(PDF) Public Opinion and Policy Preferences on Coastal Flooding and Sea-Level Rise: Anne Arundel County, Maryland



SURVEY

REPORT

Public Opinion and Policy Preferences

on Coastal Flooding and Sea-Level Rise

Anne Arundel County, Maryland

August 2012



Report author:

Karen Akerlof, PhD ABD

Future Coast Project Manager, George Mason University

This research was developed as part of the CASI/Future Coast Project under a grant from

Mid-Atlantic Sea Grant by a team led by George Mason University, and conducted in

collaboration with members from the U.S. Naval Academy, Center for the Study of Local Issues

at Anne Arundel Community College, and Dewberry.

Todd La Porte, PhD

Associate Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University



Katherine Rowan, PhD

Professor, Department of Communication, George Mason University

Howard Ernst, PhD

Associate Professor of Political Science, U.S. Naval Academy

Dan Nataf, PhD

Director, Center for the Study of Local Issues, Anne Arundel Community College

Brian K. Batten, PhD, CFM

Senior Coastal Scientist, Dewberry



Mohan Rajasekar, MS, CFM

Project Manager, Web Geospatial and Water Resources , Dewberry

Dana Dolan, MS

Doctoral student, School of Public Policy, George Mason University 

Cover image courtesy of Dewberry.

The Future Coast project is not funded — and has no ties to planning efforts — by Anne

Arundel County, the City of Annapolis or the State of Maryland.





CONTENTS



Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8

Anne Arundel Coastal Flooding and Sea-Level Rise Survey ...................................................... 10

Risk perceptions ................................................................................................................... 10

Knowledge about sea-level rise ............................................................................................ 11

Policy preferences for coastal adaptation ............................................................................. 12

Perceived citizen political efficacy ......................................................................................... 14

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 15

Engaging the Public: A Citizens' Discussion .............................................................................. 16

Risk perceptions ................................................................................................................... 16

Knowledge about sea-level rise ............................................................................................ 17

Policy preferences for coastal adaptation ............................................................................. 17

Perceived citizen political efficacy ......................................................................................... 17

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 17

Study Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 19

Anne Arundel County survey ................................................................................................ 19

Citizens’ Discussion post-event survey ................................................................................. 20

Questionnaire design ............................................................................................................ 21

Completion results ................................................................................................................ 21

Sample demographic profile and analysis for bias ............................................................... 22

Appendices:

Anne Arundel County Survey Data ........................................................................................ 32

Citizens' Discussion Data ...................................................................................................... 49

References for Knowledge Questions .................................................................................. 74











PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

With more than 530 miles of shoreline bordering Chesapeake Bay, Anne Arundel County will likely

face important policy questions in coming decades in deciding how best to respond to increased

impacts from coastal flooding and sea-level rise. Hurricane Isabel in 2003 left county residents with

memorable images of historic Annapolis more than knee-deep in water, and widespread flooding,

erosion and structural damage1,2. At about a tenth of an inch a year3, the rate of sea-level rise in the

region is one of the highest on the East Coast and is believed to be increasing4, contributing to the

severity of storm surge from events like Isabel5,6, slowly extending the coastal floodplain inland, and

eventually potentially leaving some areas permanently underwater.

Local governments in the past few years have begun evaluate the scope of the problem and possible

policy solutions to protect community assets, including public infrastructure, private property, and

natural resources7,8,9,10,11. Yet the effects of slowly rising waters may be difficult for county residents

to recognize, and the issue seemingly removed from their daily lives. This report is part of a study

funded by Mid-Atlantic Sea Grant12 to test a public engagement model for making sea-level rise

impact data salient to individuals and facilitating public deliberation on assessed vulnerabilities and

policy responses, as conditions under which communities may be more likely to adopt policies that

will lead to long-term solutions.

The study consists of two components. First, we conducted a survey of Anne Arundel County

residents from randomly selected households that was fielded from March 28 to June 19. The

resulting sample is of 378 adults age 18 years or older with a margin of error of +/-5 percentage

points within a 95% probability. Second, we invited survey participants to attend a daylong Citizens’

Discussion on coastal flooding and sea-level rise on April 28th in Severna Park, Maryland. A follow-

up questionnaire was given to the 40 event participants to evaluate changes resulting from the

deliberative experience.

Key findings, Anne Arundel County survey

Anne Arundel residents are uncertain how sea-level rise and coastal flooding will manifest in their

communities – when impacts will become significant, and whether local governmental policies will

adequately address them – but they are aware of the issue, and supportive of an array of local

government responses. Incorporating sea-level rise into government planning is the most strongly

preferred option, but there is even majority support for increased government spending on this

issue. In line with Maryland state legislation13, residents favor maintaining natural forms of shoreline

protection over employing structural barriers, like sea walls.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

2

Perceived risks from sea-level rise and coastal flooding

• Majorities of county residents (60.4%) say that sea-level rise is occurring and that coastal

flooding has become more of a problem in recent years (54.3%) (Figure 1).

• Half of residents do not know, or have no opinion, whether their local government’s policies

are adequate for addressing coastal flooding long term (50.0%) (Figure 2).

• It is not clear to most residents when the effects of sea-level rise will significantly impact the

county. Almost a third – at the largest percentage of the response options (29.4%) – say they

don’t know (Figure 3).

• County residents are most concerned about the effects of shoreline erosion (64.6%),

followed by private property damage or loss (59.3%), habitat loss (54.8%), and public

infrastructure damage or loss (52.6%).



Knowledge about sea-level rise

• Though a slight majority, most residents correctly believe that scientists do not expect the

current rate of sea-level rise to stay the same over the next 100 years (51.2%).

• Factors contributing to high regional rates of relative sea-level rise are not well understood.

Fewer than one in five (15.8%) correctly say that about half of observed sea-level rise in the

region is due to sinking land (subsidence).

• Almost two-thirds say that climate change is one of the causes of observed changes in sea-

level rise (63.4%), but only slightly more than one-third (36.9%) correctly say that current

sea-level rise is not solely the result of natural cyclical processes. This suggests that the

majority of residents do not associate sea-level rise with human-induced climatic changes

from greenhouse gas emissions.

See references for knowledge questions in appendix, p. 68.

Policy preferences for coastal adaptation

• Of policy tools that local governments could use to address coastal flooding and sea-level

rise, long-range planning is the most supported (81.9%), followed by regulatory changes

(72.5%), and tax incentives to property owners to reduce their risk (67.2%). Use of

government spending is the least supported (51.7%).

• County residents are most in favor of maintaining beaches and wetlands against rising waters

in publicly owned natural areas (73.3%), followed by buying adjacent lands to enable the

movement of natural areas inland (62.5%), and building walls and other structural barriers to

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

3

10%

45%

29%

2%

14%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1

Muchmore

Somewhatmore

Nochange

Somewhatless

Muchless

Don'tknow

9%

26%

13%

3%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1

Stronglydisagree

Somewhatdisagree

Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

Don'tknow/Neither

agreenordisagree

13%

19%21%

3%

9%

6%

29%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1

Effectsaresignificant

now

bytheyear2025

bytheyear2050

bytheyear2075

bytheyear2100

Never

Figure 1.

In your opinion, has

coastal flooding become

more or less of a problem

in the county in recent

years? n=376

Figure 2.

Would you agree or

disagree that your local

government’s policies are

adequate for addressing

coastal flooding over the

long term (e.g., over a

decade or more)? n=376

Figure 3.

When do you believe the

effects of sea-level rise will

significantly impact the

county, if ever? n=377

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

4

protect them (47.9%).

• For built communities, including low-density residential areas and high-density commercial

and residential areas, county residents say they most prefer maintaining and restoring natural

areas (respectively 86%/87.3%), followed by retreating inland (72.9%/71.2%) and designing

and retrofitting buildings to be more flood resilient (58.9%/63.2%) .

• The least popular strategy to protect against coastal flooding is building walls and other

structural barriers along the shore, though hardened defenses are supported by just under

half for low-density resident areas (45.1%), and by just over half of respondents for high-

density commercial and residential areas (52.6%).

Key findings, Citizens’ Discussion of coastal flooding and sea-level rise

On April 28th, 40 county residents spent a day learning about coastal flooding and sea-level rise, and

discussing the issue with fellow community members. By large margins, the Citizens’ Discussion

participants became less concerned about the immediacy of the risk both to their own properties

and the timing of when impacts would become significant, but more convinced coastal flooding was

an increasing problem for the county. About one-third of the 40 participants were from areas of the

county most likely to be directly affected, either having homes on the waterfront, or within one

block of the water (32.5%).

• Participants became more convinced that coastal flooding has become more of a problem in

the county in recent years (+30 pct pts) after attending the Citizens’ Discussion event.

• Perceptions of the risk from sea-level rise to their own homes declined (no risk, +29.5 pct

pts), as did perceptions of risk to their neighborhoods (no or very little risk , +22.4 pct pts).

• After the discussion, participants were more likely to say that sea-level rise would

significantly impact the county later in the century, e.g. not until 2050 to 2100 (+22.5 pct

pts).

• The Citizens’ Discussion increased individuals’ subject knowledge in some areas. Participants

were significantly more likely to correctly identify half of observed sea-level rise as due to

land subsidence (+22.5 pct pts), and that scientists do not expect the rate of sea-level rise to

stay the same over the next 100 years (+25.5 pct pts).

• Some of participants’ preferences for response strategies also changed. Participants became

more opposed to building walls and other structural barriers to hold back waters in publicly

owned natural areas (+14.1 pct pts), and more opposed to retreating inland from high-

density commercial and residential areas (+17.4 pct pts).



PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

5

Conclusions



The long-term, incremental nature of sea-level rise makes its impacts less easily identifiable, but no

less real. This study demonstrates that coastal flooding and other impacts from the rising waters of

the Chesapeake Bay are of concern to residents, but that they are uncertain of the dimensions of the

problem in terms of its risks, and response options and time frames. The Citizens’ Discussion

contributed to residents’ learning about these issues, in terms of their knowledge, risk perceptions

and policy preferences. Significantly, it also increased participants’ sense of political self-efficacy.

This suggests the utility of community discussions on difficult long-term policy issues not only in

facilitating their public consideration, but increasing citizens’ beliefs in their ability to participate in

local policy decisions.

More in-depth analysis, a description of the research methodology, and tables with complete

response frequencies to each survey question can be found in later sections of the report. A toolkit

of materials from the initiative – including an online impacts visualization and educational materials

– is publicly available at www.FutureCoast.info.



PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

6

References

1 E.L. Hennessee, E. L., & Halka, J. P. (2005). Hurricane Isabel and erosion of Chesapeake Bay

shorelines, Maryland. In K.G. Sellner (Ed.). Hurricane Isabel in Perspective. Chesapeake Research

Consortium, CRC Publication 05-160. Coastal and Estuarine Geology Program, Maryland

Geological Survey, Baltimore, MD, USA 21218 Edgewater, MD. Available at

http://www.chesapeake.org/pubs/Isabel/Hennessee%20and%20Halke.pdf

2 Martin, T. L. (2008, August). Tropical Cyclone Isabel: Anne Arundel County, MD (September 2003). The

Office of Emergency Management, Anne Arundel County Government, Glen Burnie, MD.

