Managed retreat in a warming world: case studies from New Zealand, New York, and Alaska

Public discussions of climate resilience increasingly include managed retreat, the intentional relocation of people and assets from harm's way. This piece surveys how different communities approach retreat—from government-led buyouts in New Zealand's red zones to grassroots relocations in Illinois and Alaska—and what drives success or failure. The central insight is that outcomes hinge on community buy-in, funding, and effective partnerships between residents and officials.

Introduction to managed retreat and the climate context

Managed retreat is the deliberate movement of people and assets away from areas at high risk of climate-related hazards, such as floods, sea-level rise, and ground instability. In a warming world, this strategy is becoming more common as communities confront recurring disasters and shifting risks. The discussion frames retreat not as a single solution but as part of a broader disaster risk reduction toolkit that includes adaptation, mitigation, and social supports. The key question is how retreat is carried out and who leads the process.

Two ends of the retreat spectrum: top-down versus community-led

The reporting identifies two broad approaches to retreat. In top-down models, governments initiate and manage relocation programs, offering funding and setting the conditions for residents to move. In community-led models, residents organize requests for relocation, seek financial and political backing, and guide the process with lived experience as the primary knowledge base. Experts emphasize that success usually requires meaningful community involvement, with local voices shaping where and how people relocate and what becomes of their former homes.

“People in the local community, they are the experts of the lived experiences.” — Elena Sutley, structural engineering professor at the University of Kansas.

Case studies from New Zealand, the continental United States, and Alaska

New Zealand’s Otakaro Avon River corridor, nicknamed the red zone after earthquakes, demonstrates a government-led retreat that transformed vacant land into gardens and walking paths. In the United States, the Mississippi River flood of 1993 catalyzed what many consider the first real managed retreat in Valmeyer, Illinois, where residents voted to relocate and later sold hundreds of flood-damaged properties to FEMA and the state. This model has since become a common form of buyout across the country, with tens of thousands relocating and returning land to open space with deed restrictions. In New York after Hurricane Sandy, grassroots pressure from residents on Staten Island and Long Island led to a state buyout program, illustrating how civic organizing can accelerate official action, though not without tensions when nearby properties recover differently. Alaska presents a different challenge: erosion, permafrost thaw, and other climate stressors threaten remote villages. Nunapauck, a village with land already owned, has identified a high-ground relocation site but lacks sufficient funding to enact the move. Experts stress that such moves depend on robust funding and governance that can coordinate housing, infrastructure, and subsistence livelihoods across geographies.

Funding remains a central barrier. In Alaska, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium estimates a $277 million bill to relocate Nunaach, highlighting how fiscal constraints shape feasibility and pace. Federal policy directions also influence state and local capacities to act, with implications for resilience and social equity. Quotes from residents and researchers emphasize that resilience is less about hazards alone and more about the strength of social systems, infrastructure, and governance in supporting people on the ground.

Key takeaways and the broader message

The episode argues that managed retreat can work when there is genuine partnership between government and communities and when funding aligns with the lived realities of those at risk. The Alaska case illustrates the difficulty when financial support is uncertain, while New Zealand and Valmeyer offer templates for successful relocation with clear land-use outcomes. The broader takeaway is that resilience in a warming world depends on proactive planning, inclusive decision-making, and policies that empower communities to move in ways that protect livelihoods and cultural practices.

“I feel even more strongly now that the way that we should be thinking about resilience is not so much in the hazards that you're going to face, but much more in the Social system and the government effectiveness of what happens to people on the ground.”