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
