Coastal residents' perceptions of the function of and relationship between engineered and natural infrastructure for coastal hazard mitigation

Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Coastal residents' perceptions of the function of and relationship between engineered and natural infrastructure for coastal hazard mitigation Jaime D. Ewalt Gray a, Karen O'Neill b, Zeyuan Qiu a, * a New Jersey Institute of Technology, Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, Tiernan Hall, Room 151, University Heights, Newark, NJ, 07102, United States b Rutgers University, Department of Human Ecology, 55 Dudley Road, Cook Office Building, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 14 November 2016 Received in revised form 28 June 2017 Accepted 2 July 2017

Public perception research enhances the governance of coastal hazard mitigation. Understanding the public's awareness and perceptions of hazard mitigation infrastructure is an important aspect of effective governance. Emerging federal policies call for more integrated use of engineered and natural infrastructure for mitigating coastal hazards. This study is to assess public awareness and perception of the functions of and relationship between engineered and natural infrastructure, which is critical to the successful implementation of such policies. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to 27 residents from two coastal communities in New Jersey. Thematic content analysis is used to analyze these interview data. The study shows that awareness of mitigation infrastructure stems in part from experience with coastal hazards. Many participants understood the functions of both types of infrastructure in ways that were consistent with the understandings of coastal engineers, but did not fully understand how these two types of infrastructure interact each other to mitigate coastal hazards. Most respondents preferred natural infrastructure, but believed that engineered infrastructure is more effective in coastal hazard mitigation. The knowledge of public perceptions of mitigation infrastructure would be useful to coastal managers in developing and communicating coastal hazard mitigation strategies. © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Public perceptions Coastal hazards Mitigation Engineered infrastructure Natural infrastructure Thematic content analysis

1. Introduction Increasing coastal hazards, growing populations, and accumulating assets in coastal regions make it imperative to implement hazard mitigation1 strategies. Strategies to reduce coastal hazards and resulting risk to coastal communities can include structural and nonstructural measures. Structural measures specifically seek to mitigate coastal hazards such as flooding and erosion and the impact from storms. These measures include engineered (hard) structures and/or reliance on natural (soft) infrastructure. Common structural measures include engineering structures to reduce erosion, such as groins, or to mitigate the effects of storm surge, such as sea walls (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2013a).

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.D.E. Gray), [email protected] (Z. Qiu). 1 The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines mitigation as a sustained action to reduce or eliminate risk to people or property from hazards and their effects. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.005 0964-5691/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Together these built structures make up engineered infrastructure2 for coastal hazards mitigation. Natural environmental features in coastal areas, such as dunes, maritime forests, and wetlands, comprise natural infrastructure (whether they have been altered by humans or not). These features reduce the impact of more frequent and less intense coastal hazards through flood and wave attenuation and shoreline stabilization (Arkema et al., 2013; Gedan et al., 2011; Shepard et al., 2011; Sutton-Grier et al., 2015; Barbier et al., 2011). Although both engineered and natural infrastructure provide hazard mitigation benefits to coastal communities and may reduce risk of damage or negative impact from hazards, they function differently in response to coastal hazards. Engineered structures are not self-adaptive, and they are designed for a specified hazard condition, thereby requiring modification if hazard conditions

2 Infrastructure is defined as the underlying foundation, basic framework, or structures necessary for a system to function (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

change or repair when they fail or are damaged (Schultz et al., 2012). Natural, environmental systems are adaptive to coastal hazards and self-regenerative, require less maintenance than engineered infrastructure, and may increase their capacity to mitigate coastal hazards over time (Adger et al., 2005). For these reasons, some scientists suggest that natural infrastructure may be more sustainable and cost-effective over time for coastal hazard mitigation than engineered infrastructure in some coastal areas (Spalding et al., 2014; Temmerman et al., 2013). Land-based changes and built infrastructure have reduced the extent and health of coastal ecosystems through fragmentation, loss and damage, as well as by impeding coastal ecosystems' necessary migration inland with sea level rise, a phenomenon called “coastal squeeze” (Spalding et al., 2014; Temmerman et al., 2013; Torio and Chmura, 2013). Hazard mitigation policies and coastal decisions should consider these negative impacts and also take into account the benefits of natural infrastructure (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2013a). The pursuit of integrating natural infrastructure into comprehensive coastal hazard mitigation has come from the scientific understanding of the functions of natural infrastructure and is backed by environmental interests (Spalding et al., 2014; Temmerman et al., 2013). Integrating natural infrastructure has been a goal at the Federal level in the United States but is not evident as a priority at a local level (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2013a). Barriers to the adoption of more comprehensive strategies that incorporate the functions of natural processes can be a result of lack of understanding of how natural features may be utilized to mitigate coastal hazards (Bridges et al., 2015; Cooper and Mckenna, 2008). For more comprehensive hazard mitigation strategies to be implemented, these strategies would ideally be defined and understood by all involved in decision making and supported by the public. For the public to support the integration of natural and engineered infrastructure, it may be helpful for them to understand and appreciate the function of both types of infrastructures for mitigating coastal hazards, as well as for their other benefits (Cooper and Mckenna, 2008; Karrasch et al., 2014). This understanding should include the relationship between the two types of infrastructure as they affect coastal hazards, how they can best function together, and what the limitations of utilizing both may be. Understanding residents' perception of the function of and relationship between these two types of mitigation infrastructure will bridge a knowledge gap in the hazard mitigation governance process. Research findings on coastal residents has been limited to questions about their preferences (Boyer-Villemaire et al., 2014; Friesinger and Bernatchez, 2010; Koutrakis et al., 2011), with limited findings on how the public perceives the functions of (Curado et al., 2014; Kim and Petrolia, 2013; Mustelin et al., 2010) or relationship between (Myatt et al., 2003; Santha et al., 2014) the two types of mitigation infrastructure. Perceptions of and preference for mitigation infrastructure is influenced by experience with hazards, risk perception, and awareness of mitigation strategies (Karrasch et al., 2014; Koutrakis et al., 2011; Roca and Villares, 2012; Tunstall, 2000). Boyer-Villemaire et al. (2014) found that public preferences for mitigation strategies differ with the degree of the public's experience with hazards and perception of risk. Even when stakeholders agree to enhance resilience to coastal hazards, there are sector-specific preferences on how to do so (Frazier et al., 2010). Stakeholder preferences for mitigation strategies are also influenced by the types of infrastructure that currently exist in a community and by stakeholder awareness of those structures. In areas where engineered or extensive natural infrastructure exists, there is a lowered perception of risk and less support for alternate approaches (Koutrakis et al., 2011; Tunstall, 2000). Together, existing research indicates that there are many variables that will influence

