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
