What Drives Property Owners to Modify Their Shorelines? A Case Study of Gloucester County, Virginia

Reversing a tyranny of cascading shoreline‐protection decisions driving coastal habitat loss

“…Our finding that NC waterfront-property owners' shoreline hardening decisions are influenced by the presence of neighboring hardened structures (Figure 1) is consistent with inferences drawn from similar surveys of waterfront-property owners conducted in Mobile, AL (Scyphers, Picou, & Powers, 2015), Gloucester, VA (Stafford, 2020;Stafford & Guthrie, 2020), and coastal Georgia (Peterson, Landry, Alexander, Samples, & Bledsoe, 2019). Further, Beasley and Dundas (2021) found evidence of "spillover effects" within neighborhoods as important influencers of private shorelineadaptation decision process along the Oregon coast.…”

“…confounding factors, such as being in the same geographic region or having similar physical shoreline characteristics (e.g., fetch, geomorphology) and property values, have been previously suggested to influence neighboring shoreprotection decisions (Beasley & Dundas, 2021;Scyphers, Picou, & Powers, 2015;Stafford & Guthrie, 2020); however, none of these factors were strong predictors of current or preferred shore condition in our study.…”

“…Further, converting a hardened shoreline back to its previous state requires considerable, and often costly, human intervention (Nordstrom et al, 2009; Scyphers et al, 2019). Because the decision to harden a shoreline often lies with an individual waterfront property owner (Hilke et al, 2020), understanding individual motivations for choosing a shore‐protection approach is critical for developing strategies for conserving natural shorelines and preventing future regime shifts caused by hardening before they occur (Beasley & Dundas, 2021; Hilke et al, 2020; Scyphers, Picou, & Powers, 2015; Smith et al, 2017; Stafford & Guthrie, 2020).…”

“…However, our study is the first to have respondents with hardened shorelines acknowledge the influence of their neighbors on their shoreline protection decisions (Figure 3). Despite waterfront property owners generally being aware of living shoreline approaches and their shoreline‐protection efficacy ( see Scyphers et al, 2020; Smith et al, 2017; Stafford & Guthrie, 2020), knowledge and awareness may be outweighed by social pressure or simply mimicking what their neighbors have done (Reddy et al, 2017). Potentially confounding factors, such as being in the same geographic region or having similar physical shoreline characteristics (e.g., fetch, geomorphology) and property values, have been previously suggested to influence neighboring shore‐protection decisions (Beasley & Dundas, 2021; Scyphers, Picou, & Powers, 2015; Stafford & Guthrie, 2020); however, none of these factors were strong predictors of current or preferred shore condition in our study.…”

“…Among waterfront residents in Gloucester, Virginia (VA), effectiveness and cost also most influenced stabilization decisions for waterfront residents with bulkheads, but not for property owners with living shorelines (Stafford & Guthrie, 2020). Although effectiveness was perceived to be important, property owners in Gloucester with living shorelines reported that their desire to restore the shoreline was the most influential factor in their selection of a shore protection approach (Stafford & Guthrie, 2020). Given these varied values and perceptions, studies that can further elucidate shared motivations and values among waterfront‐property owners will help coastal managers and policymakers determine the appropriate balance of regulation, incentivization, and education to promote conservation and restoration of coastal ecosystems (Scyphers et al, 2020).…”