145

local public perception of mitigation infrastructure. Research also found that differing stakeholder preferences for engineered or natural infrastructure is due to perceived benefits as well as drawbacks, not just the functions of mitigating coastal hazards. Perceptions of mitigation infrastructure are often associated with the benefits that the structures provide to socioeconomic activities, or to the ecocentric values of natural infrastructure (Curado et al., 2014; Roca and Villares, 2012; Khew et al., 2015). Reported sector-specific stakeholder reservations about the use of engineered infrastructure include concerns about engineered structures aggravating the intensity of the impact from coastal hazards (Santha et al., 2014) as well as a lack of trust that structures will be properly maintained (Touili et al., 2014). Our study contributes to this body of work by investigating not only residents' preferences for natural or engineered infrastructure but also their perceptions of the effectiveness of each type and their preferences and perceptions about the interactions between these two types of infrastructure. Understanding coastal residents' preferences and perceptions of hazard mitigation infrastructure is an important component of the governance process because public preferences or aversions to certain coastal hazard mitigation strategies could affect governance decisions. Existing research has investigated sector-specific stakeholders representing economic sectors, government, or scientists (Karrasch et al., 2014; Roca and Villares, 2012; Frazier et al., 2010; Touili et al., 2014; Kane et al., 2014; Penning-Rowsell et al., 2014; Cadag and Gaillard, 2012; Kochnower et al., 2015). Research investigating residents' perceptions is often limited to one type of mitigation infrastructure (Curado et al., 2014; Kim and Petrolia, 2013; Myatt et al., 2003; Khew et al., 2015). This study is to expand the research into stakeholder perceptions of coastal mitigation strategies by including coastal residents' perceptions of engineered and natural infrastructure in mitigating coastal erosion, tidal flooding, and the impact from coastal storms. This study focuses on coastal areas where coastal hazards are salient. Semi-structured interviews with residents from two coastal communities along the Raritan Bayshore of the coastal U.S. State of New Jersey were conducted and analyzed to explore coastal residents' perceptions of the function of and relationship between natural and engineered infrastructure in coastal hazard mitigation. 2. Method 2.1. Study areas New Jersey (NJ) is the most densely populated state in the United States, with dense development extending to many reaches of its 210 miles of (ocean and bay) coastline. Over 75% of the land area of the State is defined as coastal, and these zones contain 60% of the state's population (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2014). Recent storms, including Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, significantly damaged many of New Jersey's coastal communities, especially those in low lying areas such as areas of the Raritan Bayshore (Fig. 1 shows the location of the Raritan Bayshore and the study areas). The Bayshore extends approximately twelve (12) miles east from South Amboy to Port Monmouth, just west of Sandy Hook Bay. The region is a subaerial portion of New Jersey's Coastal Plain with marshes that border streams and submerged valleys (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1960). Tidal creeks and flats, associated coastal marshes, and freshwater wetlands characterize the area. Over the years, many of the previous marshes and wetlands have been drained, altered, or replaced by development (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 1993). A number of engineered structures have further degraded the ecosystem in the Bayshore (New York, 2012; United

146

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

Fig. 1. Location of study areas, portion of the Raritan Bayshore region of the U.S. State of New Jersey. Source: Google Maps, 2015.

States Army Corps of Engineers, 2014). The Raritan Bayshore region is subject to hurricanes and extratropical cyclones (nor'easters) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1960). Concerns from such storm events include tidal flooding created by high winds, low pressure, and accompanying wave action. Bay surge and associated flooding is caused by a combination of storm induced water levels and astronomical tide (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 1993). Tidal flooding is expected to increase in severity in relation to sea level rise. Bulkheads and beach fill offer limited protection to tidal flooding. Although bulkheads and seawalls have been effective at holding the shoreline, they have increased erosion. Shore erosion in the region has reduced beach width, exposing development to wave attack and reducing its value for recreation (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1960). Shoreline erosion has also deteriorated existing coastal protection and drainage structures. In many areas, blockage of the existing storm drainage system compounds the extent and duration of flooding (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 1993). Two Bayshore communities were chosen for this study because they are subject to similar physical coastal processes, although they experience somewhat different coastal hazards. The two study areas also have similar engineered infrastructure and natural, environmental features. The topographies of the study areas differ and, therefore, the two communities have different experiences with erosion and flooding. 2.1.1. Laurence Harbor, Old Bridge, Middlesex County, new Jersey Laurence Harbor is a 2.95 square mile section of the Township of

Old Bridge, Middlesex County, NJ with a population of 6496 in 2013 (City-Data.com, 2016a). It is located next to Cheesequake State Park, a preserved coastal marsh. Most of Laurence Harbor sits on top a bluff and the area is flanked by coastal wetlands. There are areas of high natural or constructed dunes. There are three groins and a stone revetment along the beach and a rock armoring at the base of the bluff. Storm surge during Hurricane Sandy, estimated to be in excess of 15e20 feet above sea level along the Raritan Bay, destroyed portions of the Waterfront Park (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2013b). The houses along the waterfront had no flood damage, although some had minor wind damage. A small section of the town below the shore ledge did have flood damage. Existing erosion of the cliff in Laurence Harbor was made worse by Hurricane Sandy. 2.1.2. Union Beach, Monmouth County, new Jersey Union Beach is about 1.83 square miles with approximately 3.8 miles of coastline in northeastern Monmouth County, New Jersey. In 2014, Union Beach had a population of 5,700, a 14% decrease from 2000, due in part to damage from Hurricane Sandy (CityData.com, 2016b). The shoreline is characterized by engineered structures (groin, bulkhead and stone revetment), low natural dunes or beaches, and wetlands flanking the developed areas (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 1993). Union Beach was devastated by Hurricane Sandy: tidal surge and waves inundated 90% of the Borough's land area with 2e10 feet of water. Prior to Hurricane Sandy there were 35 properties with repetitive loss

