Enhancing the acceptability of buyouts for climate change adaptation: A social license approach

Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction

Institut de prévention des sinistres catastrophiques

Building resilient communities

Bâtir des communautés résilientes

Enhancing the acceptability of buyouts for climate change adaptation: Exploring a social license approach for Erie Shore Drive, Ontario

By Sara Bohnert and Brent Doberstein (University of Waterloo, Faculty of Environment) January 2022

Enhancing the acceptability of buyouts for climate change adaptation: Exploring a social license approach for Erie Shore Drive, Ontario Authored by: Sara Bohnert (University of Waterloo, Faculty of Environment) Brent Doberstein (University of Waterloo, Faculty of Environment) January 2022 ICLR research paper series – number 71

Published by Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction 20 Richmond Street East, Suite 210 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5C 2R9 This material may be copied for purposes related to the document as long as the authors and copyright holders are recognized.

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.

All photos: Brent Doberstein Prepared for Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, Toronto, 34 pp.

ISBN: 978-1-927929-36-0 978-1-927929-10-0 Copyright © 2022 Sara Bohnert and Brent Doberstein

Established in 1997 by Canada’s property and casualty insurers, the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction is an independent, not-for-profit research institute based in Toronto and at Western University in London, Canada. The Institute is a founding member of the Global Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes. The Institute’s research staff are internationally recognized for pioneering work in a number of fields including wind and seismic engineering, atmospheric sciences, water resources engineering and economics. Multi-disciplined research is a foundation for the Institute’s work to build communities more resilient to disasters.

ICLR has been designated as an IRDR International Centre of Excellence. IRDR International Centres of Excellence (ICoEs), established through the IRDR Scientific Committee (SC) and the relevant National Committee (NC), provide regional and research foci for the IRDR program. ICoE research programs embody an integrated approach to disaster risk reduction that directly contribute to the ICSU/IRDR Science Plan for Integrated Research on Disaster Risk and its objectives, as well as the IRDR Strategic Plan (2013-2017).

Abstract

Managed retreat is increasingly recognized as a permanent, cost-effective solution to address flooding and erosion. While managed retreat takes many forms, buyouts are a core strategy for reducing risk. Unfortunately, buyouts are also often controversial. In Canada especially, they are often reactionary, have low uptake, and may suffer from a lack of trust between stakeholders.

As a result, a growing body of literature seeks to understand factors which influence residents’ willingness to participate in buyout programs. Yet, there are few practical strategies which buyout coordinators can use to improve public perception or participation rates.

This paper applies the concept of social license, or the ongoing public approval of a project, to identify strategies which may assist coordinators in improving buyout acceptance. Factors which impact social acceptance were drawn from managed retreat and coastal adaptation literature, and then combined and contrasted with key informant interviews from Erie Shore Drive, a particularly flood-prone region of Chatham-Kent, Ontario.

The results indicate that proactive and transparent engagement, attention to case-specific context, identification of co-benefits and clear rationale for decision making create a transparent and accountable process in which the benefits and costs of buyouts are better understood by the community. Although no buyout has yet occurred in Chatham-Kent, these results re-emphasize the importance of proactive and meaningful engagement with the public during conceptual development, design and implementation of coastal adaptation projects. Furthermore, these results indicate a need for longer planning horizons, continued hazard identification and acknowledgement of climate change in Ontario’s provincial planning guidance.

Table of contents

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.1 Managed retreat as a solution to climate-driven flooding and erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.2 Buyouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

1.3 Setting the context for social license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

2. Research methods and materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

2.1 Study purpose and research question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

2.2 Case study: Erie Shore Drive, Chatham-Kent, Ontario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

2.3 Research methods and data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 Buyout solutions must be context-specific and creative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2 Agencies potentially involved in buyouts must communicate clearly and . . . . . . . . . . . .

facilitate meaningful public participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3 Provide a clear, transparent rationale for decision-making and eligibility criteria . . . . . . . 16 3.4 The buyout program must provide specific and perceivable co-benefits

for the community and the municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. Research limitations and future opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1. Introduction

1.1 Managed retreat as a solution to climate-driven flooding and erosion Although climate-driven sea level rise rightly presents a pressing management concern, the vulnerability associating with high water levels is not limited to the oceans. Just as oceanic coastal inundation and erosion prove a significant threat to infrastructure, property and lives (Lawrence et al., 2020; Lokman et al., 2020), so too do rising lake and river levels (IJC, 2003).

The Great Lakes Basin (GLB), situated between Canada and the United States, is the largest freshwater system in the world, representing more than 20% of the world’s freshwater supply (Gronewold & Grood, 2019). Over recent years, fluctuations in GLB water levels have raised significant debate and concern (IJC, 2003; Bartoli et al., 2015; Gronewold & Groode, 2019).

Precipitation volumes and variation, associated with more frequent and intense storms, are increasing (Bartoli et al., 2015; Zuzek, 2020). Moreover, winter ice cover is shrinking and spring thaws occur earlier in the season, leading to greater fluctuations in water levels (Bartoli et al., 2015; Zuzek, 2020).

Research attributes these issues to climate change, considering that air temperatures in the GLB have increased by 0.5°C in the last century (IJC, 2003). Under current climate projections, researchers predict an increase of as much as 5°C in the region, which will exacerbate water-level related issues (Bartoli et al., 2015; Lawrence et al., 2020; Zuzek, 2020).

Rebounding from a low period between 1998 and 2013, GLB levels have now risen to the point of posing a significant flood risk (Bartoli et al., 2015). Moreover, the combination of high water levels, more frequent storms, and less ice cover is exacerbating lake edge erosion (Zuzek, 2020), doubly emphasizing the need for immediate and innovative solutions to reduce the potential harm from these processes. Although there are a multitude of potential risk reduction options, many of these are complex, expensive and/or sometimes controversial (Dachary-Bernard, Rey-Valette and Rulleau, 2019).

Recognizing that these challenges occur throughout the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed a three-part climate change adaptation framework (i.e. protect, accommodate and retreat) for increasing communities’ resilience to climate change-related sea level rise and flooding in 1990 (Doberstein, Fitzgibbons & Mitchell, 2019). The framework has since been updated and is now referred to as ‘PARA’ – protect, accommodate, retreat, and avoid (Doberstein et al., 2019).

Traditionally, flood- and erosion-prone communities have relied on structural “protection” (i.e. coastal armament) (Doberstein et al., 2019). Coastal armament, including structures like seawalls, dikes, groynes, jetties, and breakwaters, prevent water from travelling inland or eroding shorelines (Dyckman et al., 2014; Koslov, 2016; Doberstein et al., 2019). Although common, structural solutions are not unproblematic, since they can damage coastal environments by interrupting natural processes (i.e. erosion and sediment transport) and often absorb significant capital for construction and ongoing maintenance (Lawrence et al., 2020; Dyckman et al., 2014; Drejza, Bernatchez & Dugas, 2011). Coastal managers are also now recognizing the expenses and limitations associated with shore armament, which extends to risk reproduction through “the levee effect” (Lawrence et al., 2020; Koslov, 2016). Communities often unwittingly increase their vulnerability to flooding and erosion by developing immediately behind coastal armaments, which in some cases has tragically resulted in loss of life and widespread property damage in instances of structural failure (Lawrence et al., 2020; Koslov, 2016).

1

In place of shore armament, attention has shifted to “softer” stabilization strategies, such as beach nourishment (Russell, 2015) and nature-based solutions like ecosystem re-establishment.

Soft stabilization techniques are sometimes more favourable, given that they are often more environmentally, economically and socially sustainable than engineered hard structures (Russell, 2015). That said, the importance of development planning in proactive coastal hazard management cannot be overstated. Good land-use planning, which identifies hazardous areas prior to development and restricts or prohibits development in these areas (i.e. the “avoid” approach), is the primary method by which to circumvent the need for shoreline stabilization altogether (MNRF, 2020).

In locations where hazards cannot be avoided, and where shore stabilization is not suitable, “accommodating” flooding can allow communities to adapt to periodic inundation. Accommodation involves adaptive strategies which allow for continued use of flood-prone lands by retrofitting important infrastructure (Doberstein et al., 2019). Examples include raising structures or “floodproofing” foundations (Doberstein et al., 2019).

