Co-developing Nature-based Solutions for Coastal Resilience: A Case Study from Refugio County, Texas

Co-developing Nature-based Solutions for Coastal Resilience: A Case Study from Refugio County, Texas | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Co-developing Nature-based Solutions for Coastal Resilience: A Case Study from Refugio County, Texas Arsum Pathak, Diana Del Angel, Christine Hale This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7489968/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 13 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Estuaries and Coasts → Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Rural coastal communities are increasingly vulnerable to climate-related hazards but often face barriers to implementing resilience strategies due to limited capacity, fragmented governance, and lack of tailored engagement approaches. This study presents a case from Refugio County, Texas, where a participatory action research (PAR) approach was used to co-develop Nature-based Solutions (NbS) with local stakeholders. Through transdisciplinary collaborations including community workshops, a bilingual public survey, and advisory group convenings, the project engaged residents, youth, local officials, and technical experts to identify key vulnerabilities, such as shoreline erosion, flooding, and degraded public outdoor spaces, and prioritized NbS projects that aligned with local values around safety, recreation, and habitat. The Black Point Living Shoreline emerged as the community’s top project, combining coastal protection with public access and ecological restoration. Barriers such as fragmented land ownership, short-term funding cycles, and limited rural staffing were addressed through enabling conditions like strong community leadership, supportive land context, and transdisciplinary collaboration. This paper documents key outcomes of the process, including enhanced community ownership, alignment with state planning frameworks, and strengthened local capacity for future implementation. Lessons from this case highlight the importance of long-term trust-building, tailored communication, and place-based strategies for co-producing actionable resilience solutions in low-capacity, high-risk settings. This project offers a replicable process model for empowering rural communities to lead their NbS planning and climate adaptation efforts. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Refugio County, a rural community on the mid-Texas Gulf Coast, faces chronic flooding, shoreline erosion, and limited public outdoor spaces that affect both community wellbeing and ecological health. Like many rural coastal counties, it has high exposure to climate risks but limited local capacity to plan for long-term resilience. To address these challenges, a transdisciplinary team bringing together the National Wildlife Federation, Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, and local leaders worked through a co-production process funded by the National Academies’ Gulf Research Program. Over a six-month period, the team convened an advisory group of local stakeholders, facilitated community workshops, and conducted a bilingual county-wide survey to identify vulnerabilities and prioritize Nature-based Solutions (NbS). By situating community priorities at the center of the planning process, the project illustrates how transdisciplinary collaboration can overcome barriers to implementation and create actionable, community-owned resilience strategies. This paper documents the co-production process, highlighting how co-production can engage diverse audiences, build local capacity, and translate community values into actionable NbS projects. We situate the case within broader literature on NbS and rural climate resilience, provide background on Refugio County, and describe the methods, outcomes, and lessons learned. We conclude with key recommendations for applying similar approaches in other rural coastal settings facing high risks and limited capacity. 3.1. Green/Blue Spaces for Communities & Nature-based Solutions Natural and green spaces such as parks, gardens, and woodlands play a vital role in supporting individual and community wellbeing. Research shows these areas promote physical health by encouraging exercise, reducing obesity risks, lowering cardiovascular disease, and regulating air quality and urban heat (Larson et al., 2016 ; McCormack et al., 2010 ). Green spaces also offer profound psychological benefits, from lowering stress and rumination to reducing depression symptoms and enhancing mood and cognitive function (Bratman et al., 2015 ; Alcock et al., 2014 ; Keniger et al., 2013 ). Importantly, these spaces foster social wellbeing: they act as social infrastructure that brings neighbors together, builds social ties, and strengthens feelings of cohesion and belonging (Zahnow, 2024 ; Kaźmierczak, 2013 ). Well-designed and accessible parks are linked to stronger community attachment, which in turn supports civic participation and stewardship of local environments (Arnberger & Eder, 2012 ). Attributes such as safety, maintenance, aesthetics, and amenities like seating or playgrounds all shape how often and meaningfully people use parks, influencing their ability to deliver these benefits (McCormack et al., 2010 ).Similarly, blue spaces—areas with access to water like rivers, lakes, and coasts—offer distinct health and wellbeing benefits. They support activities such as recreational fishing, which is linked to reduced stress, improved sleep, and increased seafood consumption (Pita et al., 2022 ). Proximity to water also fosters calm, mental restoration, and a stronger sense of place (White et al., 2020 ). These benefits vary by community, shaped by cultural ties to land and water and the social meanings of shared spaces (Evans et al., 2022 ). Locally informed planning can help ensure blue and green spaces are inclusive and aligned with community values. In addition, protection, restoration and enhancement of green/blue spaces can contribute to local resilience by helping mitigate the effects of climatic stressors and environmental changes. Green infrastructure for climate mitigation spans a spectrum from natural to green (soft and hybrid) to gray features (Morris et al., 2018 ), and can be implemented at landscape, community, or site scales (Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013 ). Natural features evolve through biological, geological, or chemical processes over time, while nature-based features are intentionally designed and engineered to replicate the functions of natural systems (Bridges et al., 2015 ). Examples of natural features include existing habitats such as coastal forests, wetlands, and preserved natural areas. These habitats not only hold ecological value like providing nursery grounds for marine species (Lefcheck et al., 2019 ) but also help reduce storm surge and coastal erosion (Rezaie et al., 2020 ; Barbier et al., 2013; Narayan et al., 2016 ; Shepard et al., 2011 ; Gracia et al., 2018 ). Protecting natural areas like wetlands and forests can improve coastal water quality by lowering nitrogen runoff (Berg et al., 2016 ). Integrating green infrastructure into community planning strengthens resilience (Powell et al., 2019 ) and helps growing communities maintain both the quality and quantity of their green spaces (Lynch, 2016 ). However, despite these benefits, many development plans lack the coordination and strategic vision needed to effectively preserve and expand green infrastructure (Woodruff et al., 2020 ). 3.2. Engaging Communities in Place-Based Planning Understanding community values and sense of place is essential for developing community-based projects, particularly those involving changes to landscapes or shared community spaces like parks and natural areas. Sense of place is broadly described as emotional connections people form with locations that help people interpret their embeddedness in the world, shaping how they perceive and respond to environmental change (Azaryahu, 2009; Evans et al., 2022 ). Integrating these place-based meanings into planning can guide visions for landscape change that resonate with community identities, heritage narratives, and local aspirations (Stewart et al., 2004 ). Doing so requires participatory and transdisciplinary approaches that move beyond disciplinary silos and embrace collaborative processes involving residents, researchers, and practitioners (NASEM, 2004 ; Stokols, 2006 ). Such approaches facilitate social learning, where individuals and communities engage in iterative reflection, dialogue, and mutual knowledge creation, ultimately leading to changes in understanding and behavior (Reed et al., 2010 ; Keen et al., 2010 ; Tromp, 2018 ). Participatory research ensures that community knowledge is integral to decision-making, fostering trust, reciprocity, and joint action toward shared visions (Weddle & Oliveira, 2024 ). In this way, incorporating local knowledge and sense of place through transdisciplinary processes strengthens planning by aligning it with community values, enhancing both the relevance and legitimacy of resulting plans, projects and community policies. Co-production of knowledge is increasingly recognized as a critical approach to producing actionable science, especially in the context of climate adaptation and NbS (Beier et al., 2017 ). This approach emphasizes shared power, mutual learning, and relevance to decision-making, which is especially important in rural, under-resourced communities that are often excluded from traditional planning processes. One type of transdisciplinary co-production is Participatory Action Research (PAR). PAR is a collaborative, iterative research approach that centers the experiences and knowledge of communities facing real-world issues. It is designed not only to generate academic knowledge but also to co-produce knowledge for action and knowledge through action that supports community-driven change (Cornish et al., 2023 ). Unlike traditional top-down research, PAR is non-linear and flexible. It follows a cyclical process of identifying a shared issue, observing and generating data, collaboratively analyzing results, and developing and implementing actions. Further, PAR does not prescribe specific methods for data collection; instead, methods are co-developed based on the community context and goals (Cornish et al., 2023 ). PAR is especially valuable for addressing complex, place-based challenges such as climate resilience and the equitable use of natural resources because it ensures that the solutions are rooted in the lived realities and priorities of those most affected. PAR's bottom-up nature makes it uniquely suited to help communities define and act on their own environmental priorities, including NbS, land use planning, and disaster risk reduction (Mach et al., 2020 ). 3.3. Refugio County: Context and Background Refugio County is a rural county on the mid-Texas Gulf Coast with approximately 7,000 residents (Fig. 1 ). It encompasses several small towns (Refugio, Woodsboro, Bayside, Austwell) and extensive coastal wetlands along Mission Bay, Copano Bay, and Hynes Bay. Refugio County, settled by Irish immigrants under Mexican land grants in the 1830s and 1840s, has a history deeply tied to large landholdings and the challenges of harsh coastal environments with limited freshwater. Its economy has long depended on agriculture, ranching, oil and gas, and the rich wetlands that support fishing and tourism (King, 2002 ). The county's low-lying topography, extensive coastline, and reliance on coastal resources render it particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change, including recurrent flooding, shoreline erosion, and saltwater intrusion. Eleven percent of the County is within the Flood Hazard Zone; particularly vulnerable are the Town of Refugio and Bayside (Del Angel et al., 2022 ) and Refugio County faces higher than average threats to climate-induced sea level rise, further exacerbated by its demographic challenges, including a declining population with higher rates of older and unemployed residents, a high immigrant Hispanic population, and a natural-resource-dependent economy (NOAA, 2021). Like many small, rural communities in the region, Refugio County faces unique challenges related to limited local capacity and fragmented resources for climate adaptation planning (Wowk, 2023). The community's strong connection to its natural environment, deeply rooted in its cultural heritage and economic activities such as fishing and tourism, underscores the importance of locally relevant and sustainable resilience strategies. The natural features of Refugio County play a dual role of supporting the local fishing and tourism-based economy while reducing vulnerability due to their protective benefits. Recognizing both the risks and opportunities in this setting, our team partnered with the community to co-produce locally driven resilience strategies that reflect their priorities and lived experience. The goals and objectives of this project, "Co-developing Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation in Rural Coastal Communities: Case of Refugio County, Texas " were to explore how a co-production approach could empower local stakeholders to identify, prioritize, and co-design NbS that address their specific vulnerabilities while leveraging the inherent value of their natural assets. The county's characteristics make it highly representative of numerous other rural coastal communities grappling with similar environmental and socio-economic pressures, offering valuable lessons for broader application. Methods 4.1. Study Design and Transdisciplinary Approach The project " Co-developing Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation in Rural Coastal Communities: Case of Refugio County, Texas " was supported by a $ 100,000 planning grant by the Gulf Research Program of the National Academies of Sciences to support community-driven planning for Nature-based Solutions that address climate-related hazards (NASEM, 2022). The project followed a participatory action research (PAR) approach informed by the co-production framework outlined by Beier et al. ( 2017 ), who emphasize the importance of starting with user needs, iterative engagement, and shared ownership of both process and outcomes. Consistent with these principles, we designed the engagement process to identify locally relevant decisions around flooding and shoreline erosion, iteratively engage community members through workshops and advisory meetings, and co-develop NbS concepts aligned with community priorities and state planning frameworks. In this six-month project (Fig. 2 ), two workshops provided a forum and co-learning space for qualitative, in-depth exploration of local knowledge, values, and concerns, fostering dialogue and co-design of solutions (Reed et al., 2010 ; van der Jagt et al., 2019 ; Soini et al., 2023 ). One community survey allowed for broader quantitative validation of community values related to the natural environment, issues of concern, ecosystem services, and identification of widespread perceptions of the status and possible solutions for accessible natural areas (Bressane et al., 2024 ; Sankireddy et al., 2025 ; Raymond et al., 2009 ; Unegbu et al., 2024 ). This combination of participatory processes and survey data strengthened the credibility of the findings and ensured that the co-produced solutions reflected both local expertise and broader community priorities. In addition to the community-facing engagements, the project design also included internal coordination and foundational work among the core project team members, recognizing that meaningful co-production relies on extensive behind-the-scenes planning, relationship-building, and synthesis in addition to visible participatory events. 4.2. Foundational and Coordinating Activities Prior to and between the workshops and survey, the transdisciplinary core team conducted coordination and background activities that were crucial to enabling the co-production process. These included: Project coordination The project was led by a transdisciplinary core team including NWF staff (climate adaptation, community outreach), HRI researchers (coastal ecology, social science), Refugio County officials (the county judge and Community Development Foundation staff), and the county’s consulting firm, Santos McBain, providing on-the-ground knowledge and leadership. Members were selected for complementary expertise and established community relationships, ensuring the effort was both scientifically robust and locally grounded. This blend of technical, facilitation, and community knowledge was central to the project’s success (DeLorme et al., 2016 ). Advisory Group Formation The transdisciplinary core team recruited an advisory group by leveraging local networks and public outreach, ensuring diverse representation from long-term residents, local leaders, resource managers, landowners, and youth (Heikkinen, 2022 ; Kelliher et al., 2018 ). Members included Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program, NRCS, and Mission-Aransas NERR for environmental expertise; Anchor QEA for technical input; Woodsboro High School students for youth perspectives; and public sector representatives from Austwell Town Council, Refugio County Community Development Foundation, and Coastal Bend Regional Resilience Partnership. This intentional mix grounded the process in both scientific and lived knowledge (Wyborn et al., 2019 ). In total, ~ 20 individuals participated (13 advisory members, 7 core team), creating a robust network for co-production. 4.3. Workshops and Community Survey The process had three phases: two participatory workshops (Jan 27 and Apr 14, 2023) with a public survey in between. Workshops, structured but flexible, used interactive mapping, small-group discussions, and prioritization activities to identify local environmental concerns, map key public outdoor areas, brainstorm NbS, and build shared understanding of coastal resilience challenges and opportunities. Workshop 1 The first workshop, designed by the core project team, introduced climate risks and potential NbS for Refugio County. Its objectives were to build shared understanding of vulnerabilities and NbS, identify potential projects, and prioritize next steps. Participants were divided into small groups (3–4 plus a facilitator) and guided by worksheets from the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, along with large printed county maps (flood risk zones, income designations, disasters, protected areas, and land cover) see supplementary document). Groups identified and assessed NbS project options, outlined initial action steps, and reported back in a plenary session. Project ideas were captured on flip charts, and participants voted for their top three using stickers. In total, the advisory group (13 members) identified 11 NbS project ideas and prioritized three through a polling activity. Community Survey The survey instrument (see supplementary document) was designed as a self-administered questionnaire, made available via the online survey tool Qualtrics XM® (Babbie, 2016 ). Prior to the release of the survey, a pilot survey was conducted to test the validity and reliability of the survey instrument (Salant & Dillman, 1994 ). The pilot survey was distributed to the advisory group, who were instructed to take the survey and provide feedback to the core team about its functionality. The core team incorporated the feedback into a revised public survey that was then submitted to Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (TAMUCC) Office for Research Compliance for evaluation by the Institutional Review Board. The TAMUCC Institutional Review Board (IRB) found the survey to be in compliance with Human Subjects Research and exempt from full review (TAMU-CC-IRB-2022-0673). The survey instrument consisted of 13 multiple-choice and open-ended questions (10–15 minute). The survey gathered information on how residents of Refugio County use and value outdoor public spaces, including preferred natural features and amenities. It also explored concerns about environmental challenges and collected basic demographic data to better understand community perspectives.The survey used a convenience sample method, open to all who were willing to take the survey (Fink, 2013 ; Babbie, 2016 ). To ensure inclusivity, the survey was made available in both English and Spanish. Promotion efforts were undertaken by the advisory group, as well as staff from HRI, NWF, Santos McBain Consulting, and Refugio County leadership. Promotion was also carried out through the project website, HRI, and social media channels, as well as through the local newspaper, printed on March 24. The survey was further promoted at a booth during the Refugio County Fair held on Friday, March 26, and Saturday, March 27. Participants of the survey at the booth were compensated for their input with food vouchers redeemable at the fair. The presence and encouragement of a local champion from the core team (County Judge) helped in the collection of responses, which can be a challenge in small rural communities (Smyth et al., 2010 ). Workshop 2 The second workshop was designed to 1.) Develop an understanding of the pros and cons of the priority projects identified in Workshop 1, 2.) Understand and discuss community needs based on the public survey results, and 3.) Co-develop a plan for continued project sustainability and engagement. The workshop involved the presentation of material by the project core team and a facilitated discussion. The presentation focused on the priority project's conceptual design and a presentation of preliminary data from the community survey. To address sustainability, participants were asked whether they supported continuing the work into a Phase 2 proposal and how they or their organizations might stay engaged. Responses were gathered in real time using Mentimeter®. Facilitated discussions, led by core team members, encouraged participants to share their observations, concerns, and ideas regarding environmental changes and potential solutions. Data collection methods included detailed notes (taken by designated core team members who recorded key discussion points in real time), transcription of flip chart data, and collection of participant-generated maps and qualitative feedback. All participants were informed that the workshops were part of a research project and participation was entirely voluntary. 