different resources to draw on.
For climigration, the most obvious early investment would be a fund to help people move, and to ensure it covers more than simple real estate transactions, as moving costs and other expenses fall harder on some than others. Other early investments might include education and training in the various federal, state, and local programs that provide funding for relocation. Perhaps a state or federal program could invest resources in providing a way for individuals in one retreating community to connect with counterparts in others to commiserate and share ideas. A local non-profit could be funded to do the legwork to investigate other neighborhoods for possible relocation, such as finding out about schools, public transportation options, and other community resources. Government and foundation or corporate resources could be reserved and set aside for transforming places from developed to undeveloped in smart ways that convert former private property to public assets the whole community can enjoy and that provide protection from future storms or other climate-related challenges.
Drawing lessons from anti-gentrification is slightly more challenging, as the purpose of managed retreat is to help people move somewhere else, whereas anti-gentrification is focused on keeping people in place. Still some of the strategies that seek to mitigate inequities for the people who live in places that are changing around them provide inspiration for climigration.
Various funds and tax programs have been developed to ensure that people with fewer means can afford to stay in place as the property around them becomes more expensive and they would otherwise be unable to continue to live there. Some examples include an anti-displacement tax fund to subsidize the increases in property taxes for people who have lived in a community for a long time, Community Land Trusts (CLT) to provide land and housing that is permanently affordable, Stabilization Vouchers (and other housing protection vouchers) to ensure that long-term residents have choices in their own neighborhood rather than being forced to move to another, and Individual Development Accounts that provide matching funds for personal savings toward a large investment, such as a new home. Each of these mechanisms demonstrates a unique approach to ensuring that low-income individuals and families can weather the changes around them. Likewise, creative approaches are needed to provide matching funds, subsidies, or tax benefits to those whose costs for relocation may be beyond their means so they are not disproportionately harmed by the transition.
The just transition framework stresses the need for early assessments of social and employment impacts. Committing to protect workers’ rights and providing social protection and necessary income support are key for a sustainable transition. This gives workers confidence in the security and opportunities that lie ahead. In addition to putting forth new policies, just transition recommends formalizing current ones, such as programs that address rescue and rebuilding efforts after climate disasters.
These policy guidelines can be applied to climigration. Coastal communities represent various socio-economic demographics. The social and economic cost of relocation can be drastically different for each community. Assessing the social and employment impacts of resettlement could help ensure that adaptation strategies better target the needs of the community. For example, a community might have traditional land rights that need to be considered when deciding where to relocate. Providing financial and social assistance to vulnerable populations via programs like safe, affordable housing and buy-in-for buyout programs could help create more resilient communities. In addition to implementing new policies that proactively respond to global warming, current government disaster assistance programs should also be securely funded and staffed to manage climate disasters once they hit.
A suite of anti-gentrification policies could serve as models for climigration, including city funding for middle-income housing production and senior home repair programs, changing fair housing rules to create housing vouchers for low-income residents, freezing property taxes for long-time residents and restricting large-scale and increasing mixed-income development. Similarly for climigration, it’s in the public interest to work with communities identify risks to their housing security and provide the necessary resources to improve their situations if need be. Such measures could include building low-income and middle-income housing in areas less threatened by climate change, and issuing subsidies and vouchers for relocation. This technique is especially valuable in helping renters move as they do not benefit from direct home buyouts. Additional tax benefits and other measures to protect the most vulnerable and least mobile populations, such as senior citizens, should also be considered.
Engagement & Consensus Building
In both the just transition and anti-gentrification frameworks, social dialogue is key to a community’s sustainable transition. For a just transition to take place, it is necessary for all stakeholders be involved in social dialogue, consultation and “the monitoring of agreements, which are public and legally enforceable”. Governments, communities and business should inclusively discuss their options, concerns and roles in climate adaptation plans. With input from every level, policies are more likely to be cohesive and sustainable.