Available at http://www.aacounty.org/OEM/resources/TropicalCycloneIsabel_

PublicVersionFinal.pdf

3 Boon, J. D., Brubaker, J. M., & Forrest, D. R. (2010). Chesapeake Bay Land Subsidence and Sea Level

Change: An Evaluation of Past and Present Trends and Future Outlook. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,

Gloucester Point, VA.

4 Sallenger, A. H., Doran, K. S., & Howd, P. A. (2012). Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the

Atlantic coast of North America. Nature Climate Change advance online publication.

doi:10.1038/nclimate1597

5 Maryland Commission on Climate Change. (2008). Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s

Vulnerability to Climate Change, Phase I: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storms. Report of the Maryland Commission

on Climate Change Adaptation and Response Working Group. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,

Annapolis, MD; Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD; Maryland Department

of Planning, Baltimore, MD.

6 Boon, J. (2006, March 20). The Three Faces of Isabel: Storm Surge, Storm Tide, and Sea-Level Rise. Virginia

Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. Available at

http://web.vims.edu/physical/research/isabel/

7 Anne Arundel County. (2010). Sea Level Rise Strategic Plan Anne Arundel County. Phase 1 Report:

Vulnerability Assessment. Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning, Annapolis, MD.

Available at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/CoastSmart/pdfs/AASLRStrategicPlan.pdf

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

7

8 Anne Arundel County. (2011). Sea Level Rise Strategic Plan Anne Arundel County. Anne Arundel

County Office of Planning and Zoning, Annapolis, MD. Available at

http://dnr.maryland.gov/CoastSmart/pdfs/AASLRStrategicPlan_final.pdf

9 Whitney, Bailey, Cox & Magnani, LLC. (2011). Flood Mitigation Strategies for the City of Annapolis, MD:

City Dock and Eastport Area. City of Annapolis Department of Neighborhood and Environmental

Programs, Annapolis, MD. Available at

http://www.annapolis.gov/Government/Departments/PlZon/CDAC/Presentation/

Copy%20of%20SEA%20RISE%20STUDY%20Report%20City%20Dock%203-31-11.pdf

10 Whitney, Bailey, Cox & Magnani, LLC. (2011). Flood and Inundation Mitigation Strategies, City of

Annapolis, Maryland: Eastport Area. City of Annapolis Department of Neighborhood and

Environmental Programs, Annapolis, MD. Available at

http://dnr.maryland.gov/CoastSmart/pdfs/Annapolis_FIMS_eastport.pdf

11 Environmental Resources Management, & Whitney, Bailey, Cox & Magnani, LLC.

(2011). Regulatory Response to Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge Inundation, City of Annapolis, MD. City of

Annapolis, Annapolis, MD. Available at

http://dnr.maryland.gov/CoastSmart/pdfs/Annapolis_RRSLRnSSI.pdf

12 Sea Grant is a nationwide network (administered through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration [NOAA] under the U.S. Department of Commerce), of university-based programs

that work with coastal communities. See http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/aboutsg/index.html

13 Water Management Administration – 2008 Living Shoreline Protection Act of 2008, HB 973,

Maryland General Assembly, 2008 Session. Available at http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs

/fnotes/bil_0003/hb0973.pdf



PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

8

INTRODUCTION

Background

Much of the land along Anne Arundel County’s shorelines quickly gains in elevation as it rises from

the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, shielding inland areas from encroaching waters1. Even so, with

hundreds of miles of waterfront, the county faces considerable exposure to coastal flooding and sea-

level rise. Under conditions of moderate rates of relative sea-level rise2, more than 5 square miles of

the county could be submerged by 20503. By 2100 that number more than doubles, with potential

impacts of $1.5 billion to buildings alone both from periodic flooding and permanent inundation4.

Other possible county consequences from sea-level rise include coastal erosion, higher storm surges,

damage to public infrastructure such as roads and utilities, loss or harm to private water supply wells

and septic systems, and threats to archeological sites and the area’s natural ecology5.

Local governments have long taken active roles in coastal planning6. As communities develop

strategies to protect themselves from the effects of rising coastal waters, they must call upon not

only highly scientific and technical assessments of area vulnerabilities, but the values and priorities of

their citizens. The data in this report were collected to answer two primary questions for the

purposes of informing this, and potentially other, public engagement efforts on coastal flooding and

sea-level rise:

1) What are the risk perceptions and policy preferences of Anne Arundel County residents

regarding coastal flooding and sea-level rise?

2) How might perceptions and preferences change after in-depth conversations with other

community members about the science, impacts and policy of sea-level rise?

The study consists of two components. We first conducted a survey of residents from randomly

selected Anne Arundel County households (see Survey Methodology, p. 19). Second, we invited

survey participants to also attend a daylong Citizens’ Discussion on coastal flooding and sea-level

rise on April 28th in Severna Park, Maryland, in which follow-up questions – many identical to the

first survey – were given in order to evaluate changes possibly resulting from the experience. Survey

participants were given $10 gift cards from Starbucks, iTunes and Safeway as incentives; discussion

attendees received $100 VISA gift cards to accommodate transportation and other costs such as

babysitting or lost work hours.

The initial countywide survey resulted in a sample of 378 adults age 18 years or older with a margin

of error of +/-5 percentage points within a 95% probability. The sample size of the Citizens’

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

9

Discussion participants who took both the pre- and post-surveys was 40. Data from both samples is

included in this report. The countywide survey sample is older, more educated and less racially

diverse compared to 2010 U.S. Census data and American Community Survey estimates from 2006-

2010. The sample of participants in the Citizens’ Discussion at Severna Park High School was more

diverse in terms of income and race than that of the county, and more heavily female. In both

samples, approximately one third of participants either live on the water or within one block, just

over half are not in a floodplain, and another 20% are not sure whether they are at risk from

flooding.



We report first on data from the countywide survey of Anne Arundel County residents, followed by

the results of the data from the April 28th Citizens’ Discussion participants and a review of the

research methodology.



PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

10

ANNE ARUNDEL COASTAL FLOODING AND SEA-LEVEL RISE SURVEY

The questionnaire distributed to Anne Arundel County residents addressed four primary topics: risk

perceptions of coastal flooding and sea-level rise, subject knowledge, local policy preferences, and

perceived political efficacy. The results are detailed in each of the sections below.

Risk perceptions

In order to characterize the risk that residents perceive from coastal flooding and sea-level rise to

them and their communities, we asked them whether rising waters are a problem for the county, and

if so, is it one that local governments have already successfully addressed through current policies?

While most county residents identify coastal flooding and sea-level rise as problems that are

occurring and of some or high risk to the county, they are unsure how quickly impacts will manifest

locally, and whether local government policies are up to the task of addressing them long term.

The majority of survey participants (60.4%) say that sea-level rise is occurring and that coastal

flooding has become more of a problem in recent years (54.3%), but that it is a higher risk to the

county than it is to their neighborhoods or their homes and property. Almost four-fifths say that the

county is either at some (46.0%) or high risk (32.8%) from sea-level rise over the next 40 years.

County residents perceive their neighborhoods to be at lower risk (very little, 35.8%; some, 29.4%),

with their own home or property at no (29.2%) or very little risk (38.6%).

The largest percentage of residents do not know, or have no opinion, whether their local

government’s policies are adequate for addressing coastal flooding long term (50.0%). Just over a

third (34.3%) say policies are inadequate with the remaining (15.7%) saying that they are sufficient to

the task.

The largest percentage (29.4%) similarly does not know when the effects of sea-level rise will

significantly impact the county, if ever. Very few residents think that it will never have significant

impacts (5.6%), or that those impacts will occur in the second half of the century (12.0%). More

than one in five say that effects will manifest by 2050 (21.2%), with approximately the same number

saying it will occur by 2025 (19.4%), and another 12.5% saying that the effects are already significant.

From a list of nine potential areas of impact from sea-level rise, residents say they are most

concerned about the effects of shoreline erosion (64.6%), followed by private property damage or

loss (59.3%), habitat loss (54.8%), and public infrastructure damage or loss (52.6%). Less than a

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

11

third of residents say they are concerned about permanently flooded areas in the county resulting

from sea-level rise (30.4%).

Individuals’ risk perceptions can be strongly linked to their direct experiences of a hazard or their

physical proximity to a threat, so it is important to assess those factors. In this sample of survey

respondents, more than three-quarters of respondents said they had never personally experienced

flooding of their home or property. More than a quarter (28.6%) said they live either on the water or

within one block. Almost one in five respondents (19.0%) was not sure of their flood risk exposure,

stating that they did not know whether they live in a floodplain.

Knowledge about sea-level rise

Sea-level rise – both the science and policy implications – has received increasing amount of public

attention over the past few years, yet it remains a subject that is removed from the day-to-day of

most people’s lives, particularly for those who live inland. The subject is complicated by a number of

dimensions: it is a component of glacial cycles that occur over periods of tens of thousands of years;

it is global phenomenon, but it manifests differently at smaller scales; and it is affected by recent

anthropogenic warming – a politically charged topic in the United States.

Of these three dimensions that make sea-level rise difficult to comprehend, Anne Arundel County

residents are most uncertain about: 1) the local geological dynamics of sea-level rise, and 2) how

recent trends compare to the last time glaciers retreated toward the poles 125,000 years ago. More

than half are unsure of the contribution of subsidence to relative sea-level rise, e.g. that about half of

the observed sea-level rise in the region is due to sinking land (26.0% neither disagree nor agree,

32.4% don’t know). Large percentages are similarly unclear that global sea levels indeed have been

higher than they are today (15.0% neither disagree nor agree, 25.5% don’t know).

In contrast, Anne Arundel County residents are most certain that 1) sea-level rise is caused in part by

climate change, and 2) that the rate of sea-level rise will not stay the same the next 100 years. Almost

two-thirds of residents say that climate change is one of the causes of observed changes in sea-level

rise (63.4%), and a majority also correctly identify that scientists do not expect sea-level rise to stay

the same the next 100 years (51.2%). Yet only slightly more than one-third (36.9%) correctly link

rising waters to non-natural processes. The seeming contradiction in the results is likely explained by

the use of the term climate change to both represent natural climatological changes, and those

arising from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus believing climate change to be a cause of

sea-level rise does not necessarily imply believing human global warming to be a factor.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

12

Policy preferences for coastal adaptation

For the past few decades, three primary approaches to coastal adaptation in response to sea-level

rise have been presented as options to communities: retreat, accommodation, and protection8.

