A Peek Into Managed Retreat (Part 2)
In my previous post, I shared that I’d recently learned about “managed retreat” as one approach to mitigating risks related to climate impacts. Managed retreat is a relatively new but incredibly complex concept that researchers and policy analysts are exploring to gauge its applicability in vulnerable coastal communities. It is no doubt controversial, but I wanted to comprehend the conditions that would warrant deployment of managed retreat plans, as well as the types of policies that should support this.
In order to plan for successful managed retreat outcomes, areas must meet certain criteria. Among them:
Coastal defense systems must not only be present, but there should also be a need to improve them.
Low-lying land should be available and accessible.
Sustainability-oriented coastal management principles should be generally accepted by community members.
There must be a need for intertidal habitats.
The surrounding communities should have a general awareness about the benefits of managed retreat plans.
The Georgetown Climate Center, a nonpartisan policy institution that advocates for the advancement of climate and energy policies, has developed a comprehensive toolkit of managed retreat strategies for discussion within (and potential implementation across) various types of coastal communities. It is deconstructed according to several policy considerations——including administrative capacity, economic costs and benefits, environmental systems, and social welfare/equity——and features a series of case studies and recommendations to help policymakers determine best practices for deploying managed retreat plans.
Planning. This section presents nine different plans for local and state government contemplation——Hazard Mitigation Plans, Coastal Management Plans, Local Comprehensive Plans, Climate Adaptation Plans, Long-Term/Visioning Plans, Post-Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment Plans, Managed Retreat/Relocation-Specific Plans, Wetlands Migration/Ecosystem-Specific Plans, and Long-Range Transportation Plans——which are based on existing processes and policies (for example, the Hazard Mitigation Plan section is based on FEMA requirements and programs, which I discussed briefly in a previous post). Each plan is linked to a case study that reviews pilot programs, current initiatives, or previous disaster recovery activities across different cities and states that, in retrospect, provide a foundation for future managed retreat plan designs. The section also provides recommendations (including data integration and inter- and intra-governmental collaboration) to aid decision makers in advancing development of these plans within their stakeholder groups.
Infrastructure relocation and disinvestment. This section focuses largely on strategies that address public infrastructures, such as roads and bridges, which can be weakened or severely damaged as a result of climate hazards. Public infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation (especially when repeated) is quite costly, so these tools are intended to encourage the relevant authority figures to think strategically about design modification or asset relocation with respect to capital investments, or to even consider disinvestments from projects that lack long-term economic feasibility. These tools require robust planning processes, regulatory measures, and quality controls in order to be institutionalized effectively, but doing so could possibly result in beneficial outcomes. For example, New York State’s Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA) was effected to establish the criteria for assessing public projects based on climate change risk factors, which would then determine permit and funding qualifications for developers. Prompted by Hurricane Sandy (it was signed into law in 2014), the law supports climate change preparedness initiatives across New York State, and aims to protect communities against severe weather and sea level rise through certain statutory provisions, including state funding for agricultural land protection and state assistance for local waterfront revitalization programs and coastal rehabilitation projects.
Acquisition. This section examines proposals to exact land acquisition powers, which would transfer more privately-owned land into public ownership, and introduces five acquisition tools for state and local government contemplation. Each acquisition tool and accompanying strategy (as a more politically suitable alternative to eminent domain) would be intended to maximize economic, environmental, and social benefits by restoring the acquired lands—and, in many cases, expanding green spaces or restricting future development—which is in alignment with overall managed retreat objectives.
Voluntary Buyouts: this refers to property or land purchased by the government for hazard mitigation or passive recreational purposes with restrictions on future development.
Open Space Acquisitions: this is voluntary government acquisition of title to all or part of a piece of privately-owned land for specified conservation purposes.
Conservation Land Trusts: these are nonprofit organizations that acquire and hold land for the public benefit, often focusing on preserving and restoring undeveloped lands for their natural resource values.
Land Swaps: this is the exchange of title to land in between two or more property owners.
Leasebacks: this is a type of legal tool that governments can use to lease acquired properties to their original owners to generate revenue, in which a government compensates a property owner for purchase of the land and then leases the property back to the former owner, now the lessee, who pays rent to the government as lessor.
Life Estates and Future Interest: this is a type of property law in which governments and other nongovernmental partners, like land trusts or nonprofits, can purchase and hold title to future interests in land, after which point they attain full ownership and can manage the land for conservation (or related) purposes.
Regulatory. This section seeks to address the legal risks of managed retreat and introduces a new set of regulatory tools——living shorelines, setbacks and buffers, development permit conditions, and zoning and overlay zones——for state and local government contemplation. The tools are framed as community-based approaches to policy- and decision-making, as they are based on the existing regulatory strategies of those communities in which they are intended to function. They are not, however, rooted in evidence-based practices as they are largely theoretical.
Living shorelines: these are the approaches and techniques that stabilize and protect shorelines using a range of natural and engineering approaches.
Setbacks and buffers: this is the distance that a structure must be located away from potentially higher risk natural features, such as dunes or wetlands.
Development permit conditions: these are the land-use and zoning permits that set the specific terms and restrictions for new development and redevelopment projects.
Zoning and overlay zones: this is the regulatory framework governing land-use and development in a specific jurisdiction.
Market-based tools. Market-based tools are a type of financial incentive that state and local governments would provide to encourage relocation away from potentially unsafe coastal areas and into more inland communities. This section reviews different types of market-based tools for state and local government contemplation, as well as the challenges involved with this type of approach. One type of market-based tool is a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, which provides rewards for development projects completed in more desirable areas (referred to as “receiving areas”) rather than in undesirable areas (referred to as “sending areas”). Landowners who relinquish development projects in sending areas qualify for payment and/or tax cuts. The TDR program establishes the financial institutions that would accommodate the transactions and manage the investments specific to land transfers; however, the structure and benefits of TDR programs do require further analysis with respect to the jurisdictions in which they will be administered.
Various types of managed retreat strategies have already been implemented domestically and internationally. Voluntary buyouts (see acquisition above) is the oldest type of managed retreat strategy, which FEMA has used since 1989 to help relocate qualifying homeowners of damaged properties to safer areas. Two California communities employed the living shorelines approach to tackle structural issues related to flooding and shoreline erosion. In the U.K., sea walls were constructed as a coastal defense mechanism to protect nearby communities from erosion & flooding; however, over time, researchers found that sea walls were negatively impacting natural ecosystems, and began to consider managed retreat (or “managed realignment”) approaches, such as moving to higher ground or widening flood plains, to preserve affected natural habitats while continuing to actively protect communities affected by climate hazards.
As each of these examples implies, managed retreat is a large undertaking that requires extensive research and planning, significant cost considerations, and clear policy directives, in addition to effective stakeholder management strategies. It also presents a number of operational and social challenges without necessarily redirecting the path from the dangers of climate change. It is, however, a comprehensive idea for addressing climate hazards in coastal communities, and I am curious to see whether it will be further integrated into climate resilience plans as sea levels continue to rise and as the threats of climate change become more demonstrable over time.
-T