Yet, in the most urgent or intractable of cases, or in post-flood contexts, “retreat” may be the best option. Increasingly, the scientific community identifies managed retreat, or the systematic relocation of assets away from hazardous areas, as a long-term, cost-effective solution to flooding and erosion (Lawrence et al., 2020; Siders, 2013a; Dyckman et al., 2014). Land use managers can implement multiple variations of managed retreat to reduce risk and improve resilience (Siders, 2013a). Many of these strategies involve land acquisition, although how, when and why the land is acquired, and to what end it is used, vary by strategy (Gross, 2019; Siders, 2013b). The most common of these strategies, home buyouts, is briefly reviewed in the following section.

1.2 Buyouts Several different terms describe government-led property purchase related to flooding and other hazards. In the United States, land acquisition refers to a program in which the government purchases a property for future public use (including redevelopment), whereas buyout refers to a specific form of acquisition where land is purchased, existing structures are removed and the land is returned to an undeveloped state, to be managed as such in perpetuity (Siders, 2013a; Siders, 2013b). In this context, the goal (i.e. reduce risk) and end-use of the land are distinctly different.

However, in Canada, the distinction between land acquisition and buyout is less clear. For the purposes of this paper, land acquisition, buyout and land purchase will all be taken to mean a program in which a government body purchases at-risk properties, manages the land, and manages any subsequent re-development.

Despite the prevalence of buyouts as a retreat option, implementation remains difficult and controversial for a variety of reasons (Lawrence et al., 2020; Gross, 2019). To begin, most buyouts are produced as a reaction to a hazardous event or disaster. As a result, they are often disorganized and characterized by uncertainty, because governments must request funding, coordinate programs and then implement a buyout on short notice and with few resources (Young, 2018; Craig, 2019; Gross, 2019; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020). To address these issues, Thistlethwaite et al. (2020) propose pre-emptive buyouts, providing opportunity for proactive community engagement, better communication and more holistic planning.

2

However, the large, up-front costs of a buyout may put off municipal officials who generally do not have the resources set aside to invest in these programs (Lawrence et al., 2020; Thistlethwaite, Henstra & Ziolecki, 2020; Zuzek, 2020; Gross, 2019; Young, 2018). This is certainly the case in Canada (Thistlethwaite et al., 2020; Zuzek, 2020), and costs remain a key limiting factor in both buyouts and more general implementation of managed retreat strategies (Lawrence et al., 2020).

In a similar vein, differences between market or perceived value of the property to be purchased and the government-funded compensation offered is a significant source of tension that often adds to the difficulty of buyout implementation. Buyout offers usually consist of a flat sum (often capped at a maximum value), or use the property’s tax-assessed value (Siders 2013b; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020) which generally sits well under market values. Therefore, in many cases, property owners find the offers insufficient (Binder & Greer, 2016). For example, in 2019, many homeowners in Gatineau, Quebec were outraged by the Provincial government’s maximum $200,000 per property for flooddamaged homes (McNeil, 2019; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020). Similarly, many Austrian homeowners interviewed by Seebauer & Winkler (2020) were offended by the amount of their buyout offer; one participant stated that they could repair their home ten times with the money they would lose by accepting the buyout (Seebauer & Winkler, 2020).

For all these reasons, and many more, buyout programs often fail to acquire the targeted number of properties and/or face significant resistance from local communities (Siders 2013a & 2013b; Gross, 2019; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020). Therefore, uptake and public participation in voluntary programs remain one of the core challenges to implementing buyouts.

1.3 Setting the context for social license Because buyout implementation is so controversial and challenging, research focussed on understanding residents’ decision making processes in buyouts is a growing, although still somewhat poorly understood topic (Bukvic et al., 2018). Homeowners are usually the focus of buyout-related research, with an emphasis on factors that influence their individual decisions, like personal hazard experience, knowledge and behaviour (for examples, see Bukvic, 2020; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020; Bukvic et al., 2018, Robinson et al., 2018). The combined influence of these factors on buyout acceptance is often summarized as “willingness to accept” (Frimpong et al., 2019), although “buy-in” (Freudenberg et al., 2020) or “acceptance” are also used. While these terms are not necessarily problematic, they connote static decision making, when in fact homeowner decisions can and do change over time (Binder et al., 2020). Additionally, focusing primarily on decision making by individual homeowners glosses over the importance of social interaction and discussion between community members and a range of public entities in the understanding of, or implementation of a buyout program.

Thus, to better acknowledge these interactions, this paper applies the concept of social license, stemming from “social license to operate”, to describe the relative degree to which buyouts are accepted within a community. In this paper, social license refers to the ongoing approval of a buyout project, or related industry or company by stakeholders and the general public (Lehman & Kinchy, 2021; Suopajarvi, Umander & Jungsberg, 2019; Nobel, 2015). Findings from Suopajarvi, Umander and Jungsberg (2019) suggest that project proponents can build social license by facilitating trust with communities, creating economic, social or other benefits, and by providing accountable and participatory processes. With that said, community social makeup, past experience with similar projects and “generalized trust in the regulatory framework” influence the degree to which social license can be built (Suopajarvi et al., 2019: 6).

3

Additionally, it is important to recognize that social license is not a universally positive attribute.

The term is most often applied to extractive industries, who attempt to mitigate ‘social risks’ (i.e. protests, boycotts, etc.) which may obstruct their operations (Lehman & Kinchy, 2021; Nobel, 2015). Lehman & Kinchy (2021) comment on the extent to which these large resource extraction companies use a combination of coercion and benefit provision to foster community acceptance; for example, large extractive corporations may embed themselves within the economic fabric of a community and fund conservation or sustainability-related events to create a perception of environmental stewardship while still undertaking damaging activities for profit (Lehman & Kinchy, 2021). As a result, the term social license is applied throughout this paper with caution. The authors recognize the potential for social license to be problematic, and therefore project purposes and proponent intentions must be transparent and open to criticism and discussion. Nevertheless, in defining public approval as a negotiable and ongoing process, the social license terminology and framework captures the dynamic, long-term process of buyout program implementation.

Furthermore, the term better references the social factors which define buyouts as being much more than simply a monetary transaction between a municipality and a homeowner, including public perceptions, relationships and communication.

Therefore, as previously mentioned, there is a real interest in, and need to map and understand factors which influence homeowners’ willingness to accept a buyout. A growing body of literature seeks to understand those factors. Unfortunately, little research exists on practical strategies that buyout coordinators can use to improve the acceptance of a buyout within the community and amongst individual owners. The remainder of this paper will apply the concept of social license as a method of improving buyout implementation. Section two describes the study purpose and outlines the study research methods. Sections three through five discuss the political and social viability of buyouts as a proactive risk reduction strategy.

4

2. Research methods and materials

2.1 Study purpose and research question The purpose of this study was to identify strategies by which program coordinators can improve the social license of buyout programs. Considering how often the literature emphasizes the controversy of buyout programs, this study is founded on the assumption that a proactive buyout program would require specific design criteria to improve social viability. The guiding research question was: What factors are important to consider to improve the social license of proactive buyout programs?

To answer this question, the study was designed primarily as a case study-oriented literature review, which was then supplemented with findings from several key informant interviews (N=6), all of which incorporated the following three objectives: 1) Review existing managed retreat literature to identify important factors that affect homeowners’ willingness to participate in buyout programs.

2) Conduct interviews with a limited number of experts and affected individuals (henceforth referred to as “participants”) to check to see whether factors derived from the literature review resonate with experts/affected individuals who are knowledgeable about the case-study context.

3) Combine results from literature review and interviews to outline a range of strategies which may enhance social license and thus ease the emotional, political, economic and logistic strain of a buyout.

2.2 Case study: Erie Shore Drive, Chatham-Kent, Ontario As previously mentioned, water levels in the GLB have increased significantly since 2013, with research attributing these fluctuations to climate change (Gronewold & Grood, 2019; Bartoli et al., 2015; IJC, 2003). Lake Erie, for example, set a new record high in June 2019 with lake levels reaching 175.14m above sea level (Zuzek, 2020). Under climate change, climate models suggest that water levels could rise an additional half-meter (Zuzek, 2020).