Retreat refers to moving community inhabitants inland as waters submerge coastal lands and

structures; accommodation encompasses a wide variety of tools that facilitate continued occupation

of vulnerable areas, such as the elevation of buildings; and protection is the use of either built or

natural structures to defend vulnerable areas from flooding and inundation.

The selection of which strategy – or combination of strategies – to employ is dependent on a large

range of considerations, including the extent of predicted impacts of sea-level rise on the area,

economic costs and benefits, and community priorities and values. This survey asked Anne Arundel

residents to assess their preferences for coastal adaptation strategies in three types of areas

representative of the county: publicly owned natural areas, low-density residential areas of primarily

single family homes, and high-density commercial and residential areas. In order to remove one of

the contextual considerations, we asked them to assume that the cost for the taxpayer was the same

for each.

The majority of residents support local government efforts to limit the impacts of coastal flooding in

all three types of areas. When respondents can equally rate all options, protection of publicly owned

natural areas is the most strongly supported (76.2%), followed by high-density commercial and

residential areas (66.8%) and low-density residential areas of primarily single family homes (63%).

When asked to choose only one area which should be to be governments’ top priority however,

high-density commercial and residential areas edge out publicly owned natural areas (44.2% vs.

38.0%). Only 17.7% of residents report that low-density residential areas should be the top concern.

In recent years Anne Arundel County and the City of Annapolis have begun to evaluate regional

vulnerabilities and potential adaptive strategies. In most cases, local policies are still in their early

stages, and detailed cost/benefit information for projected impacts and potential responses are not

available. The policy preference questions asked in this survey thus are a broad brush attempt to

evaluate one type of contextual consideration – the characteristics of three types of areas in the

county – on citizens’ attitudes toward the primary ways that communities are expected to adapt to

rising seas.

Local governments have a wide assortment of policy tools available to them: regulations, spending,

tax and market incentives, and planning9. The attitudes of residents toward adaptation strategies are

also influenced by their attitudes toward the types of government actions – and use of policy tools –

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

13

that might be taken to protect the county from coastal flooding and sea-level rise impacts. Thus we

also asked which categories of tools are most preferred by county residents. The majority of all

respondents are supportive of the use of each type of policy tool to limit the impacts of coastal

flooding due to sea-level rise. Long-range planning is the most supported (81.9%), followed by

regulatory changes (72.5%), and tax incentives to property owners to reduce their risk (67.2%). Use

of government spending is the least supported (51.7%).

More specific information about the adaptation policy preferences of Anne Arundel County

residents are described below each of three types of areas within the county.

Publicly owned natural areas

We posed three potential strategies for flood protection of publicly owned natural areas to survey

respondents: 1) buy adjacent lands to enable natural areas to move inland (an ecological version of

retreat); 2) maintain beaches and wetlands against rising seas (accommodate higher waters and

erosion for example through beach nourishment or elevation of wetlands); and 3) build walls and

other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal waters (protection through structural

defenses). County residents are most strongly supportive of maintaining beaches and wetlands

against rising waters (73.3%), followed by buying adjacent lands (62.5%), and building walls and

other structural barriers (47.9%).

In open-ended responses to why they did not like any of the strategies, county residents frequently

mention concerns about costs and that it is preferable to let “nature take its course.”

Built areas: Low-density residential areas

and high-density commercial and residential areas

Four strategies for flood protection of built areas were presented to survey respondents for both

low-density residential areas and high-density commercial and residential areas. These included: 1)

retreat inland over time, restricting new building in areas likely to flood, and moving or abandoning

existing structures; 2) main and restore natural areas such as wetlands and beaches as buffers against

coastal flooding; 3) design and retrofit buildings to be more flood resilient, including elevating them

and/or the land; and 4) build walls and other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal

waters. The four strategies are variants of retreat, accommodate, and protect (using both natural and

structural means).

For both types of built communities, low-density and high-density, county residents say they most

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

14

strongly prefer maintaining and restoring natural areas (respectively 86%/87.3%), followed by

retreating inland (72.9%/71.2%) and designing and retrofitting buildings to be more flood resilient

(58.9%/63.2%). The least popular strategy is building walls and other structural barriers along the

shore. Structural defenses are supported by less than a majority for low-density resident areas

(45.1%), but by the majority of residents for high-density commercial and residential areas (52.6%).

In open-ended responses as to why they do not like any of the strategies, county residents cite

concerns about costs, but also argue that these problems are not ones that government should be

addressing.

Perceived citizen political efficacy

Public engagement efforts by definition strive to increase the civic involvement of citizens. “Political

efficacy” is measured in this study due to its association with higher levels of political participation10.

The term refers to belief in having the necessary skills for successful political participation (internal

efficacy), and the capability to alter political outcomes (external efficacy). Political efficacy exists at

the level of both individuals and groups: self-efficacy is an individual’s perception of their own

capabilities, and collective efficacy is an assessment of a group’s capacity11.

Anne Arundel County residents possess higher levels of political collective efficacy than of self-

efficacy. More than three-quarters reply favorably to three questions which measure perceptions of

community political organizational ability and effectiveness: that citizens can have an impact on local

government policies (82.1%), can work together successfully to promote important local policy

issues (75.7%), and can cooperate to evaluate information and make important local community

decisions (75.1%). Just under half of respondents also agree that “local elected officials will respond

to the needs of citizens” (49%).

While the majority of respondents (58.8%) say that they have the ability to talk about and participate

in local public policy discussions, other measures of individuals’ political self-efficacy are markedly

lower. Only a quarter say they think that “local public officials care a lot what people like me think”

(26.8%), almost two in five say “public policy issues are so complex that someone like me couldn’t

understand them” (39.1%), and they are equally split on whether people like themselves have any say

in what local government does (43% yes; 43.6% no).

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

15

Conclusions

In some areas of the country, politicians have been reluctant to take actions on coastal flooding and

sea-level rise out of concern for little citizen support. In Anne Arundel County, not only are

residents widely convinced that sea-level rise is occurring, they also recognize the rate of sea-level

rise is not likely to remain the same in coming decades. Residents show broad support for a number

of types of policy tools that could be implemented on this issue, and a range of strategies for

different areas. Structural barriers are the least favored option among citizens, which falls in line with

already promulgated Maryland state goals, for example through of the state’s 2008 Living Shorelines

Act. While there are some hints of contention on this issue from those who are unconvinced that

governments should play a role in the risks that property owners choose to undertake in building

close to the shore, or that the costs of taking action are prohibitive (see comments sections in

Appendices), these do not appear to be predominant viewpoints.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

16

ENGAGING THE PUBLIC: A CITIZENS’ DISCUSSION

The “Citizens’ Discussion” component of the Future Coast initiative was conducted at Severna Park

High School in Severna Park, Maryland, on April 28, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Participants

were invited to the discussion to learn about sea-level rise and local policy responses, question expert

panelists, and discuss solutions in small groups of fellow citizens. The 40 participants were a subset

of those survey participants who took the countywide coastal flooding and sea-level rise survey, and

responded to the event invitation. At the end of the daylong deliberative session they took a slightly

modified form of the original countywide survey. For additional details about the event agenda and

research protocol, see Study Methodology, p. 19.

The data presented here is an evaluation of responses to both the countywide survey and the post-

event questionnaire. Statistically significant differences in the distribution of the means between the

pre- and post-survey measures are noted12, as well as some instances of non-significant, yet large,

differences that may be useful in interpreting the data.

Risk perceptions

Large, statistically significant, shifts in risk perceptions of the Citizens’ Discussion participants

characterized the results of the pre- and post-event survey comparison. Participants became less

concerned about immediate risks from coastal flooding and sea-level rise – both geographically and

temporally – but more likely to identify increased problems of coastal flooding as occurring within

the county. This represents a more moderated perspective on local coastal flooding and sea-level rise

risks, but perhaps one that is also more accurate given the relatively narrow width of shore along the

county that is affected, and the large percentages of county residents who are not directly exposed to

the hazard.

Participants became more convinced that coastal flooding has become an increased problem in the

county in recent years (+30 pct pts), but also that their own home or property was at no risk (+29.5

pct pts), and that their neighborhood was at no or very little risk (+22.4 pct pts). Higher percentages

of respondents also said that the effects of sea-level rise would not significantly impact the county

until 2050 to 2100 (+22.5 pct pts).

While the mean of the response frequency distribution did not change significantly, there also was

an 18.7 percentage point increase in those who strongly agreed that sea-level rise is occurring.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

17

Knowledge about sea-level rise

After the event, Citizens’ Discussion participants became significantly more likely to correctly

identify half of observed sea-level rise as due to land subsidence (+22.5 pct pts), and that scientists

do not expect the rate of sea-level rise to stay the same over the next 100 years (+25.5 pct pts).

Though not statistically significant, the number of participants who strongly agreed that climate

change was one of the causes of observed changes in sea-level rise increased by 21.0 percentage

points, and there was an increase in 9.9 percentage points in those who accurately identified that

current sea-level rise is not entirely the result of natural cyclical processes.

Policy preferences for coastal adaptation

Event participants became significantly more opposed to building walls and other structural barriers

to hold back waters from publicly owned natural areas (+14.1 pct pts), and also more opposed to

retreating inland from high-density commercial and residential areas (+17.4 pct pts).

In the post-event survey, respondents described why certain strategies were preferable to others for

Anne Arundel County. The most comments in support of an adaptation strategy were for

maintaining beaches and wetlands against rising seas. The most comments against a strategy were for

building walls and other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal waters. All

individuals’ statements are located with the pre- and post-survey data in Appendix B.

Perceived citizen political efficacy

After the Citizens’ Discussion event, participants were more likely to say that they were capable of

understanding local public policy issues than before the daylong experience. This effect was

statistically significant.

Conclusions

Even with this small sample size, there is evidence of a number of statistically significant changes in

participants’ knowledge, attitudes, risk perceptions and policy preferences. Residents gained

information about sea-level rise and coastal flooding, and adjusted their risk perceptions –

potentially more in line with probable environmental conditions over the next few decades. Perhaps

one of the most important gains is that citizens said they felt more able to understand local policy

issues. As communities grapple with difficult problems such as sea-level rise and coastal flooding,

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

18

their success will be in large part based on the social capital created by their citizens. Citizens’

political efficacy contributes to a community’s social capital, and thus its long-term resilience.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

19

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Data from two related studies are included in this report: 1) a mail survey of a random sample of

Anne Arundel County households; and 2) an online post-survey of participants in the April 28th

Citizens’ Discussion who had also taken the original countywide survey. The methodological

approach for both are described below, followed by an analysis of survey sample bias.

The research was conducted under George Mason University Human Subjects Review Board

approval (#7998).

Anne Arundel County survey

A survey of randomly selected Anne Arundel County residents was fielded between March 28 and

June 19, 2012 and resulted in completed surveys from 378 adult residents (age 18 years or older).