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

claims in Union Beach. After Hurricane Sandy, the Borough had over 500 homes listed on the national Severe Repetitive Loss and Repetitive Loss lists (T and M Associates, 2014). A federally funded engineered infrastructure project that includes a combination of levees and floodwalls, tide gates, pump stations, groins, dunes and beach berms (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2016) was announced in April 2015.

2.2. Qualitative data collection: semi-structured interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a nonprobabilistic, heterogeneous, purposive sample of 27 long-term residents (>5 years) from the two communities (14 from Laurence Harbor and 13 from Union Beach). Participants were recruited through public posting of flyers and word-of-mouth. The participant sample was not meant to be representative of the community or the public as a whole. A small sample was utilized in order to explore a topic that has not been comprehensively investigated. The sample size was adequate. Recruitment ended when no new information was being obtained from the interviews (saturation). The participants selected represented a range of age, gender, length of residence, and location of residence (Fig. 2), to help ensure a diversity of opinion and experience. Although not recruited based on educational background, participants also had a range of educational attainment and occupation. Twenty-six percent (26%) of participants had completed only high school, 22% had some college, 33% had a college degree, and 19% had a graduate degree. Occupations included social work/education, science/medicine, business, and the arts.

147

Semi-structured interview was used because it allowed us to investigate in detail the reasoning of the participants to the subject. Interviewing can also engage and motivate participants in a way that other study methods, such as questionnaires, cannot (Dunn and Hay, 2010). Interviewing encourages participants to provide more information than they might otherwise filling out a questionnaire. Additionally, for a study such as this, where little is already known about the topic, there is not enough existing information about public perceptions to construct options necessary for a structured questionnaire. An Interview Guide and coding sheet were used to guide the interviews and record participants' responses. Interviews were audio recorded and the recordings were used to confirm the coding and to retrieve quotes. Interview questions were developed to elicit relevant information about their awareness and perceptions of mitigation infrastructure, information that they use to form their perceptions, and their preferences for the use of specific mitigation infrastructure. The interview questions also include questions about the cost, benefits, and limitations of mitigation infrastructure. The first series of questions asked about participants' awareness of existing natural and engineered infrastructure to reduce coastal hazards or impacts from coastal hazards. These questions sought to uncover which built structures and natural features residents are conscious of, focusing on the structures that participants recalled and could describe on first thought. The second series of questions were accompanied by photographs of engineered and natural infrastructure in the participants' community (Fig. 3). These questions asked about their perception of the infrastructure individually and then as groups (i.e., grouped as engineered or natural

Fig. 2. Age and gender of study participants and length of residence.

148

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

Fig. 3. [A] Photographs of engineered and natural infrastructure from Laurence Harbor (1) and Union Beach (2). Laurence Harbor: 1A: Stone revetment; 1B: Second groin; 1C: Dune area; 1D: Wetland; and Union Beach: 2A: Revetment and bulkhead; 2B: Groin; 2C: Wetland; 2D: Maritime forest/dune area. Photos A and B represent engineered infrastructure and photos C and D represent natural infrastructure. [B] Location of engineered structures and natural features from two study areas, Laurence Harbor (1) and Union Beach (2). Sources: Photos taken by JDEG on August 8, 2015, Aerial maps from Google Maps, 2015.

infrastructure). The third series of questions asked about participants' preferences for use of mitigation infrastructure. These questions were designed based on the findings of previous studies about perceptions of stakeholders concerning engineered or natural infrastructure. 2.3. Qualitative data analysis: thematic content analysis Content analysis is a systematic, objective, and deductive means of analyzing and describing interview data by attaining a description of the phenomena under investigation (Elo and Kyngas, 2008), in this case, structural coastal hazard mitigation utilizing engineered and natural infrastructure. Thematic analysis, the most common method of content analysis, identifies, analyzes, and deciphers patterns or themes across all the data relevant to the research questions (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic content analysis of the interview data allowed us to objectively analyze the data by categories associated with the research questions. The phases of thematic content analysis include organizing the data through open coding and grouping into categorizes, quantifying codes, and presenting the findings as themes

associated with each research category: awareness of mitigation infrastructures; perception of both infrastructures individually and in relation to each other's functioning; and preference for the use of mitigation infrastructures. Fig. 4 shows an idealized view of the data analysis steps starting with the organizing and categorizing the individual data sets, through to compilation with all data from each study area to reporting. During the Preparation Phase, raw data from each interview was electronically recorded onto Individual Coding Sheets for each participant. During the Organizing Phase, the data from each of the Individual Coding Sheets was transferred to Individual Data Analysis Sheets. Individual Data Analysis Sheets grouped the responses to interview questions by research question category. Data was reduced where the best codes based on themes of responses were identified. In practice, these phases did not proceed in a linear fashion. For instance, any theme that was identified during the first attempt to code the data that turned out to be too broad required returning to the data categorization phase to break that overly broad theme into smaller themes. To assure the categories adequately represented the data, subcategories were used. The codes in subcategories explain or clarify answers. For example, in the category of the function of

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

149

Fig. 4. The three main steps taken during thematic content analysis.

infrastructure, participants often volunteered how they perceived a specific structure or natural feature to work. The subcodes are clarifiers to responses that participants gave as further explanation or caveats to their initial response to a question. The codes cover data from both study areas to allow the comparison of the findings. None of the codes were unique to one town. During the Reporting Phase, all the data sets for each study area were combined onto a single Data Compilation Sheet for each study area. The codes and subcodes identified in each of the Individual Analysis Sheets were quantified on the Data Compilation Sheets. Where possible, codes were combined to further reduce the data. The Data Compilation Sheets for each study area were used to create tables organizing and summarizing the findings. Themes that were heard more than once were quantified to assist in analysis.

