Proactive Planning for Resilience: Protocols for Community-Led Climate Adaptation in Virginia

Executive Summary

What Does This Guide Do? 

This Guide provides some best practices for:

  • fostering planning at the local level with full community engagement;
  • using various tools and approaches to identify vulnerable areas and minimize community risk; and
  • enabling economic drivers and robust planning to support community relocation when necessary. 

It is not intended to be all-inclusive, as resources and circumstances change over time. Rather, it is intended to be a source of inspiration and information, as well as “lessons learned” from communities across the nation and world. It also highlights some innovative ideas from other states that could be legislatively adopted in Virginia, such as rolling easements and mandatory flood history disclosure upon sale of residential properties. 

The Guide also features moving residents out of harm’s way as part of the adaptation planning process for areas where other approaches are insufficient to keep residents safe. The information is intended to help communities accept the reality of their current and predicted levels of risk, and if they are facing an increasingly dire future, to confront the truth and deal with hardship in the shorter term rather than face greater risk, costs, and loss of life and property in the future. Voluntary buy-outs are featured as a way to provide vulnerable residents with a safe alternative before their homes become unsellable, and avoid the need for repeated flood insurance payouts. Even when moving is necessary, providing safe alternatives for relocation within the same area can reduce the tax revenue loss for local government and enable residents to retain cultural and social connections.

Who Are The Intended Users Of This Guide? 

The Guide is intended to assist Virginia local elected officials, government staff and community leaders as they undertake their resilience planning in anticipation of changing conditions. Localities can use it to augment the information provided by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) on its Floodplains and Flood Resilience Planning webpages, which include the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan. Additionally, this Guide supports the development of a Resilience Plan that a local government needs to access flood resilience project funding from the Community Flood Preparedness Fund.  Refer to DCR’s CFPF website for the latest requirements for an approved Resilience Plan.

Why Use This Guide? 

In the face of daunting climate change impacts such as rising heat and increasing flooding due to sea level rise, land subsidence, and more severe storm events, local governments in Virginia need to engage in thoughtful and pragmatic community planning. Communities (large and small, urban and rural) face the same needs: 

  • to identify their risks and vulnerabilities; 
  • to consider potential distinct impacts on at-risk communities; 
  • to plan solutions with full community input and participation; 
  • to make difficult decisions on what to save, when, and how; and 
  • to find sufficient funding for it all. 

In short, proactive, community-led, and inclusive adaptation planning is necessary now more than ever. Inaction is the worst choice, condemning communities to reactive, piecemeal responses rather than proactive, holistic planning for the risks. 

Things You Need to Know About Adaptation Planning 

The following are discussions of some important over-arching considerations, such as the need to incorporate equity concerns at each step, rather than as a separate process, and the importance of conducting a community values analysis to set priorities for what to save and how. The goal is to achieve a safe, resilient and flourishing community, and to provide a proactive “glide path” to get there, rather than facing an economic crash that drives reactive decision-making.

Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan

Virginia adopted its first Coastal Resilience Master Plan, Phase I in 2021. As part of Executive Order 45, signed by then-Governor Northam in November 2019, the Commonwealth adopted the NOAA Intermediate-High Sea Level Rise Curve as the planning standard for Virginia state-owned buildings, and that was incorporated into the Master Plan. The Plan also includes the Coastal Resilience Web Explorer, an interactive tool that provides maps, databases and resources about hazards, climate change impacts, resilience projects and funding sources.  The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) currently is working on developing Phase II of the Plan, which will update the Web Explorer, add pluvial flood hazard modeling, and update the flood hazard impact assessment completed in Phase I. The Plan and Web Explorer provide a wealth of information and should be the first stop for Virginia localities considering adaptation planning.

Virginia Flood Protection Master Plan

DCR also is developing a statewide Virginia Flood Protection Master Plan (VFPMP) to provide an actionable plan for the state government to use in crafting policies and programs to mitigate the impacts of flooding on people, the economy, and the environment. It will work together with flood resilience plans that are developed at the regional and local scales.  See Virginia Flood Protection Master Plan. 

