The first Spanish settlers on the Carolina coast found a land with thriving native towns, abundant wildlife, and natural resources. The sandy barrier islands dotted along this coastline were so rich that the Spanish called it "Costa de Oro" or the Gold Coast. These islands have always been prone to natural disasters like hurricanes, but by building homes on them and using them for farming, the Spanish unwittingly made them even more vulnerable. In fact, hurricanes destroyed many of their settlements in 1588 and again in 1667. The Spanish rebuilt their settlements in nearly the same locations — directly in harm's way once again — until another hurricane struck in 1719 and finished whatever was left from the last storm.
The history of these islands is a warning for coastal communities today. It shows why it's wrong to rebuild after being destroyed, especially when rebuilding means taking more risks. Let's look at why re-establishing on a barrier island is foolish and what we can learn from history:
Barrier islands are extremely risky places to live.
Barrier islands are land masses that form where sand accumulates in an area where two bodies of water meet. They are prone to change and not suited to be a permanent home. These unstable, sandy islands are susceptible to flooding, erosion, and storm damage. Barrier islands can completely disappear during hurricanes or gradually erode away.
Barrier islands are also quite rare. Only about 3% of the world's coastlines have them; of those, only about 10% are stable enough to support a permanent human population. That's why the vast majority of people who live on barrier islands — about 50% — live in the U.S.
Barrier islands differ from other types of land along the water. Coastal plains are more stable, and barrier islands are in areas where they are protected from the open ocean by a mainland shoreline.
Rebuilding after a disaster is foolish and wasteful.
Rebuilding after a hurricane or other natural disaster is very expensive and often leads to increased risk for future disasters. This is one reason the federal government gives few grants to rebuild after hurricanes — it's a waste of taxpayer money.
Rebuilding after a natural disaster also increases the future risk of property damage, loss of life, and other adverse effects of climate change. It is not worth the cost, and more often than not, the same thing will happen again.
According to a 2000 study, about 90% of homes that were destroyed by Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina were rebuilt, only to be destroyed again by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. One study found that 41% of homes that were rebuilt in the same area after Hurricane Hugo experienced worse damage than before.
Rebuilding also makes future devastation more likely.
Rebuilding on an island makes future hurricanes more likely. This is because people have built on islands in ways that reduce the land's ability to absorb water and increase erosion. As a result, islands are less stable and more likely to flood and erode. The more times an island is flooded and eroded, the less stable it becomes and the more likely future floods will worsen.
For example, many barrier islands that are currently home to beautiful beaches, homes, golf courses, and other commercial properties were once dunes that served as natural barriers against flooding and erosion. However, those dunes have been destroyed or modified by development, putting nearby communities at heightened risk of flooding and erosion. Likewise, many beachfront homes were built on pilings or stilts to avoid flooding, but this has led to increased erosion that has reduced the barrier islands' ability to protect nearby mainland shorelines.
Rebuilding is a choice, not a necessity.
Rebuilding in the same place after a disaster is a choice many people make despite warnings. Some people may believe past destruction can't happen again. Others may not have other options or be desperate for a fresh start. People may also be unaware of the risks their communities face, or they may underestimate the likelihood of a major storm striking. In addition, they may be unaware of the rising costs of building after a disaster or the availability of insurance to protect against future damage. This is a risky choice, and people should know the potential consequences.
To rebuild or not to rebuild? That is the question.
If you're thinking about rebuilding the barrier island in Florida where your home used to be, be aware of the risks and the history of repeated destruction. For example, you can also decide to rebuild elsewhere, such as on the mainland or a more stable part of the barrier island. Whatever your decision, make sure you're aware of the risks and the history of repeated destruction in many barrier islands.
Conclusion
The history of barrier islands is not a happy one. It's a history of false starts and repeated devastation. Its history should serve as a cautionary tale for coastal communities everywhere today. Why would anyone want to repeat this history? Why would anyone want to rebuild in the same place after a disaster? It's a choice that makes little sense and one that invites repeated devastation. The best way to avoid this is to learn from history and make different decisions about where we rebuild and how we plan for the future. We can choose to rebuild on the mainland or in areas of the barrier island that are less risky, or we can choose to rebuild elsewhere entirely. To do so, we must first be aware of the risks of building on barrier islands and the history of repeated destruction in many of them.
My heart goes out to everyone who lost their home during Hurricane Ian.