2.4. Data quality assurance Researcher's personal view could have significantly impacts on the participants, which can be broadly called researcher bias, especially when participating in an interview on a complex or unfamiliar topic. Attention was being paid to minimize such researcher bias. For example, participants were not led to reply whether structures shown in the pictures are helpful in mitigating hazards, such as impacts from storms or coastal flooding and erosion. Participants were encouraged to offer their thoughts about the structures and features associated with coastal hazards when first shown the picture by being asked “What can you tell me about this structure/feature associated with coastal hazards?” After these initial questions respondents were probed by being asked “Do you think this structure/feature reduces [given hazard] or impact from [given hazard]?” Researcher bias was also minimized by the inclusion of descriptive data in the discussion of the results. The integrity of data was retained during the analysis by assuring that data were not compressed too much or excessively interpreted. To further assure the quality of the data and analysis, the research questions

were kept in mind during the content analysis, especially as the data were organized into themes.

3. Results Results from the two case studies were analyzed by themes related to the research questions about residents' awareness of the presence of both engineered and natural infrastructure in their communities, perceptions of their functions and interaction, and preferences for their use by themselves or in combination in coastal hazard mitigation.

3.1. Awareness Residents from the Laurence Harbor study group were quite cognizant of the existing engineered mitigation infrastructure: 93% of participants named at least one engineered structure in their area that serves to mitigate coastal hazards. By contrast, 62% percent of the Union Beach study group said they either didn't know of any engineered structures or said conclusively that there are no engineered structures in their community that mitigate coastal hazards. Laurence Harbor participants were also more aware of natural features that mitigate coastal hazards than those from Union Beach: 86% Laurence Harbor study group mentioned at least one natural feature in their area, while 54% percent of Union Beach residents said they didn't know of any natural features that mitigate coastal hazards. All of the Union Beach study group members knew about a proposed engineered mitigation project. Laurence Harbor participants were only aware of proposals to address structures with historic contamination in their area, a topic that has long been locally prominent. How the public comes to know about the natural features and built structures from their area is important in framing their explanation of infrastructure. More than half of the participants integrated how they think about the two types of infrastructure with how they have come to their perceptions of the them.

150

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

“Can see how much sand is trapped when the plants die back” (67year-old retired resident of Laurence Harbor). “[I've] seen landscape change due to jetties: beach has grown between jetties #3 and 4.” (48-year-old business manager from Laurence Harbor). “Ever since Schoeler Park was created and houses built [in area], even with basins, [area] has more flooding: changed the flow of water” (45-year-old business manager and life-long Union Beach resident). “Can see [that] on the beach side [of wetland], during storm no damage […] and houses nearby don't have erosion” (42-year-old female executive from Laurence Harbor). Themes that emerged from the data analysis indicate that for the majority of study participants, their understanding of natural and engineered infrastructures was based on common sense. Themes included perceptions of natural areas being “a place for water to go” or “acting as a sponge.” An engineered structure was perceived as “breaking waves”. Most residents in the two study areas reported becoming aware of engineered structures by seeing the structures, but they also reported learning about them from media reports, public officials, friends, family, colleges, or organizations.

3.2. Perceptions Respondents who lacked prior awareness of mitigation infrastructure nonetheless showed how they reason and think about the functions of the two types of infrastructure and about the relationship between the two types. A 55-year-old warehouse laborer from Laurence Harbor, when shown the picture of the dune area and asked what she thought about it, stated she had not initially thought about it as a natural feature that could mitigate coastal hazards. She then verbally worked out her thought pattern: “[The area is] not totally gone after a storm and hasn't changed in years,” and so she concluded “Maybe the area reduces erosion”. This is an example of a respondent communicating the logic she used to solve a problem. Using personal experience was a common technique for the study participants, especially when challenged with complex topics such as the effects the two types of infrastructure have on each other. When asked about the relationship between the two types of infrastructure, a 76-yearold crossing guard and former warehouse worker who has lived in Union Beach for 60 years reasoned “natural [features] stop a lot of water [and] built [structures] break up water [so] built will work less if natural features are there.” There were some common perceptions that arose as themes from the analysis. These included the perceived functions of the mitigation infrastructure in reducing (or not reducing) hazards or the impact from hazards (Figs. 5 and 6). We found that most participants perceived the revetment as reducing impacts from storms and erosion and the groin as failing to reduce flooding. Although participants differed in their understanding of the function of the groin in mitigating the impact from storms and the revetment in reducing flooding, the majority of the residents agreed that engineered infrastructure functions better to reduce coastal hazards than natural infrastructure does (Fig. 8). The most common theme from both study areas about the functions of natural features was that wetlands reduce impacts from storms and mitigate flooding. Most residents from the two study areas perceived that the two types of infrastructure, when located near each other, can affect each other's functions. Half of all the