One key principle of anti-gentrification is that communities “anticipate and proactively respond to change” rather than waiting for the inevitable. Gentrification, like climate change, does not happen overnight, so communities that can see the writing on the wall should engage with city officials and planning departments as early as possible. This allows them to influence city, neighborhood, transportation, funding and development plans and monitor similar trends in nearby communities. Another principle of anti-gentrification is encouraging communities to develop a shared narrative that shapes and helps protect their identity. Forming flexible, local, and diverse partnerships with other organizations can help communities can strengthen their ability to preserve affordable housing in light of gentrification. Finally, to meaningfully address inevitable conflicts, anti-gentrification guidelines suggest using formal approaches to conflict resolution. By holding facilitated discussions, encouraging political participation and training local leaders, communities can successfully resolve tensions both before they escalate and after they erupt.
All of these strategies can be applied to climigration, particularly the efforts to develop shared narratives. Climate adaptation can be an emotional experience due to the potential loss of social, cultural and historical ties to a place. Discussing what a community wishes to preserve as a legacy, and taking the opportunity to consider what they would like to change in their new environment could be incredibly valuable. Also, as with gentrification, climate change adaptation is a controversial issue. Often, communities disagree among themselves and with government officials on whether and how to plan for and remediate the impacts of climate change. For this reason, all stakeholders would benefit from similar conflict mediation mechanisms. Facilitated discussions would help parties resolve misconceptions, distrust, and disagreements.
 (2017). Just Transition: A Report for the OECD. Retrieved from Just Transition Centre Website: https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/g20-climate/collapsecontents/Just-Transition-Centre-report-just-transition.pdf
 (2015). Frontlines Briefing: Climate Justice: There are no jobs on a dead planet. Retrieved from International Trade Union Confederation Website: https://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/ituc_frontlines_climate_change_report_en.pdf
 Brown, S. (2015). Beyond Gentrification: Strategies for Guiding the Conversation and Redirecting the Outcomes of Community Transition. Retrieved from Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies Website: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/w14-12_brown.pdf
 Price, D. (2014). 7 Policies that Could Prevent Gentrification. Retrieved from SHELTERFORCE Website: https://shelterforce.org/2014/05/23/7_policies_that_could_prevent_gentrification/
By: Kara Runsten, CBI Climigration Associate
Miyuki Hino’s study, “Managed Retreat as a Response to Natural Hazard Risk,” published in Nature Climate Change, provides new insights to climigration research. In it, Hino and her coauthors study 27 instances of managed retreat and create a framework for understanding drivers and barriers to climigration in a range of contexts. They find that retreat has a high likelihood of occurring in what they term “Mutual Agreement” situations, where residents feel the risk of a hazard is unbearable and the benefits of retreat spread to the broader society. I had the opportunity to chat with Hino a few days ago both about her paper and its broader implications.
Managed Retreat is a Two-Party Negotiation
During the study, the researchers discovered that managed retreat is essentially a two-party negotiation between residents and an implementing body (e.g., a government entity). Mapping the cases based on the dynamics between the two parties produced a comprehensive picture that showed unique clusters representing different types of retreat (e.g., post-disaster voluntary relocation and isolated communities seeking relocation due to coastal erosion and flooding). This simple four-quadrant conceptual model represents a bird’s-eye view framework for understanding case-specific complexities. Key findings from each quadrant include:
- Mutual Agreement: Retreat has a high likelihood of occurring because residents feel risk is unbearable and benefits of retreat accrue to broader society. Political will to implement retreat is high and the societal cost-benefit ratio justifies retreat. This dynamic corresponds to cases of post-disaster voluntary relocation.
- Greater Good: Retreat has a moderate likelihood of occurring because benefits of retreat accrue to broader society, but residents feel the risk is bearable. Political will to implement retreat is high, and the societal cost-benefit ratio justifies relocation. This dynamic corresponds to cases of managed realignment and perhaps also some cases of mandatory resettlement.
