As extreme weather events escalate, a new study has found that residents and government officials may have different ideas about how public funds should be spent to adapt to extreme weather events brought on by climate change.
The study by the Society for Risk Analysis found communities facing repetitive disasters in high-risk areas must weigh the economic and social trade-offs of rebuilding versus relocating.
To examine the process of rebuilding in a coastal community, Rutgers University researchers focused on Ortley Beach, a barrier island neighbourhood in Toms River, New Jersey. Ortley Beach was devastated by Superstorm Sandy in 2012, with around 200 homes destroyed. Ten years after the storm (in the summer of 2022), the scientists conducted detailed key-informant interviews with Ortley Beach residents and local, state, and federal officials with the help of the Ortley Beach Voters and Taxpayers Association (OBVTA).
The central question asked was whether public resources should support staying or leaving the island in the wake of severe repetitive flood losses.
Analysis of the results revealed important findings that could apply to “many communities on the frontlines of rising sea level and storm surge – like those in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana,” said lead author Laura Geronimo, a 2024 doctoral graduate of Rutgers Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and current Knauss fellow with NOAA.
The study added despite conflicting values, beliefs, and worldviews, all stakeholders identified the economic impacts of adaptation – like home elevations, beach nourishment, or buyouts – as a top concern, citing strain on household budgets, municipal finances, and challenges in prioritizing limited state and federal funding…
“The contrast between local officials and residents reflects a broader cultural tension of whether to prioritize property values or human well-being when justifying protection measures” added Geronimo.
The society said in the U.S., high-risk areas – particularly coastal regions – face dual pressures: escalating flood risk and intensifying development. Federal fiscal arrangements, including disaster aid, insurance and hazard mitigation programs, have historically enabled rebuilding in the same exposed locations. But this approach is under growing scrutiny. Critics argue that—in some areas experiencing severe repetitive losses—public funds may be more effectively used to support community-led relocation through tools like property buyouts and assistance.
“While the Biden administration invested heavily in hazard mitigation, the Trump administration has rescinded billions in funds,” said Geronimo. “Communities like those on the Jersey Shore, which rely heavily on federal transfers, may soon face a fiscal cliff.
“Our study reveals that residents and officials across all levels of government are concerned about the financial implications of coastal risk strategies – underscoring the need to clearly demonstrate the long-term economic benefits of alternatives like voluntary relocation and to bolster both household and local fiscal resilience to climate and political shocks.”
She and her co-authors recommend enhancing individual and local financial resilience through diversified revenue streams, proactive risk-based planning, innovative insurance models, and more transparent accounting of the long-term costs of rebuilding in high-risk areas.