Figure 1: Lake Erie’s high water levels pose a major concern

5

In response, Great Lakes municipalities such as Chatham-Kent, Ontario, have initiated studies to understand high water and erosion hazards and identify risk-mitigation strategies. In 2019, the Municipality of Chatham-Kent (the Municipality) retained Zuzek Consulting Inc. to complete a shoreline management plan and vulnerability assessment study (hereafter referred to as the shoreline management study). This study was intended to evaluate possible risk reduction and adaptation solutions in response to fluctuating water levels in Lake Erie. Using an approach broadly consistent with the PARA framework, Zuzek (2020) evaluated nine flood-vulnerable regions along 120kms of Lake Erie’s shoreline under Chatham-Kent’s jurisdiction (Zuzek, 2020). The study characterized existing conditions and current hazards, and provided recommendations for more resilient coastal management in each area of concern with climate change as a backdrop (Zuzek, 2020).

The section of coastline along Erie Shore Drive between Bismet Line and the McGeachy Pond Conservation Area West trail entrance was selected as a case study because of the complexities and challenges faced in the area (see Figures 2-3). Erie Shore Drive (ESD) parallels the north shore of Lake Erie, connecting the communities of Erie Beach and Erieau (see Figure 2). The region was originally marshland, but construction of the Burk Drain and a dike system in 1913 allowed inhabitants to reclaim 1600 acres of land for agricultural purposes (Zuzek, 2020). Development on the southern, lake-side of the dike began in the 1930s and eventually became Erie Shore Drive (Zuzek, 2020).

Since then, the dike-top road has flooded repeatedly, with flood events increasing in frequency since 2017 (Zuzek, 2020). In August 2019, a major storm and several subsequent, though smaller, events severely damaged the dike (Zuzek, 2020). Although the Municipality conducted emergency repairs to mitigate overtopping, a geotechnical report conducted by Golder Associates in 2020 found the dike to be unstable. Subsequently, the Municipality declared a state of emergency on February 28th, 2020, and evacuated residents (Zuzek, 2020). Shortly after, Council passed a by-law, effective as of March 9th, 2020, closing a section of the road (see Figures 4-5) from 18416 Erie Shore Drive to the intersection of ESD and Erieau Road (Zuzek, 2020).

Figure 2: Case study context, Erie Shore Drive, Chatham-Kent

6

Figure 3: Satellite imagery of Erie Shore Drive

Figure 4: Road closure along Erie Shore Drive

Figure 5: Cinder block blockade along Erie Shore Drive

Considering this context, the shoreline management study (Zuzek, 2020) presents four options to increase resilience along ESD; 1. Option 2-1a, b, c: Implement community-scale shoreline protections (i.e. armour stone or other protections) and upgrade the dike using Ontario’s Drainage Act. 2. Option 2-2: Retreat, through provincially or federally funded buyout, relocating homes to an alternative location, or via a combination of strategies.

3. Option 2-3: Upgrade the dike for flood and erosion protection following retreat.

4. Option 2-4: Nature-based adaptation including complete removal of the dike and naturalization of the shoreline.

7

Zuzek Consulting recommended Option 2-4, Nature-based adaptation following retreat, as “best practice for disaster mitigation and nature-based adaptation” (Zuzek, 2020: 123). Currently however, the Municipality is proceeding with immediate action to repair and upgrade the dike under the Drainage Act, given that emergency dike stabilization is needed and additional shoreline protection or retreat are both likely to be cost-prohibitive (Zuzek, 2020). The estimated combined tax assessed value of the 124 properties along ESD was approximately $20 million in 2019, though due to market fluctuations, there is considerable uncertainty over the true cost of purchasing the properties (Zuzek, 2020). Furthermore, the Municipality would require an additional $33 to $50 million to naturalize the land after home removal (Zuzek, 2020).

With that said, during public consultation meetings and when providing feedback, some ChathamKent residents identified buyouts as a viable option and a missed opportunity to improve coastal resilience (Zuzek, 2020). Additionally, many residents expressed a desire for collaborative, coordinated implementation of planning and management across all levels (Zuzek, 2020).

2.3 Research methods and data analysis In addition to the literature review, which provided the majority of the study’s data, several (n=6) key informant interviews were carried out to enrich and enlighten themes pulled from the literature.

To facilitate multiple opportunities for key informant engagement, two separate recruitment efforts were used: 1) ESD homeowners were contacted via a random mail-out, social media and email; 2) municipal officials and research experts were contacted via email.

The random mail-out cast the broadest net and invited owners to participate in the study. The subset of households selected for the mail-out was derived by first visually examining ESD using Google Maps. From media coverage and visual examination using Google Maps, it was determined that the most flood- and erosion-affected stretch of Erie Shore Drive occurs between Bismet Line and the McGeachy Conservation Area West trail entrance. Only properties on the lakefront side of Erie Shore Drive (i.e. facing south) were considered. The address and postal code for each property was recorded, resulting in a list of 127 properties. Ten properties were then excluded due to lack of visible address or a lack of permanent residence structure (i.e. vacant lots, lots with portable campers and businesses). This population was then cross-referenced against a list of addresses available from Canada Post resulting in a reduced list of 80 properties, from which a random sample of 50 properties was selected using Measurement Canada’s random sampling application (2016).

Random mail-out was determined to be the easiest and most direct way to contact property owners.

However, given the partial road closure on ESD, the authors anticipated that mail-outs alone would likely produce an insufficient number of participants. The mail-out was supplemented through email contact with the Erie Shore Drive Property Owner Association and social media groups, inviting residents to participate in the study.

8

Contact information for expert participants was readily available online, and so email was the primary method of contacting municipal officials and managed retreat experts. Relevant expert participants were identified based on their research experience in managed retreat and/or flood management, or due to their familiarity with the context. Each expert was then invited to participate in the study.

These recruitment efforts generated six participants, consisting of one property owner, a senior municipal official and four experts. Over the course of an approximately one-hour interview, participants answered a number of open-ended questions related to buyout strategies, program benefits and buyout concerns. Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted virtually using Cisco Web-Ex meeting software. To ensure accurate transcription of the conversation, audio recordings of each interview were made with permission from the participant, and these were then manually transcribed. Following grounded theory as described by Bell & Bryman (2016), each transcript was analyzed by question to identify major themes. Transcripts were coded twice on different dates and then codes were consolidated to ensure consistency across sessions.

Accordingly, codes were compared across transcripts to determine common themes relevant to multiple participants.

9

3. Results and discussion

Referencing buyouts, Young (2018) argues that managed retreat is often seen as a non-option for most landowners; he writes “retreat is the option that dare not speak its name” (Young, 2018, 527).

Researchers such as Koslov (2016) and Gross (2019), note similar feelings amongst politicians and homeowners faced with a buyout.

The language used to describe buyouts, and managed retreat more generally, is a useful place to begin evaluating the social license of coastal adaptation strategies. What people say about buyouts often implies certain expectations and beliefs about actors, their roles and what the meaning of retreat means (Koslov, 2016; Maldonado et al., 2020). In both popular media and academic literature, it is relatively common to see coastal managers and property owners equating “retreat” with “failure” or defeat (Koslov, 2016; Young, 2018; Siders, 2019; Maldonado et al., 2020).

During one interview, a participant said, “I look at retreat as running away, and fixing something as going head-on, and what’s best, right?” (Participant 3, 2021). Increasing the social license of a buyout program will therefore likely involve challenging deeply held beliefs about government’s responsibility to address hazards, the approaches that government ‘should’ take, and understandings of environmental processes, emotions and perceptions.

Several studies have sought to understand these beliefs, and the factors that drive people to accept or reject a buyout even in the face of repeated loss and tragedy. The academic literature is clear in noting that people resist or accept buyouts for many reasons and these reasons are heterogeneous across space and time (Robinson et al., 2018; Dachary-Bernard et al., 2019; Frimpong et al., 2019; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020). Researchers generally agree that attachment to place, property condition, relocation site characteristics, location in the floodplain, and distance to the coast can all impact the uptake of a buyout program (Frimpong et al., 2019). However, other issues also have influence, including repeated hazard/risk exposure, financial agency, real estate markets, access to information, and community ties (Bukvic et al., 2018; Frimpong et al., 2019; Bukvic, 2020). That said, the literature agrees that these factors are heavily context dependent (Bukvic et al., 2018; Frimpong et al., 2019; Bukvic, 2020). During interviews, multiple participants identified several of the above issues, including place attachment, return on investment, the political viability of retreat, and existing social tensions.