4.4. Data Analysis and Management Core team facilitators took structured notes during group discussions, which were summarized after each workshop and shared with participants to validate input and guide refinement. Survey data were analyzed in MAXQDA®: multiple-choice responses were autocoded, while open-ended responses were manually coded into “segments” clustered by shared words or meaning (Rädiker & Kuckartz, 2020 ). Both raw and coded survey data were archived in the GRIIDC open-access repository (Del Angel et al., 2025 ). Results 5.1. Key Workshop Findings The community workshops yielded rich qualitative data, revealing several overarching themes and a shared understanding of local environmental challenges and potential solutions. Participants consistently expressed significant concerns regarding the impacts of flooding and erosion on their homes, livelihoods, and access to important community areas. There was a strong emphasis on the degradation of natural habitats, particularly marshes and coastal wetlands, and the associated loss of ecosystem services such as fisheries and natural storm protection. Across the four breakout groups at Workshop 1, over a dozen project ideas were proposed, addressing issues from coastal erosion to inland flooding. After discussion and refinement, each group reported back their top ideas, and participants then voted to prioritize the projects. Figure 3 summarizes the results of the sticker-voting, highlighting the projects that rose to the top. Black Point Bayside Living Shoreline emerged as the top priority for the advisory group, receiving 10 votes (out of 11 participants voting). This concept involved constructing a living shoreline along the bayside shoreline near the community of Bayside (specifically at Black Point on Copano Bay) to address erosion and habitat loss while improving recreational access (e.g. with trails or a boardwalk). The Black Point project’s strong support reflected a convergence of interests: it would protect a vulnerable stretch of bay shore (important for hazard mitigation) and enhance a popular waterfront spot for fishing, birding, and tourism. Participants noted this site’s visibility and public accessibility as advantages, and that such a project could provide ecological benefits (wetland restoration) alongside community benefits (recreation, education). The second-highest priority was North Woodsboro Drainage Green Infrastructure (7/13 votes). This concept focused on the town of Woodsboro, proposing to alleviate chronic flooding in the north side of town by creating retention capacity (for example, converting a portion of a school football field into a dual-use retention basin and park) and installing green infrastructure like rain gardens. This project responded to known inland flood issues and water quality concerns. However, in discussion it was flagged that key land needed for this project was privately owned, and there had been past reluctance from landowners, which could pose a barrier. This consideration later influenced the decision to deprioritize this idea. Tied for third in the voting were two projects with 5 votes each: the Mission River Living Shoreline Restoration, aimed at reducing erosion and improving water quality through riparian restoration and landowner engagement; and the East Refugio Nature-Based Stormwater Management project, which targeted urban flooding and runoff through green infrastructure and wetland enhancement. Other ideas, such as Hynes Bay habitat restoration, boat ramp improvements at Black Point, and flood mitigation in Bayside, received fewer votes. Some participants also proposed policy updates and levee removal. Overall, projects tied to bays and waterways gained the most support, reflecting community priorities. Following the workshop, the team selected the top three projects, Black Point, Mission River, and East Refugio, for further development, while pausing the Woodsboro project due to land access challenges. The voting results show a notable pattern: projects located in the Bayside area or along major waterways were most favored by the group, consistent with the community’s affinity for the bays and rivers. Meanwhile, purely inland projects without a water component garnered less enthusiasm, except where linked to pressing local flood issues. In Workshop 2, the core team moved the Black Point project idea forward, having the highest community support, to a preliminary design stage: approximately 600 linear feet of rock sill and oyster reef breakwaters along the eroding shoreline at Black Point, paired with marsh plantings to restore wetland habitat. The design also incorporated recreational enhancements, a boardwalk/trail along the shore and improved fishing access, reflecting the community’s desires from survey findings (section 5.2 ). The project was described as a multi-benefit solution: it would reduce wave erosion and storm surge impact on the Bayside shoreline (hazard mitigation), protect and expand coastal marshes (ecosystem benefit), and provide a park-like amenity for residents and visitors (community benefit). Importantly, it also aligned with a priority identified in the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan (TCRMP), the state’s resilience plan (Texas General Land Office, 2023 ), potentially aiding future funding. At Workshop 2, advisory group members reacted positively to the Black Point proposal. Many noted that it “hits the sweet spot” between risk reduction and recreation, aligning well with the survey findings about what people value. The group also brainstormed on community engagement strategies moving forward, such as organizing volunteer planting days or integrating the project with school curriculum, to keep momentum and local support high. The core team, with Advisory input, mapped out next steps including conducting an additional community survey focused on Black Point design preferences, continuing outreach to key stakeholders, and preparing a funding application for implementation. If funded, all advisory group members indicated interest in staying involved as the project moves into detailed design and implementation, with many expressing particular interest in helping with continued stakeholder outreach and education efforts. 5.2. Key Survey Findings The following section provides a summary of survey responses (please see supplementary information for data and charts). A total of 139 responses were collected. Most of the responses were collected during March 20th – April 2nd 2023. These dates correspond to the Refugio County Fair. The data were cleaned to remove potentially illegitimate (e.g. internet “bots”) and incomplete responses. Test responses and responses that had less than 20% progress or took less than a minute to complete were removed, leaving 113 responses for analysis. This sample size yields a 6% margin of error at an 80% confidence level for the county’s adult population of 5,213 (Census Quick Facts, see Supplementary Material for demographics). 5.2.1 Important Outdoor Areas and Use of the Environment in Refugio County Survey responses from Refugio County residents revealed a strong appreciation for outdoor spaces, particularly parks and waterfront areas. Parks were the most frequently mentioned, cited in 41% of responses, while sports fields and tracks were also valued, especially by families. Waterfront locations such as Bayside, Mission River, and various piers and boat ramps were highlighted, indicating the community’s deep connection to water-based recreation. When asked about natural features, participants showed a clear preference for water-related environments: rivers and streams (75%), bays (62%), beaches (59%), and open ocean (56%) were most valued. Native vegetation and brush country were also appreciated by over 40% of respondents. Outdoor spaces were used for a variety of activities, with socializing (59%), exercise (50%), and fishing (44%) being the most common. Other uses included pet walking, team sports, and solitude. Amenities were found to be crucial for enhancing outdoor experiences. Trees and cleanliness were rated very important by 80% of respondents, followed closely by shade (78%) and free access (67%). Safety, picnic areas, and accessibility were also emphasized as key features. Table 1 Key Survey Findings on Outdoor Spaces in Refugio County. Question Key Findings Respondents Important Outdoor Areas (open ended) Parks (41%), sports fields (8%), waterfront areas (Bayside, Mission River, etc.) 90 Valued Natural Features Rivers/streams (75%), bays (62%), beaches (59%), open ocean (56%) 112 Use of Outdoor Spaces Socializing (59%), exercise (50%), fishing (44%), solitude, pet walking 112 Important Amenities Trees & cleanliness (80%), shade (78%), free access (67%), safety, accessibility 112 5.2.3. Concerns with the environment and solutions Residents of Refugio County expressed strong concern about environmental challenges, with drought being the most pressing issue, cited by 76% of respondents. Severe storms and wildfires were each mentioned by 56%, while flooding was noted by 54%. These concerns reflect the community’s vulnerability to climate-related hazards and the need for proactive planning. In addition to the structured responses, 76 participants provided open-ended comments, resulting in 88 coded segments. The most frequent concerns included cleanliness and maintenance of outdoor spaces (15%), lack of parks and facilities, and degraded amenities. Safety, environmental degradation, and wildlife issues were also mentioned. Many respondents expressed a desire for better-maintained, family-friendly spaces and felt that local officials have not prioritized outdoor recreation infrastructure. When asked about solutions to reduce risks and hazards, 77 participants responded, with 37 coded segments categorized into eight themes. The most common suggestions focused on improving amenities and enforcement, each accounting for 19% of responses. Other notable themes included maintenance, education, and environmental restoration (each 12%). Respondents emphasized the need for better boat access, trash management, invasive species removal, and building codes. There was also a call for community involvement, safety measures for children, and NbS to address flooding and water quality. Transparency and access to resources like grants were also highlighted. Table 2 Key Survey Findings on Environmental Concerns and Community Solutions in Refugio County. Question Key Findings Respondents Environmental Concerns Drought (76%), Storms & Wildfires (56%), Flooding (54%) 108 Additional concerns (open ended) Cleanliness (15%), Lack of parks, Degraded amenities, Safety 76 Community Solutions (open ended) Improved amenities & enforcement (19% each), Maintenance, Education, Restoration (12% each) 77 Iterative Planning and Project Refinement : Between workshops, the core team synthesized Workshop 1 outcomes and planned next steps. Top-ranked NbS ideas were reviewed for feasibility, funding alignment, and consistency with local plans. The team advanced the three highest-priority projects, setting aside a proposed North Woodsboro green infrastructure effort - despite strong support - due to likely landowner challenges within the project timeframe. Black Point was seen to “tick the boxes” for many of the survey-identified priorities as well: being on the water (rivers/bays), offering recreation (fishing, trails), and contributing to hazard reduction (shoreline protection). Discussion In summary, the co-production process yielded a clear outcome: a nature-based living shoreline project that was chosen by the community and refined through their input. The selected Black Point NBS project directly responds to the community’s top concerns (it will help mitigate storm impacts and erosion) and desires (it will create a recreational waterfront space with natural habitat). The workshops not only identified this project but also fostered local champions and detailed ideas to facilitate its implementation. A high school student, part of the advisory group, noted the impact of this work, stating, "I have never heard adults in my community come together and talk about these issues this way." A central achievement of this co-production process was the alignment of the selected nature-based project with community values and needs as expressed through the survey and by the advisory group workshops. From the outset, our co-production process sought to ensure the NbS would not be a top-down imposition, but rather a solution emerging from local priorities. The survey and workshop results clearly shaped the Black Point Living Shoreline concept. The survey highlighted the importance of public spaces like parks and accessible waterfronts for activities such as socializing, exercise, fishing, and solitude. Areas near bays and rivers were especially valued. The selected project supports these community priorities, with considerations such as adding shade and improving cleanliness (e.g., trash cans) to enhance the experience at this location. One example of incorporating community values into NbS design is the emphasis on recreation and education in the Black Point project. Workshop participants felt strongly that the project should provide direct community benefits like fishing access, bird-watching, and educational opportunities. In response, the subsequent design included a boardwalk and pier for fishing, signage about local ecology, and partnerships with a nearby estuarine reserve to host student field trips at the site. Such multi-functionality is a hallmark of successful NbS, and it was achieved here by heeding local voices. As one advisory member put it during discussion, “If we’re doing this for the community, it’s got to be a place the community actually wants to go to”, underscoring that community buy-in is tied to visible community benefits. Indeed, aligning the project with local values is not just a “nice to have” – it is strategically important for long-term stewardship. Because residents see their priorities reflected in the project, they are more likely to support it, advocate for funding, and even participate in its maintenance (e.g. volunteer marsh planting or cleanup events) (Campbell et al., 2024 ; Weddle & Oliveira, 2024 ). The co-production process revealed that beyond environmental concerns (drought, storms), the Refugio community valued safety, enforcement, and improved amenities - insights a top-down approach might have missed. As illustrated by Gladwell’s The Tipping Point (2000) and the “Broken Windows Theory,” small changes in the physical environment, such as maintaining cleanliness and enforcing rules, can significantly shift community behavior and pride. Similarly, the survey showed that while residents had safety concerns, they also offered solutions through implementation and long-term stewardship of their selected NbS. Another benefit of the co-production process was enhancing local capacity and knowledge exchange. As the project was co-designed, advisory group members gained understanding of NbS design considerations (e.g. appropriate materials for a living shoreline, regulatory permitting steps), and conversely, some members of the core team gained understanding of on-the-ground local dynamics (e.g. which fishing spots are most used, which areas flood whenever it rains, where public safety concerns were). This two-way knowledge exchange improved the project’s quality and appropriateness and seeded a sense of local ownership, a sign that the co-production process helped transform a theoretical idea into a shared community endeavor. 6.1. Barriers to Implementation Despite the successes, the project team encountered several challenges and potential barriers in co-producing and implementing the NbS, many of which are instructive for similar efforts: 6.1.1. Limited Access and Engagement in Rural, Privately Owned Landscapes : A number of proposed project ideas involved private lands or multiple jurisdictions, raising questions about permissions and long-term management. In rural areas like Refugio County, large portions of land (99.4%) including riverbanks and undeveloped coast are privately owned, often by ranchers or absentee owners (Headwater Economics, 2024). Limited broadband and cell coverage in parts of the county further complicate communication, especially in more remote areas (Whitacre et al., 2014 ). These challenges are compounded by a history of surface-level or one-off engagement in rural places, which can lead to skepticism about outside efforts (Cornish et al., 2023 ). Similarly, while broader resilience networks and peer institutions may offer valuable support, they are not always easily visible or accessible to rural actors. Co-production and trust building takes time (Wyborn et al., 2019 ), but short planning timelines and limited in-county networks can make early outreach difficult. 6.2.2. Piecemeal Funding Does Not Align Well with Long-Term Planning and Implementation : NbS, by design, are intended to provide sustained benefits over extended periods, often decades or centuries with a wide array of co-benefits that accrue over time. For example, fully restoring the Mission River corridor would be a multi-year effort involving many landowners and considerable funds. However, many funding programs operate on shorter cycles (e.g., 2–5 years), creating a temporal misalignment that hinders continuous funding for monitoring, adaptive management, and long-term maintenance (Browder et al., 2019 ; Wyborn et al., 2019 ). 6.3.3. Turnover in Elected Officials Affects the Success/Failure of Plans/Actions: Changes in political leadership can lead to shifts in priorities, funding allocations, and even the abandonment of previously approved plans, creating instability for multi-year NbS projects that require consistent political and financial backing. This highlights the critical importance of embedding these initiatives within community will and non-governmental structures to ensure continuity and sustained momentum. To mitigate this, successful resilience efforts must cultivate strong community champions and foster a deep sense of ownership and responsibility within local stakeholders (FEMA, 2023). When initiatives are championed by the community, they are more likely to persist and attract support regardless of political changes, ensuring that commitment to relationships extends beyond the political sphere. 6.4.4. Limited Local Capacity in Rural Areas : Small, rural communities often face significant limitations in technical expertise, staffing, and financial resources, which impedes their ability to develop and implement complex NbS projects (Wowk et al., 2023 ). Refugio County’s government has no environmental department, for instance, and its narrow tax base covers only essentials like roads, utilities, and governance. This means there is little to no flexibility to dedicate local funds for matching requirements on state or federal grants, which immediately places these communities at a disadvantage when competing for resilience dollars. This low capacity is not merely a resource deficit but a systemic barrier to equitable climate adaptation, exacerbating existing inequities (Arnold et al., 2020 ). These communities may struggle to apply for competitive grants, manage complex contracts, or effectively monitor project performance. Moreover, these constraints limit a community’s ability to participate as equal partners in co-production. During the project, challenges emerged such as navigating regulatory questions (e.g. permitting), and unfamiliarity with climate planning concepts and technical language. Bridging this gap required rethinking how information was framed and delivered. This requires more than just direct funding; it necessitates having external partners or regional expertise engaged to support rural communities in addition to targeted capacity building, technical assistance, and the fostering of peer-to-peer learning networks that empower communities to lead their own resilience efforts, rather than being passive recipients of external interventions (Williams, 2020 ). 6.2. Key Enabling Conditions for Success While these barriers posed real challenges, the project also revealed a number of enabling conditions, both planned and emergent, that supported progress and offered lessons for future efforts. The following section outlines these conditions, many of which correspond directly to the barriers described above. 6.2.1. Supportive Land Context and Stakeholder Readiness : Though not often celebrated, choosing the right site, county-owned land at Black Point, was a quiet but essential enabler. In contrast to projects that stalled due to private landowner resistance, this project avoided early roadblocks by aligning with accessible, publicly managed land. Additionally, adjacent landowners were proactively included, preventing backlash. This demonstrates that enabling conditions are not only about people or policies, but also about making practical choices that match the local context. 6.2.2. Alignment with State Plans and Funding Frameworks : A critical enabling factor for success was the project’s alignment with broader state-level initiatives such as the TCRMP, the State Hazard Mitigation Plan and Texas Parks and Wildlife’s Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan. The potential to integrate the Refugio County co-produced strategies into TCRMP lent credibility, helped frame the work within a larger policy context, and opened doors for future funding and visibility. It can catalyze additional investment by showing funders that the work is not isolated but part of a strategic continuum. This alignment enables local priorities to scale, while also allowing larger plans to be grounded in lived experience. However, to preserve local autonomy and ensure nuanced priorities are not diluted, it is essential that integration into regional plans comes with mechanisms for community feedback and adaptive governance. 6.2.3 Sustained Engagement for Lasting Impact : Sustained engagement, trust, and ownership were central to the project’s success, helping maintain continuity through local champions despite shifts in elected leadership. This intrinsic motivation fostered ongoing participation, volunteerism, and advocacy beyond the project’s six-month timeline, including collaborations on subsequent funding proposals. While participatory approaches can be tokenistic, genuine co-production requires co-governance, where agencies and grassroots groups share decision-making authority to ensure equitable distribution of NbS benefits (Williams, 2020 ; Arnold et al., 2020 ). The project prioritized community engagement at every step—meeting people where they are through bilingual materials, presence at local events like the county fair, and iterative incorporation of feedback. Such efforts are essential in participatory action research, where sustained interaction maintains trust, strengthens adaptive capacity, and supports resilience in shifting socio-political contexts (Cornish et al., 2023 ). 6.2.4. Capacity Building Through Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Communication : A core enabling condition for the project’s success was the formation of a transdisciplinary team that brought together national NGOs, academic researchers, local government, consultants, and community members from the outset. This collaborative structure went beyond multidisciplinary coordination; by integrating scientific, practical, and place-based knowledge systems, it allowed the team to co-define problems, co-develop solutions, and continuously align research with on-the-ground needs. Complex socio-ecological challenges like coastal resilience require this kind of systems-level thinking; no single discipline or actor can adequately address them alone (DeLorme et al., 2016 ; NASEM, 2004 ; Stokols 2006 ). The team’s diverse expertise and shared commitment to co-production fostered trust, improved communication, and ensured that project outcomes were technically sound, locally relevant and actionable. Lastly, this effort was supported by a unique planning grant that prioritized relationship-building unlike many funding opportunities that emphasize research results, construction, or other tangible deliverables that can divert attention from collaboration and trust-building. 6.2.5. Local Champion(s) – A Team of Champions! Having respected local figures integrally involved provided credibility and convening power (Knight et al., 2010 ; Kochnower et al., 2015 ). In this case, the active participation of the Refugio County Judge (Robert Blaschke) and leaders of the Refugio Community Development Foundation was instrumental. Their presence signaled that this project was a community priority, not an external agenda. It opened doors to networks of residents who might otherwise be hard to reach, as people were more receptive and open to their known networks. For example, through the judge’s connections, the team was able to engage the superintendents of the local school districts, leading to outreach with high school students. This underlines the importance of leveraging existing community networks and trust. Community champions helped bridge trust gaps in many parts of the county, though deeper engagement is still needed to fully reach marginalized groups. 