There are numerous definitions of resilience. Each community will need to define for itself what a resilient community is, and how that is measured. In doing so, it is important to approach the concept of resilience broadly, encompassing social needs, physical and mental health issues, economic concerns, infrastructure, emergency planning and response, and natural, historic, and cultural resources. For example, the Resilience Adaptation Feasibility Tool (RAFT) project, which helps Virginia localities to assess how much their programs and policies incorporate resilience, includes an assessment category for Community Engagement, Health and Well-being. A truly resilient community is one in which the needs of physically and socially vulnerable communities are taken into account.

Absent some type of mandate, most local governments will not plan and take action to address changing conditions due to the climate. Adaptation planning takes extensive time and resources, and political will; so a locality may decide to address the needs of a specific, particularly vulnerable community first, before undertaking locality-wide planning. That approach clearly is better than not planning at all. Yet piecemeal responses, however more affordable and perhaps more politically palatable they may be, are not preferable to holistic, “big picture” planning for the entire jurisdiction.

A robust comprehensive planning process, with full community engagement, that effectively influences zoning ordinances and policy decisions is key. Yet the comprehensive plan is unenforceable, so too often it is set aside or ignored as rezoning and development decisions are made. Setting a vision and consistently following it are two distinct challenges. By contrast, the zoning ordinance and building code are enforceable and can provide a “slow walk” toward resilience as buildings get rebuilt and replaced over time. The capital improvement plan for a community and the regional hazard mitigation plan also present opportunities to have community discussions and incorporate current and predicted climate change impacts.

A community may decide to pursue adaptation measures such as elevating homes, septic systems and roads in very flood prone areas. These measures can “buy time” for a community with increasingly frequent flooding, but they eventually will not be enough. A local government that chooses to pursue such measures will need to decide how to use that bought time wisely. The goal is to achieve a safe, resilient and flourishing community, and to provide a proactive “glide path” to get there, rather than facing an economic crash that drives reactive decision-making. Achieving that will require innovative approaches to find sources of revenue to help subsidize resilience efforts for the most vulnerable residents, and to use as matching funds for federal funding. It also is important to use that “bought time” to educate the public about increasing risks through mechanisms such as rolling easements or required flood history disclosure upon sale of residential property – both of which are under discussion but not yet authorized in Virginia.

Each community faces distinct natural and manmade challenges and hazards – flash flooding, sea level rise, land subsidence, inadequate urban stormwater infrastructure, pluvial flooding, riverine flooding, heat, drought, wildfires, etc. Each community is different, and needs to identify its priorities and timeline for response. What will be impacted first — septic systems? Roads? Homes? Commercial buildings? Hospitals? What does the community want to protect and save, and how, and for how long? Localities should conduct not just benefit/cost analyses and assessments of the “cost of doing nothing” (which is often the politically easier path); they also need to conduct a community values analysis, and weigh different constituencies’ values in the face of changing circumstances. A community must set its priorities and determine what events will trigger additional action (see the “tipping points” discussion below for more information). Leaders will need to demonstrate political courage in making difficult decisions for the good of the community as a whole, even in the face of some residents’ opposition — and they will need to demonstrate it again when implementing and sticking with the community’s selected priorities in the face of competing interests. The consensus and partnerships that grow from the community engagement process can bolster efforts to adhere to identified priorities.

Adaptation is a locality-specific process, with different communities pursuing different priorities on different timelines.  And adaptation planning is an iterative process that needs to be revisited and updated periodically by the entire community. Circumstances and planned funding sources will change, so any adaptation plan must be revisited and amended periodically.

Defining a community’s “tipping points” that will trigger more drastic or extensive adaptation measures is challenging. Community members may not be able to identify exactly what conditions or “pain points” will drive change (e.g., recurrently flooding access roads, or driveways, or homes? Shoreline property loss? Septic system inundation? Frequent power outages? Docks repeatedly underwater? Neighbors leaving?) if they have not lived through those conditions yet. Some identifiable triggers that may prompt shifts in adaptation strategies include significant limitations on current infrastructure, repeated economic losses, and limited access to insurance or mortgages in an area due to recurrent flooding. Each community and even each resident will have individualized, specific thresholds, so it is important to have individualized adaptation plans in place for use when a “tipping point” is reached. 

