A comparative analysis of hazard-prone housing acquisition programs in US and New Zealand communities

Abstract

This article describes the preliminary results of an international comparative assessment of hazard-prone housing acquisition programs (buyouts) undertaken in six US and New Zealand communities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with government officials and consultants tasked with administering buyout programs following flood, debris flow, and earthquake-based disasters. Key issues analyzed include local capacity, public participation, planning and design, program complexity, funding and financial management, and lesson drawing. The findings are timely given the rise in disaster-related losses, buyouts are increasingly cited as a strategy to reduce natural hazard risk and advance climate change adaptation, and national buyout programs are evolving in both countries to tackle the challenges associated with this complex process.

Stuck in the Middle: The Challenges of Local Government Administration of Post-Hurricane Disaster Mitigation

“…To answer these questions, we conducted semi-structured interviews with local officials in North Carolina who administered the HMGP after Hurricane Matthew in 2016. Our findings suggest that many of the characteristics identified in previous case studies as critical to the success of buyouts and post-disaster mitigation programs-speed to maintain momentum, clear communication, intergovernmental coordination, streamlined bureaucracy, transparency, technical capacity, and flexibility-were missing in post-Hurricane Matthew HMGP administration (Perry and Lindell 1997;Prater and Lindell 2000;Saunders and Smith 2020;Sipe and Vella 2014;Smith et al 2021). In addition to the ongoing challenges of limited capacity, turnovers, and program delays, many administrators found themselves doing multiple jobs at the expense of their day-to-day responsibilities.…”

“…Instead, given limited resources, local governments prioritize more immediate, tangible problems over abstract, future problems like hazard mitigation (Burby et al 1999;Hardy, Milligan, and Heynen 2017). As such, disaster-related activities are often isolated from day-to-day planning, further reducing capacity, and institutional knowledge leading to greater confusion or disagreement over responsibility (Kusumasari et al 2010;Prater and Lindell 2000;Saunders and Smith 2020;Smith et al 2021;Wolensky and Wolensky 1990).…”

“…In a comparative analysis of buyout programs in the U.S. and New Zealand, Smith et al (2021) observed both the advantages and limitations of bureaucracy. Local administrators in New Zealand argued that the lack of a standardized national framework can lead to programs that are better suited to local needs, but also has the potential to create inconsistencies and inequities.…”

“…Local administrators in New Zealand argued that the lack of a standardized national framework can lead to programs that are better suited to local needs, but also has the potential to create inconsistencies and inequities. In comparison, the highly bureaucratic nature of U.S. buyouts produces greater consistency and clarity for stakeholders, but also limits local discretion and authority, giving administrators the feeling that they're being micromanaged (Smith et al 2021).…”

“…The studies described above don't adequately assess how these various challenges manifest or explore the complex relationships between the various actors involved in hazard mitigation and disaster recovery. There's also a need for further research on the highly bureaucratic HMGP and buyouts, specifically, for which there has been almost no research to-date that centers the experience of local administrators (Binder et al 2020;Smith et al 2021). Instead, most studies have focused on the resident perspective, both the motivations for residents to participate in the HMGP or a buyout (see Binder, Baker, and Barile 2015;Bukvic et al 2018;de Vries and Fraser 2012;Loughran and Elliott 2019), as well as their experiences in the program (see Baker et al 2018;Binder and Greer 2016;de Vries and Fraser 2012;Perry and Lindell 1997).…”