6.3. Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Co-Producing NbS in Rural Coastal Contexts The Refugio County project surfaced a number of valuable lessons for those seeking to co-produce NbS in small, rural, and climate-vulnerable communities. Many of these lessons align with the ten recommended practices for co-production outlined by Beier et al. ( 2017 ), including beginning with a decision context (e.g., how to manage shoreline erosion in a public access site), maintaining iterative engagement, and embedding trust-building throughout the process. While the project was not explicitly framed using their framework from the outset, retrospective alignment shows that these principles were organically adopted, particularly in areas such as creating user-relevant outputs, managing expectations, and supporting long-term community ownership. Table 2 illustrates how these lessons intersect with the barriers encountered and the enabling conditions that allowed the project to succeed to guide future efforts. 6.3.1. Centering Process, Not Just Products One of the clearest lessons was the process of building relationships. Listening, convening, and iterating with the community was as important as the final list of project priorities. In rural settings especially, legitimacy and trust come from being visible, responsive, and consistent over time. The project team’s emphasis on “meeting people where they are” including bilingual outreach, local event presence, and feedback loops (e.g., returning to the advisory group with findings, draft ideas, or updates, and then inviting their reactions before moving forward) showed that sustained engagement fosters lasting ownership. An unexpected effective strategy was offering survey participants a ticket to a local burger stall at the county fair. Rather than a generic gift card, this choice reflected local culture and created a sense of appreciation and community. The co-production process led to a deepened understanding of local resilience priorities, increased trust among stakeholders, and co-created tools (e.g., visual maps and project matrices). These intermediate “wins” often lead to new knowledge generation, broadened issue awareness, and increased participant capacity (Wyborn et al., 2019 ). Projects that rush to outcomes without investing in community processes risk short-lived or unsupported solutions. When planning or proposing co-production projects, this is where project leads must consider time and effort in meaningfully carrying out the co-production process, and that must be reflected in planning the timeline and budget, as well as in ensuring co-production expertise is present on the project team. 6.3.2. Communication Must Be Relatable and Values-Based In rural, low-capacity settings like Refugio County, communication barriers can limit understanding and reduce participation, especially when technical language is used or climate concepts feel disconnected from daily life. This challenge underscored the importance of using relatable, values-based messaging. Having a transdisciplinary team and local champions helped bridge this gap by translating environmental goals into plainspoken, bilingual language grounded in community values like family, fishing, and heritage. The use of visuals, maps, and stories enabled people to see themselves in the work. This experience reinforced that effective NbS planning is not just about technical design, but also about communication strategy: projects must be communicated in ways that resonate emotionally and culturally. Doing so builds trust and deepens community investment in long-term resilience. 6.3.3. Equity Requires More Than Good Intentions In any rural NbS effort, identifying and involving local champions (be they officials, elders, or community advocates) early on can significantly enhance participation and buy-in. While the project made strong efforts to engage diverse voices through bilingual materials, accessible locations, and trusted local messengers, certain populations remained hard to reach, particularly migrant workers and recent immigrants. Despite intentional strategies, the team was not able to fully connect with this group, which underscores the deeper structural and cultural barriers that exist in many rural communities. This reveals a critical equity lesson: inclusion efforts must be tailored, persistent, and sometimes reimagined entirely. In rural areas where reliance on social media may be low and trust is built through personal presence, equity requires being on the ground. Reaching migrant populations may require working through entirely different networks (e.g., faith-based groups, employers, or health workers) and investing long-term in relationship-building. Future phases must explore more culturally relevant, trust-based approaches to include dedicated local staff and sustained community presence, ensuring that the most vulnerable are not left out of decision-making. 6.3.4. Replicability Lies in the Approach, Not the Details Although the specific flooding challenges and project ideas in Refugio County were place-based, the collaborative approach is transferable. Co-producing NbS through transdisciplinary teams, ongoing dialogue, and community leadership offers a scalable model for other rural areas facing similar risks. The lesson here is not to copy projects, but to build capacity and support processes that allow communities to generate their own solutions grounded in local knowledge and context. To understand how this approach can inform future resilience efforts, we assessed our process against the NOAA RESTORE Science Program’s four-phase co-production framework. [1]Table 1 summarizes how each co-production stage of the framework (scoping, design, research and development, transfer and application) was operationalized in this project. 6.3.5. Tap Early into Existing Networks for Strategic Alignment A missed opportunity identified by the team was the delayed engagement of established resilience networks (like the Sea Grant Resilience Community of Practice). These groups offer peer learning, technical tools, and policy leverage that can strengthen projects and reduce duplication. Tapping into existing groups, rather than building entirely new ones, can enhance coordination, avoid duplication, and embed projects within a wider ecosystem of resilience work. Similarly, early outreach to private landowners is essential, especially when proposed NbS depend on land access or voluntary cooperation. In this case, one highly ranked project was ultimately set aside due to anticipated difficulties in securing landowner participation within the project timeframe. Enabling conditions like a supportive land context and growing coordination with regional frameworks (e.g., the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan) helped mitigate some of these challenges, but they came later in the process. Moving forward, resilience initiatives should start with an intentional mapping of existing networks (e.g., technical, institutional, and community-based) to build coalitions early, embed projects within larger ecosystems of work, and avoid siloed efforts. Table 1 Co-production Process in Refugio Co-production Step (as per NOAA RESTORE Science Program) Refugio Project Activities Stakeholder Involvement Key Outcome/Contribution to Actionable Science 1. Scoping Initial community meetings to identify key concerns and priorities. Preliminary research on Refugio County's vulnerabilities (e.g., Pathak & Fuller, 2021 ) Community members, local officials, academic researchers, NGO partners. Clearly defined local problems and shared understanding of project scope. Identification of initial NbS opportunities. 2. Design Collaborative workshops for co-designing potential NbS strategies. Development of survey instrument based on workshop insights. Community members, local leaders, subject matter experts, academic researchers. Co-designed NbS concepts aligned with community values. Survey questions reflecting local priorities. 3. Research and Development Data collection via community surveys and workshop documentation. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data. Academic researchers, NGO data analysts, community members (as survey respondents). Empirical evidence of community perceptions, preferences, and concerns. Identification of specific NbS priorities. 4. Transfer and Application of Findings and Products Dissemination of findings to local government, community groups, and regional planning bodies. Development of this manuscript. Project team, local officials, community champions. Actionable recommendations for NbS implementation. A replicable co-production framework for other communities. Table 2 Lessons Learned and Their Related Barriers and Enablers Lesson Learned Related Barrier(s) Related Enabler(s) Centering Process, Not Just Products Limited Access and Engagement in Rural, Privately Owned Landscapes (Section 6.1.1): Trust-building requires time; short timelines and private landownership made early and sustained engagement difficult. Turnover in Elected Officials Affects Success/Failure of Plans/Actions (6.1.3): Political shifts disrupt continuity, but building process legitimacy helps buffer that instability. Community Leadership as a Continuity Strategy (Section 6.2.3): Grounded engagement at fairs and with feedback loops fostered legitimacy and ownership. Communication Must Be Relatable and Values-Based Limited Access and Engagement in Rural, Privately Owned Landscapes (Section 6.1.1): Difficulty accessing dispersed populations and limited participation created additional communication hurdles. Limited Local Capacity in Rural Areas (Section 6.1.4): Low technical capacity, unfamiliarity with planning concepts, and lack of environmental staffing made communication and understanding harder. Community Leadership as a Continuity Strategy (Section 6.2.3): Trusted local voices helped make complex ideas relatable and reinforced community connections. Capacity Building Through Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Communication (Section 6.2.4): Bilingual, values-based messaging and co-developed communication strategies built trust. Equity Requires More Than Good Intentions Limited Local Capacity in Rural Areas (Section 6.1.4): Reaching vulnerable and migrant populations remained difficult despite bilingual efforts. Local Champions (Section 6.2.5): Trusted local leaders bridged access to harder-to-reach groups; proactive outreach helped establish trust with residents. Replicability Lies in the Approach, Not the Details Turnover in Elected Officials (6.1.3): Institutional instability can hinder replication if projects aren’t rooted in community leadership. Limited Local Capacity in Rural Areas (Section 6.1.4): Challenges in managing complex projects and applying for grants limit replication without process-based support. Supportive Land Context and Stakeholder Readiness (Section 6.2.1): Selecting county-owned land at Black Point eliminated early hurdles posed by private ownership and enabled smoother implementation. Alignment with State Plans and Funding Frameworks (Section 6.2.2): Tying local efforts into broader initiatives like the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan enhanced visibility, lent credibility, and opened doors to future funding. Community Leadership as a Continuity Strategy (Section 6.2.3): Ongoing engagement by local champions, who stayed involved despite leadership transitions, ensured continuity and local stewardship. Capacity Building Through Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Communication (Section 6.2.4): A collaborative structure that included NGOs, researchers, government, and residents allowed co-development of solutions and built shared ownership—critical for models others can follow. Local Champions – A Team of Champions! (Section 6.2.5): Involvement of trusted local figures such as the County Judge and Community Development Foundation leaders extended reach and trust, a key ingredient for replicating the model in other communities. Tap Early into Existing Networks for Strategic Alignment Limited Access and Engagement in Rural, Privately Owned Landscapes (Section 6.1.1): Lack of early engagement with landowners and networks led to delays and dropped projects. Alignment with State Plans and Funding Frameworks (Section 6.2.2): Linking local projects to broader state initiatives (e.g., TCRMP) provided legitimacy, policy relevance, and unlocked new funding pathways. Local Champion(s) – A Team of Champions (Section 6.2.5): Trusted local leaders facilitated connections with harder-to-reach communities and expanded community networks, ensuring broader participation and support. 6.4. Next Steps: From Co-Production to Action Based on the findings and lessons learned from the NbS Refugio project, several concrete next steps are proposed to advance NbS implementation and ensure long-term coastal resilience in the county: Pilot Project Implementation : Seek funding to initiate one or two small-scale NbS pilot projects identified and co-designed by the community during the workshops and surveys. These “quick wins” demonstrate visible progress, reinforce momentum, and serve as proof-of-concept for scaling NbS in the county. Policy Integration : Actively work with local and regional planning bodies to integrate the co-produced NbS strategies into existing planning frameworks, such as the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan, and local land-use ordinances. This involves advocating for policies that support long-term funding for NbS and streamline permitting processes for natural infrastructure. Embedding NbS into policy will ensure their durability beyond political cycles or funding fluctuations. Capacity Building and Training : Develop and deliver targeted training programs for community members and local officials on NbS design, implementation, and maintenance. This will enhance local capacity and empower the community to take a leading role in future resilience efforts. Network Strengthening : Formalize partnerships with existing regional resilience networks (e.g., Sea Grant’s Resilience Community of Practice) to facilitate knowledge exchange, share resources, and identify opportunities for collaborative funding applications. Community-Led Monitoring : Establish a robust framework for long-term monitoring of NbS performance and community resilience outcomes, drawing from the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models and Socio-economic Metrics (GEMS) approach (Olander et al., 2024 ). In conclusion, the Refugio County case demonstrates that rural coastal communities, despite limited resources, can drive the development of nature-based adaptation solutions when given the proper support and engagement. The Black Point living shoreline project now has a constituency of local advocates behind it, improving its prospects for implementation and longevity. While challenges around funding, land access, and capacity must be navigated, the foundation of trust and knowledge built through the co-development is a significant asset. For practitioners and researchers, this case underscores that process matters: how we arrive at a solution is as important as the solution itself. By investing in inclusive, transparent processes, we create conditions for lasting outcomes. As climate threats escalate, empowering communities to harness nature-based approaches is an urgent task, one that will require patience, humility, and genuine collaboration with those who know and love their home places. The experience in Refugio County offers a hopeful example of what is possible when communities are not just consulted, but are true partners in designing their resilient future. Declarations 7. Acknowledgements We thank the Refugio County community for their active participation and local leadership, especially the advisory group members and Ret. County Judge Robert Blaschke. This project would not have been possible without the collaborative efforts of the Harte Research Institute, Santos McBain, and Refugio Community Development Foundation. We also acknowledge the Coastal Bend Council of Governments for helping convene local partners and the Woodsboro High School for supporting youth participation. Finally, we thank the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Gulf Research Program for funding this work under the “Engaging Communities to Design Nature-Based Solutions to Mitigate Climate-Related Hazards” grant and supporting community-led resilience efforts. The authors declare no competing interests or financial conflicts of interest. Ethics approval and consent to participate The community survey was reviewed by the Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi Office for Research Compliance and determined to be in compliance with Human Subjects Research and exempt from full review (TAMU-CC-IRB-2022-0673). All participation in workshops and the community survey was voluntary, and participants provided implied consent by choosing to participate after being informed of the project’s purpose. Consent for publication Not applicable. This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are publicly available in the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative Information and Data Cooperative (GRIIDC): Del Angel, D., Hale, C., & Pathak, A. (2025). A community survey to explore nature-based solutions in Refugio County, Texas . GRIIDC. https://doi.org/10.7266/b4skwjyb Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This work was funded by the Gulf Research Program of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under the Engaging Communities to Design Nature-Based Solutions to Mitigate Climate-Related Hazards planning grant. The funding body had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, nor in the writing of the manuscript. Authors’ contributions AP conceptualized and coordinated the project, wrote the original draft, and led revisions. DD designed and analyzed the community survey, contributed to methods and results, and assisted with writing and revisions. CH provided project supervision, contributed to conceptualization, and participated in writing and review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. References Alcock, I., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Fleming, L. E., & Depledge, M. H. (2014). Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 48 (2), 1247–1255. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403688w Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2012). The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.003 Arnold, C. A., Williams, R. D., Pederson, H., Schuhmann, A., Ernstberger, A., de Melo Cartaxo, T., ... & Wood, L. (2020). Resilience justice and community-based green and blue infrastructure. Wm. & Mary Env't L. & Pol'y Rev. , 45, 665. Babbie, E. R. (2016). The practice of social research (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Barbier, E. (2013). Valuing ecosystem services for coastal wetland protection and restoration: Progress and challenges. Resources, 2 (3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources2030213 Beier, P., Hansen, L. J., Helbrecht, L., & Behar, D. (2017). A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science: Coproducing actionable science. Conservation Letters, 10 (3), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12300 Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. (2006). Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Berg, C. E., Mineau, M. M., & Rogers, S. H. (2016). Examining the ecosystem service of nutrient removal in a coastal watershed. Ecosystem Services, 20 , 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.007 Bilkovic, D. M., Mitchell, M., Mason, P., & Duhring, K. (2016). The role of living shorelines as estuarine habitat conservation strategies. Coastal Management, 44 (3), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2016.1160201 Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hahn, K. S., Daily, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (28), 8567–8572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112 Bressane, A., Silva, M. B., Goulart, A. P. G., & Medeiros, L. C. C. (2024). Understanding how green space naturalness impacts public well-being: Prospects for designing healthier cities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21 (5), 585. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050585 Bridges, T. S., Wagner, P. W., Burks-Copes, K. A., Bates, M. E., Collier, Z. A., Fischenich, C. J., Gailani, J. Z., et al. (2015). Use of natural and nature-based features (NNBF) for coastal resilience: Final report (ERDC SR-15-1). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Browder, G., Ozment, S., Rehberger Bescos, I., Gartner, T., & Lange, G.-M. (2019). Integrating green and gray: Creating next generation infrastructure . World Bank and World Resources Institute. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/31430 Campbell, L. K., Svendsen, E., Johnson, M., Piland, N., Locke, D., Sonti, N., ... & Flores, B. (2024). Reflecting on local ecological stewardship, care, and action across two decades of research. Cities and the Environment, 17 (2). Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U., Delgado, J., Rua, M., de-Graft Aikins, A., & Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3 (1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1 Del Angel, D., Hale, C., & Pathak, A. (2025). A community survey to explore nature-based solutions in Refugio County, Texas [Dataset]. GRIIDC, Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi. https://doi.org/10.7266/b4skwjyb Del Angel, D., Hale, C., & Wowk, K. (2022). Mapping flood hazards and vulnerability in the Coastal Bend . Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi. http://www.coastalbendcog.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/CDBG.MIT_MOD_MAPS_202208%20%28FINAL%29.pdf. DeLorme, D. E., Kidwell, D., Hagen, S. C., & Stephens, S. H. (2016). Developing and managing transdisciplinary and transformative research on the coastal dynamics of sea level rise: Experiences and lessons learned. Earth’s Future, 4 , 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EF000346 Evans, N. M., Stewart, W. P., & Van Riper, C. (2022). A place meaning scale for rural communities undergoing landscape change. Society & Natural Resources, 35 (11), 1206–1225. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2101725 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2023). Building community resilience with nature-based solutions: Strategies for success . Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown and Company. Gracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Oakley, J. A., & Williams, A. T. (2018). Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 156 , 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.009 Headwaters Economics. (2024). Land Ownership and Land Use in the United States. https://headwaterseconomics.org. Heikkinen, M. (2022). The role of network participation in climate change mitigation: A city-level analysis. