Cited by 55Environmental Justice and Health DisparitiesDisaster Management and ResilienceFlood Risk Assessment and Management

Promoting equity in retreat through voluntary property buyout programs

Open access
Kraan, Caroline M., Hino, Miyuki, Niemann, Jennifer, Siders, A. R., Mach, Katharine J.·2021·Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

Abstract

Voluntary property buyouts have been the most prevalent form of managed retreat in the USA to date. Tens of thousands of households have sold their flood-prone homes to the government, and after the structures are demolished, the land becomes open space. Concerns have been raised about the equity of buyout processes and outcomes, spanning distributive, procedural, and interactional dimensions of social justice. In this policy analysis, we first provide an overview of equity and justice issues in buyouts based on existing literature. We consider multiple relevant stakeholder groups: the communities in which buyouts occur, potential participants and relocating households, residents who choose to stay, and the destination communities. Second, we present policy options that may address and reduce existing social inequities in buyouts. Third, we outline how improved reporting on buyout programs by implementers can support buyout policy learning that will improve buyout outcomes and equity. Indicators can provide insight on who has access to buyouts, the effect of buyout implementation on outcomes, and the consequences of relocating—or not—for all affected. With increasing climate risks, voluntary property buyouts will remain an important means of reducing exposure to flooding and other hazards. For this method of retreat to occur effectively at greater scale, attention to social justice in program evaluation and policy learning is necessary.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13412-021-00688-z

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kraan, C. M., Hino, M., Niemann, J., Siders, A. R., & Mach, K. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Delaware (US)
Corresponding author
Kraan, Caroline M.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences
Published
2021-05-11
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
481-492
ISSN
  • 2190-6483 (ISSN-L)
  • 2190-6491
OpenAlex
W3163759264
Cited by
55
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 6
FWCI
12.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
Keywords
managed retreat, flood risk, social equity, social justice, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, relocation, program evaluation, policy learning, climate risk, open space

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review