Resident and decision-maker perspectives on coastal erosion in Ventura Country, California

Perceptions of coastal erosion influence public support for adaptation and shape which adaptation options are considered preferable or feasible. However, governance challenges can arise when residents and decision-makers disagree on the causes, impacts, or preferred management approaches. This study examines resident and decision-maker perspectives in Ventura County, California—a region facing significant erosion and sea-level rise vulnerability and home to one of California's few successful managed retreat projects. We combine an exploratory resident survey (n = 90) with semi-structured interviews of 12 government and nonprofit decision-makers to ask: How do residents and decision-makers perceive the causes and impacts of erosion? What are residents' adaptation priorities? And to what extent do resident perceptions align with governance and physical realities? Results reveal key divergences. Surveyed residents view erosion as a future or externalized problem, attributing it primarily to storms and natural processes. In contrast, decision-makers characterize it as an urgent, ongoing crisis driven by the built environment, sediment-supply disruption, and coastal armoring. Both groups favor living shorelines and beach nourishment, but with different expectations: residents emphasize sandy beaches and access, while decision-makers prioritize habitat restoration and managed retreat. Decision-makers highlighted environmental justice concerns, noting that communities of color have received fewer planning resources despite facing disproportionate risks. These findings illustrate how divergent perceptions can complicate adaptation and underscore the value of public education and inclusive planning processes for building effective and equitable coastal management.