Figure 6: Damaged breakwall and armour stone revetment

10

As elsewhere, addressing place attachment is an important factor when considering the social license of a proactive buyout for ESD, and place attachment is difficult to overcome quickly. Given the emotional connection people have to land they inhabit, many homeowners are resistant to relocation (Lawrence et al., 2020; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020; Doberstein et al., 2019). Participant 6 noted that many of the dwellings along ESD have existed there for a significant amount of time, with multiple generations of a family inhabiting their property: “There are people who are like ‘I’ve had this cottage in my family for 70 years and I want to pass it on to my children’” (Participant 6, 2021).

In addition to emotional investment, place attachment is also related to the perceived value of a property and thus, acceptable levels of buyout compensation (Robinson et al., 2018). Houses and property often represent a significant proportion of homeowners’ wealth, so determining the value of a property and a “fair” buyout offer is a challenge for almost all buyout programs (Frimpong et al., 2019; Siders, 2019; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020). Participants mentioned that many residents have invested heavily in their property, either through home purchase, repair/ renovation, or upgrades to protective infrastructure (see Figure 6). Participants 1, 2, 3 and 6 (2021) indicated that meeting property owners’ desire for a fair return on their investment, or otherwise convincing them to leave without fair compensation, would be extremely difficult. Participant 2 (2021) stated that, for homeowners, “walking away is akin to burning your money.” Typically, a homeowner’s need for compensation at fair market value contrasts sharply with the financial reality for Municipal or Provincial governments, neither of which usually have the funds set aside to finance a buyout and naturalization program (estimated at $55 million dollars for ESD) (Zuzek, 2020). As a result, justifying the expense and effort of buyouts to the public and elected municipal officials represents an important part of making a buyout socially viable.

Beyond funding the program, existing relationships and tensions between the government and residents are likely to have an impact on the social license of a buyout (Binder & Greer, 2016; Bukvic & Owen, 2017; Binder et al., 2020). Following Hurricane Sandy, some residents of Oakwood Beach, Staten Island in New York revealed that they felt abandoned by the government, and that the absence of support in Sandy’s wake was only the latest demonstration of an historic lack of regard for them (Binder & Greer, 2016). ESD residents displayed similar sentiments over the course of the study, and in both interviews and media comments. One participant mentioned: “ … I don’t see Chatham-Kent working with any of the individual homeowners. And they know.

They’re well aware because they’ve put in spillways and they’ve put the rip rap down and they have temporary measures in place, so they already know the dedicated problem zones and instead of dealing with this problem head on they [implement reactive measures that are not on the homeowner level].”

Another resident said during a CTV interview, “Nobody’s ever cared about us… They love our taxes, don’t get me wrong. We pay top dollar to live on the lake. But when the lake is in your house, you know, different story…” (CTV Windsor, 2020).

Dealing with these issues – emotional attachment, finances, and existing tensions – as a backdrop to attempts to implement an acceptable and fair buyout program will require a significant, creative and sustained effort. The following sections present five elements derived from the buyout literature which, if combined, could help overcome these obstacles by improving the fit, transparency and relationships developed in a buyout program, and thus, the social licence of buyouts.

11

3.1 Buyout solutions must be context-specific and creative Given the variable drivers which influence homeowners’ acceptance of buyout programs (Bukvic & Owen, 2017; Frimpong et al., 2019), it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to identify all drivers applicable to every homeowner in every situation. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, buyouts are constrained by existing programs, policies and ideologies found locally. Bukvic and Owen note: “ To understand the circumstances under which residents would be willing to consider relocation, decision-makers need to look at communities on a case-by-case basis and account for the distinct cultural, historical, institutional, and socioeconomic dimensions of each costal locality…”

(Bukvic & Owen, 2017: 120) Without specific attention to local contextual constraints and opportunities, buyout coordinators run the risk of creating a socially and economically untenable program at best, and at worst, the program may erode trust between parties and further existing inequality (Gross, 2019; Mach et al., 2019; Siders, 2019). For example, the Oakwood Beach, NY buyouts were largely successful because community members used existing political ties to promote and influence the buyout and acquire funding (Siders, 2019). However, where political support is lacking, or where community members do not have the same political capital or financial wherewithal, similar pathways are not possible (Siders, 2019). Expecting small, rural or marginalized communities to adopt the same strategies and resources as larger, more well-connected and well-funded communities is unfeasible, so coordinators must thoroughly examine the actors, resources, history, and context before any major decisions are made about program structure.

As part of examining available resources, the literature suggests that special attention should be paid to potential funding mechanisms and existing coastal and flood management programs. Currently the Canadian government provides post-disaster relief through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) fund, which has granted over $5 billion dollars in assistance to territories and provinces since the 1970s (Public Safety Canada, 2020). The DFAA is a cost-sharing mechanism to provide aid when disaster damages reach a pre-determined threshold; as of January 2020, Ontario’s threshold was $47.6 million (Public Safety Canada, 2020). Although eligible activities listed under DFAA include “removal of damaged structures constituting a threat to public safety” (Public Safety Canada, 2020), buyouts are not mentioned specifically and the associated land acquisition costs of damaged structures are not mentioned.

Similarly, Ontario funds two financial assistance programs – the Disaster Recovery Assistance Ontario (DRAO) fund and the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program (Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing, 2020). Like federal funding, these programs are designed to provide disaster recovery funding and thus have no mandate to support proactive buyouts. More importantly, experts note that neither the federal nor Ontario provincial governments currently have the capacity to prioritize proactive buyouts (Zuzek, 2020). As of 2018, Ontario faced an economic deficit of $1 billion (McNeil, 2019); decision makers are facing significant pressure to reduce spending where possible, and while McNeil makes recommendations to maintain or increase funding for flood efforts (McNeil, 2019), Ontario buyout coordinators must draw upon other sources to fund a buyout.

12

Although fair compensation is not the focus of this paper, it is an important and highly contentious element of any buyout program (Frimpong et al., 2019). The amount of money offered, and how it is offered to homeowners, can greatly impact homeowner perception of a program’s fairness, and therefore its social licence and viability within the community (Thistlethwaite et al., 2020; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020). For instance, Seebauer & Winkler (2020) discovered that low participation rates in an Austrian buyout program were, in part, related to the compensation offered; one participant said that they could repair their home ten times over with the amount of buyout money offered (Seebauer & Winkler, 2020). In the Chatham-Kent ESD case, all participants stressed the importance of finding a fair, objective and impartial way to determine property value and calculate compensation if a buyout program was offered. High housing prices in Southern Ontario mean many ESD residents likely could not afford equivalent waterfront properties elsewhere in the region even if they were to receive fair market value, considering the vast differences in market prices (Participant 3, 2021; Participant 6, 2021). As emphasized by Seebauer & Winkler (2020), this is likely a key point of resistance to accepting a buyout. Therefore, finding creative funding strategies and associated relocation opportunities will be crucial to creating a program homeowners find fair and acceptable. Participants identified the following elements which are, in their opinions, important to creating fair compensation mechanisms: 1) The calculation process should be transparent and publically accessible; 2) criteria should be impartial, with a specific rationale for the values and methods used; and, 3) the municipality must manage expectations throughout the process. This way, the process of determining property value and offers will at least be open and accountable. Combined with other strategies, such as relocation assistance and broader community support through financial and emotional counselling (Freudenberg et al., 2016), home value may become a less crucial concern for homeowners.

Alternatively, insurance may provide an avenue for funding buyouts, and was referenced as a desirable option by Participants 1, 2 and 4 (2021). As of July 2021, Public Safety Canada has received national funding to renew the National Disaster Mitigation program, and is working to develop Canadian private flood insurance solutions for high risk homes (Public Safety Canada, 2021). While insurance may form a key element of future flood risk reduction in Canada (Davies, 2018; Craig, 2019), it is beyond the scope of this paper to review its potential role in buyouts. It should also be noted that Canada convened a Task Force on Flood Insurance and Relocation in 2020, and this task force is working to “develop a national action plan to assist homeowners with potential relocation for those at the highest risk of repeat flooding” (Public Safety Canada 2021).

