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