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 14 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2022.2036163 van der Jagt, A. P., Smith, M., Ambrose-Oji, B., Konijnendijk, C. C., Giannico, V., Haase, D., ... & Cvejić, R. (2019). Co-creating urban green infrastructure connecting people and nature: A guiding framework and approach. Journal of Environmental Management , 233 , 757-767. Kaźmierczak, A. (2013). The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109 (1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007 Keen, M., Brown, V. A., & Dyball, R. (Eds.). (2010). Social learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future . London Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Kelliher, F., Reinl, L., Johnson, T. G., & Joppe, M. (2018). The role of trust in building rural tourism micro firm network engagement: A multi-case study. Tourism Management, 68 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.014 Keniger, L. E., Gaston, K. J., Irvine, K. N., & Fuller, R. A. (2013). What are the benefits of interacting with nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10 (3), 913–935. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913 King, D. (2002). Endangered species: Groundwater and small towns in the Texas Coastal Bend. Agricultural History, 76 (2), 364–380. Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Difford, M., & Campbell, B. M. (2010). Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land. Conservation Biology, 24 (5), 1348–1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01494.x Kochnower, D., Reddy, S. M. W., & Flick, R. E. (2015). Factors influencing local decisions to use habitats to protect coastal communities from hazards. Ocean & Coastal Management, 116 , 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.021 Larson, L. R., Jennings, V., & Cloutier, S. A. (2016). Public parks and wellbeing in urban areas of the United States. PLOS ONE, 11 (4), e0153211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153211 Lefcheck, J. S., Hughes, B. B., Johnson, A. J., Pfirrmann, B. W., Rasher, D. B., Smyth, A. R., Williams, B. L., Beck, M. W., & Orth, R. J. (2019). Are coastal habitats important nurseries? A meta‐analysis. Conservation Letters , e12645. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12645 Lynch, A. J. (2016). Is it good to be green? Assessing the ecological results of county green infrastructure planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36 (1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15598615 McCormack, G. R., Rock, M., Toohey, A. M., & Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16 (4), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003 Mach, K. J., Lemos, M. C., Meadow, A. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., et al. (2020). Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42 , 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002 Morris, R. L., Konlechner, T. M., Ghisalberti, M., & Swearer, S. E. (2018). From grey to green: Efficacy of eco-engineering solutions for nature-based coastal defence. Global Change Biology, 24 (5), 1827–1842. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14063 Narayan, S., Beck, M. W., Reguero, B. G., Losada, I. J., van Wesenbeeck, B., Pontee, N., Sanchirico, J. N., Ingram, J. C., Lange, G.-M., & Burks-Copes, K. A. (2016). The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences. PLOS ONE, 11 (5), e0154735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (n.d.). Co-production of environmental knowledge: Methods and approaches . Retrieved June 11, 2025, from https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/co-production-of-environmental-knowledge-methods-and-approaches National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2022). Gulf research program awards $1M in planning grants to support nature-based solutions. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2022/10/gulf-research-program-awards-1m-in-planning-grants-to-support-nature-based-solutions National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2021). ENOW Explorer: Total ocean-dependent employment; Refugio County, TX . Retrieved July 16, 2025, from https://coast.noaa.gov/enowexplorer/#/employment/total/2021/48391/ NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA OCM). (2017). C-CAP regional land cover and change . https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional.html Olander, L., Warnell, K., Mason, S., Karasik, R., Tallis, H., Coffey, K., Hale, C., ... & Yoskowitz, D. (2024). Advancing consistent socio-economic monitoring of coastal ecosystem restoration through collaborative metric development. Communications Earth & Environment, 5 (1), 537. Pathak, A., & Fuller, A. (2021). Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change: An Assessment for the Texas Mid-Coast. Austin, TX: National Wildlife Federation. Pathak, A., Glick, P., Hansen, L. J., Hilberg, L. E., Ritter, J., & Stein, B. A. (2022). Incorporating Nature-based Solutions Into Community Climate Adaptation Planning. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation and EcoAdapt. Pita, P., Gribble, M. O., Antelo, M., Ainsworth, G., Hyder, K., van den Bosch, M., & Villasante, S. (2022). Recreational fishing, health and well-being: Findings from a cross-sectional survey. Ecosystems and People, 18 (1), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2112291 Powell, E. J., Tyrrell, M. C., Milliken, A., Tirpak, J. M., & Staudinger, M. D. (2019). A review of coastal management approaches to support the integration of ecological and human community planning for climate change. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 23 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0632-y Précoma-de La Mora, M., Bennett, N. J., Fulton, S., Munguia-Vega, A., Lasch-Thaler, C., Walther-Mendoza, M., Zepeda-Domínguez, J. A., Finkbeiner, E. M., Green, A. L., Suárez, A., Weaver, A. H., Figueroa Carranza, A. L. R., Vega Velázquez, A., Zepeda, C., Montes, C., Fuentes Montalvo, D. A., Micheli, F., Reyes-Bonilla, H., Chollett, I., Lopez-Ercilla, I., Torres Origel, J. F., Vázquez-Vera, L., García-Rivas, M. D. C., Mancha-Cisneros, M. D. M., Espinosa-Romero, M. J., Martín Ruíz, M., Arafeh-Dalmau, N., González-Cuellar, O. T., Huchim, O., & Rodríguez Van Dyck, S. (2021). Integrating biophysical, socio-economic and governance principles into marine reserve design and management in Mexico: From theory to practice. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8 , 778980. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.778980 Rädiker, S., & Kuckartz, U. (2020). Focused analysis of qualitative interviews with MAXQDA. MaxQDA Press . Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., & Kalivas, T. (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68 (5), 1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006 Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., et al. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15 (4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268235 Rezaie, A. M., Loerzel, J., & Ferreira, C. M. (2020). Valuing natural habitats for enhancing coastal resilience: Wetlands reduce property damage from storm surge and sea level rise. PLOS ONE, 15 (1), e0226275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226275 Roman, C. T. (2017). Salt marsh sustainability: Challenges during an uncertain future. Estuaries and Coasts, 40 (3), 711–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0149-2 Rouse, D. C., & Bunster-Ossa, I. F. (2013). Green infrastructure: A landscape approach (No. 571). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey . Wiley. Sankireddy, P., Ramireddy, N. S., Penumada, A. R., Pechetti, J., & Nair, N. C. (2025). Analyzing public feedback on urban infrastructure projects. In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Interdisciplinary Approaches in Technology and Management for Social Innovation (IATMSI) (Vol. 3, pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/IATMSI64286.2025.10984847 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), e27374. Smyth, J., Dillman, D., Christian, L., & O’Neill, A. (2010). Using the internet to survey small towns and communities: Limitations and possibilities in the early 21st century. Department of Sociology: Faculty Publications , May. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/667 Soini, K., Anderson, C. C., Polderman, A., Teresa, C., Sisay, D., Kumar, P., Mannocchi, M., et al. (2023). Context matters: Co-creating nature-based solutions in rural living labs. Land Use Policy, 133 , 106839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106839 Stewart, W. P., Liebert, D., & Larkin, K. W. (2004). Community identities as visions for landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69 (2–3), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.07.005 Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38 (1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9060-5 Sutton-Grier, A. E., Wowk, 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. Environmental Science and Policy, 137 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.006 Texas General Land Office. (2023). Texas coastal resiliency master plan . https://www.glo.texas.gov/coast/coastal-management/coastal-resiliency/resources/files/2023-tcrmp-book.pdf Tromp, C. (Ed.). (2018). Robust knowledge for complex problems. In Wicked philosophy: Philosophy of science and vision development for complex problems (pp. 115–141). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9789048541096.006 Unegbu, H. C., Yawas, D. S., Dan-asabe, B., & Alabi, A. A. (2024). Investigation of community engagement in sustainable construction projects: Case studies from Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Construction, 4 (1), 10–36. Wall, T. U., McNie, E., & Garfin, G. M. (2017). Use‐inspired science: Making science usable by and useful to decision makers. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15 (10), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1735 Weddle, H., & Oliveira, G. (2024). Imagining new possibilities through participatory qualitative methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23 , 16094069241301983. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241301983 Whitacre, B. E., Gallardo, R., & Strover, S. (2014). Broadband’s contribution to economic growth in rural areas: Moving towards a causal relationship. Telecommunications Policy, 38 (11), 1011–1023. White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Gascon, M., Roberts, B., & Fleming, L. E. (2020). Blue space, health and well-being: A narrative overview and synthesis of potential benefits. Environmental Research, 191 , 110169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110169 Williams, D. S. (2020). Enhancing autonomy for climate change adaptation using participatory modeling. Weather, Climate, and Society, 12 (4), 667–678. Woodruff, S., Tran, T., Lee, J., Wilkins, C., Newman, G., Ndubisi, F., & Van Zandt, S. (2020). Green infrastructure in comprehensive plans in coastal Texas. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1835618 Wowk, K., Adams, M., & Martinez, E. (2023). Translating the complexity of disaster resilience with local leaders. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1100265. Wyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., ... & van Kerkhoff, L. (2019). Co-producing sustainability: Reordering science, governance and practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44 , 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103 Zahnow, R. (2024). Social infrastructure, social cohesion and subjective wellbeing. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 7 , 100210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2024.100210 Footnotes See NOAA RESTORE Science Program. (n.d.). Co-production: Examples and Tools. https://restoreactscienceprogram.noaa.gov/co-production-examples-and-tools Supplementary Files Suppmaterialzip.msg Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 13 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Estuaries and Coasts → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 02 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 02 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 02 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7489968","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":509332401,"identity":"5090ec9e-c891-458e-8400-e73bd09f86d9","order_by":0,"name":"Arsum Pathak","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1106-3836","institution":"National Wildlife Federation","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Arsum","middleName":"","lastName":"Pathak","suffix":""},{"id":509332402,"identity":"012ea752-beb9-49d5-a16d-1d1f3823c220","order_by":1,"name":"Diana Del Angel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Texas A\u0026M University-Corpus Christi Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Diana","middleName":"Del","lastName":"Angel","suffix":""},{"id":509332403,"identity":"8c054a93-e5da-4533-855c-d7f737fae0d9","order_by":2,"name":"Christine Hale","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Texas Sea Grant","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christine","middleName":"","lastName":"Hale","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-29 15:38:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7489968/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7489968/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-025-01646-6","type":"published","date":"2025-12-13T15:58:44+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90929154,"identity":"cc2e0621-f51e-43a3-bea3-f7e3cf4ba393","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-09 16:04:08","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1076229,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of Refugio County Texas. Map features towns, landcover, rivers and flood hazard areas in Refugio County. \u003cem\u003eLayer credits: Texas Water Development Board, U.S. Census Bureau, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7489968/v1/986865cc24c80ee522d9a689.png"},{"id":90929155,"identity":"d6b47024-d4b2-4106-aa1c-f549c3ab853d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-09 16:04:08","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":205383,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProject Phases and Timeline.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7489968/v1/e8fc44c3ff0164740fbf9def.png"},{"id":90929156,"identity":"d0b83b72-e05e-421e-8ea0-d1e3b7b8f4b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-09 16:04:08","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2139832,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCommunity voting results on proposed nature-based projects during Workshop 1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7489968/v1/c8cc4540f747f8afaf6ac084.png"},{"id":98244548,"identity":"5ee85676-f750-44c7-a08d-7878768ff1b8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 16:14:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":5248169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7489968/v1/0ad17103-778d-4a90-90a0-71338e1278ce.pdf"},{"id":90932532,"identity":"aa14427d-6823-43ff-a2a4-87d042937169","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-09 16:28:08","extension":"msg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":25088,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Suppmaterialzip.msg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7489968/v1/656b01840e8e1a32d2ac7439.msg"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Co-developing Nature-based Solutions for Coastal Resilience: A Case Study from Refugio County, Texas","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eRefugio County, a rural community on the mid-Texas Gulf Coast, faces chronic flooding, shoreline erosion, and limited public outdoor spaces that affect both community wellbeing and ecological health. Like many rural coastal counties, it has high exposure to climate risks but limited local capacity to plan for long-term resilience. To address these challenges, a transdisciplinary team bringing together the National Wildlife Federation, Harte Research Institute at Texas A\u0026amp;M University - Corpus Christi, and local leaders worked through a co-production process funded by the National Academies\u0026rsquo; Gulf Research Program. Over a six-month period, the team convened an advisory group of local stakeholders, facilitated community workshops, and conducted a bilingual county-wide survey to identify vulnerabilities and prioritize Nature-based Solutions (NbS). By situating community priorities at the center of the planning process, the project illustrates how transdisciplinary collaboration can overcome barriers to implementation and create actionable, community-owned resilience strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis paper documents the co-production process, highlighting how co-production can engage diverse audiences, build local capacity, and translate community values into actionable NbS projects. We situate the case within broader literature on NbS and rural climate resilience, provide background on Refugio County, and describe the methods, outcomes, and lessons learned. We conclude with key recommendations for applying similar approaches in other rural coastal settings facing high risks and limited capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Green/Blue Spaces for Communities \u0026amp; Nature-based Solutions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural and green spaces such as parks, gardens, and woodlands play a vital role in supporting individual and community wellbeing. Research shows these areas promote physical health by encouraging exercise, reducing obesity risks, lowering cardiovascular disease, and regulating air quality and urban heat (Larson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; McCormack et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Green spaces also offer profound psychological benefits, from lowering stress and rumination to reducing depression symptoms and enhancing mood and cognitive function (Bratman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Alcock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Keniger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, these spaces foster social wellbeing: they act as social infrastructure that brings neighbors together, builds social ties, and strengthens feelings of cohesion and belonging (Zahnow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kaźmierczak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Well-designed and accessible parks are linked to stronger community attachment, which in turn supports civic participation and stewardship of local environments (Arnberger \u0026amp; Eder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Attributes such as safety, maintenance, aesthetics, and amenities like seating or playgrounds all shape how often and meaningfully people use parks, influencing their ability to deliver these benefits (McCormack et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).Similarly, blue spaces\u0026mdash;areas with access to water like rivers, lakes, and coasts\u0026mdash;offer distinct health and wellbeing benefits. They support activities such as recreational fishing, which is linked to reduced stress, improved sleep, and increased seafood consumption (Pita et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Proximity to water also fosters calm, mental restoration, and a stronger sense of place (White et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These benefits vary by community, shaped by cultural ties to land and water and the social meanings of shared spaces (Evans et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Locally informed planning can help ensure blue and green spaces are inclusive and aligned with community values.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, protection, restoration and enhancement of green/blue spaces can contribute to local resilience by helping mitigate the effects of climatic stressors and environmental changes. Green infrastructure for climate mitigation spans a spectrum from natural to green (soft and hybrid) to gray features (Morris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and can be implemented at landscape, community, or site scales (Rouse \u0026amp; Bunster-Ossa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Natural features evolve through biological, geological, or chemical processes over time, while nature-based features are intentionally designed and engineered to replicate the functions of natural systems (Bridges et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Examples of natural features include existing habitats such as coastal forests, wetlands, and preserved natural areas. These habitats not only hold ecological value like providing nursery grounds for marine species (Lefcheck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) but also help reduce storm surge and coastal erosion (Rezaie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Barbier et al., 2013; Narayan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Shepard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Gracia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Protecting natural areas like wetlands and forests can improve coastal water quality by lowering nitrogen runoff (Berg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntegrating green infrastructure into community planning strengthens resilience (Powell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and helps growing communities maintain both the quality and quantity of their green spaces (Lynch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite these benefits, many development plans lack the coordination and strategic vision needed to effectively preserve and expand green infrastructure (Woodruff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2. Engaging Communities in Place-Based Planning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding community values and sense of place is essential for developing community-based projects, particularly those involving changes to landscapes or shared community spaces like parks and natural areas. Sense of place is broadly described as emotional connections people form with locations that help people interpret their embeddedness in the world, shaping how they perceive and respond to environmental change (Azaryahu, 2009; Evans et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Integrating these place-based meanings into planning can guide visions for landscape change that resonate with community identities, heritage narratives, and local aspirations (Stewart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Doing so requires participatory and transdisciplinary approaches that move beyond disciplinary silos and embrace collaborative processes involving residents, researchers, and practitioners (NASEM, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Stokols, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Such approaches facilitate social learning, where individuals and communities engage in iterative reflection, dialogue, and mutual knowledge creation, ultimately leading to changes in understanding and behavior (Reed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Keen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Tromp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Participatory research ensures that community knowledge is integral to decision-making, fostering trust, reciprocity, and joint action toward shared visions (Weddle \u0026amp; Oliveira, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In this way, incorporating local knowledge and sense of place through transdisciplinary processes strengthens planning by aligning it with community values, enhancing both the relevance and legitimacy of resulting plans, projects and community policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCo-production of knowledge is increasingly recognized as a critical approach to producing actionable science, especially in the context of