3.2 Agencies potentially involved in buyouts must communicate clearly and facilitate meaningful public participation Researchers such as Binder et al., (2020) cite inconsistent or altogether absent communication as both a source of uncertainty and confusion, and a major failing of buyout implementation (Binder & Greer, 2016; Dachery-Bernard et al., 2019; Binder et al., 2020; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020). For example, following Hurricane Sandy, residents in two separate buyouts – the Oakwood Beach and Mastic Beach buyouts – reported that inconsistent and contradictory information was shared with them (Binder & Greer, 2016; Freudenberg, Calvin, Tolkoff & Brawley, 2016; Binder et al., 2020). As a result, homeowners expressed continued frustration, experiences of being in ‘limbo’ and a loss of agency in their lives (Binder et al., 2020).

13

In a similar vein, Chatham-Kent municipal officials, managed retreat experts and property owners face significant uncertainty about future lake levels and the implications of this for properties.

Participant 6 (2021) stated: “A lot of [property owners], I feel are just banking on the lake going down. [The shoreline study] says you can’t rely on the past now because we’re in climate change.

You’re going to see higher highs and lower lows…” Participants were also uncertain about the best course of action and costs of addressing the coastal flood hazard. The scale and cost of work resulting from the Drainage Engineer’s assessment of the ESD dike is unknown but is a significant source of concern, considering that the Municipality has already spent upwards of a million dollars on repairs (Participant 6, 2021). Furthermore, possible solutions for homeowners along Erie Shore Drive, who are on “the wrong side of the dike” (i.e. are located between the dike and lake edge), are unclear.

This uncertainty matters, because it often translates into inconsistent messaging to the public; a lack of consistent and transparent information not only leaves residents feeling anxious and unheard, it creates a perception of non-accountability and may lead residents to question the government’s intentions or actions (Gross, 2019; Binder et al., 2020). Related to this point, some participants in Chatham-Kent voiced frustration with how the Municipality communicated on the road closure and coastal management activities. When asked about the possibility of building trust between the Municipality and Erie Shore Drive residents, Participant 3 mentioned: “ The trust is a tough one, especially because it’s such a large entity and there’s different players and different board levels... Nothing ever goes out to the homeowners, right? In terms of in the way the town is thinking… You just don’t know, right? People would probably see one thing and it might not be Chatham-Kent’s intention, and trying to find common ground – that part is left out, right? You don’t know what side necessarily they’re on… It’s like how when they closed the road, they only gave three days’ notice, or whatever it was it was extremely short notice.

‘Get out, we’re closing the road’. It was like woah! ... I guess communication, I’d like more communication, the more there is, the better it’s going to be.”

These frustrations point to the need for program coordinators to develop two-way mechanisms through which residents can both receive information and voice their concerns. Researchers suggest that program coordinators should institute a single point of contact where property owners and the general community can seek information, resources and support (Binder & Greer, 2016; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020). Interestingly, participants echoed this recommendation. Participant 1 (2021) mentioned that: “People who are being retreated need to be mentored through the process because it’s a significant, scary, stressful process. If people in charge can make it consistent, fair and helpful then it will go much more smoothly.”

Doing so creates an effective two-way dialogue and increases residents’ willingness to participate in the process (Kweit & Kweit, 2007; Siders, 2019).

14

Moreover, when communication is consistent, transparent and two-way, program coordinators can appeal to emotional elements and risk-perceptions in residents’ decision-making process, and therefore increase trust (Freudenberg et al., 2016; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020). This is already happening in Chatham-Kent. Although Participant 3 voiced frustration about a lack of communication on the road closure, Chatham-Kent has successfully created a dialogue on other flood-related issues. Speaking about the public meetings for the shoreline management study, Participant 6 (2021) said: “ Well the main benefit [of the public meetings] was that people really started to understand the magnitude of the problem… They understood that we weren’t trying to do something underhanded here. [We said] ‘This is a real problem. Here’s all the data, here’s the water levels, here’s all the structures we need’. So that part was positive. And one of the things at the end of the day, you know we had lots and lots of people. We had you know we planned three public sessions and we had to expand it to four. There was some real, genuine interest in what was happening and to understand and what the future held for them.”

This point also demonstrates that including the community in planning conversations provides a potential avenue for facilitating dialogue with community owners, and improving relationships. The literature consistently points to the need to include the community in the planning conversations and decision-making processes around buyouts (Freudenberg et al., 2016; Binder & Greer, 2016; Bukvic & Owen, 2017; Siders, 2019; Binder et al., 2020; Maldonado et al., 2020; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020). Thistlethwaite et al. (2020) note that robust stakeholder engagement during the initial design phases increases the acceptability and uptake of the program. As an example, Valymeyer, Illinois Mayor, Dennis Knoblock, attributed the community’s successful migration following the Great Midwest Flood of 1993 to significant citizen engagement (Knobloch, 2005). Not only had residents experienced the disaster and recognized their vulnerability, but they became active participants in building a better, more resilient community (Knobloch, 2005).

Community-led, community-oriented discussions about residents’ values and public goals for the future may reduce fear and uncertainty by providing residents with a tangible action plan.

Freudenberg et al. (2016: 41) note: “Residents should be engaged in the vision for the buyout program and the ways in which acquired properties will be reused…” If buyout coordinators can intentionally involve the community in visioning exercises that explore the possibility of a better future for the community, the buyout becomes a mechanism to achieve those goals rather than an admission of defeat (Siders, 2013a; Koslov, 2016; Siders, 2019). Related to this, Participant 5 (2021) mentioned: “ So this is a hard one, but some conversations about - that start with ‘who are we as a community and who do we want to be as a community opens up a space for conversations… Do we want new housing? … Do we want industry? Or do we want, you know, small single-family homes on large plots of land and we want lots of open space. There are lots of different answers. If you can identify that, then it opens up a lot of conversations about ‘that’s our goal, and then we can talk about if you, you and you sold your homes, then we can do x, y and z…to achieve that goal that we’ve all just said we want to achieve.”

15

In conjunction, providing education to homeowners is key to building an action plan and shifting public perception (Siders, 2019). Participants 1 (2021) and 6 (2021) mentioned that the education provided at public meetings for the shoreline management study greatly improved peoples’ perspectives on buyouts. Participant 6 (2021) stated: “ We had 11 different engagement events [for the shoreline management plan] right in the heart of some of these emergencies. And there were people who came to these meetings and wanted nothing to do [with it], no buyout, no way. And by the sixth, seventh, eighth [event]. A lot of people were saying ‘Buy me out.’ ” All of these efforts, communication, education and community vision building are necessary, in part, to develop positive working relationships between government coordinators and residents. Building these relationships with and amongst residents “will provide neighbourhoods and communities with critical resilience in the future” by creating a network of social capital, support and good will (Aldrich & Meyer, 2014: 264). Given the existing tensions between Erie Shore Drive residents and the Municipality, building a dialogue and positive relationships is especially important for the success of any coastal adaptation strategy.

3.3 Provide a clear, transparent rationale for decision-making and eligibility criteria Because buyouts are geographically bounded, they typically only directly impact a small number of residents yet can have a profound effect on non-participants and surrounding communities (Binder et al., 2020). Therefore, specific and transparent rationale for decision-making and eligibility criteria are vital to help all residents understand the situation and associated costs.

The buyout eligibility criteria in many previous programs have been vague or often missing rationale that connects to decision making. For example, many buyouts provide criteria such as “homes must have a history of flooding”, with no specification for what type of flooding is eligible (i.e. pluvial, coastal, etc.), flood frequency, or the extent of the damage (Siders, 2019). Regarding eligibility criteria, Participant 5 (2021) mentioned: “ It’s this idea that homeowners, you know if I come into a community and I offer a buyout to six homes and not the other four, there’s going to be a lot of questions? Why not? Why these six and not the other four?... And the problem is that in the US at least, the criteria are really unclear.

My favourite is ‘we will make decisions based on community values’… What the heck does that mean? ‘This will be a mutual understanding between the state and local government’… Like as a homeowner those things don’t help you at all. [Homeowners ask] “like am I eligible or am I not?

Who knows?”

Vague criteria and opaque decision making can raise questions about buyout program equity and accountability, and can erode trust between communities and buyout coordinators (Binder & Greer, 2016; Gross, 2019; Siders, 2019; Binder et al., 2020; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020). For instance, eligibility criteria for the Oakwood Beach buyout changed part way through the process, excluding previously eligible homeowners (Binder et al., 2020; Binder & Greer, 2016). Narrowing the geographical region considered for a buyout is not uncommon (Koslov, 2016), but is clearly unfair once a program is underway and eligibility has been communicated to the public. Even when objective criteria and fair decision making mechanisms exist, a lack of explicit, publically available criteria makes the process unclear to citizens, which undermines citizens’ faith in the system and reduces the likelihood of future participation (Siders, 2019).