To aid communities in understanding an alternative approach with set thresholds, see this explanation of the Adaptation Pathways approach, including case studies of California’s Adaptation Pathways approach and the effect of Hurricane Sandy as a turning point for New York City’s adaptation planning. Adaptation Pathways approaches are more flexible in design than a traditional approach that relies on predicted tipping points on a set timeline; they allow plans to adapt to the more unpredictable impacts of climate change. Rather than creating a static, concrete plan based on current predictions, the Adaptation Pathways approach emphasizes the need to be able to adapt to new information and changing conditions through the setting of thresholds and selection of multiple possible adaptation strategies. When a threshold has been reached, another strategy is implemented based on the conditions at that time.

Community members may understandably struggle with planning to relocate from where they currently live, but it may be necessary for their safety and wellbeing. The adaptation pathways approach can make this process easier by identifying stress points well ahead of time and allowing the community time to prepare. 

Whether it is called managed retreat, climate displacement, or strategic relocation, or by any other name, local governments in areas that are prone to flooding need to discuss the potential movement of residents away from risk as part of their adaptation planning process. Planning for the safety of residents in hazardous areas is something that localities have done for decades, and potential relocation can be presented and discussed in that context.

Communities need to accept the reality of their current and predicted levels of risk, and if they are facing an increasingly dire future, it is better to confront the truth quickly and deal with hardship in the shorter term than face greater risk and loss of life and property in the future. The Dutch population has done this with their Room for the River program (featured as a case study), based upon their centuries of experience with the deadly power of floodwaters. If communities do not plan for increasing flooding, then the opportunity to proactively manage their responses may be taken from them by a sudden economic downturn, due to insurance companies and banks no longer being willing to issue policies and mortgages in vulnerable areas.1

Moving away from the risk will be necessary at some point for the most vulnerable areas. Yet some residents may choose to stay in the short term for a variety of reasons, despite facing increasing risks and difficulties. Some may decide to stay today but move tomorrow, after experiencing additional financial impacts, danger, or inconvenience. Local governments should recognize this individualized response and have resources available to support residents when they do decide to move.2 And it is important to plan for relocation at the local level, rather than assuming people will migrate to distant cities or regions due to climate change impacts. Providing safe alternatives for voluntary relocation within the same area can enable residents to retain cultural and social connections, and may reflect residents’ preference, as indicated by data about relocation behavior over the past two decades.3 Proactive planning that designates local receiving areas for resettled residents also can avoid loss of local tax base, ensure adequate services are available to handle the increased population in the destination area, and potentially create opportunities for community revitalization.4 

The drastic step of relocation will not be needed in less vulnerable communities where other adaptation measures, such as the ones discussed in this Guide, can be implemented effectively. But some communities will not have other viable options. Frank and transparent discussion of risks and options, community-led decision making, and strong political leadership are all key to successful planning for relocation. As is public education, since property owners will resist relocating for something they consider to be a future threat.

Communities need to pragmatically recognize the way that the market works and develop approaches that provide local governments and residents time to plan and the ability to recover some value out of vulnerable properties. Buyouts with rentbacks, discussed in Step 2, is one approach to achieve that. But as residents come to understand current and future risk, as well as the predicted increase in insurance rates and cancellation of insurance policies, demand will wane and home values will begin to fall in high risk areas. Local governments need to recognize that looming loss of tax revenue and loss of wealth by property owners – resulting in fewer resources available to fund relocation – and proactively plan for adaptation.