climate adaptation and NbS (Beier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This approach emphasizes shared power, mutual learning, and relevance to decision-making, which is especially important in rural, under-resourced communities that are often excluded from traditional planning processes. One type of transdisciplinary co-production is Participatory Action Research (PAR). PAR is a collaborative, iterative research approach that centers the experiences and knowledge of communities facing real-world issues. It is designed not only to generate academic knowledge but also to co-produce knowledge for action and knowledge through action that supports community-driven change (Cornish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike traditional top-down research, PAR is non-linear and flexible. It follows a cyclical process of identifying a shared issue, observing and generating data, collaboratively analyzing results, and developing and implementing actions. Further, PAR does not prescribe specific methods for data collection; instead, methods are co-developed based on the community context and goals (Cornish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). PAR is especially valuable for addressing complex, place-based challenges such as climate resilience and the equitable use of natural resources because it ensures that the solutions are rooted in the lived realities and priorities of those most affected. PAR's bottom-up nature makes it uniquely suited to help communities define and act on their own environmental priorities, including NbS, land use planning, and disaster risk reduction (Mach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3. Refugio County: Context and Background\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRefugio County is a rural county on the mid-Texas Gulf Coast with approximately 7,000 residents (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). It encompasses several small towns (Refugio, Woodsboro, Bayside, Austwell) and extensive coastal wetlands along Mission Bay, Copano Bay, and Hynes Bay. Refugio County, settled by Irish immigrants under Mexican land grants in the 1830s and 1840s, has a history deeply tied to large landholdings and the challenges of harsh coastal environments with limited freshwater. Its economy has long depended on agriculture, ranching, oil and gas, and the rich wetlands that support fishing and tourism (King, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The county's low-lying topography, extensive coastline, and reliance on coastal resources render it particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change, including recurrent flooding, shoreline erosion, and saltwater intrusion. Eleven percent of the County is within the Flood Hazard Zone; particularly vulnerable are the Town of Refugio and Bayside (Del Angel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Refugio County faces higher than average threats to climate-induced sea level rise, further exacerbated by its demographic challenges, including a declining population with higher rates of older and unemployed residents, a high immigrant Hispanic population, and a natural-resource-dependent economy (NOAA, 2021). Like many small, rural communities in the region, Refugio County faces unique challenges related to limited local capacity and fragmented resources for climate adaptation planning (Wowk, 2023). The community's strong connection to its natural environment, deeply rooted in its cultural heritage and economic activities such as fishing and tourism, underscores the importance of locally relevant and sustainable resilience strategies. The natural features of Refugio County play a dual role of supporting the local fishing and tourism-based economy while reducing vulnerability due to their protective benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecognizing both the risks and opportunities in this setting, our team partnered with the community to co-produce locally driven resilience strategies that reflect their priorities and lived experience. The goals and objectives of this project, \u003cem\u003e\"Co-developing Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation in Rural Coastal Communities: Case of Refugio County, Texas\u003c/em\u003e\" were to explore how a co-production approach could empower local stakeholders to identify, prioritize, and co-design NbS that address their specific vulnerabilities while leveraging the inherent value of their natural assets. The county's characteristics make it highly representative of numerous other rural coastal communities grappling with similar environmental and socio-economic pressures, offering valuable lessons for broader application.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Study Design and Transdisciplinary Approach\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe project \"\u003cem\u003eCo-developing Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation in Rural Coastal Communities: Case of Refugio County, Texas\u003c/em\u003e\" was supported by a \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e100,000 planning grant by the Gulf Research Program of the National Academies of Sciences to support community-driven planning for Nature-based Solutions that address climate-related hazards (NASEM, 2022). The project followed a participatory action research (PAR) approach informed by the co-production framework outlined by Beier et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), who emphasize the importance of starting with user needs, iterative engagement, and shared ownership of both process and outcomes. Consistent with these principles, we designed the engagement process to identify locally relevant decisions around flooding and shoreline erosion, iteratively engage community members through workshops and advisory meetings, and co-develop NbS concepts aligned with community priorities and state planning frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this six-month project (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), two workshops provided a forum and co-learning space for qualitative, in-depth exploration of local knowledge, values, and concerns, fostering dialogue and co-design of solutions (Reed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; van der Jagt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Soini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). One community survey allowed for broader quantitative validation of community values related to the natural environment, issues of concern, ecosystem services, and identification of widespread perceptions of the status and possible solutions for accessible natural areas (Bressane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sankireddy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Raymond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Unegbu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This combination of participatory processes and survey data strengthened the credibility of the findings and ensured that the co-produced solutions reflected both local expertise and broader community priorities. In addition to the community-facing engagements, the project design also included internal coordination and foundational work among the core project team members, recognizing that meaningful co-production relies on extensive behind-the-scenes planning, relationship-building, and synthesis in addition to visible participatory events.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2. Foundational and Coordinating Activities\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrior to and between the workshops and survey, the transdisciplinary core team conducted coordination and background activities that were crucial to enabling the co-production process. These included:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProject coordination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe project was led by a transdisciplinary core team including NWF staff (climate adaptation, community outreach), HRI researchers (coastal ecology, social science), Refugio County officials (the county judge and Community Development Foundation staff), and the county\u0026rsquo;s consulting firm, Santos McBain, providing on-the-ground knowledge and leadership. Members were selected for complementary expertise and established community relationships, ensuring the effort was both scientifically robust and locally grounded. This blend of technical, facilitation, and community knowledge was central to the project\u0026rsquo;s success (DeLorme et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdvisory Group Formation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe transdisciplinary core team recruited an advisory group by leveraging local networks and public outreach, ensuring diverse representation from long-term residents, local leaders, resource managers, landowners, and youth (Heikkinen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kelliher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Members included Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program, NRCS, and Mission-Aransas NERR for environmental expertise; Anchor QEA for technical input; Woodsboro High School students for youth perspectives; and public sector representatives from Austwell Town Council, Refugio County Community Development Foundation, and Coastal Bend Regional Resilience Partnership. This intentional mix grounded the process in both scientific and lived knowledge (Wyborn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In total, ~\u0026thinsp;20 individuals participated (13 advisory members, 7 core team), creating a robust network for co-production.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3. Workshops and Community Survey\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process had three phases: two participatory workshops (Jan 27 and Apr 14, 2023) with a public survey in between. Workshops, structured but flexible, used interactive mapping, small-group discussions, and prioritization activities to identify local environmental concerns, map key public outdoor areas, brainstorm NbS, and build shared understanding of coastal resilience challenges and opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWorkshop 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first workshop, designed by the core project team, introduced climate risks and potential NbS for Refugio County. Its objectives were to build shared understanding of vulnerabilities and NbS, identify potential projects, and prioritize next steps. Participants were divided into small groups (3\u0026ndash;4 plus a facilitator) and guided by worksheets from the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, along with large printed county maps (flood risk zones, income designations, disasters, protected areas, and land cover) see supplementary document). Groups identified and assessed NbS project options, outlined initial action steps, and reported back in a plenary session. Project ideas were captured on flip charts, and participants voted for their top three using stickers. In total, the advisory group (13 members) identified 11 NbS project ideas and prioritized three through a polling activity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunity Survey\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey instrument (see supplementary document) was designed as a self-administered questionnaire, made available via the online survey tool Qualtrics XM\u0026reg; (Babbie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Prior to the release of the survey, a pilot survey was conducted to test the validity and reliability of the survey instrument (Salant \u0026amp; Dillman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). The pilot survey was distributed to the advisory group, who were instructed to take the survey and provide feedback to the core team about its functionality. The core team incorporated the feedback into a revised public survey that was then submitted to Texas A\u0026amp;M University-Corpus Christi (TAMUCC) Office for Research Compliance for evaluation by the Institutional Review Board. The TAMUCC Institutional Review Board (IRB) found the survey to be in compliance with Human Subjects Research and exempt from full review (TAMU-CC-IRB-2022-0673).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey instrument consisted of 13 multiple-choice and open-ended questions (10\u0026ndash;15 minute). The survey gathered information on how residents of Refugio County use and value outdoor public spaces, including preferred natural features and amenities. It also explored concerns about environmental challenges and collected basic demographic data to better understand community perspectives.The survey used a convenience sample method, open to all who were willing to take the survey (Fink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Babbie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). To ensure inclusivity, the survey was made available in both English and Spanish. Promotion efforts were undertaken by the advisory group, as well as staff from HRI, NWF, Santos McBain Consulting, and Refugio County leadership. Promotion was also carried out through the project website, HRI, and social media channels, as well as through the local newspaper, printed on March 24. The survey was further promoted at a booth during the Refugio County Fair held on Friday, March 26, and Saturday, March 27. Participants of the survey at the booth were compensated for their input with food vouchers redeemable at the fair. The presence and encouragement of a local champion from the core team (County Judge) helped in the collection of responses, which can be a challenge in small rural communities (Smyth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWorkshop 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second workshop was designed to 1.) Develop an understanding of the pros and cons of the priority projects identified in Workshop 1, 2.) Understand and discuss community needs based on the public survey results, and 3.) Co-develop a plan for continued project sustainability and engagement. The workshop involved the presentation of material by the project core team and a facilitated discussion. The presentation focused on the priority project's conceptual design and a presentation of preliminary data from the community survey. To address sustainability, participants were asked whether they supported continuing the work into a Phase 2 proposal and how they or their organizations might stay engaged. Responses were gathered in real time using Mentimeter\u0026reg;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFacilitated discussions, led by core team members, encouraged participants to share their observations, concerns, and ideas regarding environmental changes and potential solutions. Data collection methods included detailed notes (taken by designated core team members who recorded key discussion points in real time), transcription of flip chart data, and collection of participant-generated maps and qualitative feedback. All participants were informed that the workshops were part of a research project and participation was entirely voluntary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4. Data Analysis and Management\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCore team facilitators took structured notes during group discussions, which were summarized after each workshop and shared with participants to validate input and guide refinement. Survey data were analyzed in MAXQDA\u0026reg;: multiple-choice responses were autocoded, while open-ended responses were manually coded into \u0026ldquo;segments\u0026rdquo; clustered by shared words or meaning (R\u0026auml;diker \u0026amp; Kuckartz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Both raw and coded survey data were archived in the GRIIDC open-access repository (Del Angel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1. Key Workshop Findings\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe community workshops yielded rich qualitative data, revealing several overarching themes and a shared understanding of local environmental challenges and potential solutions. Participants consistently expressed significant concerns regarding the impacts of flooding and erosion on their homes, livelihoods, and access to important community areas. There was a strong emphasis on the degradation of natural habitats, particularly marshes and coastal wetlands, and the associated loss of ecosystem services such as fisheries and natural storm protection.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross the four breakout groups at Workshop 1, over a dozen project ideas were proposed, addressing issues from coastal erosion to inland flooding. After discussion and refinement, each group reported back their top ideas, and participants then voted to prioritize the projects. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the results of the sticker-voting, highlighting the projects that rose to the top.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlack Point Bayside Living Shoreline emerged as the top priority for the advisory group, receiving 10 votes (out of 11 participants voting). This concept involved constructing a living shoreline along the bayside shoreline near the community of Bayside (specifically at Black Point on Copano Bay) to address erosion and habitat loss while improving recreational access (e.g. with trails or a boardwalk). The Black Point project\u0026rsquo;s strong support reflected a convergence of interests: it would protect a vulnerable stretch of bay shore (important for hazard mitigation) and enhance a popular waterfront spot for fishing, birding, and tourism. Participants noted this site\u0026rsquo;s visibility and public accessibility as advantages, and that such a project could provide ecological benefits (wetland restoration) alongside community benefits (recreation, education).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second-highest priority was North Woodsboro Drainage Green Infrastructure (7/13 votes). This concept focused on the town of Woodsboro, proposing to alleviate chronic flooding in the north side of town by creating retention capacity (for example, converting a portion of a school football field into a dual-use retention basin and park) and installing green infrastructure like rain gardens. This project responded to known inland flood issues and water quality concerns. However, in discussion it was flagged that key land needed for this project was privately owned, and there had been past reluctance from landowners, which could pose a barrier. This consideration later influenced the decision to deprioritize this idea.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTied for third in the voting were two projects with 5 votes each: the Mission River Living Shoreline Restoration, aimed at reducing erosion and improving water quality through riparian restoration and landowner engagement; and the East Refugio Nature-Based Stormwater Management project, which targeted urban flooding and runoff through green infrastructure and wetland enhancement. Other ideas, such as Hynes Bay habitat restoration, boat ramp improvements at Black Point, and flood mitigation in Bayside, received fewer votes. Some participants also proposed policy updates and levee removal. Overall, projects tied to bays and waterways gained the most support, reflecting community priorities. Following the workshop, the team selected the top three projects, Black Point, Mission River, and East Refugio, for further development, while pausing the Woodsboro project due to land access challenges. The voting results show a notable pattern: projects located in the Bayside area or along major waterways were most favored by the group, consistent with the community\u0026rsquo;s affinity for the bays and rivers. Meanwhile, purely inland projects without a water component garnered less enthusiasm, except where linked to pressing local flood issues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Workshop 2, the core team moved the Black Point project idea forward, having the highest community support, to a preliminary design stage: approximately 600 linear feet of rock sill and oyster reef breakwaters along the eroding shoreline at Black Point, paired with marsh plantings to restore wetland habitat. The design also incorporated recreational enhancements, a boardwalk/trail along the shore and improved fishing access, reflecting the community\u0026rsquo;s desires from survey findings (section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec12\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5.2\u003c/span\u003e). The project was described as a multi-benefit solution: it would reduce wave erosion and storm surge impact on the Bayside shoreline (hazard mitigation), protect and expand coastal marshes (ecosystem benefit), and provide a park-like amenity for residents and visitors (community benefit). Importantly, it also aligned with a priority identified in the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan (TCRMP), the state\u0026rsquo;s resilience plan (Texas General Land Office, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), potentially aiding future funding. At Workshop 2, advisory group members reacted positively to the Black Point proposal. Many noted that it \u0026ldquo;hits the sweet spot\u0026rdquo; between risk reduction and recreation, aligning well with the survey findings about what people value. The group also brainstormed on community engagement strategies moving forward, such as organizing volunteer planting days or integrating the project with school curriculum, to keep momentum and local support high. The core team, with Advisory input, mapped out next steps including conducting an additional community survey focused on Black Point design preferences, continuing outreach to key stakeholders, and preparing a funding application for implementation. If funded, all advisory group members indicated interest in staying involved as the project moves into detailed design and implementation, with many expressing particular interest in helping with continued stakeholder outreach and education efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2. Key Survey Findings\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe following section provides a summary of survey responses (please see supplementary information for data and charts). A total of 139 responses were collected. Most of the responses were collected during March 20th \u0026ndash; April 2nd 2023. These dates correspond to the Refugio County Fair. The data were cleaned to remove potentially illegitimate (e.g. internet \u0026ldquo;bots\u0026rdquo;) and incomplete responses. Test responses and responses that had less than 20% progress or took less than a minute to complete were removed, leaving 113 responses for analysis. This sample size yields a 6% margin of error at an 80% confidence level for the county\u0026rsquo;s adult population of 5,213 (Census Quick Facts, see Supplementary Material for demographics).