Abstract
Urban development relies on many factors to remain viable, including infrastructure, services, and government provisions and subsidies. However, in situations involving federal or state level policy, development responds not just to one regulatory signal, but also to multiple signals from overlapping and competing jurisdictions. The 1982 U.S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CoBRA) offers an opportunity to study when and how development restrictions and economic disincentives protect natural resources by stopping or slowing urban development in management regimes with distributed authority and responsibility. CoBRA prohibits federal financial assistance for infrastructure, post-storm disaster relief, and flood insurance in designated sections (CoBRA units) of coastal barriers. How has CoBRA’s removal of these subsidies affected rates and types of urban development? Using building footprint and real estate data (n = 1,385,552 parcels), we compare density of built structures, land use types, residential house size, and land values within and outside of CoBRA units in eight Southeast and Gulf Coast states. We show that CoBRA is associated with reduced development rates in designated coastal barriers. We also demonstrate how local responses may counteract withdrawal of federal subsidies. As attention increases towards improving urban resilience in high hazard areas, this work contributes to understanding how limitations on infrastructure and insurance subsidies can affect outcomes where overlapping jurisdictions have competing goals.
Highlights
Decades of US government policy have prompted extensive private development in hazardous coastal areas, where there is substantial risk to life and property [1]
We focus on the unique case created by the 1982 U.S Coastal Barrier Resources Act (“CoBRA”; 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) [10], which prohibits federal financial assistance for roads, bridges, utilities, erosion control, and post-storm disaster relief in statutorily designated sections of US coastal barriers
How effective are policies that aim to limit development in hazardous or environmentally sensitive areas by eliminating infrastructure and disaster recovery funding? How do these restrictions fare under management regimes with distributed authority and responsibility? Using the 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act as a case study, this study evaluates the long-term effects of withdrawing federally-funded urban infrastructure and flood insurance subsidies for development on sensitive coastal barriers
Summary
Decades of US government policy have prompted extensive private development in hazardous coastal areas, where there is substantial risk to life and property [1]. Building footprint data are available from Microsoft (https://github.com/ Microsoft/USBuildingFootprints). [12,13,14] much of this work has characterized growth management programs as being designed and implemented across large areas, often by a single agency, without considering heterogeneity in implementation. In their classic study on implementation, Pressman and Wildavsky argue that programs fail because implementing agencies are thwarted by inter and intra organizational politicking and signaling after policies and programs have been adopted. Using the 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act as a case study, this study evaluates the long-term effects of withdrawing federally-funded urban infrastructure and flood insurance subsidies for development on sensitive coastal barriers. How effective are policies that aim to limit development in hazardous or environmentally sensitive areas by eliminating infrastructure and disaster recovery funding? How do these restrictions fare under management regimes with distributed authority and responsibility? Using the 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act as a case study, this study evaluates the long-term effects of withdrawing federally-funded urban infrastructure and flood insurance subsidies for development on sensitive coastal barriers.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