This represents a return rate of 4% calculated on a base number of 9,582 surveys mailed to

deliverable addresses (Table 1).

ASDE Survey Sampler provided the random sample of 10,019 addresses within the county. The

sample address file, matched with phone numbers for 5,286 of the households, was used to contact

participants. In order to maintain random selection within households, each initial survey was

addressed to “resident” of the city listed as their mailing address, and instructions were given for the

adult with the most recent birthday to complete the questionnaire.

Three survey modalities were available to participants over the course of the three months. Most

returned the survey by mail (59%), with smaller numbers taking it online (36.8%) and by phone

(4.2%). Participants were contacted up to three times as described below.

• (March 28) Invitation to take the countywide survey and participate in the April 28th Citizens’

Discussion at Severna Park High School (cover letter, Citizens’ Discussion invitation and

RSVP form with proffer of $50 VISA gift card for attendance, survey, business reply mail

envelope);

• (April 19) Postcard reminding participants to take survey, providing web address

(www.FutureCoast.info) to take it online, and increasing incentives for both the initial survey

($10 gift card for Safeway, iTunes or Starbucks) and attendance at the Citizens’ Discussion

($100 VISA gift card)

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

20

• (April 25-June 8) Phone recruitment of participants with offers to re-mail a copy of the

survey, a web address to take the survey online, or the ability to take it by phone.

Citizens’ Discussion post-event survey

In the weeks prior to the April 28th Citizens’ Discussion, those participants who had responded that

they would attend were also contacted by email, mail and/or phone based on information provided

in their RSVP to give them event logistical information and review materials, and remind them of

the date. Review materials included an “Issue Book” with information about the science, local

impacts and policy options regarding coastal flooding and sea-level rise, and access to online maps

visualizing potential flooding and inundation impacts to the county across different rates of sea-level

rise from 2012 to 2100. (These tools are available at www.FutureCoast.info.)

The goal of the Citizens’ Discussion was to promote consideration of an issue impacting the

community and expression of a wide range of residents’ views. As opposed to other types of small

group deliberation, there was no requirement that everyone come to a consensus decision.

During the event registration, participants were randomly assigned to small groups for the purposes

of discussion and use of the online coastal flooding and sea-level rise viewer. Trained facilitators,

many of them from George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, lead

these discussions. They worked to ensure that all participants in the group discussions had an

opportunity to voice their views, that the briefing materials were reviewed, and that the groups

generated questions pertinent to their discussions to put to the expert panelists during plenary

periods.

The panelists included Don Boesch, a professor of marine science and president of the University

of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and also a resident of Anne Arundel County; Zoë

Johnson, program manager for Climate Change Policy at the Office for a Sustainable Future,

Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Jessica Grannis, author of the Adaptation Tool Kit: Sea-

Level Rise and Coastal Land Use published in 2011 by the Georgetown Climate Center, and staff

attorney and adjunct professor at the Harrison Institute for Public Law; Frank Biba, chief of

environmental programs in the Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs for the

City of Annapolis; and Brian Batten, senior coastal scientist at Dewberry, the engineering firm

responsible for development of the Future Coast coastal flooding and sea-level rise viewer.

A $100 VISA gift card thank-you was given to all participants when they completed the post-survey

in order to facilitate the attendance of people who might not otherwise been able to attend the more

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

21

than six-hour session due to costs such as babysitting or travel expenses. Lunch and snacks were

served during the day.

Information about the countywide survey and the April 28th Citizens’ Discussion was also released

to media to alert county residents that they might receive the questionnaire and event invitation in

the mail. Cover letters with a press release and project website information were emailed to

approximately 40 state and county media outlets on March 27, 2012. Coverage included a story in

the Capital Gazette, a radio segment with Barbara Cox on “Talk With ...” on 1430 WNAV, and wire

services pick-up by Associated Press and USA Today.

Questionnaire design

The questionnaire was developed by the study team and reviewed by an advisory panel of experts on

the science and policy of sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Most of the items were written

specifically for this research project. The 41 questions addressed risk perceptions of coastal flooding

and sea-level rise, topic knowledge, policy preferences for three types of coastal areas within the

county, and political efficacy. Two of the scales in the survey were developed by Dan Kahan and

colleagues with The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School

(http://www.culturalcognition.net/). The items were included in order to evaluate the relationship

between cultural worldview and sea-level rise perceptions and policy preferences, and will be a part

in the final study report in Fall 2012.

Prior to fielding, the survey was tested online with 20 respondents from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk

who self-identified as adult residents of coastal counties in the eastern United States. The pre-testing

was conducted in order to identify problems with instrument wording and evaluate the survey length

(10-15 minutes).

The post-survey delivered to participants in the April 28th Citizens’ Discussion included many of the

same items as in the countywide pre-survey in order to evaluate changes in residents’ perceptions

and preferences. The post-survey featured more open-ended questions about the reasoning behind

participant policy preferences and a section assessing the Citizens’ Discussion event components.

The evaluative data will be included in the final project report to be made available to the public in

Fall 2012.

Completion results

The sample for the countywide survey was comprised of 378 completed questionnaires by adult

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

22

residents of Anne Arundel County. Based on U.S. Census Bureau 2010 population data for the

number of adult Anne Arundel residents (412,595), this results in a margin of error of +/- 5

percentage points within a 95% probability. The response rate of 4% was calculated by dividing 378

over the final valid address mailing number (initial mailing to 10,019 addresses minus 437 non-

deliverable addresses).

Table 1 | Completion statistics, county survey

10,019 Initial mail quantity

437 Non-deliverable addresses

9,582 Valid address base mailing number

378 Completed surveys

4% Return rate

5% Margin of error within 95% probability

The sample for the April 28th Citizens’ Discussion event was a subset of 41 participants in the

countywide survey. Post-survey data from one participant was dropped due to missing pre-survey

data, leaving a final sample size of 40.

Sample demographic profile and analysis for bias

County Survey

In comparison to 2010 U.S. Census data and American Community Survey estimates from 2006-

2010, the final countywide sample of adult Anne Arundel residents is older, more educated, and less

racially diverse (Table 2). The largest disparity is in distribution of educational attainment, followed

by age and race. The survey likely over-represents those who have attained college degrees, are 45

years of age or greater, and are white. Those with incomes between $50,000 to $149,999 are also

over-represented. This reflects typical response patterns for survey research.

To investigate the extent to which the sample’s demographic profile might bias response

frequencies, we created two separate weights and compared the questionnaire response frequencies

to the unweighted sample. The first weights were developed from 2010 Census data for race, sex

and age, and the second from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey estimates from

2006-2010 for educational distribution. An analysis of differences between the unweighted and

weighted data response frequencies demonstrated little, if any, effect on the interpretation of the

data. The largest differences in response frequencies occurred in the data weighted for education;

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

23

the most any one response varied by only 8 percentage points. Weighting the data by race, sex and

age resulted in changes in response frequencies of less than five percentage points.

In evaluating non-response by zip code for the Anne Arundel County survey, we compared the

distribution of the initial random sample to that of the final sample (Table 3). Thirty-one zip codes

were included in the initial random sample of Anne Arundel County household addresses. Twenty-

eight remained in the final sample with maximum differences in sample representation of 5

percentage points. Glen Burnie (21061) and Pasadena (21122) had the highest percentage of

addresses in the original sample, and were under-represented by the largest difference in percentage

points between the original and final sample (-5.2 and -3.8 respectively). Arnold (21012), Annapolis

(21401), Edgewater (21037) and Severna Park (21146) were over-represented in the final sample by

2-to-3 percentage points. Those areas over-represented in the final sample tended to be shoreline

counties, while under-represented areas were more likely to be inland.

In sum, just over one-quarter of participants said their homes were either waterfront (10.3%) or

within one block of water (18.3%). Just over half said their homes were not located in a floodplain

(53.2%), and another 19.0% said they did not know whether they were in a floodplain.

The distribution of the sample by party affiliation was 26.8% Republican, 35.7% Democrat, 30.0%

Independent and 7.6% other/no party. Self-reported political affiliation cannot be directly compared

to voter registration records by party, but precinct data in February 2012 indicated 36.6% of

registered voters identified as Republican and 43.3% as Democrat13. Only 20.2% were either of

another or no party. This compares to 37.6% of the sample that were either Independent or

affiliated with another or no party.

April 28th Citizens’ Discussion participants

The sample of participants in the Citizens’ Discussion at Severna Park High School was more

diverse in terms of income and race than that of the county, and more heavily female (Table 4). The

largest differences between the event participants and county’s overall demographic distribution

were in levels of educational attainment and gender. Forty percent of the participants had completed

a graduate or professional degree, and two-thirds of the discussion participants were women.

Residents with household incomes of less than $25,000 a year and between $50,000 and $99,999

were over-represented at the event on April 28th compared to U.S. Census Bureau American

Community Survey estimates of population demographics for Anne Arundel County. Residents with

household incomes of $100,000 or more were under-represented compared to county percentages.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

24

African Americans and residents identifying as “other” racial categories attended in higher

proportions compared to countywide representation (~ 4 percentage points each), while whites and

Asians attended in lower proportions (-6.1 and -4.4 percentage points respectively).

Participants were also older than the general county population with higher proportions in categories

of age 55 and above.

The largest proportions of event participants were from shoreline counties, and areas close to the

Citizens’ Discussion location: Severna Park (21146), Pasadena (21122) and Annapolis (21401) (Table

5). Approximately one-third (32.5%) of participants said that they either were in waterfront homes

or within one block of the water. More than half said they did not live in a floodplain (55%), and

another 20% said they did not know whether they lived in floodplain. This distribution is very

similar to that of the countywide survey.

Participants were most likely to claim affiliation with the Democratic party (37.5%), followed by

those who identify as Independents (32.5%), Republicans (20.0%), and other/no party (10.0%).



PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

25

Table 2 | Sample demographic profile, Anne Arundel County survey

Sample %

*

Census %

**

Sample % - Census % %

Gende

r

2010 Census Data (age 18+)

Male 45.9 49.4 -3.5

Female 52.5 50.6 1.9

Age

18 to 24 years 1.9 11.8 -10

25 to 34 years 12.3 17.4 -5

35 to 44 years 15.5 18.4 -3

45 to 54 years 21.8 20.9 1

55 to 64 years 25.3 16.1 9

65 to 74 years 15.5 8.9 7

75 + years 7.6 6.5 1

Race

White 86.7 77.9 8.8

Black or African American 8.4 16.9 -8.5

Asian 1.6 4.4 -2.8

Other 3.3 4 -0.7

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino 2.8 6.1 -3.3

Education level American Community Survey Estimates (age 25 +)

Less than high school 1.1 10 -8.90

High school graduate or GED 6.1 26.20 -20.10

Some college 16.4 21.10 -4.70

2-year associate’s degree 10.0 7.00 3.00

4-year bachelor’s degree 31.4 20.90 10.50

Completed a graduate or

professional degree

35.0 14.80 20.20

Household income American Community Survey Estimates

Less than $25,000 6.4 10.6 -4.2

$25,000 - $49,999 14.0 15.9 -1.9

$50,000 -$74,999 18.5 17.8 0.7

$75,000 -$99,999 17.6 15.3 2.3

$100,000-$149,999 27.2 21.8 5.4

$150,000 + 16.2 18.5 -2.3

*Based on sample of Anne Arundel County adults, n=378.

