Coastal communities exist on the front lines of diverse natural hazards and the growing impacts of climate change. While traditional strategies for dealing with coastal hazards have often involved the hardening or armoring of shorelines, more recent research and practice have demonstrated the value and cost-effectiveness of “living shorelines” and other ecosystem-based strategies for coastal protection. To explore potential relationships among geographic exposure (waterfront vs. inland), shoreline condition (armored vs. natural), and hazard concerns, we surveyed 583 waterfront and inland residents in the northern Gulf of Mexico. We found that overall concern for coastal hazards was similar across waterfront and inland residents, as well as among residents with both armored and natural shorelines. However, concern for specific hazards differed across these groups. Waterfront residents were significantly more concerned about major hurricanes and erosion than inland residents. Conversely, inland residents were more concerned with drought and flooding than waterfront residents. Among waterfront residents, specific hazard concerns were similar between residents with natural and armored shorelines with two key exceptions. Residents with armored shorelines reported higher concern for erosion and sea level rise than residents with natural shorelines. Our results suggest that armored shorelines do not necessarily alleviate concerns about coastal hazards. In the context of balancing social and ecological objectives in addressing coastal hazards or adapting to climate change, understanding the perceptions and behaviors of coastal residents is essential for conserving and protecting coastal ecosystems along residential shorelines.

With human use of coastal ecosystems at an all-time high, a current challenge for conservation is to integrate social factors into management. Studies with this aim have focused primarily on monetary valuations of ecosystem functions, overlooking the psycho-social motivations underlying conservation and management. Our study leverages a values-beliefs-norms framework of environmental attitudes in interviews with residents and tourists of Martha’s Vineyard (MA). Specifically, we assess the role of human values, perceptions, and preferences in evaluating what constitutes social viability in coastal ecosystem management. Our results show that situational constraints to public understanding of conservation initiatives can undermine support even among individuals with strong pro-environmental attitudes. Furthermore, our findings suggest that public support for individual conservation initiatives can misconstrue differences and trade-offs that arise between stakeholder groups when considering overall management priority. Future research should address whether ecological success of conservation efforts acts as an additional context-dependency of social viability.