for the community and the municipality

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).

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...”

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.