**Based on population of adults 18 years old or greater, 2010 Census data, N = 412,595.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

26

Table 3 | Sample geographic distribution by zip code, Anne Arundel County survey

Zip code * % Final Sample

% Initial Sample of Mail

Addresses Difference

21061 Glen Burnie 6.1 11.3 -5.2

21122 Pasadena 7.8 11.6 -3.8

21144 Severn 4.5 5.9 -1.4

21060 Glen Burnie 5.3 6.5 -1.1

21090 Linthicum Heights 1.1 2.0 -0.9

20724 Laurel 2.7 3.4 -0.7

20755 Fort George G

Md

.8 1.4 -0.6

21108 Millersville 2.7 3.3 -0.6

21403 Eastport 5.9 6.4 -0.5

20711 Lothian .8 1.3 -0.5

21076 Hanover 2.4 2.8 -0.4

20778 West River 0 .4 -0.4

20751 Deale .3 .5 -0.2

21402 Naval Academy 0 .2 -0.2

21226 Curtis Bay 1.3 1.5 -0.2

21054 Gambrills 1.9 2.0 -0.1

21077 Harmans 0 .1 -0.1

20779 Tracys Landing .3 .2 0.0

21113 Odenton 6.4 6.4 0.1

20758 Friendship .3 .1 0.1

20776 Harwood .8 .5 0.3

21140 Riva 1.1 .7 0.4

20764 Shady Side 1.3 .8 0.5

20733 Churchton 1.3 .5 0.8

21032 Crownsville 2.7 1.7 0.9

21114 Crofton 6.1 5.0 1.1

21035 Davidsonville 3.2 1.4 1.8

21146 Severna Park 7.2 5.0 2.2

21037 Edgewater 6.4 4.2 2.2

21401 Annapolis 12.0 8.9 3.1

21012 Arnold 7.2 4.1 3.1

*Household addresses were randomly selected from deliverable mail addresses in the county with no geographic

subsampling by zip code. As a result, not all zip codes for the county were represented in the initial sample.



PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

27

Table 4 | Demographic profile, Citizens’ Discussion participants

Participant %

*

Census %

**

Participant % - Census % %

Gende

r

2010 Census Data (age 18+)

Male 33.3 49.4 -16.1

Female 66.7 50.6 16.1

Age

18 to 24 years 0 11.8 -11.8

25 to 34 years 10.5 17.4 -6.9

35 to 44 years 15.8 18.4 -2.6

45 to 54 years 18.4 20.9 -2.5

55 to 64 years 28.9 16.1 12.8

65 to 74 years 13.2 8.9 4.3

75 + years 13.2 6.5 6.7

Race

White 71.8 77.9 -6.1

Black or African American 20.5 16.9 3.6

Asian 0 4.4 -4.4

Other 7.7 4 3.7

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino 2.5 6.1 -3.6

Education level American Community Survey Estimates (age 25 +)

Less than high school 0.0 10 -10.0

High school graduate or GED 2.5 26.2 -23.7

Some college 25.0 21.1 3.9

2-year associate’s degree 5.0 7.0 -2.0

4-year bachelor’s degree 27.5 20.9 6.6

Completed a graduate or

professional degree

40.0 14.8 25.2

Household income American Community Survey Estimates

Less than $25,000 23.1 10.6 12.5

$25,000 - $49,999 15.4 15.9 -0.5

$50,000 -$74,999 20.5 17.8 2.7

$75,000 -$99,999 25.6 15.3 10.3

$100,000-$149,999 7.7 21.8 -14.1

$150,000 + 7.7 18.5 -10.8

*Based on 40 participants in April 28, 2012 Citizens’ Discussion at Severna Park High School.

**Based on population of adults 18 years old or greater, 2010 Census data, N = 412,595.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

28

Table 5 | Geographic distribution by zip code, Citizens’ Discussion participants

Zip code % Participants*

21146 Severna Park 15.0

21122 Pasadena 12.5

21401 Annapolis 10.0

21060 Glen Burnie 7.5

21061 Glen Burnie 7.5

21076 Hanover 7.5

21114 Crofton 7.5

21032 Crownsville 5.0

21054 Gambrills 5.0

21113 Odenton 5.0

21403 Eastport 5.0

20724 Laurel 2.5

20764 Shady Side 2.5

20776 Harwood 2.5

21012 Arnold 2.5

21226 Curtis Bay 2.5

*Based on 40 participants in April 28, 2012 Citizens’ Discussion at Severna Park High School.

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

29

References

1 Nuckols, W. H., Johnston, P., Hudgens, D., & Titus, J. G. (2010). Maryland. In J. G. Titus & D.

Hudgens (Eds.), The Likelihood of Shore Protection Along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Volume 1:

Mid-Atlantic. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Available at

http://risingsea.net/ERL/MD.html

2 The sea-level rise scenarios presented in the Future Coast Anne Arundel visualization of potential

flooding and inundation impacts represent the historical rate, a 1.9-foot rise as recommended by the

state for planning purposes (low acceleration), and a 3.4-feet rise in line with the state’s higher range

by 2100 (moderate acceleration). The scenarios also account for land subsidence. The term “relative

sea-level rise” refers to a change in sea levels relative to land elevations.

3 Batten, B. (2012). Future Coast Sea-Level Rise Visualization: Anne Arundel County Level Summary.

Dewberry, Fairfax, VA. Available at http://maps.futurecoast.info/slr-visualization/data-viewer-full-

screen

4 The total of $1.5 billion reflects both: 1) the value of impacted buildings in an estimated 11.3

square miles of the county that potentially would become submerged in a moderate sea-level rise

acceleration scenario ($405,900,000); and 2) the value of impacted buildings in an additional 12.4

square miles that would be located in a 100-year-floodplain ($1,111,300,000).

5 Anne Arundel County. (2010). Sea Level Rise Strategic Plan Anne Arundel County. Phase 1 Report:

Vulnerability Assessment. Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning, Annapolis, MD.

Available at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/CoastSmart/pdfs/AASLRStrategicPlan.pdf

6 Grannis, J. (2011). Adaptation Tool Kit: Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Land Use. Georgetown Climate

Center, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Available at

http://www.georgetownclimate.org/sites/ default/files/Adaptation_Tool_Kit_SLR.pdf

7 Boon, J. D., Brubaker, J. M., & Forrest, D. R. (2010). Chesapeake Bay Land Subsidence and Sea Level

Change: An Evaluation of Past and Present Trends and Future Outlook. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,

Gloucester Point, VA.

8 Dronkers, J., Gilbert, J. T. E., Butler, L. W., Carey, J. J., Campbell, J., James, E., McKenzie, C.,

Misdorp, R., Quin, N., Ries, K. L., Schroder, P. C., Spradley, J. R., Titus, J. G., Vallianos, L., & von

Dadelszen, J. (1990). Strategies for Adaptation to Sea Level Rise. Report of the IPCC Coastal Zone Management

PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY PREFERENCES ON COASTAL FLOODING

AND SEA-LEVEL RISE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

30

Subgroup: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

Geneva. Available at http://papers.risingsea.net/IPCC-1990-Strategies-for-Adaption-to-Sea-Level-

Rise.html

9 Grannis, J. (2011).

10 Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 The

American Political Science Review , 85(4 ), 1407-1413.

11 Francis L. F. Lee. (2006). Collective efficacy, support for Democratization, and political

participation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(3), 297-317

12 P values below .05 are considered statistically significant Significance was evaluated using

dependent measures t-tests. “Don’t know” values were treated as non-scale and not included in tests

of statistical significance.

13 Arnold. S. (2012, Feb. 8). Precinct Voter Counts Report. Anne Arundel Board of Elections, Glen

Burnie, MD. Available at http://www.aacounty.org/Elections



APPENDIX A







ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY SURVEY DATA



32

2. Would you agree or disagree that your local government’s policies are adequate for

addressing coastal flooding over the long term (e.g., over a decade or more)?

Strongly disagree 8.8%

Somewhat disagree 25.5%

Neither agree nor disagree 21.8%

Somewhat agree 12.5%

Strongly agree 3.2%

Don't know 28.2%

n=376

3. Have you ever experienced flooding of your home or property?

No 76.3%

Yes 22.4%

Don't kno

w

1.3%

n=375

4. Sea-level rise is an issue some coastal communities have been discussing recently. Sea-level rise

refers to increases in the average height of water relative to the land over the course of the year.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree that sea-level rise is occurring?

Strongly disagree 7.7%

Somewhat disagree 10.1%

Neither agree nor disagree 11.6%

Somewhat agree 31.0%

Strongly agree 29.4%

Don't know 10.3%

n=378

1. In your opinion, has coastal flooding become more or less

of a problem in the county in recent years?

Much more 9.6%

Somewhat more 44.7%

No change 28.7%

Somewhat less 2.4%

Much less .5%

Don't know 14.1%

n=376

33

6. Which impacts from sea-level rise, if any, are you most concerned

about within the county? (Check ONE or MORE)

a. Private property damage or loss 59.3%

b. Public infrastructure damage or loss 52.6%

c. Habitat loss 54.8%

d. Erosion of shoreline 64.6%

e. Increased frequency and severity of flooding 47.9%

f. Permanently flooded areas (inundation) 30.4%

g. Loss or contamination of freshwater wells 43.7%

h. Problems with stormwater drainage 49.5%

i. Loss or damage of sewage and septic treatment systems 46.3%

j. Not concerned about any impacts 7.9%

k. Don’t know 2.9%

n=378

5. When do you believe the effects of sea-level rise will significantly impact the county, if ever?

Effects are significant now 12.5%

by the year 2025 19.4%

by the year 2050 21.2%

by the year 2075 3.2%

by the year 2100 8.8%

Never 5.6%

Don't know 29.4%

n=377

34

7. Local governments have different types of policy tools they can use. How much do you support or

oppose their use of these types to limit the impacts of coastal flooding due to sea-level rise?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither

support nor

oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose Don't know

a. Long-range planning

that takes sea-level rise

into account (n=375)

53.6% 28.3% 8.0% 2.7% 4.3% 3.2%

b. Changes to

regulations, such as

zoning laws in coastal

areas (n=374)

41.2% 31.3% 10.7% 6.4% 5.3% 5.1%

c. Use of government

spending, such as

buying coastal lands

and new infrastructure

(n=373)

21.4% 30.3% 17.7% 13.4% 12.1% 5.1%

d. Providing tax

incentives to property

owners to take actions

that reduce flood risk

(n=375)

31.7% 35.5% 13.6% 8.8% 8.0% 2.4%

35

8. Based on what you know about sea-level rise do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither

disagree nor

agree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree Don't know

a. About half of

observed sea-level rise

in the region is due to

sinking land. [TRUE]

(n=373)

11.0% 14.7% 26.0% 13.7% 2.1% 32.4%

b. Most scientists expect

the rate of sea-level rise

to stay the same the

next 100 years.

