Storms of higher frequency and intensity, erosion, habitat degradation, and rising sea levels are driving increasing flood risks in many coastal communities around the world, posing complex challenges to infrastructure, economies, ecosystems, and public health (Hossain et al., 2022; Kopp et al., 2017; Neumann et al., 2015; Woodruff et al., 2013). Conventionally, hardened structures like sea walls have been the primary method to stabilize shorelines and defend coastal communities against storms (Dugan et al., 2011; Gittman et al., 2014). However, gray infrastructure is becoming less appealing due to negative impacts on ecosystems and erosion, limited built-in lifetime, high maintenance demands, and inability to adapt to climate change (Cohn et al., 2022; Saleh and Weinstein, 2016; Smith et al., 2020). In the U.S., the cumulative cost of coastal infrastructure damage from sea level rise and storm surge could reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century (NOAA, 2024).

Increasingly, agencies, academics, and practitioners are considering how coastal infrastructure can integrate natural elements to enhance resilience and deliver co-benefits, informed by the broader concept of nature-based solutions (Cohn et al., 2022; Hobbie and Grimm, 2020; Nesshöver et al., 2017). For example, major US agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Army Corps of Engineers have developed guidelines around “natural and nature-based features” and “living shorelines”, promoting coastal management practices that conserve and restore natural habitats or strategically place plants, stone, sand fill, and other organic materials (Gaskin et al., 2025; NOAA, 2015; NOAA Fisheries, 2022).

Accumulating evidence shows that natural, soft, and hybrid measures can mitigate the impacts of chronic flooding and extreme weather events by absorbing wave energy, reducing erosion, and self-adapting with rising sea levels, especially in environments with low-medium wave energy (Arkema et al., 2017a; Huynh et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2020; Sutton-Grier et al., 2015). In addition, nature-based coastal infrastructure may provide additional ecological and social benefits, contributing to habitat restoration, water filtration, nutrient cycling, carbon storage, sense of place, and aesthetic and recreational experiences (Arkema et al., 2017b; Jacob et al., 2021; Narayan et al., 2016).

Despite the great potential, adoption of nature-based infrastructure remains highly limited. Key barriers include uncertainties regarding costs and benefits, lack of funding, complicated permitting processes, and inadequate public awareness and acceptance (Dario et al., 2024; Sutton-Grier et al., 2015). To address the last dimension, many studies have surveyed or interviewed waterfront residents to understand perceptions of various shoreline options on private properties (Barry et al., 2024; Gray et al., 2017; Guthrie et al., 2023; O’Donnell et al., 2022; Scyphers et al., 2019, 2020; Smith et al., 2017). These studies consistently show that residents tend to perceive armored shorelines as more effective for protection against erosion and storms than natural and living shorelines, and this perception can greatly drive decisions on coastal management practices (Barry et al., 2024; Guthrie et al., 2023; Smith et al., 2017). At the same time, satisfaction with natural and living shorelines is often higher due to their perceived aesthetic value, connection with place-based identity, and environmental benefits for water quality and habitat (Barry et al., 2024; Gray et al., 2017; Palinkas et al., 2022; Scyphers et al., 2020). In addition, residents’ perceptions of shoreline and infrastructure types may relate to their concerns about coastal hazards (Scyphers et al., 2019) and risk perception (Guthrie et al., 2023).

However, most existing studies focus on nature-based shorelines in private settings. This study expands the current research by examining community-level, publicly accessible nature-based coastal infrastructure. Compared to implementations on private properties, public nature-based shorelines arguably offer broader community benefits. They can also serve as visible demonstrations of innovative coastal design, providing residents with firsthand experiences of nature-based solutions and potentially encouraging broader private adoption (Dario et al., 2024). To foster community buy-in and ensure successful implementation, it is therefore critical to understand how different stakeholder groups perceive and value public nature-based coastal infrastructure (Frantzeskaki, 2019).