16

Over the study period, participants stressed the need for clear and impartial eligibility criteria and even provided examples of criteria which may be acceptable to Erie Shore Drive homeowners. For instance, Participant 5 (2021) provided an example of a ‘distance from hazard’ criteria: “We will be offering buyouts to anyone who is within 100 meters of the river who has experienced basement flooding and whos home abuts the local park.”

They followed this up, saying: “ That [eligibility criterion] is a lot clearer. I can figure out whether I’m eligible or not based on that.

So, people start to see the reasoning behind it, like ‘Oh they’re trying to buy up properties adjacent to the local park so we can just expand the park, cool, okay that’s why they’re being offered and I’m not’. I may not agree with it, I may still be angry about it, but at least I can see the reasoning and understand it’s not unfair... it engenders more trust in the system.”

(Participant 5, 2021) Additionally, transparent criteria and a publicly accessible rationale for action create more certainty in the buyout’s scope and objectives (Doberstein, Rutledge & Tadgell, 2019; Siders, 2019). This is also crucial for elected officials who must justify the expenses and efforts associated with buyout. During interviews, multiple participants expressed concern that a buyout would be politically unfeasible because it would be like “opening the chequebook for any other place with water issues” (Participant 2, 2021). A specific, clear and logical rationale for decision making provides a mechanism for officials to defend their decisions in an open, accountable and transparent way.

3.4 The buyout program must provide specific and perceivable co-benefits for the community and the municipality While buyouts can support the resiliency of a community through a variety of mechanisms (Siders, 2013b), the program must provide benefits beyond immediate risk reduction (called co-benefits here). These co-benefits must be clearly and consistently conveyed to public officials and members of the broader community (Siders, 2013a). Co-benefits may increase the social license of a buyout program by further justifying its costs, and by providing indirect compensation for residents left behind. Typical co-benefits of buyout programs include naturalized landscapes and recreational opportunities on ‘buyout lands’.

Most obviously, the demolition of existing structures and subsequent land naturalization create tangible ecological benefits by providing buffers against wind and wave action, thereby reducing the potential for flooding (Siders, 2013 a; Siders, 2013b; Calil et al., 2015; Gross, 2019). Resulting greenspaces can also further environmental, recreational and sustainability goals (Freudenberg et al., 2016; Siders, 2013b). For instance, four properties acquired in Ohio were used to create the Cuyohoga Falls Garden Reserve, which provides groundwater recharge in addition to protection from flooding (Freudenberg et al., 2016). Similarly, Participant 5 (2021) mentioned that the City of Houston used land acquired after Hurricane Harvey in 2017 to develop “pocket prairies” around the city. These “pocket prairies”, consisting of a single lot or a few in close proximity, provide air quality benefits and urban greenspace microhabitats. Such co-benefits strategies are post-retreat options for the land along Erie Shore Drive where, for example, the existing McGeachy trail system could be extended following buyout, and this greenspace development would then provide surrounding communities with recreational benefits (see Figure 7).

17

Figure 7: McGeachy Pond Conservation Area trail abuts Erie Shore Drive and extends to the settlement of Erieau to the east

Regardless of the specific strategy, all participants cited nature-based solutions as the most acceptable use for the land in a buyout scenario. Although most participants wished for the land to remain in use, they recognized that most powerful method for permanent risk reduction was to naturalize the beach. For example, Participant 3 (2021) stated: “ Naturalize. If the lake needs to go where the lake needs to go then they gotta let, you know gotta let it be where it needs to be. Whether it’s our homes or whether it’s say a thousand acres behind me where those other farms are, then they would need to be involved too. But if Lake Erie needs to go that far back, it’s about naturalization and environmental and all that other stuff then that should be it… Call it the Hillman Marsh or something like that…”

A post-buyout land-use regime which ensures nature-based coastal adaptation while balancing the community’s wishes for continued utility will therefore likely be a preferred option.

Beyond sustainability and environmental wellbeing, nature-based solutions also often provide intangible benefits (Siders, 2013b; BenDor et al., 2020). The literature suggests that the development of parks or other recreation spaces adjacent to residential development increases the property values of surrounding neighbourhoods (Siders, 2013b; BenDor et al., 2020; Binder et al., 2020). For property owners in Chatham-Kent, especially non-participants in close proximity to buyout zones, access to greenspace amenities and higher property values may offset some of the perceived inequity associated with a geographically limited buyout program. To achieve this benefit, however, program coordinators must clearly demonstrate the relationship between greenspace development and increasing property values.

Furthermore, buyout program coordinators can also deliberately explore the ways in which buyouts can offset existing costs and issues to increase program political viability. As mentioned in Section 3.4, several participants identified political viability as a major stumbling block for buyout development.

For example, Participant 2 (2021) stated: “ If government was going to get into this game, they should be thinking about places where there are significant co-benefits... if we want to get into this game of buyouts, there has to be some rationale for why we are doing this...”

18

At the municipal level, the co-benefits of buyout mostly relate to hazard management cost savings.

Buyouts are a one-time investment which reduce vulnerability to a hazard and can save municipalities, homeowners and higher levels of government from cycles of costly rebuilding and maintenance efforts (Siders, 2013b; Freudenberg et al., 2016; Craig, 2019). Participant 1 summarized this neatly, saying: “With buyouts you stop the never-ending bleeding of investment to a small group of people who are located in an area that really shouldn’t be there.” Participant 5 (2021) further elaborated that a one-time investment may reduce the significant political burden placed on councillors representing flood-prone regions. They stated: “ …think about all the time, energy and emotional stress your councillor is spending thinking about these homes. And they shouldn’t be. Your councillor should not spend all this time worrying about 100 homes out of 100 000. But every time [these homes] flood, they will be, because [the flood victims] are the most visible people in need. And the only way to make that fair and get the councillor to focus on the rest of the community is to get those people out of harm’s way once and for all, permanently. And the best way to do that is to relocate them.” (Participant 5, 2021) Yet, in the same way that evidence of the co-benefits of greenspace must be provided, a buyout’s cost reduction potential must be explored and presented to the public prior to implementation. The literature states that buyouts can reduce overhead costs by minimizing or removing the requirement for infrastructure such as roads, water and wastewater services, and hydro (Siders, 2013b; BenDor et al., 2020). Moreover, buyouts eliminate the maintenance costs associated with existing and expensive hazard mitigation infrastructure such as seawalls, dikes and shore armaments (Siders 2013b; Craig, 2019; BenDor et al., 2020), and avoid future costs associated with the need for such structures under climate change. That said, these “avoided” costs do not often enter cost evaluations, especially in situations where higher levels of government offer support (BenDor et al., 2020). Therefore, a full-cost accounting strategy which considers all of these expenses may provide better rationale and improve the feasibility of implementation.

19

4. Research limitations and future opportunities

The primary data gathering portion of the study faced several challenges which limited the extent to which insight could be gathered from property owners and municipal officials. Response rates to the random mail out and social media contacts were very low, likely because many owners of properties selected for the random mail out may not have been present in the home. It is also crucial to note that before the study was complete, the ESD property owner’s association took legal action against the Municipality for the road closure. Although Blackburn News has since reported on the proceedings (Wills, 2021), the situation was not public knowledge during the research period.

Regardless, it is likely that the legal case significantly contributed to the lack of response from property owners. As well, the research was carried out during the Covid-19 pandemic, at a period of time when there were multiple limitations mandated by the Province and the authors’ University restricting travel and face-to-face meetings. Accordingly, the authors were forced to reframe the study as a mainly literature-based study rather than a mainly primary data-driven study.

Future research should consider how to integrate property owner knowledge and experience into the development and implementation of proactive buyout programs, with special attention to contextspecific risk perceptions and existing Municipality-homeowner relationships. Additionally, future managed retreat research in Ontario must consider the role of Conservation Authorities, given that their primary mandate involves preventing and managing flooding (Conservation Authorities Act, 1990). To keep the scope of the paper manageable, the role of Conservation Authorities was deliberately excluded. This was, in part, because the authority to request provincial or federal funding and subsequently offer buyouts to property owners rests solely with the municipality. However, considering their extensive expertise and the resources available to some Conservation Authorities, they will be important stakeholders in managed retreat discussions.