- Hunkered Down: Retreat has a low likelihood of occurring because residents feel the risk is bearable and benefits of retreat accrue only to residents. Political will to implement retreat is low and the societal cost-benefit ratio does not justify relocation. Although retreat is not usually initiated in these cases, some cases of managed resettlement may exhibit this dynamic.
- Self-Reliance: Retreat has a moderate likelihood of occurring because residents feel the risk is unbearable, but benefits of retreat accrue only to residents. Political will to implement retreat is low and the societal cost-benefit ratio does not justify relocation. This dynamic corresponds to isolated communities seeking relocation.
Appropriate policy methods to instigate retreat differ based on the quadrant in which a particular case is located. For example, “Greater Good” cases, where the implementing party is more excited about retreat than residents, require the government agency to develop incentives to convince residents to move. Embedding the effort to retreat in economic and community development projects is one way to attempt to change residents’ perceptions about retreat. For example, after a flash flood required relocation, a community in Australia developed an economic growth plan and strategies for incentivizing new commercial activities in the destination town. The general discourse there implied that staying in place was equivalent to being stuck in the past—moving on was the future.
Retreat can be the right choice
Informed by her research, Hino’s advice to communities experiencing repeat damage over time from coastal storms would emphasize that retreat isn’t always a negative option; there are many social, economic, and environmental reasons that can make it the right choice for people and communities. For example, the U.S. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (categorized as “Mutual Agreement” in the model) uses government funding to purchase disaster-stricken homes from property owners who would like to reduce risks to their safety and their wallets by moving away from the coast. The properties are transformed into open space, providing a natural barrier that reduces flood risk for the rest of the community.
Local government should Stay tuneD-in and transparent
Hino also stresses that local governments should take into account residents’ perceived risks about both natural hazards and retreat when they plan for the future. Factors like the transparency of the planning process and the proposed relocation site can affect those perceptions, helping or hindering efforts to retreat.
She also highlights that an important yet understudied topic in this field are the conditions under which community members farther away from the coast feel they benefit from investments in retreat. Getting the larger community on board might expand policy options beyond buyouts of individual coastal homes.
As for buyouts, Hino points out the surprising divide between those looking at climigration through the lens of buyouts versus community relocation versus retreat. While they are slightly different points on the spectrum, she thinks there is no reason we can’t apply lessons across types. By doing that, we might find innovative ways to look at retreat in the future.
By: Kara Runsten, CBI Climigration Associate
One surprising connection made during the CBI-hosted workshop Community Transformation at the Water’s Edge in December 2015 was the possible similarities between managed retreat planning and end-of-life decision-making. While the two topics might seem quite different, there is much the climate change adaptation world can learn from physicians, nurses, patients, and families dealing with this most sensitive period of life transition.
Up to 80 percent of nursing home residents do not have documented treatment wishes in their medical records. This limited amount of dialogue and planning is common for difficult questions and mirrors the lack of conversation about managed retreat in coastal communities. Finding ways to assess the situation and facilitate conversation is essential to planning for the future.
An article titled “Facilitating End-of-Life Decision-Making Strategies for Communicating and Assessing” serves as an access point for comparison between the two issues. The article describes healthcare provider behaviors that facilitate or hinder end-of-life decision-making by patients and their families. Below, I summarize some main takeaways from the article and how they relate to coastal retreat.
The study found that opening the lines of communication early was one of the most important actions providers could take. This included:
1. Being willing: The provider should open the lines of communication for end-of-life decision-making to occur. Patients whose providers shy away from the topic or delay starting the conversation often take on burdensome treatments and/or do not have enough time to prepare for death.
The same is true for managed retreat. Government and military officials, non-profit leaders, and local community leaders can create the space for the discussion and encourage communities to talk about this adaptation method as a credible option.