Endnotes

1 Insurance impacts are already being felt in some vulnerable areas, such as insurance companies no longer offering policies in California due to wildfire risk (https://apple.news/AahyM6H2-R7Kq70zXruJssQ), or increasing premiums in areas of Florida due to hurricane and other hazard risks (Soaring home insurance rates are squeezing homeowners : NPR; They came for Florida’s sun and sand. They got soaring costs and a culture war. (nbcnews.com)). The impacts on the insurance industry, and the resulting increase in rates or cancellation of policies, are growing (‘Not Sustainable’: High Insurance Costs Threaten Affordable Housing – The New York Times; As Insurers Around the U.S. Bleed Cash From Climate Shocks, Homeowners Lose,
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/13/climate/insurance-homes-climate-change-weather.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare).
2 Renia Ehrenfeucht and Marla Nelson, “Towards Transformative Climate Relocation Initiatives,” Journal of Planning Literature, 38(1), (2022), DOI: 10.1177/08854122221130287 (noting lessons learned from prior global relocation efforts, and arguing that the local objective should be to create opportunities for residents to make decisions about where to live and when to relocate at their own pace and in accordance with their own priorities and values. “Relocation policy that both helps people adapt in place and increase options to move when and if residents or communities are ready may appear daunting when compared with the efficiency embedded in ‘moving people out of harm’s way.’ Yet policy to facilitate long-term and transformational change while respecting people’s decisions to both stay and leave is a realistic response to the scale of the climate crisis and the scale of policy change needed to both mitigate and adapt.” Page 10.).
3 ”National Report: Climate Abandonment Areas,” First Street Foundation, https://report.firststreet.org/climate-abandonment-areas, at p. 9 (“when people decide to move, they tend to move locally rather than across large distances. … [W]hile the rate of local moves has decreased, it is still the most likely type of move when compared with moving across counties (within-state) or across states.”). See also Anamaria Bukvic and Steven Barnett, (2023). “Drivers of flood-induced relocation among coastal urban residents: Insight from the US east coast.” Journal of Environmental Management, 325, 2023, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479722020023 (survey of residents in urban coastal areas from NY to FL found that the majority of respondents said they would prefer to relocate locally, primarily by staying in the same community but moving to a different neighborhood).
4 Mathew Hauer, “Migration induced by sea-level rise could reshape the US population landscape,” Nature Climate Change Letters (April 17, 2017), DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3271. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3271.

Acknowledgements

The development of this Guide was funded by the University of Virginia’s Environmental Institute, with funding for student Research Assistants provided by the Virginia Sea Grant Program. Website hosting and development were provided by the Virginia Sea Grant Program.

The primary author of this Guide is Elizabeth Andrews, Environmental Resilience and Sustainability Practitioner Fellow, University of Virginia Environmental Institute.

Many thanks to University of Virginia student Research Assistants Skylar Brement (Masters of Public Policy (MPP) candidate, 2025), Matthew Docalovich (MPP candidate, 2025), Jenni Liu (B.S. in Economics and Statistics candidate, 2025), Gabrielle Rosario (MPP 2024), Zane Ruzicka (MPP candidate, 2025), and Heream Yang (J.D. 2024), for their invaluable assistance in researching and drafting this Guide; and to Jay Clark, Communications Program Assistant Director with the Virginia Sea Grant Program, for his guidance and assistance with design and layout of the Guide and website.

Special thanks to the following experts for providing their input and expertise: 

  • Nathalia Artus, Senior Vice President and Director of Community Development and Reinvestment, Atlantic Union Bank
  • Ian Blair, Policy Program Director, Wetlands Watch
  • Anamaria Bukvic, Assistant Professor, College of Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Geography, Virginia Tech
  • Matthew Dalon, Program Manager, Office of Resilience Planning, Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation
  • Dr. Troy Hartley, Director, Virginia Sea Grant Program
  • Carolyn Heaps-Pecaro, Resilience Planner, Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation
  • Lewis Lawrence, Executive Director, Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission
  • Ben McFarlane, Chief Resilience Officer, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
  • Dr. Molly Mitchell, Assistant Professor, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
  • Kristin Owen, Floodplain & Dam Safety Manager, Henrico County Department of Public Works
  • Mary Carson Stiff, Executive Director, Wetlands Watch
  • Dr. Jessica Whitehead, Director, Institute for Coastal Adaptation & Resilience, Old Dominion University
  • Dr. Wie Yusuf, Professor, School of Public Service, Old Dominion University
  • The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Climate Resiliency Workgroup, and especially Julie Reichert-Nguyen, Natural Resources Specialist, and Jamileh Soueidan, Environmental Management Staffer, with the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office
  • William Isenberg, Coastal Planner, Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program, and the Virginia Association of Coastal Planning District Commissions
Scroll to Top