participants perceived the relationship to be a synergistic one during storms (Fig. 7). The major differences between the study groups was residents' perception of the dune/maritime forest's role in mitigating coastal hazards (Fig. 6). The majority of Laurence Harbor participants believed the dune/maritime forest to reduce impacts from storms and to mitigate flooding and erosion. Half of the Union Beach participants were unsure if the natural features reduce impacts from storms, and their understandings of the natural features' functions associated with flooding and erosion were mixed. Residents from both study groups also differed in their perceptions of the role of wetlands in mitigating erosion. The majority of Laurence Harbor participants believed the wetland help mitigate erosion, while Union Beach participants were mixed in their understanding of the role of wetlands in reducing coastal erosion. It appears that awareness of the wetlands in general is lower in Union Beach than in Laurence Harbor. This may be due to the fact that local wetlands are visible from places that residents frequent in Laurence Harbor, whereas out of sight in Union Beach. A major theme among Union Beach study group was uncertainty about the function of the groin in mitigating erosion. A third of the Union Beach participants claimed that the groin in their town does not reduce erosion where the majority of Laurence Harbor residents believed the groin in their town reduces erosion. A few Union Beach residents purported that the revetment does not reduce erosion, where none of the residents from Laurence Harbor claimed this. There were a few Laurence Harbor residents who were unsure of the mitigation functions of the revetment associated with storms and flooding, while most Union Beach participants said the revetment reduces impacts from storms and flooding. The study groups diverged in their perceptions of the relationship between the two types of infrastructure regarding erosion and flooding (Fig. 7). A major theme among Union Beach participants was the perception that the two types of infrastructure work separately to affect flooding. Most Laurence Harbor participants perceived a synergistic relationship. Similarly, the majority in the Laurence Harbor study group believed that the two types of infrastructure work together to mitigate erosion. Union Beach participants were either uncertain about how relationships between the two types of infrastructures affected erosion or perceived that relationships between the two types of infrastructure have no effect on erosion. In general, the participants in Laurence Harbor, which has been experiencing coastline erosion and flooding in certain areas and is impacted by erosion and flooding during coastal storms, were highly aware of existing mitigation infrastructure. Their understanding of the functions of natural infrastructure was consistent with the understanding among the scientific community. They perceive a synergistic relationship between the two types of infrastructures for reducing the hazards of storms and erosion. In Union Beach, which experiences frequent flooding that is amplified across the entire community during coastal storms, the participants had a lower awareness of mitigation infrastructure. Fewer respondents in Union Beach understood the functions of and relationship between the two types of mitigation infrastructure, especially as related to erosion, in ways that are consistent with scientific knowledge. 3.3. Preferences Preferences for using the two types of mitigation infrastructure were mixed among study participants and were not associated directly with their perceptions about which type worked better to reduce hazards (Fig. 8). Although engineered infrastructure was perceived to be work better, more residents preferred natural

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

151

Fig. 5. Coastal residents' perception of the functions of specific engineered mitigation structures (revetment/bulkhead (AeC) and groin (DeF)) associated with specific coastal hazards: storms (A and D), flooding (B and E), and erosion (C and F): Shows the total number of residents and the percent of residents from each study area with given responses.

infrastructure or the use of both types of infrastructure. Fig. 9 shows the most common justifications given by residents for their preferences. More residents from Laurence Harbor mentioned the ancillary benefits of the infrastructure they preferred, such as aesthetics, ecosystem benefits and recreation. Union Beach residents focused on the hazard mitigation functions. Union Beach residents also cited evidence of their preferred mitigation infrastructure working in other places to justify their preference.

When asked to specify what features and structures they preferred, residents from both locales mentioned a number of engineered or natural structures. Those mentioned only a few times included beach replenishment, dunes, dredging creeks, berms, and shellfish beds. Among both study groups, groins were not commonly mentioned as a preference. As compared to Laurence Harbor residents, more Union Beach residents mentioned engineered structures (floodgate and seawall, most commonly mentioned). As compared to Union Beach residents, more Laurence

152

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

Fig. 6. Coastal residents' perception of the functions of specific natural features (wetland (AeC) and dune/maritime forest (DeF)) associated with specific coastal hazards: storms (A and D), flooding (B and E), and erosion (C and F): Shows the total number of residents and the percent of residents from each study area with given responses.

Harbor residents mentioned enhancing vegetation. 3.4. Other emerging themes A number of themes emerged that were not associated with a specific research question. One of these themes was a lack of previous contemplation about the subject topic. A number of residents from both study areas offered that they have not thought about the

study topics before to the interview. A 44-year-old city planner from Laurence Harbor, when asked about his preference for natural features or engineered structures, prefaced his response by saying: “That's interesting, I don't usually think that way”. An 83-year-old library assistant who has lived in Union Beach for nearly 60 years said a few times during the interview that she hadn't previously given any thought to the natural features. When asked about the relationship between the engineered structures and natural

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

153

Fig. 7. The themes of residents' perceptions of the relationship between mitigation infrastructures associated with specific coastal hazards: A: during storms; B: associated with flooding; C: associated with erosion. Shown are the percentage of responses for each theme of synergistic, antagonistic, no relationship and uncertain in Laurence Harbor and Union Beach.

Fig. 8. Coastal residents' perception of natural and engineered infrastructure based on the theme of “being better for their area” (panel A) and “being preferred for their area” (panel B). The percentage of whose responses were coded to the theme of “being better” and preferred in Laurence Harbor and Union Beach.

features, a 72-year-old woman who has lived in Laurence Harbor for 37 years stated: “I've seen high waves bounce off the jetty, so I guess [the two types of infrastructure] would [have an effect on each other], but I've never really thought about it”. One resident assured that participating in the interview gave her a new perspective: “You've given me a lot of things to think about that I don't usually spend time thinking about” (48-year-old business manager who has lived in Laurence Harbor for 20 years). Another theme concerned attitudes towards hazard mitigation governance and decisions, especially those associated with structural interventions. Some residents expressed concerns about the negative consequences of engineered structures:

“[I] need to know what [the proposed USACE project] is going to do to upset the natural landscape and environment, every time you put something manmade in you don't always know the impact, would like to know about the environmental impact before I make a decision” (37-year-old nurse from Union Beach) “If they would just leave things alone, the way it is supposed to be […] Things get screwed up when man tries to fix things: should let nature take its course” (61-year-old chef from Laurence Harbor). Another theme was deference to experts. A 49-year-old accounting supervisor from Union Beach, when talking about the

154

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

Fig. 9. Justification themes given by residents of their preference of mitigation infrastructure: percentage of each study group that presented in that theme. LH: Laurence Harbor; UB: Union Beach.

