; (B) pressures to redevelop a property after acquiring a property through a buyout program; and (C) a lack of adequate funding. (4) Potential options, methods, and strategies to address the constraints identified under paragraph (3), including evaluating the feasibility of— (A) a pilot program under which— (i) an eligible property owner may agree, before a flood event occurs, to have the primary single-family residence of the eligible property owner purchased after the residence has been substantially damaged by a flood; (ii) the Administrator may provide— (I) financial assistance to State and local governments that are willing to participate in the program to purchase and acquire the properties of owners that have incurred substantial damage from a flood event; and (II) a premium credit as an incentive to eligible property owners to agree to participate in the program; (iii) properties that are acquired— (I) shall be maintained as open space in accordance with buyout practices that are in effect as of the date on which the property is acquired; and (II) may be used for non-structural mitigation, conservation, and recreational purposes; and (iv) not fewer than 5 and not more than 10 State and local governments shall participate; and (B) the role that nonprofit organizations could play in making buyouts more readily available or more efficient, similar to the role that those organizations play in the acquisition of properties for conservation purposes. (5) The ecological, financial, and flood risk reduction benefits that buyout practices, as in effect on the date on which the study is conducted, provide, which shall— (A) take into account the differences between inland and coastal areas; and (B) include— (i) examples in which ecosystem restoration and other nature-based approaches have enhanced the reduction of flood risk