[FALSE] (n=375)

19.5% 31.7% 13.9% 8.8% 5.1% 21.1%

c. Global sea levels

have never been higher

than they are today.

[FALSE] (n=373)

18.2% 11.0% 15.0% 20.9% 9.4% 25.5%

d. Climate change is

one of the causes of

observed changes in

sea-level rise. [TRUE]

(n=372)

8.9% 9.9% 8.6% 34.4% 29.0% 9.1%

e. Current sea-level rise

is entirely the result of

natural cyclical

processes. [FALSE]

(n=374)

14.2% 22.7% 17.1% 23.3% 9.1% 13.6%

9. Experiences with flooding vary based on where you live. Which of these characteristics apply

to your home or property in Anne Arundel County? (Check ONE or MORE)

a. Waterfront 10.3%

b. Not waterfront but within 1 block of water 18.3%

c. Community access to the water from a beach/dock/boat ramp 25.4%

d. Located in floodplain 10.1%

e. Not located in floodplain 53.2%

f. Unknown whether in floodplain 19.0%

g. Second home, or vacation home 2.1%

36

10. How would you describe the risk of more severe flooding from sea-level rise over the next 40 years to …

No risk Very little risk Some risk High risk Don't know

a. the county generally (n=372) 3.5% 10.2% 46.0% 32.8% 7.5%

b. your neighborhood (n=374) 19.5% 35.8% 29.4% 9.4% 5.9%

c. your home or property (n=373) 29.2% 38.6% 19.3% 6.2% 6.7%

11. In this survey, we highlight three different types of areas in the county. How much would you support or

oppose local government efforts to limit the impacts of coastal flooding in these areas?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither support

nor oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

a. Publicly owned natural

areas, such as parks and

wildlife sanctuaries (n=373)

44.8% 31.4% 12.9% 4.8% 6.2%

b. Low-density residential

areas of primarily single

family homes (n=373)

28.4% 34.6% 19.8% 9.1% 8.0%

c. High-density commercial

and residential areas

(n=371)

31.5% 35.3% 16.2% 8.6% 8.4%

Publicly owned natural

areas, such as parks

and wildlife sanctuaries

Low-density residential

areas of primarily

single family homes

High-density

commercial and

residential areas

12. Which of these areas should be

governments’ top priority? (n=355)

38.0% 17.7% 44.2%

13. Which should be their second

priority? (n=346)

26.3% 46.8% 26.9%

14. If you are opposed to efforts to limit coastal flooding impacts in all three areas, why?

1. because sea levels have already been much higher than they currently are

2. better to discourage bldg. in flood plain

3. cost to taxpayers

4. cost too much nature takes its course

5. costs and results

6. depends on how funds are spent to limit

37

7. don't want govt. to be involved

8. Government efforts to halt nature are often ineffective and many times have unintended consequences that

create worse problems

9. Government should be shrunk to the point where it has no impact on these issues

10. Government solves nothing. They use new laws to line their pockets.

11. high risk don’t build there

12. I am not opposed at all. We need to do something as flooding and erosion will damage all living things.

13. I am perfectly capable of deciding what I do with my property.

14. I don't see the big issue with it right now.

15. I would prefer to let nature take its course. We should not be using taxpayer money to help those who took the

chance to build their homes so close to the water that they are at risk. That was their choice.

16. I'm not opposed, but I chose high density residential areas over low density because people who buy property

near the shore line should understand they are doing so at risk of flooding

17. if it can be prevented, why not?

18. insurance don’t cover flood why should citizens

19. It depends what types of efforts are pursued. I am in favor of setbacks, limiting future development in

hazardous areas, educating homeowners about risks, and providing incentives to relocate or fortify where

necessary. I'm not in favor of flood insurance that allows rebuilding in high hazard zones.

20. it is all natural no problem

21. it pours good money into a gobus political program

22. It's natural, nothing we can do

23. let nature take its course

24. money better spent in ther areas

25. natural occurrence of climate over time

26. Nature does things much better than man. People can move if that is what is best for them.

27. not sure public money should be used to protect individual properties!

28. owners of commercial properties should make own plans now

29. private prop. should pay their own way

30. Risk is a decision you have to live with!

31. should infringe on the rights of property owners

32. The cost effectiveness of all government action must be taken into consideration. I don't trust our government

- local, state, or federal - to spend our tax money wisely.

33. The county government does not have the money. And I'm not privy to the science that is suggesting the

necessity of action.

34. this is not an issue worthy of wasting tax money on

35. Too expensive. Government not good at solving problems--invariably they create more.

36. too much money

37. we should also address the correct reason for the cause

38

15. How much would you support or oppose each of the following flood protection strategies for publicly-

owned natural areas in the county, assuming the cost for the taxpayer was the same for each?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither support

nor oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

a. Buy adjacent lands to

enable natural areas to

move inland (n=373)

29.0% 33.5% 20.1% 8.6% 8.8%

b. Maintain beaches and

wetlands against rising

seas (n=374)

34.8% 38.5% 12.3% 8.6% 5.9%

c. Build walls and other

structural barriers along the

shore to hold back coastal

waters (n=372)

19.1% 28.8% 16.7% 19.4% 16.1%

Buy adjacent lands to

enable natural areas to

move inland

Maintain beaches and

wetlands against rising

seas

Build walls and other

structural barriers

along the shore to hold

back coastal waters

16. Which of these strategies do you

most support? (n=345)

34.2% 46.1% 19.7%

17. Which is your second preference?

(n=333)

29.1% 45.0% 25.8%

18. If you do not like any of the three strategies above, why?

1. a dyking system for AA county is impossible

2. all three cost too much

3. Barriers divert water, we need absorption

4. barriers most always cause more trouble than they help

5. Better uses of government money

6. better ways to spend money

7. Bldg walls & other structural barriers is unnatural

8. build walls and structural barriers. Tell people the risk and if they don't adapt, so it is what it is.

39

9. Building a wall to hold the ocean is a losing battle.

10. building dikes and walls does not address the real problem, which is climate change

11. building walls & barriers don't seem to have been proven effective

12. Building walls & other barriers seems like a fight with nature, we'd lose.

13. Building walls and sea barriers has the potential to disrupt ecosystem. Careful study is needed to determine

impacts before building these structures.

14. Building walls will not solve the problem in the long run.

15. Buying adjacent lands doesn't seem to actually solve the problem/mitigate the threat of flooding, it just

displaces the problem.

16. cost to taxpayers

17. Strategy C. --- expensive and problematical

18. cost to taxpayers

19. cost/benefit

20. costs & results

21. costs, aesthetics

22. county/community can be vocal to the state/fed govt to address root causes correctly

23. do not like Strategies B or C at all

24. Hardening the shoreline is stupid and the cause of a lot of the problems we currently have

25. I don't know the science behind all of this and man cannot control nature.

26. I think nature is a stronger force than human engineering.

27. if flooding then move. Don't spend money endlessly

28. if there is a catastrophic event it will overcome preventive measures

29. let nature take its course

30. let nature take its course as it has always happened

31. Let nature take its course. The natural areas would probably re-establish themselves. If not, definitely buy

adjacent lands.

32. mother nature will always win- levies fail in new Orleans

33. prefer strategies to avoid use of walls in the first place

34. prefer strategies to avoid use of walls in the first place

35. no cost to taxpayers

36. no limit on the costs

37. non-existent threat

38. None of the above are going to work! Anne Arundel County politicians are too stupid to implement them.

39. not high enough priority

40. not natural-futile

41. opposed to wasting tax money on a non issue

42. prefer strategies to avoid use of walls in the first place

43. resources need to go to developed areas

44. States are broke. There are higher priorities.

40

45. Structures may be necessary to protect existing developed areas, but I suspect there are few publicly owned

natural areas that would benefit long term from the construction of sea walls or other barriers.

46. The government should not be making these decisions & taxpayers should not pay for them. People who live

near the water should be responsible.

47. The top priority should be to prevent sea level rise by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Second should be to

reduce development in these areas, since grading and development contributes to coast al flooding.

Purchasing parklands is good but it doesn't really address the underlying problem, and we shouldn't be

jumping straight to adaptation. We should be starting with prevention.

48. There are better things to spend $ on.

49. think Katrina-think govt.

50. this is a huge issue a single country trying to do something is like putting a band aid

51. too much taxes

52. walls & barriers must always be maintained

53. Walls and other barriers will not protect against Mother Nature.

54. walls are unnatural

55. waste of resources

56. Waste of taxpayer money. Let people/companies who bought land in flood areas bear the risk of flooding. No

need to bail out people, they should have insurance to cover as well.

57. we can't change what's "happening"

58. Your questions are too inexact. Efforts to "maintain" or to build walls may work or fail. It entirely depends upon

whether the area will flood once every ten years or once every ten weeks.

41

19. How much would you support or oppose each of the following flood protection strategies for low-

density residential areas in the county, assuming the cost for the taxpayer was the same for each?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither support

nor oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

a. Retreat inland over time,

restricting new building in

areas likely to flood, and

moving or abandoning

existing structures (n=370)

34.3% 38.6% 13.8% 7.6% 5.7%

b. Maintain and restore

natural areas such as

wetlands and beaches as

buffers against coastal

flooding (n=370)

49.5% 36.5% 8.4% 2.7% 3.0%

c. Design and retrofit

buildings to be more flood

resilient, including elevating

them and/or the land

(n=369)

22.0% 36.9% 19.5% 13.3% 8.4%

d. Build walls and other

structural barriers along the

shore to hold back coastal

waters (n=364)

15.4% 29.7% 16.2% 20.3% 18.4%

Retreat inland over

time, restricting

new building in

areas likely to

flood, and moving

or abandoning

existing structures

Maintain and

restore natural

areas such as

wetlands and

beaches as buffers

against coastal

flooding

Design and retrofit

buildings to be

more flood

resilient, including

elevating them

and/or the land

Build walls and

other structural

barriers along the

shore to hold back

coastal waters

20. Which of these strategies do

you most support? (n=354)

32.2% 48.3% 7.6% 11.9%

21. Which is your second

preference? (n=343)

28.3% 35.3% 23.9% 12.5%

22. Which is your third

preference? (n=324)

32.2% 48.3% 7.6% 21.6%

42

23. If you do not like any of the four strategies above, why?

1. all are responsibility of property owners not government

2. All artificial means will fail in the long run.

3. Barriers divert water

4. better things to spend $ on

5. black hole for money

6. building dikes does not address the real problem

7. Building walls and sea barriers has the potential to disrupt ecosystem. Carefull study is needed to determine

impacts before building these structures.

