Managed retreat from high-risk flood areas: exploring public attitudes and expectations about property buyouts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing flood risk requires governments to develop innovative solutions for flood risk management. The effectiveness of these solutions depends, in part, on their social acceptability. This paper presents the findings of a national survey to explore the social acceptability of property buyouts as a form of managed retreat from flood risk in Canada. It discusses public attitudes and expectations towards property buyout programmes in high-risk flood zones, including their salience, essential design elements, and factors that would influence household acceptance of a property buyout offer. The results show there is an appetite for property buyout programmes to reduce flood risk in high-risk zones. Moreover, the social acceptability of such programmes is highest when participation is voluntary, flexible pricing options are combined with financial incentives, and programme design and implementation are transparent. Participants indicated costs for these programmes should be borne primarily by governments and shared between governments at different levels. The findings suggest that although property buyouts—and managed retreat more generally—are considered a socially acceptable approach to flood risk management, their efficacy will depend on programme design, stakeholder collaboration, and effective communication of risk to vulnerable populations. Policy recommendations are discussed in response to these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it