This study also explores community stewardship, a key factor in sustaining the intended functions and benefits of nature-based solutions (NBS). Stewardship is broadly defined as “the wise and responsible use of natural resources” (West et al., 2018) and encompasses a range of actions individuals or groups take to protect and care for natural environment (Bennett et al., 2018; Dean et al., 2024; West et al., 2018). Compared to their gray infrastructure counterparts, NBS may be more susceptible to neglect or mistreatment and often depend on local community stewardship to maintain performance and reduce municipal maintenance burdens (Lamond and Everett, 2023). While most stewardship studies have focused on non-coastal contexts such as green stormwater infrastructure and urban green spaces, they offer valuable insights. For example, Lamond and Everett, 2019, 2023) found that individuals who used green infrastructure sites (e.g., retention ponds, rain gardens) for recreation were more likely to engage in stewardship behaviors such as avoiding littering and volunteering for maintenance. Factors such as strong beliefs in green infrastructure, heightened concern about climate change and flooding, previous flood experiences, and longer residential tenure also contributed to stewardship. Similarly, Shandas (2015) observed that residents were more willing to participate in stormwater management when they perceived green infrastructure as improving their neighborhood or had prior involvement in environmental projects. In addition, place attachment, memory, and meaning can motivate voluntary stewardship, particularly when programs offer opportunities to deepen a sense of belonging (Ferreira et al., 2020; McCarthy and Russo, 2023). Drawing on Lamond and Everett (2023)’s framework of stewardship modes, we conceptualize stewardship of coastal infrastructure in this study as comprising both maintenance (active care) and funding contributions (ownership).

Responding to the need for more research on community perception and stewardship of public coastal infrastructure, we draw on a community intercept survey conducted in Cedar Key, Florida, U.S., to investigate the following questions:

By examining community engagement with nature-based solutions in the public realm, this study advances understanding of how coastal resilience efforts can be more inclusive and effective.

This study focuses on community perception and stewardship of coastal infrastructure in the public realm, providing important insights into how residents view various types of shorelines outside private settings. Additionally, we investigated potential predictors for positive perceptions of nature-based coastal infrastructure, as well as lay stewardship for coastal infrastructure regarding both funding and maintenance.

Previous studies focusing on private shorelines in the Southeastern U.S., including Florida, consistently reported that residents view natural and nature-based shorelines as more aesthetically pleasing but less protective than armored ones (Barry et al., 2024; Gray et al., 2017; Guthrie et al., 2023; Palinkas et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2017). In contrast, our study results based in Cedar Key, Florida showed that, among five types of coastal infrastructure on the green-gray spectrum (vegetation-only, sills, beach nourishment, revetment, and sea wall), the first two nature-based options were perceived as significantly more beautiful than revetment and sea walls and similarly protective ( Figure 3 ). Indeed, we observed significant correlations between perceived coastal protection and beauty for all five types of coastal infrastructure except sea wall, and there was little perceived trade-off between protection function and aesthetic appeal for sills and vegetation-only ( Table 2 ).

This result may be attributed to the strong environmental awareness and advocacy for nature-based coastal infrastructure that are present in the Cedar Key community. The study participants reported a relatively high pro-environmental attitude as reflected by the average NEP score (3.66 ± 0.40 out of 5) (Izadpanahi and Tucker, 2018). They also most frequently selected “Impact on ecosystems” as their top priority for coastal infrastructure choices. In addition, Cedar Key’s history of ecological restoration, multi-year efforts to construct three public living shoreline projects (Barry et al., 2025), and ordinance that promotes living shorelines and restricts the construction of bulkheads and sea walls (City of Cedar Key, 2018, §§ 4-8.10, 10.04.00) may have fostered a stronger awareness and more positive perception of nature-based coastal infrastructure.

Another potential explanation is that people’s perceptions of public coastal infrastructure at the community level can differ greatly from their perceptions of private implementation on their own properties. For example, O’Donnell et al. (2022) found that residents in Lower Florida Keys perceived mangroves offering more storm protection for their neighborhood than at the parcel scale of their homes. This discrepancy in perceptions of nature-based shorelines between the public and private realms might be linked to weaker social pressures to conform to neighborhood norms when managing one’s own property (Barry et al., 2024). Additionally, the larger scale of public nature-based coastal infrastructure may be viewed as providing more defense than the smaller-sized practices, thereby enhancing its perceived protection function.