relationship between the two types of infrastructure, spoke of decision-making processes and expressed her hope that the relationship between the engineered structures and natural features was considered during the design of the existing structures: “Think town would have done scientific research of how they work together and come up with a design for [the] jetty and wall […] the natural features already in the area were probably taken into consideration.” When asked about the benefits of the two infrastructure types on each other's functioning, she deferred to scientists: “Scientific people would have to determine the advantages.” And, when asked if was anything new she would like to see for Union Beach, she said she did have enough scientific knowledge: “I can't propose new project, I don't know enough about science and coastal waterways”. A few residents affirmed the significance of public perception of the engineered interventions. A 44-year-old city planner from Laurence Harbor recognized that having engineered structures can lead to a public perception that the area is being protected “[Groin gives a] perception that area is being taken care of.” Similarly, another Laurence Harbor resident avowed that the public perception of the engineered infrastructure aids in a feeling of safety: “Built structures provide comfort [to residents] […] make people feel more secure” (45year-old executive). A 65-year-old retired social worker from Union Beach, who believed the groin to serve no function in reducing coastal hazards, claimed: “I think it is just a "show piece", a very nice one, but that is all it is”. 4. Discussions Thematic content analysis of the interviews conducted with residents in Laurence Harbor and Union Beach reveal several similarities, as well as important differences, in their awareness and perceptions of coastal hazard mitigation infrastructure. Awareness of natural infrastructure was higher in Laurence Harbor, where wetlands are more physically obvious and discussions about wetlands have been prominent. In both towns, participants understood the functions of both natural and engineered infrastructure but had less understanding of their likely interactions mitigating coastal hazards. Existing research has found that past experience with hazards and severe weather events is associated with awareness of those hazards (Karrasch et al., 2014; Koutrakis et al., 2011; Roca and Villares, 2012; Tunstall, 2000). However, this study yielded the unexpected finding that participants from Union Beach had less

awareness of the mitigation infrastructure than participants from Laurence Harbor. This is surprising given the devastating impact of recent coastal storms in Union Beach, including Hurricane Sandy, the frequency of tidal flooding, and the recent announcement of an USACE flood mitigation project that has been under development for over a decade. The finding suggests that there are other determinants of awareness perhaps related to differences in local histories of political engagement concerning hazards and mitigation. Although the differences between the two towns indicate that experience may not wholly determine awareness, perceptions, and preferences, it does affect them. In explaining how they came to understand and think about the mitigation infrastructures in their communities, participants mentioned conditions and events that they have witnessed. Most participants in both communities perceived that their local revetment mitigates the effects of storms and reduces erosion. They differed in their perceptions of the groin's function in mitigating storm effects. Karrasch et al. (2014) found low awareness among sectorspecific stakeholders of the hazard mitigation functions of natural infrastructure. However, consistent with others' findings (Curado et al., 2014; Kim and Petrolia, 2013), the majority of participants in our study perceive wetlands in reducing impact from storms and flooding. This concurs with scientific knowledge. Regarding natural infrastructure, Laurence Harbor participants perceived it playing a larger role in mitigating hazards. Union Beach participants were mixed in their understanding of the role of the natural features. The wetland's functions in mitigating flooding and, to a lesser extent, mitigating the impacts of storms, were the only functions of natural infrastructure that most Union Beach participants recognized. Differences between Union Beach and Laurence Harbor residents' understanding of the mitigation functions of the dune/maritime forest systems in their areas might be attributable to the location of those systems and their experience of the specific coastal hazards. Residents from both towns perceived a synergistic relationship between natural and engineered infrastructure for reducing storm damage, but they differed in their perceptions of their effects on erosion and flooding. Despite this, and despite differences in understanding the role of the natural features, residents from both study groups supported utilizing both engineered and natural infrastructure to address coastal hazards. Mixed perceptions of Union Beach participants about the functions of the natural features did not influence their preference for using them. Half of all study participants preferred either natural infrastructure alone or in combination with engineered infrastructure. Boyer-Villemaire et al. (2014)’s research indicates that in communities where risk is salient and hazards understood, there might not be easily identifiable stakeholder consensus on what mitigation strategies should be undertaken. We have found that although all study participants supported utilizing both engineered and natural infrastructure in mitigating coastal hazards, there was no consensus on what should be done. There are location-specific preferences that result from different personal experiences of damage related to differences in local hazards. Touili et al. (2014) and Kane et al. (2014) found that stakeholders involved in management decisions can appreciate the impact of human activities, whether engineered infrastructure or interference with natural systems, as the main cause of damages from flood hazards. Our research expands and complements existing research about the preferences of residents by also presenting their perceptions of coastal infrastructure (Boyer-Villemaire et al., 2014; Friesinger and Bernatchez, 2010; Koutrakis et al., 2011). We have found that participants from two coastal communities with similar mitigation infrastructure, but with different experiences of coastal hazards, have different understandings of the potential effects that

