The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) offers a portfolio of flood risk mitigation options for high-risk homeowners, hoping to reduce flood damages. Buyout (home acquisition) and home retrofit (e.g., home elevation) are candidates available to homeowners. FEMA has recently amended and increased its buyout efforts. This study examines homeowners’ stated preference for buyout and home elevation contracts using survey data. Results indicate multiple factors influence the decision to participate in home acquisition and elevation programs. Importantly, we find that preferences vary with the timing (whether the contract is offered before or after a damage event) of the contract offered.

Rising flood damages have prompted local communities to implement buyout and property acquisition programmes to eliminate repetitive losses for at-risk properties. However, buyouts are often costly to implement and are reactionary solutions to flooding. This study quantifies the benefits of acquiring vacant private properties in flood-prone areas rather than acquiring such properties after they are built up. Using a geodesign framework that integrates concepts and analytical approaches derived from geographical, spatial and statistical-based disciplines, we analyse vacant properties with high development potential that intersect current and future floodplain areas in Houston (TX, USA). We use geospatial proximity analysis to select candidate properties, land-use prediction modelling to estimate future development and sea-level rise and benefit–cost analysis to assess the economic viability of buyouts. The results indicate that cumulative avoided flood losses exceed the cost of vacant land acquisition by a factor of nearly two to one, and up to a factor of ten to one in selected areas. This study emphasizes the benefits of proactive property buyouts that focus on acquiring parcels before they are built up, while also avoiding the social and institutional problems associated with traditional buyout programmes.

This article updates and expands the literature on the impact of production quotas. Unlike many of the early studies, our focus is largely on the removal of production quota programs. We study cases wherein production quota programs have been eliminated and quota owners were compensated for their losses. Specifically, we examine (1) production quotas in both the absence and presence of trade, (2) production quota buyouts (three case studies), (3) sources of funding, and (4) general equilibrium considerations. A fifth section briefly discusses externalities, the interpretation of consumer surplus measures, and the nature of conducting economic analyses of addictive goods.