Study participants identified several issues which affect not only the social license of a buyout program, but the need for such programs altogether. These issues are mostly policy-based questions which will require a more strategic and collaborative research approach than what was carried out for this study. Participant’s recommendations are summarized here: I)

More empirical research is needed to determine practical alternatives to managed retreat over a range of socioeconomic and environmental contexts.

Buyouts are not necessarily the best solution for every context. Buyouts are most effective in small geographic extents with a limited number of properties (Siders, 2019), despite being the current “go-to” solution (Young, 2018). Moreover, according to participants, there is relatively little empirical research on the implementation and outcomes of any managed retreat project.

Without this research, the success of managed retreat strategies remains uncertain, which makes coastal adaptation more difficult to justify and implement. Having more empirical insight would better inform decision makers and allow them to select creative strategies which work best for their context.

20

II) Ontario’s provincial officials must seriously consider how to facilitate risk disclosure and potentially compensate owners for lost property value.

To be effective, managed retreat requires revisions in real-estate and land development policy.

Currently, there is no requirement to disclose hazard risk in Ontario, and so property owners and real estate agents often do not disclose flood-risk when a home is for sale (Participant 2, 2021; Participant 4, 2021; Participant 6, 2021). Without this requirement, property sales create risk cycles through which hazardous properties pass from one owner to the next, where tragically, new owners often have little or no knowledge of the risk they purchase. Moreover, Participant 6 indicated that when at-risk homeowners sell their properties, education efforts to increase community awareness must start again with the new owners. Stopping these risk cycles requires stricter real estate legislation, under which homeowners and agents must disclose flood or erosion risk to future buyers. If such legislative changes are implemented, Provincial officials must also determine how best to compensate at-risk homeowners for the property value that will inevitably be lost when disclosing their property’s risk. Participant 5 noted anecdotally that in such situations a buyout may be more acceptable, but more research is needed. See Siders (2013a) for an example of full disclosure in real estate law.

III) Buyouts must occur in association with improved land-use and hazard management planning which accounts for climate change (Drejza et al., 2011; Siders, 2013b; Koslov, 2016; Davies, 2020).

Koslov (2016: 362) notably writes, “retreat means restricting movement as much as facilitating it…”

Although Ontario supposedly recognizes that avoiding hazardous areas should be the primary strategy for reducing risk, the Provincial Planning Policy currently does not appreciate the extent to which climate change is affecting, and in some cases exacerbating, coastal hazards (Ontario, 2020; Zuzek, 2020). Confirming this, Participants 2 (2021) and 4 (2021) noted that Ontario’s planning policies still allow development adjacent to hazardous areas without recognizing that these areas could become dangerous in the future.

Considering that Ontario currently lacks capacity to fund buyout programs (Zuzek, 2020), pre-emptively reducing risk by accounting for climate change, changing erosion rates, and future hazard risks will mitigate the need for buyouts or other managed retreat strategies in the future.

Truly “avoiding” flood hazards therefore requires Provincial officials to consider how to better account for climate change and shifting hazards in our planning policies.

21

5. Conclusion

Buyouts remain complicated and difficult programs to implement, with a myriad of challenges to overcome. A program’s success is often influenced by existing issues within the community, trust between buyout coordinators and homeowners, and a range of context-specific factors.

Furthermore, implementing a buyout invokes significant concerns about fairness and equity and requires answers to many difficult questions, such as who is eligible and who is not, and what happens to bought out properties afterwards?

Buyouts are but one strategy in a suite of coastal adaptation options; addressing coastal flooding requires managers to seriously evaluate their context and work with their communities to develop appropriate, resilience-building strategies. Moreover, if decision makers do opt for a buyout, that buyout needs to be supported and enmeshed in a larger, more holistic development framework with better planning and real-estate policy.

This research was conducted to understand how to increase the social license of a proactive buyout program. This study suggests that buyouts have higher social license where they are: 1) creative and context-specific; 2) where they facilitate meaningful public participation; 3) where they foster a more certain future; 4) where they provide a clear rationale for decision making, and 5) where they create co-benefits. These elements must be deliberately built into proactive buyout programs which foster an open, transparent and collaborative process that builds community resilience and provides co-benefits for the environment.

It does not currently appear that the Municipality of Chatham-Kent is in a position to consider a buyout program for the 124 highly flood- and erosion-prone properties along Erie Shore Drive.

Capacity issues, concerns over a buyout program’s political viability, a legal challenge, and a lack of financial support from the Provincial and Federal governments remain major barriers. Understandably, none of these elements are straightforward to overcome. Additional empirical research is needed to provide more specific recommendations on how to more successfully implement buyout programs.

Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

22

6. References

Aldrich, D.P., and Meyer, M.A., (2014). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioural Scientist 59(2): 254-269. DOI: 10.1177/0002764214550299 Bartoli, A.M., He, L., Hurst, A.E., Mortsch, L., Paehlke, R., and Scavia, D., (2015). Climate change as a driver of change in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research 41(Supplement 1):45-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.11.012 BenDor, T.K., Salvesen, D., Kamrath, C., and Ganser, B. (2020). Floodplain buyouts and municipal finance.

National Hazards Review 21(3). Retrieved from https://ascelibrary-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/doi/ pdf/10.1061/%28ASCE%29NH.1527-6996.0000380 Binder, S.B., and Greer, A., (2016). The devil is in the details: Linking home buyout policy, practice and experience after Hurricane Sandy. Politics and Governance 4(4). 97-106. DOI: 10.17645/pag. v4i4.738 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/738/738 Binder, S.B., Ritchie, L.A., Bender, R., Thiel, A., Baker, C.K., Badillo, E., Goodfellow, S., Kulp, B., and Weir, P. (2020). Limbo: the unintended consequences of home buyout programmes on peripheral communities.

Environmental Hazards 19(5). 488-507. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1080/17477891.2020.1714537 Bell, E., and Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (4th ed). United States: Oxford University Press Bukvic, A., and Owen, G. (2017). Attitudes towards relocation following Hurricane Sandy: Should we stay or should we go? Disasters 41(1): 101-123. doi:10.1111/disa.12186 https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/doi/epdf/10.1111/disa.12186 Bukvic, A., Zhu, H., Lavoie, R., and Becker, A. (2018). The role of proximity to waterfront in residents’ relocation decision-making post-Hurricane Sandy. Ocean and Costal Management 154, pp. 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.002 Bukvic, A., (2020). Leaving the shore: What drives decision-making after coastal disasters. Natural Hazards Centre. https://hazards.colorado.edu/news/research-counts/leaving-the-shore-what-drives-decisionmaking-after-coastal-disasters?utm_source=NHC+Master+List&utm_campaign=e1589ee3bf-EMAIL_ CAMPAIGN_2019_01_31_09_35_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dabc309806e1589ee3bf-54404882 Calil, J., Beck, M.W., Gleason, M., Merrifield, M., and Newkirk, S., (2015). Aligning natural resource conservation and flood hazard mitigation in Florida. PLoS ONE 10(7). doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0132651 Conservation Authorities Act 1990. C. C.27. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27 Craig, R.K., (2019). Coastal adaptation, government-subsidized insurance, and perverse incentives to stay.