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2.1 Important Outdoor Areas and Use of the Environment in Refugio County\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey responses from Refugio County residents revealed a strong appreciation for outdoor spaces, particularly parks and waterfront areas. Parks were the most frequently mentioned, cited in 41% of responses, while sports fields and tracks were also valued, especially by families. Waterfront locations such as Bayside, Mission River, and various piers and boat ramps were highlighted, indicating the community\u0026rsquo;s deep connection to water-based recreation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen asked about natural features, participants showed a clear preference for water-related environments: rivers and streams (75%), bays (62%), beaches (59%), and open ocean (56%) were most valued. Native vegetation and brush country were also appreciated by over 40% of respondents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutdoor spaces were used for a variety of activities, with socializing (59%), exercise (50%), and fishing (44%) being the most common. Other uses included pet walking, team sports, and solitude. Amenities were found to be crucial for enhancing outdoor experiences. Trees and cleanliness were rated very important by 80% of respondents, followed closely by shade (78%) and free access (67%). Safety, picnic areas, and accessibility were also emphasized as key features.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Survey Findings on Outdoor Spaces in Refugio County.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuestion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Findings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRespondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportant Outdoor Areas (open ended)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParks (41%), sports fields (8%), waterfront areas (Bayside, Mission River, etc.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eValued Natural Features\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRivers/streams (75%), bays (62%), beaches (59%), open ocean (56%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse of Outdoor Spaces\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocializing (59%), exercise (50%), fishing (44%), solitude, pet walking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportant Amenities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrees \u0026amp; cleanliness (80%), shade (78%), free access (67%), safety, accessibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2.3. Concerns with the environment and solutions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResidents of Refugio County expressed strong concern about environmental challenges, with drought being the most pressing issue, cited by 76% of respondents. Severe storms and wildfires were each mentioned by 56%, while flooding was noted by 54%. These concerns reflect the community\u0026rsquo;s vulnerability to climate-related hazards and the need for proactive planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the structured responses, 76 participants provided open-ended comments, resulting in 88 coded segments. The most frequent concerns included cleanliness and maintenance of outdoor spaces (15%), lack of parks and facilities, and degraded amenities. Safety, environmental degradation, and wildlife issues were also mentioned. Many respondents expressed a desire for better-maintained, family-friendly spaces and felt that local officials have not prioritized outdoor recreation infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen asked about solutions to reduce risks and hazards, 77 participants responded, with 37 coded segments categorized into eight themes. The most common suggestions focused on improving amenities and enforcement, each accounting for 19% of responses. Other notable themes included maintenance, education, and environmental restoration (each 12%). Respondents emphasized the need for better boat access, trash management, invasive species removal, and building codes. There was also a call for community involvement, safety measures for children, and NbS to address flooding and water quality. Transparency and access to resources like grants were also highlighted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Survey Findings on Environmental Concerns and Community Solutions in Refugio County.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuestion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Findings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRespondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Concerns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrought (76%), Storms \u0026amp; Wildfires (56%), Flooding (54%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e108\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditional concerns (open ended)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCleanliness (15%), Lack of parks, Degraded amenities, Safety\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunity Solutions (open ended)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImproved amenities \u0026amp; enforcement (19% each), Maintenance, Education, Restoration (12% each)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIterative Planning and Project Refinement\u003c/b\u003e: Between workshops, the core team synthesized Workshop 1 outcomes and planned next steps. Top-ranked NbS ideas were reviewed for feasibility, funding alignment, and consistency with local plans. The team advanced the three highest-priority projects, setting aside a proposed North Woodsboro green infrastructure effort - despite strong support - due to likely landowner challenges within the project timeframe. Black Point was seen to \u0026ldquo;tick the boxes\u0026rdquo; for many of the survey-identified priorities as well: being on the water (rivers/bays), offering recreation (fishing, trails), and contributing to hazard reduction (shoreline protection).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the co-production process yielded a clear outcome: a nature-based living shoreline project that was chosen by the community and refined through their input. The selected Black Point NBS project directly responds to the community\u0026rsquo;s top concerns (it will help mitigate storm impacts and erosion) and desires (it will create a recreational waterfront space with natural habitat). The workshops not only identified this project but also fostered local champions and detailed ideas to facilitate its implementation. A high school student, part of the advisory group, noted the impact of this work, stating, \"I have never heard adults in my community come together and talk about these issues this way.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA central achievement of this co-production process was the alignment of the selected nature-based project with community values and needs as expressed through the survey and by the advisory group workshops. From the outset, our co-production process sought to ensure the NbS would not be a top-down imposition, but rather a solution emerging from local priorities. The survey and workshop results clearly shaped the Black Point Living Shoreline concept. The survey highlighted the importance of public spaces like parks and accessible waterfronts for activities such as socializing, exercise, fishing, and solitude. Areas near bays and rivers were especially valued. The selected project supports these community priorities, with considerations such as adding shade and improving cleanliness (e.g., trash cans) to enhance the experience at this location.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne example of incorporating community values into NbS design is the emphasis on recreation and education in the Black Point project. Workshop participants felt strongly that the project should provide direct community benefits like fishing access, bird-watching, and educational opportunities. In response, the subsequent design included a boardwalk and pier for fishing, signage about local ecology, and partnerships with a nearby estuarine reserve to host student field trips at the site. Such multi-functionality is a hallmark of successful NbS, and it was achieved here by heeding local voices. As one advisory member put it during discussion, \u0026ldquo;If we\u0026rsquo;re doing this for the community, it\u0026rsquo;s got to be a place the community actually wants to go to\u0026rdquo;, underscoring that community buy-in is tied to visible community benefits. Indeed, aligning the project with local values is not just a \u0026ldquo;nice to have\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; it is strategically important for long-term stewardship. Because residents see their priorities reflected in the project, they are more likely to support it, advocate for funding, and even participate in its maintenance (e.g. volunteer marsh planting or cleanup events) (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Weddle \u0026amp; Oliveira, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe co-production process revealed that beyond environmental concerns (drought, storms), the Refugio community valued safety, enforcement, and improved amenities - insights a top-down approach might have missed. As illustrated by Gladwell\u0026rsquo;s The Tipping Point (2000) and the \u0026ldquo;Broken Windows Theory,\u0026rdquo; small changes in the physical environment, such as maintaining cleanliness and enforcing rules, can significantly shift community behavior and pride. Similarly, the survey showed that while residents had safety concerns, they also offered solutions through implementation and long-term stewardship of their selected NbS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother benefit of the co-production process was enhancing local capacity and knowledge exchange. As the project was co-designed, advisory group members gained understanding of NbS design considerations (e.g. appropriate materials for a living shoreline, regulatory permitting steps), and conversely, some members of the core team gained understanding of on-the-ground local dynamics (e.g. which fishing spots are most used, which areas flood whenever it rains, where public safety concerns were). This two-way knowledge exchange improved the project\u0026rsquo;s quality and appropriateness and seeded a sense of local ownership, a sign that the co-production process helped transform a theoretical idea into a shared community endeavor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.1. Barriers to Implementation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDespite the successes, the project team encountered several challenges and potential barriers in co-producing and implementing the NbS, many of which are instructive for similar efforts:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.1.1. Limited Access and Engagement in Rural, Privately Owned Landscapes\u003c/strong\u003e: A number of proposed project ideas involved private lands or multiple jurisdictions, raising questions about permissions and long-term management. In rural areas like Refugio County, large portions of land (99.4%) including riverbanks and undeveloped coast are privately owned, often by ranchers or absentee owners (Headwater Economics, 2024). Limited broadband and cell coverage in parts of the county further complicate communication, especially in more remote areas (Whitacre et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These challenges are compounded by a history of surface-level or one-off engagement in rural places, which can lead to skepticism about outside efforts (Cornish et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, while broader resilience networks and peer institutions may offer valuable support, they are not always easily visible or accessible to rural actors. Co-production and trust building takes time (Wyborn et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), but short planning timelines and limited in-county networks can make early outreach difficult.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2.2. Piecemeal Funding Does Not Align Well with Long-Term Planning and Implementation\u003c/strong\u003e: NbS, by design, are intended to provide sustained benefits over extended periods, often decades or centuries with a wide array of co-benefits that accrue over time. For example, fully restoring the Mission River corridor would be a multi-year effort involving many landowners and considerable funds. However, many funding programs operate on shorter cycles (e.g., 2\u0026ndash;5 years), creating a temporal misalignment that hinders continuous funding for monitoring, adaptive management, and long-term maintenance (Browder et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wyborn et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.3.3. Turnover in Elected Officials Affects the Success/Failure of Plans/Actions:\u003c/strong\u003eChanges in political leadership can lead to shifts in priorities, funding allocations, and even the abandonment of previously approved plans, creating instability for multi-year NbS projects that require consistent political and financial backing. This highlights the critical importance of embedding these initiatives within community will and non-governmental structures to ensure continuity and sustained momentum. To mitigate this, successful resilience efforts must cultivate strong community champions and foster a deep sense of ownership and responsibility within local stakeholders (FEMA, 2023). When initiatives are championed by the community, they are more likely to persist and attract support regardless of political changes, ensuring that commitment to relationships extends beyond the political sphere.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.4.4. Limited Local Capacity in Rural Areas\u003c/strong\u003e: Small, rural communities often face significant limitations in technical expertise, staffing, and financial resources, which impedes their ability to develop and implement complex NbS projects (Wowk et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Refugio County\u0026rsquo;s government has no environmental department, for instance, and its narrow tax base covers only essentials like roads, utilities, and governance. This means there is little to no flexibility to dedicate local funds for matching requirements on state or federal grants, which immediately places these communities at a disadvantage when competing for resilience dollars. This low capacity is not merely a resource deficit but a systemic barrier to equitable climate adaptation, exacerbating existing inequities (Arnold et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These communities may struggle to apply for competitive grants, manage complex contracts, or effectively monitor project performance. Moreover, these constraints limit a community\u0026rsquo;s ability to participate as equal partners in co-production. During the project, challenges emerged such as navigating regulatory questions (e.g. permitting), and unfamiliarity with climate planning concepts and technical language. Bridging this gap required rethinking how information was framed and delivered. This requires more than just direct funding; it necessitates having external partners or regional expertise engaged to support rural communities in addition to targeted capacity building, technical assistance, and the fostering of peer-to-peer learning networks that empower communities to lead their own resilience efforts, rather than being passive recipients of external interventions (Williams, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.2. Key Enabling Conditions for Success\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhile these barriers posed real challenges, the project also revealed a number of enabling conditions, both planned and emergent, that supported progress and offered lessons for future efforts. The following section outlines these conditions, many of which correspond directly to the barriers described above.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2.1. Supportive Land Context and Stakeholder Readiness\u003c/strong\u003e: Though not often celebrated, choosing the right site, county-owned land at Black Point, was a quiet but essential enabler. In contrast to projects that stalled due to private landowner resistance, this project avoided early roadblocks by aligning with accessible, publicly managed land. Additionally, adjacent landowners were proactively included, preventing backlash. This demonstrates that enabling conditions are not only about people or policies, but also about making practical choices that match the local context.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2.2. Alignment with State Plans and Funding Frameworks\u003c/strong\u003e: A critical enabling factor for success was the project\u0026rsquo;s alignment with broader state-level initiatives such as the TCRMP, the State Hazard Mitigation Plan and Texas Parks and Wildlife\u0026rsquo;s Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan. The potential to integrate the Refugio County co-produced strategies into TCRMP lent credibility, helped frame the work within a larger policy context, and opened doors for future funding and visibility. It can catalyze additional investment by showing funders that the work is not isolated but part of a strategic continuum. This alignment enables local priorities to scale, while also allowing larger plans to be grounded in lived experience. However, to preserve local autonomy and ensure nuanced priorities are not diluted, it is essential that integration into regional plans comes with mechanisms for community feedback and adaptive governance.\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2.3 Sustained Engagement for Lasting Impact\u003c/strong\u003e: Sustained engagement, trust, and ownership were central to the project\u0026rsquo;s success, helping maintain continuity through local champions despite shifts in elected leadership. This intrinsic motivation fostered ongoing participation, volunteerism, and advocacy beyond the project\u0026rsquo;s six-month timeline, including collaborations on subsequent funding proposals. While participatory approaches can be tokenistic, genuine co-production requires co-governance, where agencies and grassroots groups share decision-making authority to ensure equitable distribution of NbS benefits (Williams, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Arnold et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The project prioritized community engagement at every step\u0026mdash;meeting people where they are through bilingual materials, presence at local events like the county fair, and iterative incorporation of feedback. Such efforts are essential in participatory action research, where sustained interaction maintains trust, strengthens adaptive capacity, and supports resilience in shifting socio-political contexts (Cornish et al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2.4. Capacity Building Through Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Communication\u003c/strong\u003e: A core enabling condition for the project\u0026rsquo;s success was the formation of a transdisciplinary team that brought together national NGOs, academic researchers, local government, consultants, and community members from the outset. This collaborative structure went beyond multidisciplinary coordination; by integrating scientific, practical, and place-based knowledge systems, it allowed the team to co-define problems, co-develop solutions, and continuously align research with on-the-ground needs. Complex socio-ecological challenges like coastal resilience require this kind of systems-level thinking; no single discipline or actor can adequately address them alone (DeLorme et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; NASEM, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Stokols\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The team\u0026rsquo;s diverse expertise and shared commitment to co-production fostered trust, improved communication, and ensured that project outcomes were technically sound, locally relevant and actionable. Lastly, this effort was supported by a unique planning grant that prioritized relationship-building unlike many funding opportunities that emphasize research results, construction, or other tangible deliverables that can divert attention from collaboration and trust-building.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2.5. Local Champion(s) \u0026ndash; A Team of Champions!\u003c/strong\u003e Having respected local figures integrally involved provided credibility and convening power (Knight et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Kochnower et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In this case, the active participation of the Refugio County Judge (Robert Blaschke) and leaders of the Refugio Community Development Foundation was instrumental. Their presence signaled that this project was a community priority, not an external agenda. It opened doors to networks of residents who might otherwise be hard to reach, as people were more receptive and open to their known networks. For example, through the judge\u0026rsquo;s connections, the team was able to engage the superintendents of the local school districts, leading to outreach with high school students. This underlines the importance of leveraging existing community networks and trust. Community champions helped bridge trust gaps in many parts of the county, though deeper engagement is still needed to fully reach marginalized groups.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.3. Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Co-Producing NbS in Rural Coastal Contexts\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Refugio County project surfaced a number of valuable lessons for those seeking to co-produce NbS in small, rural, and climate-vulnerable communities. Many of these lessons align with the ten recommended practices for co-production outlined by Beier et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), including beginning with a decision context (e.g., how to manage shoreline erosion in a public access site), maintaining iterative engagement, and embedding trust-building throughout the process. While the project was not explicitly framed using their framework from the outset, retrospective alignment shows that these principles were organically adopted, particularly in areas such as creating user-relevant outputs, managing expectations, and supporting long-term community ownership. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e illustrates how these lessons intersect with the barriers encountered and the enabling conditions that allowed the project to succeed to guide future efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.3.1. Centering Process, Not Just Products\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne of the clearest lessons was the process of building relationships. Listening, convening, and iterating with the community was as important as the final list of project priorities. In rural settings especially, legitimacy and trust come from being visible, responsive, and consistent over time. The project team\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on \u0026ldquo;meeting people where they are\u0026rdquo; including bilingual outreach, local event presence, and feedback loops (e.g., returning to the advisory group with findings, draft ideas, or updates, and then inviting their reactions before moving forward) showed that sustained engagement fosters lasting ownership. An unexpected effective strategy was offering survey participants a ticket to a local burger stall at the county fair. Rather than a generic gift card, this choice reflected local culture and created a sense of appreciation and community. The co-production process led to a deepened understanding of local resilience priorities, increased trust among stakeholders, and co-created tools (e.g., visual maps and project matrices). These intermediate \u0026ldquo;wins\u0026rdquo; often lead to new knowledge generation, broadened issue awareness, and increased participant capacity (Wyborn et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Projects that rush to outcomes without investing in community processes risk short-lived or unsupported solutions. When planning or proposing co-production projects, this is where project leads must consider time and effort in meaningfully carrying out the co-production process, and that must be reflected in planning the timeline and budget, as well as in ensuring co-production expertise is present on the project team.