2. Being clear: Providers who used clear words to identify the issue, such as “death” and “dying” were seen as more successful at facilitating end-of-life planning. Providers who used unclear language or euphemisms often led patients and families to hold onto false hope that delayed end-of-life planning.
Being clear about climate change and its implications for a community is important. Sensitive language is appropriate, and one should be cognizant of the impact of language choices that are culturally appropriate, but clarity and simplicity facilitates a productive discussion.
3. Clarifying prognosis of goals and treatment: It is helpful to clarify the goals and expectations for treatment. Sugarcoating potential results of a treatment could lead patients and families to delay end-of-life planning.
Similarly, helping communities understand the risks they take on by staying in the same climate-vulnerable location as well as the various options for mitigating and/or adapting to these risks is important when planning for the future.
Successful providers were also experienced at assessing situations and using these assessments to spark the planning process. Key traits included:
1. Recognizing deteriorating conditions: Successful providers were able to recognize when a patient’s phase of illness turns from chronic to terminal.
Community leaders may play this role in coastal communities. By recognizing a deteriorating condition and initiating dialogue, they can start building social capital within the community and begin this important conversation.
2. Assessing understanding: Ensuring the patient and family members have a clear understanding of the full picture of the situation is important to facilitating dialogue about mortality.
Likewise, communities may be more likely to consider retreat as an option if they understand the nature of the changes they are facing, including the likely frequency of storms and the long-term effects of sea level rise.
3. Assessing end-of-life wishes: Successful providers ask patients directly about their wishes in an end-of-life situation.
Communities should talk openly about the nature of the transition they want. When, how, with whome, and under what circumstances the transition should take place are all issues that should not be imposed, and should align with community members' interests. Also, people should be invited to envision what they want to leave behind as a legacy - how they want the place they are leaving to be remembered and used or enjoyed in the future.
4. Assessing patient and family goals and expectations: Making sure everyone is on the same page aids planning and sets appropriate expectations.
Managing expectations, being open and transparent with everyone who might be affected, and thoroughly evaluating the benefits and costs of retreat as an option can help ensure such a strategy’s ultimate success. Unrealistic expectations can lead to surprises and unsuccessful implementation.
By: Kara Runsten, CBI Climigration Associate
When it comes to word choice surrounding the idea of coastal transformation, that which we call a rose by any other name would not necessarily smell as sweet. Take, for example the word “relocate.” To a government official, this word may seem a practical and efficient term to use when discussing this issue. To marginalized groups and impacted communities, on the other hand, this term may evoke memories of discriminatory displacement policies.
Another good example of the importance of word choice can be drawn from the current refugee crisis. According to the UN Dispatch, many politicians use the term migrant (i.e., a person who travels for work or economic reasons) to downplay their responsibility for caring for a displaced refugee (e.g., a person escaping armed conflict or persecution). While deporting refugees can be illegal or at least highly frowned upon by the international community, deporting migrants can be spun as a reasonable approach to protecting a country’s borders.
There are both positives and negatives to having no standard lexicon for discussing the topic of coastal transformation. On the negative side, having no established common language makes the issue harder to discuss, but on the plus side, this provides an opportunity for exploring appropriate, respectful, and effective terminologies with stakeholders in each community and shaping their use to the context at hand.
Let us take a moment to explore some possible words to describe the phenomenon of coastal transformation, which can be used as a starting point for discussion when engaging communities and defining a common language.
As the buckets suggest, different terms may be appropriate in different situations. In communities where it is important to reframe the issue in terms of hope and ability to preserve a collective identity, words such as “renew” may be more appropriate. If communities are trying to attach a sense of urgency to the issue, a term such as “escape” might be more effective.
The most important takeaway is that explicit conversations about language are essential. Initiating an open, frank dialogue around these terms at the beginning of any discussion about this issue can help stakeholders form a common, mutually acceptable language to use when communicating with each other. This can go a long way toward building community identity and congeniality in the subsequent planning process.
 All definitions above are from Merriam-Webster.