Climatic Change 152(2). 215-226. DOI:10.1007/s10584-018-2203-5 https://www-proquest-com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/docview/2033529962?accountid=14906 CTV Windsor, (2020). State of emergency declared along Erie Shore Drive [video]. CTV News. https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1765591 Dachary-Bernard, J., Rey-Valette, H.R., and Rulleau, B., (2019). Preferences among coastal and inland residents relating to managed retreat: Influence of risk perception in acceptability of relocation. Journal of Environmental Management 232(2019): 722-780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.104 Davies, J.B. (2020) 6. Reforming Canada’s Disaster Assistance Programs. Canadian Public Policy 46(2): 187-197. doi:10.3138/cpp.2019-066 https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/article/758301 Doberstein, B., Fitzgibbons, J., and Mitchell, C., (2019). Protect, accommodate, retreat or avoid (PARA): Canadian community options for flood disaster risk reduction and flood resilience. Natural Hazards 98(2019): 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3529-z

23

Drejza, S., Bernatchez, P., and Dugas, C., (2011). Effectiveness of land management measures to reduce coastal georisks, eastern Quebec, Canada. Ocean & Coastal Management 54(4): 290-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.01.001 Dyckman, C.S., St. John, C., and London, J.B. (2014). Realizing managed retreat and innovation in state-level coastal management planning. Ocean & Coastal Management 102(2014): 212-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.010 Federal Emergency Management Agency, (2019). Disaster Relief Fund: FY 2020 funding requirements. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/disaster-relief-funding-requirements_fy-2020.pdf Frimpong, E., Kruse, J., Howard, G., Davidson, R., Trainor, J., and Nozik, L., (2019). Measuring heterogeneous price effects for home acquisition programs in at-risk regions. Southern Economic Journal 85(4): 1108-1131. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1002/soej.12341 Freudenberg, R., Calvin, E., Tolkoff, L., and Brawley, D. (2016). Buy-in for Buyouts: The case for managed retreat from flood-zones. Lincoln Institute: Cambridge, MA Gronewold, A.D., and Grood, R.B., (2019). Recent water level changes across Earth’s larges lake system and implications for future variability. Journal of Great Lakes Research 45(1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2018.10.012 Gross, S. (2019). Managed retreat and the life estate: A practical path forward for coastal communities. https://law.wm.edu/academics/programs/jd/electives/clinics/vacoastal/reports/managedretreat.final.pdf Huhn, M., (2020). Grand Forks DMAF update. In MyGrandForksNow. https://www.mygrandforksnow.com/17324/grand-forks-dmaf-update/ Infrastructure Canada, (2020). Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund: Program details. https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/dmaf-faac/details-eng.html International Joint Commission, (2003). Climate variability and change in the Great Lakes watershed. https://legacyfiles.ijc.org/publications/C210.pdf Knobloch, D.M., (2005). Moving a community in the aftermath of the Great 1993 Midwest flood.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research (130): 41-45. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2005.mp130001008.x Koslov, L., (2016, May 1). The case for retreat. Public Culture 28(2): 359-387. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1215/08992363-3427487 Kweit, M.G., and Kweit, R.W., (2007). Participation, perception of participation and citizen support.

American Politics Research 35(3): 407-425. 10.1177/1532673X06296206 https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/1532673X06296206 Lawrence, J., Boston, J., Bell, R., Olufson, S., Kool, R., Hardcastle, M., and Stroombergen, A. (2020).

Implementing pre-emptive managed retreat: Constraints and novel insights. Current Climate Change Reports 6(3): 66-80. 10.1007/s40641-020-00161-z Lehman, J., and Kinchy, A. (2021). Bringing climate politics home: Lived experiences of flooding and housing insecurity in a natural gas boomtown. Geoforum 121: 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.02.022 Linhmam, M.M., and Nicholls, R.J. (n.d.). Managed realignment. Climate Technology Centre & Network. https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/managed-realignment Lokman, K., Chang, S., Harford, D., Loon-Steensma, J., Low, M., Martin, T., Doberstein, B., Moore, J., Roulston, D., Marchant, A., White, T., Osler, M., Danyluk, A., Santo, S., Balke, E., Carlson, D., and Thompson, A., (2020). Coastal adaptation: Living with water. Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.

24

Mach, K.J., Kraan, C.M., Siders, A.R., Johnston, E.M., and Field, C.B., (2019). Managed retreat through voluntary buyouts of flood-prone properties. Science Advances 5(10). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax8995 Maldonado, J., Marino, E., and Iaukea, L. (2020). Reframing the language of retreat. EOS. Retrieved from https://eos.org/opinions/reframing-the-language-of-retreat Measurement Canada, (2016). Random sampling application. https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/mc/rndm/RndmMn?lang=eng McNeil, D. (2019). An independent review of the 2019 Flood Events in Ontario. https://files.ontario.ca/mnrf-english-ontario-special-advisor-on-flooding-report-2019-11-25.pdf Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing, (2020). Apply for disaster recovery assistance. https://www.ontario.ca/page/apply-disaster-recovery-assistance Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing, (2020). Guidelines to apply for Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance (MDRA). https://www.ontario.ca/page/guidelines-apply-municipal-disaster-recoveryassistance-mdra Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry, (2020). Protecting people and property: Ontario’s flooding strategy. https://www.ontario.ca/page/protecting-people-property-ontarios-flooding-strategy Needham, K., and Hanley, N. (2019). Valuing a managed realignment scheme: What are the drivers for willingness to pay? Ocean & Coastal Management 170(2019): 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.015 Nellermore, E.M., (2016). Coastal TDRs: A solution for shifting sands on Folly Beach? Coastal Management 44(3): 233-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2016.1160204 Nobel, B.F., (2015). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practices.

(3rd ed.) Don Milles, ON: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, K., Apadula, E., Salvesen, D., Hino, M., Kihslinger, R., and BenDor, T.K., (2020). A review of funding mechanisms for US Floodplain Buyouts. Sustainability 12(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310112 Public Safety Canada, (2020). Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA). https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/rcvr-dsstrs/dsstr-fnncl-ssstnc-rrngmnts/index-en.aspx Public Safety Canada, (2021). Flood Insurance / National Relocation Action Plan. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20210302/018/index-en.aspx Robinson, C.S., Davidson, R.A., Trainor, J.E., Kruse, J.L., and Nozick, L.K., (2018). Homeowner acceptance of voluntary property acquisition offers. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 31(2018): 234-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.05.002 Russell, D., (2015). Soft shoreline alternatives for coastal stabilization and habitat enhancement.

University of British Columbia. 10.14288/1.0075689 Saunders-Hastings, P., Barnard, M., and Doberstein, B. (2020). Planned Retreat Approaches to Support Resilience to Climate Change in Canada. Natural Resources Canada: Ottawa, Canada. https://doi.org/10.4095/328323 Seebauer, S., and Winkler, C., (2020). Should I stay or should I go? Factors in household decisions for or against relocation from a flood risk area. Global Environmental Change 60(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102018 Siders, A.R., (2013a). Managed coastal retreat: A legal handbook on shifting development away from vulnerable areas. Columbia Law School Centre for Climate Change Law. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/siders/files/siders_managedcoastalretreathandbook_2013.pdf

25

Siders, A.R., (2013b). Anatomy of a buyout program – New York post-Hurricane Sandy. In the 16th annual conference on litigating takings challenges to land use and environmental regulations. New York University School of Law. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308518538_Anatomy_of_a_ Buyout_Program_--_New_York_Post-Superstorm_Sandy Siders, A.R., (2019). Social justice implications of US managed retreat buyout programs. Climate Change 152(2019): 239-257. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1007/s10584-018-2272-5 Suopajarvi, L., Umander, K., and Jungsberg, L., (2019). Social license to operate in the frame of social capital exploring local acceptance of mining in two rural municipalities in the European North.

Resources Policy 64: 101498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101498 Thistlethwaite, J., Henstra, D., and Ziolecki, A. (2020). Managed retreat from high-risk flood areas: Design considerations for effective property buyout programs. Centre for International Governance Innovation [Policy Brief No. 158 – April 2020] https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/PB%20 no%20158.pdf Wills, A., (2021). Longer term Erie Shore Drive solution up for discussion. Blackburn News. https://blackburnnews.com/chatham/chatham-news/2021/02/01/longer-term-erie-shore-drive-solutiondiscussion/ Young, A. W. (2018). How to retreat: The necessary transition from buyout to leasing. Coastal Management 46(5): 527-535. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1080/08920753.2018.1498716 Zuzek, P., (2020). Chatham-Kent Lake Erie shoreline study. https://portal.chatham-kent.ca/downloads/es/CKLakeErieSS_LR.pdf

26

Institute Catastrophic Loss Reduction Instituteforfor Catastrophic Loss Reduction Institut prévention des sinistres catastrophiques Institutdede prévention des sinistres catastrophiques Toronto Office 20 Richmond Street East Suite 210 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5C 2R9 416-364-8677 416-364-5889

London Office Western University Amit Chakma Building Suite 4405 1151 Richmond Street London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9 519-661-3234 519-661-4273

info@iclr.org www.iclr.org www.PIEVC.ca facebook.com/instituteforcatastrophiclossreduction twitter.com/iclrcanada • twitter.com/citiesadapt youtube.com/iclrinfo Search: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR) www.basementfloodreduction.com www.reduirelesinondationsdesous-sol.com www.backwatervalveinstallation.com