facilitate meaningful public participation

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).

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).

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.”