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.3.2. Communication Must Be Relatable and Values-Based\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn rural, low-capacity settings like Refugio County, communication barriers can limit understanding and reduce participation, especially when technical language is used or climate concepts feel disconnected from daily life. This challenge underscored the importance of using relatable, values-based messaging. Having a transdisciplinary team and local champions helped bridge this gap by translating environmental goals into plainspoken, bilingual language grounded in community values like family, fishing, and heritage. The use of visuals, maps, and stories enabled people to see themselves in the work. This experience reinforced that effective NbS planning is not just about technical design, but also about communication strategy: projects must be communicated in ways that resonate emotionally and culturally. Doing so builds trust and deepens community investment in long-term resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.3.3. Equity Requires More Than Good Intentions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn any rural NbS effort, identifying and involving local champions (be they officials, elders, or community advocates) early on can significantly enhance participation and buy-in. While the project made strong efforts to engage diverse voices through bilingual materials, accessible locations, and trusted local messengers, certain populations remained hard to reach, particularly migrant workers and recent immigrants. Despite intentional strategies, the team was not able to fully connect with this group, which underscores the deeper structural and cultural barriers that exist in many rural communities. This reveals a critical equity lesson: inclusion efforts must be tailored, persistent, and sometimes reimagined entirely. In rural areas where reliance on social media may be low and trust is built through personal presence, equity requires being on the ground. Reaching migrant populations may require working through entirely different networks (e.g., faith-based groups, employers, or health workers) and investing long-term in relationship-building. Future phases must explore more culturally relevant, trust-based approaches to include dedicated local staff and sustained community presence, ensuring that the most vulnerable are not left out of decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.3.4. Replicability Lies in the Approach, Not the Details\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlthough the specific flooding challenges and project ideas in Refugio County were place-based, the collaborative approach is transferable. Co-producing NbS through transdisciplinary teams, ongoing dialogue, and community leadership offers a scalable model for other rural areas facing similar risks. The lesson here is not to copy projects, but to build capacity and support processes that allow communities to generate their own solutions grounded in local knowledge and context. To understand how this approach can inform future resilience efforts, we assessed our process against the NOAA RESTORE Science Program\u0026rsquo;s four-phase co-production framework. [1]Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes how each co-production stage of the framework (scoping, design, research and development, transfer and application) was operationalized in this project.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.3.5. Tap Early into Existing Networks for Strategic Alignment\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA missed opportunity identified by the team was the delayed engagement of established resilience networks (like the Sea Grant Resilience Community of Practice). These groups offer peer learning, technical tools, and policy leverage that can strengthen projects and reduce duplication. Tapping into existing groups, rather than building entirely new ones, can enhance coordination, avoid duplication, and embed projects within a wider ecosystem of resilience work. Similarly, early outreach to private landowners is essential, especially when proposed NbS depend on land access or voluntary cooperation. In this case, one highly ranked project was ultimately set aside due to anticipated difficulties in securing landowner participation within the project timeframe. Enabling conditions like a supportive land context and growing coordination with regional frameworks (e.g., the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan) helped mitigate some of these challenges, but they came later in the process. Moving forward, resilience initiatives should start with an intentional mapping of existing networks (e.g., technical, institutional, and community-based) to build coalitions early, embed projects within larger ecosystems of work, and avoid siloed efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo-production Process in Refugio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003eCo-production Step (as per NOAA RESTORE Science Program)\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003eRefugio Project Activities\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003eStakeholder Involvement\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003eKey Outcome/Contribution to Actionable Science\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Scoping\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eInitial community meetings to identify key concerns and priorities. Preliminary research on Refugio County\u0026apos;s vulnerabilities (e.g., Pathak \u0026amp; Fuller,\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eCommunity members, local officials, academic researchers, NGO partners.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eClearly defined local problems and shared understanding of project scope. Identification of initial NbS opportunities.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eCollaborative workshops for co-designing potential NbS strategies. Development of survey instrument based on workshop insights.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eCommunity members, local leaders, subject matter experts, academic researchers.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eCo-designed NbS concepts aligned with community values. Survey questions reflecting local priorities.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Research and Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eData collection via community surveys and workshop documentation. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eAcademic researchers, NGO data analysts, community members (as survey respondents).\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eEmpirical evidence of community perceptions, preferences, and concerns. Identification of specific NbS priorities.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. Transfer and Application of Findings and Products\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eDissemination of findings to local government, community groups, and regional planning bodies. Development of this manuscript.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eProject team, local officials, community champions.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eActionable recommendations for NbS implementation. A replicable co-production framework for other communities.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLessons Learned and Their Related Barriers and Enablers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003eLesson Learned\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003eRelated Barrier(s)\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003eRelated Enabler(s)\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCentering Process, Not Just Products\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eLimited Access and Engagement in Rural, Privately Owned Landscapes (Section 6.1.1): Trust-building requires time; short timelines and private landownership made early and sustained engagement difficult.\u003cbr\u003eTurnover in Elected Officials Affects Success/Failure of Plans/Actions (6.1.3): Political shifts disrupt continuity, but building process legitimacy helps buffer that instability.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eCommunity Leadership as a Continuity Strategy (Section 6.2.3): Grounded engagement at fairs and with feedback loops fostered legitimacy and ownership.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunication Must Be Relatable and Values-Based\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eLimited Access and Engagement in Rural, Privately Owned Landscapes (Section 6.1.1): Difficulty accessing dispersed populations and limited participation created additional communication hurdles.\u003cbr\u003eLimited Local Capacity in Rural Areas (Section 6.1.4): Low technical capacity, unfamiliarity with planning concepts, and lack of environmental staffing made communication and understanding harder.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eCommunity Leadership as a Continuity Strategy (Section 6.2.3): Trusted local voices helped make complex ideas relatable and reinforced community connections.\u003cbr\u003eCapacity Building Through Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Communication (Section 6.2.4): Bilingual, values-based messaging and co-developed communication strategies built trust.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEquity Requires More Than Good Intentions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eLimited Local Capacity in Rural Areas (Section 6.1.4): Reaching vulnerable and migrant populations remained difficult despite bilingual efforts.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eLocal Champions (Section 6.2.5): Trusted local leaders bridged access to harder-to-reach groups; proactive outreach helped establish trust with residents.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReplicability Lies in the Approach, Not the Details\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eTurnover in Elected Officials (6.1.3): Institutional instability can hinder replication if projects aren\u0026rsquo;t rooted in community leadership.\u003cbr\u003eLimited Local Capacity in Rural Areas (Section 6.1.4): Challenges in managing complex projects and applying for grants limit replication without process-based support.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eSupportive Land Context and Stakeholder Readiness (Section 6.2.1): Selecting county-owned land at Black Point eliminated early hurdles posed by private ownership and enabled smoother implementation.\u003cbr\u003eAlignment with State Plans and Funding Frameworks (Section 6.2.2): Tying local efforts into broader initiatives like the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan enhanced visibility, lent credibility, and opened doors to future funding.\u003cbr\u003eCommunity Leadership as a Continuity Strategy (Section 6.2.3): Ongoing engagement by local champions, who stayed involved despite leadership transitions, ensured continuity and local stewardship.\u003cbr\u003eCapacity Building Through Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Communication (Section 6.2.4): A collaborative structure that included NGOs, researchers, government, and residents allowed co-development of solutions and built shared ownership\u0026mdash;critical for models others can follow.\u003cbr\u003eLocal Champions \u0026ndash; A Team of Champions! (Section 6.2.5): Involvement of trusted local figures such as the County Judge and Community Development Foundation leaders extended reach and trust, a key ingredient for replicating the model in other communities.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTap Early into Existing Networks for Strategic Alignment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eLimited Access and Engagement in Rural, Privately Owned Landscapes (Section 6.1.1): Lack of early engagement with landowners and networks led to delays and dropped projects.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003eAlignment with State Plans and Funding Frameworks (Section 6.2.2): Linking local projects to broader state initiatives (e.g., TCRMP) provided legitimacy, policy relevance, and unlocked new funding pathways.\u003cbr\u003eLocal Champion(s) \u0026ndash; A Team of Champions (Section 6.2.5): Trusted local leaders facilitated connections with harder-to-reach communities and expanded community networks, ensuring broader participation and support.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\u003cbr\u003e6.4. Next Steps: From Co-Production to Action\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBased on the findings and lessons learned from the NbS Refugio project, several concrete next steps are proposed to advance NbS implementation and ensure long-term coastal resilience in the county:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePilot Project Implementation\u003c/strong\u003e: Seek funding to initiate one or two small-scale NbS pilot projects identified and co-designed by the community during the workshops and surveys. These \u0026ldquo;quick wins\u0026rdquo; demonstrate visible progress, reinforce momentum, and serve as proof-of-concept for scaling NbS in the county.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePolicy Integration\u003c/strong\u003e: Actively work with local and regional planning bodies to integrate the co-produced NbS strategies into existing planning frameworks, such as the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan, and local land-use ordinances. This involves advocating for policies that support long-term funding for NbS and streamline permitting processes for natural infrastructure. Embedding NbS into policy will ensure their durability beyond political cycles or funding fluctuations.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCapacity Building and Training\u003c/strong\u003e: Develop and deliver targeted training programs for community members and local officials on NbS design, implementation, and maintenance. This will enhance local capacity and empower the community to take a leading role in future resilience efforts.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNetwork Strengthening\u003c/strong\u003e: Formalize partnerships with existing regional resilience networks (e.g., Sea Grant\u0026rsquo;s Resilience Community of Practice) to facilitate knowledge exchange, share resources, and identify opportunities for collaborative funding applications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunity-Led Monitoring\u003c/strong\u003e: Establish a robust framework for long-term monitoring of NbS performance and community resilience outcomes, drawing from the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models and Socio-economic Metrics (GEMS) approach (Olander et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the Refugio County case demonstrates that rural coastal communities, despite limited resources, can drive the development of nature-based adaptation solutions when given the proper support and engagement. The Black Point living shoreline project now has a constituency of local advocates behind it, improving its prospects for implementation and longevity. While challenges around funding, land access, and capacity must be navigated, the foundation of trust and knowledge built through the co-development is a significant asset.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor practitioners and researchers, this case underscores that process matters: how we arrive at a solution is as important as the solution itself. By investing in inclusive, transparent processes, we create conditions for lasting outcomes. As climate threats escalate, empowering communities to harness nature-based approaches is an urgent task, one that will require patience, humility, and genuine collaboration with those who know and love their home places. The experience in Refugio County offers a hopeful example of what is possible when communities are not just consulted, but are true partners in designing their resilient future.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7. Acknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe thank the Refugio County community for their active participation and local leadership, especially the advisory group members and Ret. County Judge Robert Blaschke. This project would not have been possible without the collaborative efforts of the Harte Research Institute, Santos McBain, and Refugio Community Development Foundation. We also acknowledge the Coastal Bend Council of Governments for helping convene local partners and the Woodsboro High School for supporting youth participation. Finally, we thank the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Gulf Research Program for funding this work under the \u0026ldquo;Engaging Communities to Design Nature-Based Solutions to Mitigate Climate-Related Hazards\u0026rdquo; grant and supporting community-led resilience efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests or financial conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The community survey was reviewed by the Texas A\u0026amp;M University\u0026ndash;Corpus Christi Office for Research Compliance and determined to be in compliance with Human Subjects Research and exempt from full review (TAMU-CC-IRB-2022-0673). All participation in workshops and the community survey was voluntary, and participants provided implied consent by choosing to participate after being informed of the project\u0026rsquo;s purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Not applicable. This manuscript does not contain any individual person\u0026rsquo;s data in any form.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are publicly available in the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative Information and Data Cooperative (GRIIDC):\u003cbr\u003eDel Angel, D., Hale, C., \u0026amp; Pathak, A. (2025). \u003cem\u003eA community survey to explore nature-based solutions in Refugio County, Texas\u003c/em\u003e. GRIIDC. https://doi.org/10.7266/b4skwjyb\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThis work was funded by the Gulf Research Program of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under the \u003cem\u003eEngaging Communities to Design Nature-Based Solutions to Mitigate Climate-Related Hazards\u003c/em\u003e planning grant. The funding body had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, nor in the writing of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAP\u003c/strong\u003e conceptualized and coordinated the project, wrote the original draft, and led revisions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDD\u003c/strong\u003e designed and analyzed the community survey, contributed to methods and results, and assisted with writing and revisions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCH\u003c/strong\u003e provided project supervision, contributed to conceptualization, and participated in writing and review.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAll authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlcock, I., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Fleming, L. E., \u0026amp; Depledge, M. H. (2014). Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban areas. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Technology, 48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1247\u0026ndash;1255. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403688w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnberger, A., \u0026amp; Eder, R. (2012). The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41\u0026ndash;49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnold, C. A., Williams, R. D., Pederson, H., Schuhmann, A., Ernstberger, A., de Melo Cartaxo, T., ... \u0026amp; Wood, L. (2020). Resilience justice and community-based green and blue infrastructure. \u003cem\u003eWm. \u0026amp; Mary Env\u0026apos;t L. \u0026amp; Pol\u0026apos;y Rev.\u003c/em\u003e, 45, 665.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBabbie, E. R. (2016). \u003cem\u003eThe practice of social research\u003c/em\u003e (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbier, E. (2013). Valuing ecosystem services for coastal wetland protection and restoration: Progress and challenges. \u003cem\u003eResources, 2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 213\u0026ndash;230. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources2030213\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeier, P., Hansen, L. J., Helbrecht, L., \u0026amp; Behar, D. (2017). A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science: Coproducing actionable science. \u003cem\u003eConservation Letters, 10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 288\u0026ndash;296. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12300\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenedict, M. A., \u0026amp; McMahon, E. (2006). \u003cem\u003eGreen infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities.\u003c/em\u003e Washington, DC: Island Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerg, C. E., Mineau, M. M., \u0026amp; Rogers, S. H. (2016). Examining the ecosystem service of nutrient removal in a coastal watershed. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services, 20\u003c/em\u003e, 104\u0026ndash;112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBilkovic, D. M., Mitchell, M., Mason, P., \u0026amp; Duhring, K. (2016). The role of living shorelines as estuarine habitat conservation strategies. \u003cem\u003eCoastal Management, 44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 161\u0026ndash;174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2016.1160201\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hahn, K. S., Daily, G. C., \u0026amp; Gross, J. J. (2015). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112\u003c/em\u003e(28), 8567\u0026ndash;8572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBressane, A., Silva, M. B., Goulart, A. P. G., \u0026amp; Medeiros, L. C. C. (2024). Understanding how green space naturalness impacts public well-being: Prospects for designing healthier cities. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21\u003c/em\u003e(5), 585. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050585\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBridges, T. S., Wagner, P. W., Burks-Copes, K. A., Bates, M. E., Collier, Z. A., Fischenich, C. J., Gailani, J. Z., et al. (2015). \u003cem\u003eUse of natural and nature-based features (NNBF) for coastal resilience: Final report\u003c/em\u003e (ERDC SR-15-1). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrowder, G., Ozment, S., Rehberger Bescos, I., Gartner, T., \u0026amp; Lange, G.-M. (2019). \u003cem\u003eIntegrating green and gray: Creating next generation infrastructure\u003c/em\u003e. World Bank and World Resources Institute. