Study reveals how residents and government officials in a flood-prone community feel about adapting to climate change -- and how political views may play a role
As climate hazards escalate, communities facing repetitive disasters in high-risk areas must weigh the economic and social trade-offs of rebuilding versus relocating. A Risk Analysis 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.
WHAT THEY DID:
To examine the process of rebuilding in a coastal community, Rutgers University researchers focused on Ortley Beach, a barrier island neighborhood 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. A questionnaire investigated their values, beliefs and worldviews -- to explore how those relate to their preferences for federal spending. 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," says lead author Laura Geronimo, a 2024 doctoral graduate of Rutgers Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Ph.D. and current Knauss Fellow with NOAA.
WHAT THEY FOUND:
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.
Residents emphasized the steep costs of post-Sandy rebuilding and home elevation, with some incurring over $100,000 in out-of-pocket expenses. Many also mentioned sharp increases in insurance premiums after Sandy.
Long-term residents were torn about whether federal and state subsidies should support efforts to stay or leave, citing concerns about how subsidies may create perverse incentives, distort coastal housing markets and catalyze gentrification. Many of these residents expressed support for considering alternatives like voluntary buyouts and nature-based solutions in long-range planning: "If we don't do something to plan it out, it is just going to be a bunch of homes underwater".
State and federal officials also supported considering buyouts in long-range planning, echoing these concerns.
In contrast, local officials favored rebuilding high-value properties and protecting exposed barrier island communities despite obvious risk, referencing the need to preserve tax revenues from high-value properties.
Local officials tended to hold more individualistic-hierarchical worldviews, weaker beliefs in climate science and favored actions to protect high-value properties to preserve the tax base while externalizing costs. In contrast, some residents and most state and federal officials held more community-egalitarian worldviews, stronger beliefs in climate science and preferences for long-term adaptation strategies to reduce risk, including property buyouts. The study notes that, in 2022, the local government was Republican and the state and federal government was Democratic, while residents had mixed political ideologies.
"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" says Geronimo.
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT:
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, according to Geronimo. "Communities like those on the Jersey Shore, which rely heavily on federal transfers, may soon face a fiscal cliff," she says. "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.
The methods and findings from this research are also valuable for communities experiencing extreme or repetitive losses from other types of hazards, including fire, tornadoes and extreme precipitation -- such as the recent tragedy along the Guadalupe River in Texas Hill Country. "The parallel examples of Ortley Beach and Camp Mystic illustrate that when rebuilding is allowed in repetitive loss areas, lives are at stake," says Geronimo.
About SRA