The study results also highlight several factors that may enhance perceptions of nature-based coastal infrastructure. First, understandings about shoreline functions and concerns about existing issues may affect their perceptions of coastal infrastructure. Nature-based options may be preferred for their co-benefits such as erosion control and water purification—participants who viewed pollutant capture as an important shoreline function had significantly higher ratings for both vegetation-only and sills, and participants who viewed erosion as a critical shoreline issue had significantly higher ratings for sills. Second, general pro-environmental attitudes may contribute to a more positive perception of nature-based coastal infrastructure. Consistent with previous studies on acceptance of nature-based solutions (Anderson et al., 2021), perceptions of both vegetation-only and sills were positively associated with NEP scores. Additionally, age may influence perceptions of nature-based coastal infrastructure—we found that older participants rated vegetation-only significantly higher. This might be explained by the stronger environmental awareness often present among senior residents, as well as the greater knowledge and more experiences of the local environment and its change over time (Rodenburg and MacDonald, 2021). However, as fewer than 10% of participants were under 30 years old, and younger generations are increasingly engaged in environmental activism and advocacy, future studies should investigate potential generational differences in perceptions of coastal infrastructure, especially in the younger generations (Halkos and Matsiori, 2017; Sudbury-Riley et al., 2014). While previous studies on private shorelines have collected demographic and socioeconomic data (e.g., age, gender, race, household income, length of residence), none have investigated how these factors may influence shoreline perceptions (Barry et al., 2024; O’Donnell et al., 2022; Scyphers et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2017). Understanding how variables like age, income, and length of residence shape perceptions of shoreline types can provide valuable insights for tailoring coastal infrastructure development in local communities and remains an important topic for future research.

Regarding community stewardship, participants widely agreed that other stakeholders besides governmental agencies should take responsibilities for coastal infrastructure funding and maintenance. Importantly, we found that contributions to funding versus maintenance emerged as distinct stewardship roles associated with different stakeholder groups. Many Cedar Key residents believed that their group should contribute to coastal infrastructure maintenance, while many tourists identified their group as responsible for funding. Residents, viewing the shoreline as integral to their everyday living environment, may be willing to assist with upkeep but hesitant to contribute financially. Tourists, conversely, may not see themselves as responsible for routine maintenance but are willing to support infrastructure financially to enhance their sightseeing and recreation experiences. Shore-based anglers were the only stakeholder group that was significantly more likely to contribute to both funding and maintenance. Recreational activities have been associated with stronger stewardship of natural coastlines (Dean et al., 2024). Interestingly, we found that, unlike shore-based anglers, boat-based anglers did not show high willingness to engage in stewardship, despite that they generally have higher socioeconomic status than the shore-based group. Therefore, the physical location of recreation might have a stronger influence on stewardship behaviors than the type of recreational activity. In addition, local government officials might be burdened by the costs and maintenance need of nature-based coastal infrastructure— despite their positive perceptions of nature-based shoreline options, over 20% of the 15 participants from the city government group believed that neither the city or the state should be responsible for costal infrastructure funding or maintenance. These findings point to both an opportunity and a necessity to seek funding and maintenance support from the private sector. For example, innovative funding mechanisms that leverage tourism and shoreline-based recreation may be particularly effective in coastal communities like Cedar Key, which hold historical and cultural significance (Nguyen et al., 2024).

This study explores community perception and stewardship of public coastal infrastructure, expanding research focus beyond private settings and providing important insights to support broader adoption of nature-based solutions. Our findings challenge the binary framing of green vs. gray infrastructure often prevalent in research, policy, and management efforts in coastal resilience. Hybrid and soft costal defense measures can cost-effectively reduce hazards and mitigate climate change impacts (Huynh et al., 2024; Mondal et al., 2025). This study further highlights the great potential of hybrid and nature-based coastal infrastructure from the perspective of public perception and acceptance. Specifically, combining vegetation and hardened materials may enhance both perceived beauty and perceived protection. We argue that nature-based coastal infrastructure must not be treated as a homogenous solution and its development needs to pay more attention to fine-scale design features characteristics that contribute to aesthetic appeal and sense of security. In addition, community members may associate nature-based coastal infrastructure with social and environmental co-benefits such as aesthetic value and water purification, which can be leveraged in communication and outreach strategies to enhance public acceptance and support. Furthermore, our findings stress the necessity of developing community-level nature-based coastal infrastructure through deep community engagement. Although private shorelines dominate Florida and many other coastal regions in the U.S., publicly accessible demonstration projects at the community level can play a pivotal role in increasing acceptance and fostering lay stewardship among diverse stakeholders. Given the persistent funding challenges for nature-based coastal infrastructure (Sutton-Grier et al., 2018), exploring private-sector contributions—especially from residents, recreational users, and tourists—may be an effective strategy.

Future research should devote more attention to hybrid nature-based coastal infrastructure in the public realm—not only in terms of its potential to protect against coastal disasters and support natural habitats, but also in relation to community preferences, benefits, and engagement. Studies with larger sample sizes, drawn from communities with diverse landscape and socioeconomic contexts, are needed to enhance understanding of perception and stewardship. In addition, qualitative or mixed-method approaches—such as interviews with stakeholder groups, case studies, and policy analyses—can provide deeper insights to inform design principles and stewardship programs that support the adoption and long-term performance of nature-based coastal infrastructure.