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/31430\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, L. K., Svendsen, E., Johnson, M., Piland, N., Locke, D., Sonti, N., ... \u0026amp; Flores, B. (2024). Reflecting on local ecological stewardship, care, and action across two decades of research. \u003cem\u003eCities and the Environment, 17\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U., Delgado, J., Rua, M., de-Graft Aikins, A., \u0026amp; Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action research. \u003cem\u003eNature Reviews Methods Primers, 3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDel Angel, D., Hale, C., \u0026amp; Pathak, A. (2025). \u003cem\u003eA community survey to explore nature-based solutions in Refugio County, Texas\u003c/em\u003e [Dataset]. GRIIDC, Harte Research Institute, Texas A\u0026amp;M University\u0026ndash;Corpus Christi. https://doi.org/10.7266/b4skwjyb\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDel Angel, D., Hale, C., \u0026amp; Wowk, K. (2022). \u003cem\u003eMapping flood hazards and vulnerability in the Coastal Bend\u003c/em\u003e. Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A\u0026amp;M University\u0026ndash;Corpus Christi. http://www.coastalbendcog.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/CDBG.MIT_MOD_MAPS_202208%20%28FINAL%29.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeLorme, D. E., Kidwell, D., Hagen, S. C., \u0026amp; Stephens, S. H. (2016). Developing and managing transdisciplinary and transformative research on the coastal dynamics of sea level rise: Experiences and lessons learned. \u003cem\u003eEarth\u0026rsquo;s Future, 4\u003c/em\u003e, 194\u0026ndash;209. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EF000346\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans, N. M., Stewart, W. P., \u0026amp; Van Riper, C. (2022). A place meaning scale for rural communities undergoing landscape change. \u003cem\u003eSociety \u0026amp; Natural Resources, 35\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1206\u0026ndash;1225. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2101725\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2023). \u003cem\u003eBuilding community resilience with nature-based solutions: Strategies for success\u003c/em\u003e. Federal Emergency Management Agency.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFink, A. (2013). \u003cem\u003eHow to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGladwell, M. (2000). \u003cem\u003eThe Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. \u003c/em\u003eLittle, Brown and Company. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Oakley, J. A., \u0026amp; Williams, A. T. (2018). Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. \u003cem\u003eOcean \u0026amp; Coastal Management, 156\u003c/em\u003e, 277\u0026ndash;289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeadwaters Economics. (2024). \u003cem\u003eLand Ownership and Land Use in the United States. \u003c/em\u003ehttps://headwaterseconomics.org. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeikkinen, M. (2022). The role of network participation in climate change mitigation: A city-level analysis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2022.2036163\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Jagt, A. P., Smith, M., Ambrose-Oji, B., Konijnendijk, C. C., Giannico, V., Haase, D., ... \u0026amp; Cvejić, R. (2019). Co-creating urban green infrastructure connecting people and nature: A guiding framework and approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e233\u003c/em\u003e, 757-767.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaźmierczak, A. (2013). The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning, 109\u003c/em\u003e(1), 31\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeen, M., Brown, V. A., \u0026amp; Dyball, R. (Eds.). (2010). \u003cem\u003eSocial learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future\u003c/em\u003e. London Sterling, VA: Earthscan.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelliher, F., Reinl, L., Johnson, T. G., \u0026amp; Joppe, M. (2018). The role of trust in building rural tourism micro firm network engagement: A multi-case study. \u003cem\u003eTourism Management, 68\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeniger, L. E., Gaston, K. J., Irvine, K. N., \u0026amp; Fuller, R. A. (2013). What are the benefits of interacting with nature? \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 913\u0026ndash;935. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing, D. (2002). Endangered species: Groundwater and small towns in the Texas Coastal Bend. \u003cem\u003eAgricultural History, 76\u003c/em\u003e(2), 364\u0026ndash;380.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Difford, M., \u0026amp; Campbell, B. M. (2010). Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology, 24\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1348\u0026ndash;1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01494.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKochnower, D., Reddy, S. M. W., \u0026amp; Flick, R. E. (2015). Factors influencing local decisions to use habitats to protect coastal communities from hazards. \u003cem\u003eOcean \u0026amp; Coastal Management, 116\u003c/em\u003e, 277\u0026ndash;290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLarson, L. R., Jennings, V., \u0026amp; Cloutier, S. A. (2016). Public parks and wellbeing in urban areas of the United States. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE, 11\u003c/em\u003e(4), e0153211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153211\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLefcheck, J. S., Hughes, B. B., Johnson, A. J., Pfirrmann, B. W., Rasher, D. B., Smyth, A. R., Williams, B. L., Beck, M. W., \u0026amp; Orth, R. J. (2019). Are coastal habitats important nurseries? A meta‐analysis. \u003cem\u003eConservation Letters\u003c/em\u003e, e12645. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12645\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLynch, A. J. (2016). Is it good to be green? Assessing the ecological results of county green infrastructure planning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Planning Education and Research, 36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 90\u0026ndash;104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15598615\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCormack, G. R., Rock, M., Toohey, A. M., \u0026amp; Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. \u003cem\u003eHealth \u0026amp; Place, 16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 712\u0026ndash;726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMach, K. J., Lemos, M. C., Meadow, A. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., et al. (2020). Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42\u003c/em\u003e, 30\u0026ndash;37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorris, R. L., Konlechner, T. M., Ghisalberti, M., \u0026amp; Swearer, S. E. (2018). From grey to green: Efficacy of eco-engineering solutions for nature-based coastal defence. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biology, 24\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1827\u0026ndash;1842. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14063\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNarayan, S., Beck, M. W., Reguero, B. G., Losada, I. J., van Wesenbeeck, B., Pontee, N., Sanchirico, J. N., Ingram, J. C., Lange, G.-M., \u0026amp; Burks-Copes, K. A. (2016). The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE, 11\u003c/em\u003e(5), e0154735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eCo-production of environmental knowledge: Methods and approaches\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved June 11, 2025, from https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/co-production-of-environmental-knowledge-methods-and-approaches\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2004). \u003cem\u003eFacilitating interdisciplinary research\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2022). \u003cem\u003eGulf research program awards $1M in planning grants to support nature-based solutions. \u003c/em\u003eThe National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2022/10/gulf-research-program-awards-1m-in-planning-grants-to-support-nature-based-solutions \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2021). \u003cem\u003eENOW Explorer: Total ocean-dependent employment; Refugio County, TX\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved July 16, 2025, from https://coast.noaa.gov/enowexplorer/#/employment/total/2021/48391/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA OCM). (2017). \u003cem\u003eC-CAP regional land cover and change\u003c/em\u003e. https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlander, L., Warnell, K., Mason, S., Karasik, R., Tallis, H., Coffey, K., Hale, C., ... \u0026amp; Yoskowitz, D. (2024). Advancing consistent socio-economic monitoring of coastal ecosystem restoration through collaborative metric development. \u003cem\u003eCommunications Earth \u0026amp; Environment, 5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 537.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePathak, A., \u0026amp; Fuller, A. (2021). \u003cem\u003eVulnerability and Adaptation to \u003cem\u003eClimate Change: An Assessment for the Texas Mid-Coast. \u003c/em\u003eAustin, TX: National Wildlife Federation.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePathak, A., Glick, P., Hansen, L. J., Hilberg, L. E., Ritter, J., \u0026amp; Stein, B. A. (2022). \u003cem\u003eIncorporating Nature-based Solutions Into Community Climate Adaptation Planning. \u003c/em\u003eWashington, DC: National Wildlife Federation and EcoAdapt.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePita, P., Gribble, M. O., Antelo, M., Ainsworth, G., Hyder, K., van den Bosch, M., \u0026amp; Villasante, S. (2022). Recreational fishing, health and well-being: Findings from a cross-sectional survey. \u003cem\u003eEcosystems and People, 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 530\u0026ndash;546. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2112291\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePowell, E. J., Tyrrell, M. C., Milliken, A., Tirpak, J. M., \u0026amp; Staudinger, M. D. (2019). A review of coastal management approaches to support the integration of ecological and human community planning for climate change. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Coastal Conservation, 23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0632-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePr\u0026eacute;coma-de La Mora, M., Bennett, N. J., Fulton, S., Munguia-Vega, A., Lasch-Thaler, C., Walther-Mendoza, M., Zepeda-Dom\u0026iacute;nguez, J. A., Finkbeiner, E. M., Green, A. L., Su\u0026aacute;rez, A., Weaver, A. H., Figueroa Carranza, A. L. R., Vega Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, A., Zepeda, C., Montes, C., Fuentes Montalvo, D. A., Micheli, F., Reyes-Bonilla, H., Chollett, I., Lopez-Ercilla, I., Torres Origel, J. F., V\u0026aacute;zquez-Vera, L., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Rivas, M. D. C., Mancha-Cisneros, M. D. M., Espinosa-Romero, M. J., Mart\u0026iacute;n Ru\u0026iacute;z, M., Arafeh-Dalmau, N., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Cuellar, O. T., Huchim, O., \u0026amp; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez Van Dyck, S. (2021). Integrating biophysical, socio-economic and governance principles into marine reserve design and management in Mexico: From theory to practice. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Marine Science, 8\u003c/em\u003e, 778980. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.778980\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR\u0026auml;diker, S., \u0026amp; Kuckartz, U. (2020). Focused analysis of qualitative interviews with MAXQDA. \u003cem\u003eMaxQDA Press\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., \u0026amp; Kalivas, T. (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics, 68\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1301\u0026ndash;1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., et al. (2010). What is social learning? \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society, 15\u003c/em\u003e(4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268235\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRezaie, A. M., Loerzel, J., \u0026amp; Ferreira, C. M. (2020). Valuing natural habitats for enhancing coastal resilience: Wetlands reduce property damage from storm surge and sea level rise. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE, 15\u003c/em\u003e(1), e0226275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226275\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoman, C. T. (2017). Salt marsh sustainability: Challenges during an uncertain future. \u003cem\u003eEstuaries and Coasts, 40\u003c/em\u003e(3), 711\u0026ndash;716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0149-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRouse, D. C., \u0026amp; Bunster-Ossa, I. F. (2013). \u003cem\u003eGreen infrastructure: A landscape approach\u003c/em\u003e (No. 571). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalant, P., \u0026amp; Dillman, D. A. (1994). \u003cem\u003eHow to conduct your own survey\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSankireddy, P., Ramireddy, N. S., Penumada, A. R., Pechetti, J., \u0026amp; Nair, N. C. (2025). Analyzing public feedback on urban infrastructure projects. In \u003cem\u003e2025 IEEE International Conference on Interdisciplinary Approaches in Technology and Management for Social Innovation (IATMSI)\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 3, pp. 1\u0026ndash;6). https://doi.org/10.1109/IATMSI64286.2025.10984847\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShepard, C. C., Crain, C. M., \u0026amp; Beck, M. W. (2011). The protective role of coastal marshes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE, 6\u003c/em\u003e(11), e27374.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmyth, J., Dillman, D., Christian, L., \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Neill, A. (2010). Using the internet to survey small towns and communities: Limitations and possibilities in the early 21st century. \u003cem\u003eDepartment of Sociology: Faculty Publications\u003c/em\u003e, May. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/667\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoini, K., Anderson, C. C., Polderman, A., Teresa, C., Sisay, D., Kumar, P., Mannocchi, M., et al. (2023). Context matters: Co-creating nature-based solutions in rural living labs. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy, 133\u003c/em\u003e, 106839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106839\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStewart, W. P., Liebert, D., \u0026amp; Larkin, K. W. (2004). Community identities as visions for landscape change. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning, 69\u003c/em\u003e(2\u0026ndash;3), 315\u0026ndash;334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.07.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Community Psychology, 38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 63\u0026ndash;77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9060-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSutton-Grier, A. E., Wowk, K., \u0026amp; 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. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Policy, 137\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTexas General Land Office. (2023). \u003cem\u003eTexas coastal resiliency master plan\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.glo.texas.gov/coast/coastal-management/coastal-resiliency/resources/files/2023-tcrmp-book.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTromp, C. (Ed.). (2018). Robust knowledge for complex problems. In \u003cem\u003eWicked philosophy: Philosophy of science and vision development for complex problems\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 115\u0026ndash;141). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9789048541096.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnegbu, H. C., Yawas, D. S., Dan-asabe, B., \u0026amp; Alabi, A. A. (2024). Investigation of community engagement in sustainable construction projects: Case studies from Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sustainable Construction, 4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 10\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWall, T. U., McNie, E., \u0026amp; Garfin, G. M. (2017). Use‐inspired science: Making science usable by and useful to decision makers. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15\u003c/em\u003e(10), 551\u0026ndash;559. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1735\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeddle, H., \u0026amp; Oliveira, G. (2024). Imagining new possibilities through participatory qualitative methods. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23\u003c/em\u003e, 16094069241301983. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241301983\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhitacre, B. E., Gallardo, R., \u0026amp; Strover, S. (2014). Broadband\u0026rsquo;s contribution to economic growth in rural areas: Moving towards a causal relationship. \u003cem\u003eTelecommunications Policy, 38\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1011\u0026ndash;1023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhite, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Gascon, M., Roberts, B., \u0026amp; Fleming, L. E. (2020). Blue space, health and well-being: A narrative overview and synthesis of potential benefits. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research, 191\u003c/em\u003e, 110169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110169\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, D. S. (2020). Enhancing autonomy for climate change adaptation using participatory modeling. \u003cem\u003eWeather, Climate, and Society, 12\u003c/em\u003e(4), 667\u0026ndash;678.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoodruff, S., Tran, T., Lee, J., Wilkins, C., Newman, G., Ndubisi, F., \u0026amp; Van Zandt, S. (2020). Green infrastructure in comprehensive plans in coastal Texas. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Planning and Management\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1835618\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWowk, K., Adams, M., \u0026amp; Martinez, E. (2023). Translating the complexity of disaster resilience with local leaders. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Communication, 8, \u003c/em\u003e1100265.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., ... \u0026amp; van Kerkhoff, L. (2019). Co-producing sustainability: Reordering science, governance and practice. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources, 44\u003c/em\u003e, 319\u0026ndash;346. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZahnow, R. (2024). Social infrastructure, social cohesion and subjective wellbeing. \u003cem\u003eWellbeing, Space and Society, 7\u003c/em\u003e, 100210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2024.100210\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSee NOAA RESTORE Science Program. (n.d.). Co-production: Examples and Tools. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://restoreactscienceprogram.noaa.gov/co-production-examples-and-tools\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://restoreactscienceprogram.noaa.gov/co-production-examples-and-tools\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"estuaries-and-coasts","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"esco","sideBox":"Learn more about [Estuaries and Coasts](https://www.springer.com/journal/12237)","snPcode":"12237","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/esco/","title":"Estuaries and Coasts","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7489968/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7489968/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eRural coastal communities are increasingly vulnerable to climate-related hazards but often face barriers to implementing resilience strategies due to limited capacity, fragmented governance, and lack of tailored engagement approaches. This study presents a case from Refugio County, Texas, where a participatory action research (PAR) approach was used to co-develop Nature-based Solutions (NbS) with local stakeholders. Through transdisciplinary collaborations including community workshops, a bilingual public survey, and advisory group convenings, the project engaged residents, youth, local officials, and technical experts to identify key vulnerabilities, such as shoreline erosion, flooding, and degraded public outdoor spaces, and prioritized NbS projects that aligned with local values around safety, recreation, and habitat. The Black Point Living Shoreline emerged as the community\u0026rsquo;s top project, combining coastal protection with public access and ecological restoration. Barriers such as fragmented land ownership, short-term funding cycles, and limited rural staffing were addressed through enabling conditions like strong community leadership, supportive land context, and transdisciplinary collaboration. This paper documents key outcomes of the process, including enhanced community ownership, alignment with state planning frameworks, and strengthened local capacity for future implementation. Lessons from this case highlight the importance of long-term trust-building, tailored communication, and place-based strategies for co-producing actionable resilience solutions in low-capacity, high-risk settings. This project offers a replicable process model for empowering rural communities to lead their NbS planning and climate adaptation efforts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Co-developing Nature-based Solutions for Coastal Resilience: A Case Study from Refugio County, Texas","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-09 16:04:03","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7489968/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2025-09-03T17:31:26+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-02T23:10:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"Estuaries and Coasts","date":"2025-09-02T17:43:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-02T17:31:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Estuaries and Coasts","date":"2025-09-02T12:43:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"estuaries-and-coasts","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"esco","sideBox":"Learn more about [Estuaries and Coasts](https://www.springer.com/journal/12237)","snPcode":"12237","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/esco/","title":"Estuaries and Coasts","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0cd99513-fbfd-47d7-8839-cc4b00dfcf52","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-15T16:08:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7489968","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-025-01646-6","journal":{"identity":"estuaries-and-coasts","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Estuaries and Coasts"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-13 15:58:44","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 13th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-09 16:04:03","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s12237-025-01646-6","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-025-01646-6","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7489968","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7489968","identity":"rs-7489968","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}