Purpose of Review

Managed retreats are an important climate change adaptation tool. They seek the relocation of communities due to perceptions that they are already exposed to undue levels of risk or will become exposed to high risk in the near future because of climate change. Here, we focus on the economics of managed retreats and specifically focus on the question of who pays or may pay for these relocations.

Recent Findings

There is a significant body of research in the other social sciences (political science, sociology, anthropology, history) on managed retreats, but almost none in economics. No paper that we are aware has focused primarily on the question of who pays for managed retreats, and the survey here therefore focusses on lessons we can learn from examples, specifically an example from New Zealand and from the little references to these questions in the existing literature.

Summary

Sources of funding for managed retreats can come from the affected communities, from the public sector (the government or public insurers), and from the private sector (mostly private insurers). It is politically easier to implement managed retreats if it is the latter groups (public and private insurers) that pay, rather than placing the burden on the general taxpayer or on the affected communities themselves.

中文翻译：

---

为气候变化付出代价：谁为管理静修买单？

审查目的

管理静修是重要的气候变化适应工具。他们寻求重新安置社区，因为他们认为，由于气候变化，社区已经面临过度的风险，或者在不久的将来将面临高风险。在这里，我们重点关注管理撤退的经济学，并特别关注谁支付或可能支付这些搬迁费用的问题。

最近的发现

其他社会科学（政治学、社会学、人类学、历史）有大量关于管理静修的研究，但经济学中几乎没有。据我们所知，没有一篇论文主要关注谁为管理静修买单的问题，因此这里的调查重点是我们可以从例子中学到的教训，特别是来自新西兰的例子，以及现有的对这些问题的很少提及。文学。

概括

管理静修的资金来源可以来自受影响的社区、公共部门（政府或公共保险公司）和私营部门（主要是私营保险公司）。如果由后者（公共和私人保险公司）支付费用，而不是让一般纳税人或受影响社区本身承担负担，那么在政治上更容易实施有管理的撤退。