Collaboration and Co-Management Ahead of Permitting: Understanding How Actors and Their Interactions Lead to Non-Optimal Shoreline Projects

Living shorelines are widely promoted as nature-based solutions to coastal erosion and wetland protection, yet hardened shoreline structures continue to dominate even in jurisdictions with explicit policy mandates prioritizing living shorelines. In this research, we examine why non-optimal shoreline modification outcomes persist in Virginia (USA) despite a regulatory framework designed to promote ecological alternatives. We use primary data from interviews with wetlands board members, marine contractors, and nonprofit organizations and findings from a secondary survey of shoreline property owners to analyze shoreline management as a multi-sector collaborative decision-making process. Findings show that shoreline outcomes are shaped less by individual regulatory decisions than by recurrent interaction mechanisms across sectors that operate upstream of permit review. Contractors play a critical agenda-setting role by shaping the alternatives presented to property owners, while social norms, anticipatory adaptation to regulatory expectations, and informal decision heuristics constrain option sets before projects reach wetlands boards. Formal co-management institutions are therefore asked to arbitrate projects that are already highly constrained, limiting their ability to advance policy goals. Improving policy fidelity requires attention to decision sequencing, intermediary incentives, and structural feedback dynamics, rather than simply refining permitting guidance. Targeting upstream decision points and interaction mechanisms offers greater potential to align shoreline management outcomes with living shoreline policy objectives.