Factors influencing local decisions to use habitats to protect coastal communities from hazards

AbstractCoastal hazard mitigation policy in the US has historically focused on construction of hardened, or gray, infrastructure. Recently, there is increased public interest and policy supporting the use of habitats, or natural infrastructure (NI), following decades of increasingly supportive ecological, engineering, and economic evidence. This trend suggests that behavioral and institutional factors may also be important for mainstreaming NI. To understand what factors affected decisions to use NI, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a total of 16 individuals associated with three NI cases: Ferry Point Park Living Shoreline, Maryland (MD); Surfer's Point Managed Retreat, California (CA); and Durant's Point Living Shoreline, North Carolina (NC). Our grounded theory analysis of the interview transcripts revealed four common themes across the decisions: 1) perception of benefits (N = 45) and costs (N = 31), 2) diffusion of innovation led by innovators (N = 34), 3) local champions (N = 46), and 4) social networks and norms (N = 30). This grounded theory suggests that the decisions to use NI were driven by innovators (citizens, local non-governmental organization (NGO) staff, and/or state government resource managers) who were influenced by seeing NI successes implemented by trusted experts and perceived NI benefits beyond protecting coastlines (e.g., maintaining coastal heritage and sense of place). Innovators also acted as local champions, getting others “comfortable” with NI and connecting to local interests. In addition, our analysis shows the role of regulatory permitting requirements in perpetuating or controlling biases against innovations like NI. In 2008, MD passed a policy that helped address biases against NI by changing NI from a preferred option to the required option except in places where scientific analysis suggested that gray infrastructure would be needed, while in CA and NC gray infrastructure remains only a preferred option. These results suggest an opportunity to harness heuristics, such as visual demonstrations and messaging from trusted persons, in addition to policy tools to mainstream NI in places where there is evidence that it would be effective. These results also suggest that heuristics could result in biases that not only lead to underuse but also to inappropriate use of NI; and, policies, similar to the policy in Maryland, are needed to control these biases

Understanding Barriers and Opportunities for Adoption of Conservation Practices on Rented Farmland in the US

Agricultural conservation programs often focus on farm operators when promoting conservation practices. However, much of U.S. farmland is owned by landowners not directly involved in farm operations. Rental arrangements on these lands can dis-incentivize the adoption of conservation practices that could improve soil health, water quality, and land values. To date, agricultural conservation policy has largely ignored the role of non-operating landowners (NOLs) and rental arrangements. We help improve the evidence-base for policy by identifying barriers to adoption of conservation practices on rented farmlands. Analysis of forty interviews with NOLs, operators, farm managers and university extension personnel in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana revealed five categories of barriers: cash rent lease terms, rental market dynamics, information deficits/asymmetries, cognitive/interpersonal, and financial motivations. Some barriers, such as risk aversion and farm aesthetics were expressed by both NOLs and operators, while other barriers, such as status quo bias and annual renewal of leases were only expressed by NOLs and operators, respectively. To overcome barriers to conservation, interviewees recommended improving communication between NOLs and operators and modifying cash rent lease terms in order to build in flexibility for equitable sharing of risks and rewards. Agricultural conservation programs could readily apply these results—possibly working with intermediaries (e.g., farm managers, lawyers)—to offer communication and lease tools and assistance to NOLS and operators. Future research should evaluate the efficacy of these conservation interventions and how intermediaries affect the balance of power between NOLs and operators