8. Building walls seems ineffective.

9. Buildings in the flooding area should be lost. No tax payer money should be used for people in waterfront

property. They purchased a home with a known risk. I do no support any use of my funds for their luxurious

lifestyle

10. cost to taxpayers

11. cost/benefit

12. County does not have the money.

13. Strategy D - expense & feasibility

14. depending on cost & reasonable outcome

15. do not try to fight nature- you lose

16. does not address root cause

17. government should not buy land

18. govt. incompetence

19. I am not sure of how effective building walls would be

20. I do not have a problem with the four strategies.

21. I don't know enough about the ramifications to make an informed choice.

22. I support restricting building in areas likely to flood the most... but because you tied to retreat, it is not a clear

answer.... but really that should be a top priority. The new development in the floodplain is clearly making the

problem worse. New homes built on hills, drain into the lots of older homes that are not built on hills and those

homes flood. Their only mistake was being here first.

23. I would not support taxes to preserve mansions but low income areas yes

24. If a building has to be retrofitted, who bears the cost? Possibly, it should not have been built initially. Building

walls and structural barriers may be a waste of time since I think the events are cyclic and eventually the

barriers may end up being a hazard.

25. If people are stupid enough to build in a "flood plain" d to them absorb the full cost of any insurance, any

liability, and any damage to their personal property + decisions

26. If we simply move inland, where will it end? We can only do that so many times before we have the same

problems

27. levies or barriers will not win against mother nature-hurricanes- expensive

43

28. look at the dikes along the Mississippi river

29. Lots of taxpayer money will be wasted to enrich politically connected environmental groups at no net

improvement.

30. need more info to make a determination

31. need specific knowledge of that residential area

32. no hard structures, coastlines are naturally and constantly in flux

33. no tax dollars should be wasted on non issue

34. no threat

35. not govt's problem

36. not natural-futile over time

37. not your job

38. options should be based on science, not public opinion

39. other than a, govt shouldn’t need to do this, landowners should

40. Price tag.

41. private land owners don’t want govt help in good times and don’t deserve it in bad time

42. question effectiveness of building walls and structural barriers

43. should be at home owner's costs

44. Structural barriers are likely to have negative (or secondary) impacts to adjacent properties or communities

and are not likely going to serve as long term solutions should sea level continue to rise over time.

45. Structural barriers may be folly

46. structures too close to water should be removed

47. too expensive

48. ugly and as they will fail, wasteful

49. wall & barriers expensive and won't work

50. walls & barriers doesn't work long term

51. Walls, etc, will not hold back coastal waters in the long run.

52. wasteful strategy

53. would rather there is no bldg. in flood plains or need for walls because of bldg.

44

24. How much would you support or oppose each of the following flood

protection strategies for high-density commercial and residential areas in the county,

assuming the cost for the taxpayer was the same for each?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither support

nor oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

a. Retreat inland over time,

restricting new building in

areas likely to flood, and

moving or abandoning

existing structures (n=368)

32.6% 38.6% 17.1% 5.4% 6.3%

b. Maintain and restore

natural areas such as

wetlands and beaches as

buffers against coastal

flooding (n=369)

46.6% 40.7% 7.9% 2.2% 2.7%

c. Design and retrofit

buildings to be more flood

resilient, including elevating

them and/or the land

(n=365)

22.7% 40.5% 15.9% 12.3% 8.5%

d. Build walls and other

structural barriers along the

shore to hold back coastal

waters (n=365)

18.6% 34.0% 13.4% 17.5% 16.4%

Retreat inland over

time, restricting

new building in

areas likely to

flood, and moving

or abandoning

existing structure

Maintain and

restore natural

areas such as

wetlands and

beaches as buffers

against coastal

flooding

Design and retrofit

buildings to be

more flood

resilient, including

elevating them

and/or the land

Build walls and

other structural

barriers along the

shore to hold back

coastal waters

25. Which of these strategies do

you most support? (n=354)

29.9% 46.3% 7.6% 16.1%

26. Which is your second

preference? (n=346)

26.3% 34.4% 27.2% 12.1%

27. Which is your third

preference? (n=326)

18.1% 14.4% 44.8% 22.7%

45

28. If you do not like any of the four strategies above, why?

1. Strategies C + D -- would rather no building in flood areas.

2. $$$ down the drain.

3. again, not sure how effective building walls would be

4. all are responsibility of property owners not government

5. Also, why build walls to hold back coastal waters. The results are inevitable, and we cannot hold back the sea

forever

6. better things to spend $ on

7. building dikes does not address the real problem

8. Building walls is probably not cost effective over the long run

9. Building walls seems ineffective and possibly harmful to the environment.

10. can't stop nature forever

11. cost to taxpayers

12. Strategy D -- Would be a temporary fix only.

13. Strategy D - cost and poor long term effectiveness

14. Strategy D - too expensive

15. demolish buildings that are unstable

16. does not address root cause

17. don’t waste tax money on this

18. I don't like the idea of bailing out businesses and residents who chose to build so close to the water.

19. If a building has to be retrofitted, who bears the cost? Possibly, it should not have been built initially. Building

walls and structural barriers may be a waste of time since I think the events are cyclic and eventually the

barriers may end up being a hazard. Problem with high density is transportation infrastructure to support the

people in high density areas. It seems to me if flooding does occur, more intense damage is likely to occur.

And if the decision to build is made and approved, what should the building codes be? Should property taxes

be higher to support the area for private and business use? In public areas, all should support, but should

individuals NOT in the high density area support the people actually using it or living there or profiting there.

20. local govt. has already plowed county over with asphalt

21. look at the dikes and levies along the Mississippi

22. Money.

23. not governments job don’t spend the money

24. not governments job read the constitution

25. not govt's problem

26. Property cannot be stolen at taxpayer expense.

27. Protection and retrofitting will be necessary to maintain uses in certain areas (e.g., Hampton Roads military

facilities, port of Baltimore), and I assume this will apply eventually to our county, perhaps first in downtown

Annapolis and at the Naval Academy.

46

28. taxpayers need to support schools, hospitals & needy-not business & waterfront owners

29. The costs will not be the same so why pretend?

30. too expensive

31. ugly and as they will fail, wasteful walls & barriers are high maintenance

32. wasteful strategy

33. waterfront people build on the water & then gate off

34. With high density Strategies A&B seem difficult

47

29. The following questions ask you how you feel generally about public policy questions.

Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither

disagree nor

agree

Somewhat

agree Strongly agree

a. Most local public policy

issues are so complex that

someone like me can’t

understand them. (n=374)

29.4% 19.8% 11.8% 27.3% 11.8%

b. People like me do not

have any say in what local

government does. (n=374)

16.3% 26.7% 13.4% 31.6% 12.0%

c. I have the ability to talk

about and participate in

local public policy

discussions. (n=374)

7.2% 12.6% 21.4% 42.8% 16.0%

d. Local public officials care

a lot what people like me

think. (n=373)

20.6% 26.0% 26.5% 21.7% 5.1%

48

30. The following questions ask what impact citizens can have in influencing local government policies.

Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither

disagree nor

agree

Somewhat

agree Strongly agree

a. Organized citizens can

have an impact on the

policies of local

government. (n=374)

2.4% 7.2% 8.3% 55.9% 26.2%

b. Local elected officials will

respond to the needs of

citizens. (n=373)

7.8% 24.9% 18.2% 45.0% 4.0%

c. As citizens, we can

successfully work together

to promote important local

policy issues. (n=374)

2.4% 9.6% 12.3% 53.5% 22.2%

d. We can cooperate as

citizens to evaluate

information and make

important decisions that

affect our local

communities. (n=374)

3.2% 8.3% 13.4% 52.1% 23.0%



49



APPENDIX B







CITIZENS’ DISCUSSION DATA

50

1. In your opinion, has coastal flooding become more or less of a problem in the county in recent years?

Much more Somewhat more No change Somewhat less Much less Don't know

Pre-survey (n=40) 15.0% 45.0% 25.0% 5.0% 0.0% 10.0%

Post-survey (n=40) 27.5% 62.5% 5.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5%

∆ Post – Pre 12.5% 17.5% -20.0% -2.5% 0.0% -7.5%

p

<.011

2. Would you agree or disagree that your local government’s policies are adequate for addressing coastal

flooding over the long term (e.g., over a decade or more)?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither agree

nor disagree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Don't

know

Pre-survey (n=39) 12.8% 33.3% 15.4% 12.8% 2.6% 23.1%

Post-survey (n=39) 20.5% 41.0% 10.3% 10.3% 7.7% 10.3%

∆ Post – Pre 7.7% 7.7% -5.1% -2.6% 5.1% -12.8%

4. Sea-level rise is an issue some coastal communities have been discussing recently. Sea-level rise refers to

increases in the average height of water relative to the land over the course of the year.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree that sea-level rise is occurring?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither agree

nor disagree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Don't

know

Pre-survey (n=40) 10.0% 5.0% 7.5% 40.0% 30.0% 7.5%

Post-survey (n=39) 10.3% 5.1% 0.0% 33.3% 48.7% 2.6%

∆ Post – Pre 0.3% 0.1% -7.5% -6.7% 18.7% -4.9%

5. When do you believe the effects of sea-level rise will significantly impact the county, if ever?

Effects are

significant

now

by the year

2025

by the year

2050

by the year

2075

by the

year 2100 Never

Don't

know

Pre-survey (n=40) 22.5% 15.0% 32.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 25.0%

Post-survey (n=40) 20.0% 5.0% 37.5% 7.5% 12.5% 2.5% 15.0%

∆ Post – Pre -2.5% -10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 12.5% 0.0% -10.0%

p<.01



1 The “p value” designates significant differences between the mean of the participant responses before and after the

Citizens’ Discussion event. P values below .05 are considered statistically significant. Significance was evaluated

using dependent measures t-tests. “Don’t know” values were treated as non-scale and not included in tests of

statistical significance.