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

engineered infrastructure has on the ability of natural systems to reduce the impact of coastal hazards. It has been found that preference for mitigation strategies result from consciousness of the threat from coastal hazards and from knowledge of mitigation strategies (Boyer-Villemaire et al., 2014). Awareness of mitigation strategies can come from residents' experiences of coastal hazards and from the existing mitigation infrastructure and strategies that they may observe in their community (Koutrakis et al., 2011). It has also been shown that stakeholder preferences for mitigation infrastructure are based on perceived benefits but that residents may not necessarily perceive the preferred infrastructure as being most effective in reducing coastal hazards (Karrasch et al., 2014; Curado et al., 2014; Roca and Villares, 2012; Khew et al., 2015; Cadag and Gaillard, 2012; Roca et al., 2011). We have found that ancillary benefits, such as provision of ecosystem services, recreation, and aesthetics, are important to the residents who participated in our study. More participants preferred either natural infrastructure or a combination of both engineered and natural infrastructure than engineered infrastructure alone, even though the majority of participants perceived engineered infrastructure as working better to reduce coastal hazards. Findings may be specific to these participants or to their communities and so cannot be readily generalized to other communities. This research did not explore if there are distinct typologies of perceptions of the ancillary benefits of the infrastructures, if the perceptions of these infrastructures have changed over time, or conditions that might lead to changes in perceptions. The study also did not aim to measure what people will actually support when given options. 5. Conclusions The study presented the individual awareness, perception and preference of coastal hazard mitigation infrastructure from a key stakeholder group, residents from coastal communities. This research is the first that we know of to explore residents' perceptions of the functions of both engineered and natural infrastructure, perceptions of their interactions, and preferences for using two types of infrastructure alone or in combination. This study has shown that the public's awareness and perceptions of mitigation infrastructure is location-specific and associated with their experiences with specific coastal hazards, which are not always presented in public forums, such as public hearings on proposed projects. Although all participants believed that both natural and built infrastructure can and should be used, they have a range of opinion and perspective about them. Residents may be receptive to coastal mitigation options that include both engineered and natural infrastructure. They have some basic understanding of the functions of both engineered and natural infrastructure and, when challenged, can think of them systematically and in relation to each other. Although it appeared that few residents sought detailed technical information, they were interested in learning about the benefits and drawbacks of various mitigation strategies using both types of infrastructure. This finding leaves us optimistic about the willingness of residents to consider these issues, and the potential for linking discussions about hazard mitigation to other community values, particularly to the ancillary benefits that residents may perceive are associated with natural infrastructure. Just as the success of any mitigation strategy using both natural and engineered is dependent on multiple variables such as coastal geography, so too are the perceptions of multitude of stakeholders involved in coastal governance. The themes identified in this study could be useful in generating more expansive quantitative studies

155

with representative samples of coastal residents. Studies could be done concerning the awareness, perceptions, and preferences of other governance actors, including local officials, business owners, and advocacy groups. Studies of residents living outside of the immediate coastal region could determine how their perceptions, understanding, and preferences compare to that of coastal residents. As the public costs of supporting infrastructure and services to hazardous coastal zones increase, perceptions and preferences of the broader public will likely become more important in determining the fate of coastal regions. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the residents of Laurence Harbor and Union Beach who volunteered their time to participate in this study. We would also like to thank Nancy Jackson, Ph.D., Maurie Cohen, Ph.D., and Karen Franck, Ph.D. of New Jersey Institute of Technology for their feedbacks on designing and executing the research, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments in improving the presentation quality of this research. The research was personally funded by the lead researcher who did not seek funding support from any public, commercial, or non-profit sectors. References Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Rockstrom, J., 2005. Socialecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309 (1036), 1036e1039. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1112122. Arkema, K.K., Guannel, G., Verutes, G., Wood, S.A., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Silver, J.M., 2013. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat. Clim. Change 3 (10), 913e918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate1944. Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E.W., Stier, A.C., Silliman, B.R., 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81 (2), 169e193. Boyer-Villemaire, U., Bernatchez, P., Benavente, J., Cooper, J.A.G., 2014. Quantifying community's functional awareness of coastal changes and hazards from citizen perception analysis in Canada, U.K. and Spain. Ocean Coast. Manag. 93, 106e120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.03.016. Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2), 77e101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Bridges, T.S., Burks-Copes, K.A., Bates, M.E., Collier, Z., Fischenich, C.J., Piercy, C.D., Suedel, B.C., 2015. Use of natural and nature-based features for coastal resilience. (ERDC SR-15e1). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Retrieved June, 2015 from. www.erdc.usace.army.mil. Cadag, J.R.D., Gaillard, J., 2012. Integrating knowledge and actions in disaster risk reduction: the contribution of participatory mapping. Area 44 (1), 100e109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01065.x. City-Data.com, 2016. Laurence harbor, N.J. Retrieved June 21, 2016 from. http:// www.city-data.com/. City-Data.com, 2016. Union beach, N.J. Retrieved June 21, 2016 from. http://www. city-data.com/. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc, URS Consultants, Inc., and T&M Associates, 1993. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey: Combined Flood Control and Shore Protection Reconnaissance Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY. Cooper, J.A.G., Mckenna, J., 2008. Working with natural processes: the challenge for coastal protection strategies. Geogr. J. 174 (4), 315e331. Curado, G., Manzano-Arrondo, V., Figueroa, E., Castillo, J.M., 2014. Public perceptions and uses of natural and restored salt marshes. Landsc. Res. 39 (6), 668e679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.772960. Dunn, K., 2010. Interviewing. In: Hay, I. (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Elo, S., Kyngas, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (1), 107e115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. Frazier, T.G., Wood, N., Yarnal, B., 2010. Stakeholder perspectives on land-use strategies for adapting to climate-change-enhanced coastal hazards: sarasota, Florida. Appl. Geogr. 30 (4), 506e517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.apgeog.2010.05.007. Friesinger, S., Bernatchez, P., 2010. Perceptions of Gulf of St. Lawrence coastal communities confronting environmental change: hazards and adaptation, bec, Canada. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53 (11), 669e678. http://dx.doi.org/ Que 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.09.001. Gedan, K.B., Kirwan, M.L., Wolanski, E., Barbier, E.B., Silliman, B.R., 2011. The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Clim. Change 106 (1), 7e29.

156

J.D.E. Gray et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 146 (2017) 144e156

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-0003-7. Kane, I.O., Vanderlinden, J.-P., Baztan, J., Touili, N., Claus, S., 2014. Communicating risk through a DSS: a coastal risk centred empirical analysis. Coast. Eng. 87, 240e248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014.01.007. Karrasch, L., Klenke, T., Woltjer, J., 2014. Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management: a planning approach. Land Use Policy 38, 522e532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2013.12.010. Khew, Y.T.J., Jarzebski, M.P., Dyah, F., Carlos, R.S., Gu, J., Esteban, M., Akiyama, T., 2015. Assessment of social perception on the contribution of hardinfrastructure for tsunami mitigation to coastal community resilience after the 2010 tsunami: greater Concepcion area, Chile. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 13, 324e333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.013. Kim, T.-G., Petrolia, D.R., 2013. Public perceptions of wetlands restoration benefits in Louisiana. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70 (5), 1045e1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/ fst026. Kochnower, D., Reddy, S.M.W., Flick, R.E., 2015. Factors influencing local decisions to use habitats to protect coastal communities from hazards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 116, 277e290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.021. Koutrakis, E., Sapounidis, A., Marzetti, S., Marin, V., Roussel, S., Martino, S., rez, C.G., 2011. ICZM and coastal defence perception by beach users: Malva lessons from the Mediterranean coastal area. Ocean Coast. Manag. 54 (11), 821e830. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.09.004. Merriam-Webster. Infrastructure. Retrieved March 14, 2014 from http://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infrastructure. Mustelin, J., Klein, R.G., Assaid, B., Sitari, T., Khamis, M., Mzee, A., Haji, T., 2010. Understanding current and future vulnerbaility in coastal settings: community perceptions and preferences for adaptation in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Popul. Environ. 31 (5), 371e398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0107-z. Myatt, L.B., Scrimshaw, M.D., Lester, J.N., 2003. Public perceptions and attitudes towards a forthcoming managed realignment scheme: freiston Shore, Lincolnshire, UK. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46 (6e7), 565e582. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00035-8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2014. NOAA's state of the coast. Retrieved April 2014 from. http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov. New York-New Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program, 2012. The state of the estuary 2012: environmental health and trends of the New York-New Jersey harbor & estuary. Retrieved June 2015 from New York, NY. www.harborestuary.org. Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Vries, W.S.d., Parker, D.J., Zanuttigh, B., Simmonds, D., Trifonova, E., Bouma, T., 2014. Innovation in coastal risk management: an exploratory analysis of risk governance issues at eight THESEUS study sites. Coast. Eng. 87, 210e217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.12.005. Roca, E., Villares, M., 2012. Public perceptions of managed realignment strategies: the case study of the Ebro Delta in the Mediterranean basin. Ocean Coast. Manag. 60, 38e47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.01.002. ndez, E., 2011. Social perception on conservation straRoca, E., Villares, M., Ferna tegies in the costa brava, Spain. J. Coast. Res. S1 (61), 205e210. Santha, S.D., Gahana, P., Aswic, V.S., 2014. Exploring risk, resistance and the power of myths among coastal fishing communities in Kerala, India. Nat. Resour. Forum 38 (2), 118e128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12041. Schultz, M.T., McKay, S.K., Hales, L.Z., 2012. The quantification and evolution of

resilience in integrated coastal systems. Retrieved June 25, 2015 from Washington, D.C. www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD¼ADA570387. Shepard, C.C., Crain, C.M., Beck, M.W., 2011. The protective role of coastal marshes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 6 (11), 1e11. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journalpone.0027374. Spalding, M.D., Ruffo, S., Lacambra, C., Meliane, I., Hale, L.Z., Shepard, C.C., Beck, M.W., 2014. The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 90, 50e57. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.09.007. Sutton-Grier, A.E., Wowka, K., Bamford, H., 2015. Future of our coasts: the potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and ecosystems. Environ. Sci. Policy 51, 137e148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.006. T & M Associates, 2014. Union beach Borough: strategic recovery planning report. Retrieved September 2015 from Middleton, NJ. http://www.ubnj.net/ubnj/News %20%26%20Announcements/Union%20Beach%20SRPR%20Adopted%2004% 2017%202014.pdf. Temmerman, S., Miere, P., Bouma, T.J., Herman, P.M.J., Ysebaert, T., DeVriend, H.J., 2013. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 504 (7478), 79e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12859. Torio, D.D., Chmura, G.L., 2013. Assessing coastal squeeze of tidal wetlands. J. Coast. Res. 29 (5), 1049e1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00162.1. Touili, N., Baztan, J., Vanderlinden, J.-P., Kane, I.O., Diaz-Simal, P., Pietrantoni, L., 2014. Public perception of engineering-based coastal flooding and erosion risk mitigation options: lessons from three European coastal settings. Coast. Eng. 87, 205e209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014.01.004. Tunstall, S., 2000. Public perceptions of the environmental change to the thames estuary. J. Coast. Res. 16 (2), 269e277. United States Army Corps of Engineers (New York District), 1960. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay New Jersey: Cooperative Beach Erosion and Interim Hurricane Study (Survey). U.S. Army Engineer District, Corps of Engineers. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2013a. Coastal risk reduction and resilience: using the full array of measures. (CWTS 2013-3). Washington, DC Retrieved November 19, 2016 from. http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/USACE_Coastal_ Risk_Reduction_final_CWTS_2013-3.pdf. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2013b. Hurricane Sandy coastal projects performance evaluation study: disaster relief appropriations act, 2013. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Retrieved June 2015 from. http://www. nan.usace.army.mil/Portals/37/docs/civilworks/SandyFiles/USACE_Post-Sandy_ Coastal_Projects_Performance_Evaluation_Study.pdf. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2014. Hudson-raritan estuary comprehensive restoration plan: potential restoration opportunities-project summary sheets: lower bay (draft). Retrieved June 2015 from. http://www.nan.usace. army.mil/Portals/37/docs/harbor/CRP%20Planning%20Regions/PR_Lower% 20Bay_8_2014.pdf. United States Army Corps of Engineers (New York District), 2016. Raritan bay and Sandy Hook bay, New Jersey hurricane Sandy limited reevaluation report for coastal storm risk management: union beach, New Jersey. Retrieved October 2016 from. http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Portals/37/docs/civilworks/ projects/nj/coast/UNBE/UnionBeachHSLRMainReport30Sept2016.pdf? ver¼2016-10-03-122425-800.