51

6. Which impacts from sea-level rise, if any, are you most concerned

about within the county? (Check ONE or MORE)

Pre-survey (n=40) Post-surve

y

(

n=40

)

∆

Post

–

Pre

a. Private property damage or loss 72.5% 62.5% -10.0%

b. Public infrastructure damage or loss 67.5% 67.5% 0.0%

c. Habitat loss 55.0% 75.0% 20.0%

d. Erosion of shoreline 75.0% 67.5% -7.5%

e. Increased frequency and severity of flooding 60.0% 65.0% 5.0%

f. Permanently flooded areas (inundation) 30.0% 45.0% 15.0%

g. Loss or contamination of freshwater wells 50.0% 60.0% 10.0%

h. Problems with storm water drainage 65.0% 60.0% -5.0%

i. Loss or damage of sewage and septic treatment systems 60.0% 67.5% 7.5%

j. Not concerned about any impacts 5.0% 2.5% -2.5%

k. Don’t know 2.5% 0.0% -2.5%

52

7. Local governments have different types of policy tools they can use. How much do you support or oppose

their use of these types to limit the impacts of coastal flooding due to sea-level rise?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither

support nor

oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

Don't

know

a. Long-range

planning that

takes sea-level

rise into account

Pre-survey (n=40) 67.5% 17.5% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 5.0%

Post-survey (n=40) 70.0% 22.5% 5.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0%

∆ Post – Pre 2.5% 5.0% 0.0% -2.5% 0.0% -5.0%

b. Changes to

regulations, such

as zoning laws in

coastal areas

Pre-survey (n=40) 55.0% 25.0% 7.5% 5.0% 2.5% 5.0%

Post-survey (n=37) 64.9% 27.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 0.0%

∆ Post – Pre 9.9% 2.0% -4.8% -2.3% 0.2% -5.0%

c. Use of

government

spending, such as

buying coastal

lands and new

infrastructure

Pre-survey (n=39) 38.5% 20.5% 20.5% 10.3% 2.6% 7.7%

Post-survey (n=38) 42.1% 42.1% 2.6% 7.9% 5.3% 0.0%

∆ Post – Pre 3.6% 21.6% -17.9% -2.4% 2.7% -7.7%

d. Providing tax

incentives to

property owners

to take actions

that reduce flood

risk

Pre-survey (n=40) 40.0% 32.5% 15.0% 2.5% 7.5% 2.5%

Post-survey (n=38) 57.9% 23.7% 13.2% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0%

∆ Post – Pre 17.9% -8.8% -1.8% 0.1% -4.9% -2.5%

53

8. Based on what you know about sea-level rise do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither

disagree

nor agree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Don't

know

a. About half of

observed sea-level

rise in the region is

due to sinking land.

[TRUE]

Pre-survey (n=40) 12.5% 15.0% 17.5% 22.5% 2.5% 30.0%

Post-survey (n=40) 7.5% 5.0% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 10.0%

∆ Post – Pre -5.0% -10.0% 12.5% 7.5% 15.0% -20.0%

p<.05

b. Most scientists

expect the rate of

sea-level rise to

stay the same the

next 100 years.

[FALSE]

Pre-survey (n=40) 32.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 5.0% 17.5%

Post-survey (n=40) 45.0% 27.5% 7.5% 7.5% 2.5% 10.0%

∆ Post – Pre 12.5% 12.5% -7.5% -7.5% -2.5% -7.5%

p<.05

c. Global sea levels

have never been

higher than they are

today. [FALSE]

Pre-survey (n=40) 27.5% 10.0% 5.0% 22.5% 10.0% 25.0%

Post-survey (n=39) 23.1% 5.1% 20.5% 17.9% 17.9% 15.4%

∆ Post – Pre -4.4% -4.9% 15.5% -4.6% 7.9% -9.6%

d. Climate change

is one of the causes

of observed

changes in sea-

level rise. [TRUE]

Pre-survey (n=39) 5.1% 7.7% 15.4% 30.8% 38.5% 2.6%

Post-survey (n=37) 13.5% 0.0% 8.1% 18.9% 59.5% 0.0%

∆ Post – Pre 8.4% -7.7% -7.3% -11.9% 21.0% -2.6%

e. Current sea-level

rise is entirely the

result of natural

cyclical processes.

[FALSE]

Pre-survey (n=40) 12.5% 25.0% 17.5% 25.0% 12.5% 7.5%

Post-survey (n=38) 23.7% 23.7% 10.5% 26.3% 13.2% 2.6%

∆ Post – Pre 11.2% -1.3% -7.0% 1.3% 0.7% -4.9%

54

10. How would you describe the risk of more severe flooding from sea-level rise over the next 40 years to …

No risk Ver

y

little risk Some risk Hi

g

h risk Don't kno

w

a. the count

y

g

enerall

y

Pre-survey (n=39) 0.0% 2.6% 56.4% 38.5% 2.6%

Post-survey (n=39) 5.1% 12.8% 20.5% 56.4% 5.1%

∆ Post – Pre 5.1% 10.3% -35.9% 17.9% 2.6%

b. your neighborhood

Pre-survey (n=39) 12.8% 33.3% 30.8% 17.9% 5.1%

Post-survey (n=35) 31.4% 37.1% 20.0% 8.6% 2.9%

∆ Post – Pre 18.6% 3.8% -10.8% -9.4% -2.3%

p<.01

c. your home or property

Pre-survey (n=39) 20.5% 33.3% 28.2% 10.3% 7.7%

Post-survey (n=36) 50.0% 25.0% 11.1% 11.1% 2.8%

∆ Post – Pre 29.5% -8.3% -17.1% 0.9% -4.9%

p<.01

9. Experiences with flooding vary based on where you live. Which of these characteristics apply

to your home or property in Anne Arundel County? (Check ONE or MORE)

a. Waterfront 17.5%

b. Not waterfront but within 1 block of water 15.0%

c. Community access to the water from a beach/dock/boat ramp 12.5%

d. Located in floodplain 10.0%

e. Not located in floodplain 55.0%

f. Unknown whether in floodplain 20.0%

g. Second home, or vacation home 0.0%

n=40

55

11. In this survey, we highlight three different types of areas in the county. How much would you support or

oppose local government efforts to limit the impacts of coastal flooding in these areas?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither support

nor oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

a. Publicly owned natural

areas, such as parks and

wildlife sanctuaries

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

55.0% 27.5% 10.0% 5.0% 2.5%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

64.1% 23.1% 5.1% 5.1% 2.6%

∆

Post

–

Pre 9.1% -4.4% -4.9% 0.1% 0.1%

b. Low-density residential

areas of primarily single

family homes

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

37.5% 30.0% 25.0% 5.0% 2.5%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

35.9% 33.3% 12.8% 10.3% 7.7%

∆

Post

–

Pre -1.6% 3.3% -12.2% 5.3% 5.2%

c. High-density

commercial and

residential areas

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

37.5% 37.5% 7.5% 7.5% 10.0%

Post-surve

y

(

n=40

)

42.5% 32.5% 7.5% 10.0% 7.5%

∆

Post

–

Pre 5.0% -5.0% 0.0% 2.5% -2.5%

56

Publicly owned natural

areas, such as parks

and wildlife sanctuaries

Low-density residential

areas of primarily

single family homes

High-density

commercial and

residential areas

12. Which of these areas should be

governments’ top priority?

Pre-surve

y

(

n=38

)

39.5% 23.7% 36.8%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

46.2% 20.5% 33.3%

∆

Post

–

Pre 6.7% -3.2% -3.5%

13. Which should be their second

priority?

P

r

e-surve

y

(

n=37

)

35.1% 43.2% 21.6%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

33.3% 30.8% 35.9%

∆

Post

–

Pre -1.8% -12.5% 14.3%

(Open-ended post-survey follow-up question)

14. If you are opposed to efforts to limit coastal flooding impacts in all three areas, why?

1. It is going to happen, therefore money (Gov’t) is a waste of money.

2. Need objective metrics to best defend decisions to spend money and other resources .

3. Not the governments business.

4. Some responsibility should be on the homeowner if living in a waterfront single family home.

57

15. How much would you support or oppose each of the following flood protection strategies for publicly-

owned natural areas in the county, assuming the cost for the taxpayer was the same for each?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither support

nor oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

a. Buy adjacent lands to

enable natural areas to

move inland

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

52.5% 32.5% 7.5% 5.0% 2.5%

Post-surve

y

(

n=40

)

50.0% 32.5% 12.5% 2.5% 2.5%

∆

Post

–

Pre -2.5% 0.0% 5.0% -2.5% 0.0%

b. Maintain beaches and

wetlands against rising

seas

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

42.5% 35.0% 10.0% 7.5% 5.0%

Post-surve

y

(

n=38

)

50.0% 39.5% 5.3% 2.6% 2.6%

∆

Post

–

Pre 7.5% 4.5% -4.7% -4.9% -2.4%

c. Build walls and other

structural barriers along

the shore to hold back

coastal waters

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

28.2% 20.5% 12.8% 23.1% 15.4%

Post-surve

y

(

n=38

)

21.1% 21.1% 5.3% 26.3% 26.3%

∆

Post

–

Pre -7.2% 0.5% -7.6% 3.2% 10.9%

p

<.05

58

Buy adjacent lands to

enable natural areas to

move inland

Maintain beaches and

wetlands against rising

seas

Build walls and other

structural barriers

along the shore to hold

back coastal waters

16. Which of these strategies do you

most support?

Pre-survey (n=38) 42.1% 42.1% 15.8%

Post-survey (n=40) 40.0% 40.0% 17.5%

∆ Post – Pre -2.1% -2.1% 1.7%

17. Which is your second

preference?

Pre-survey (n=36) 30.6% 52.8% 16.7%

Post-survey (n=38) 50.0% 42.1% 7.9%

∆ Post – Pre 19.4% -10.7% -8.8%

(Post-survey follow-up to question 16, “Which of these strategies do you most support?”)

Why would this strategy work best in Anne Arundel County?

Buy adjacent lands to enable natural areas to move inland:

1. I find it to be more of a long-term solution that might be more cost effective than the other choices.

2. It could allow water to flow and migrate more naturally.

3. It would work if we had the allocated funds

4. Its the only long-term solution, and over the long term will be the most cost effective and be the best

environmental choice.

5. so much coastline

6. THERE IS LAND FOR WETLANDS TO MOVE INLAND

7. This would be the easiest to do.

8. This would provide publicly owned lands to replace those lost to SLR for the enjoyment of the county citizens

for the long term

9. To maintain natural areas. Otherwise you lose them.

59

Maintain beaches and wetlands against rising seas:

10. Allows the nature to its course of action without interfering with natural landscape

11. Anne Arundel County already supports living shorelines. It is a proactive approach if implemented in a timely

manner.

12. Both maintaining wetlands and beaches as well as purchasing adjacent lands are more practive practices than

building barriers which also tend to be a more short-term action rather than a good solution.

13. I support natural alternatives for ecological reasons. Wetlands are filtering system that needs to be protected

and improved from the damages made to it over the past.

14. I think private property owners are going to want to live near water, no matter what. Public opinion will support

option B the most, as building walls may make eyesores and buying adjacent areas seems politically

unpalatable

15. its close to the Chesapeake bay

16. keep it natural as possible

17. long term sustainability

18. more affordable and visible to the overall population.

19. Most effective long term solution when emissions are reduced also.

20. The abundance of land areas for residential, commercial use beyond beaches and wetlands

21. too expensive to buy land related to option1, would be a lot of resistance for any type of walls

22. Walls and structural barriers are, at best, a short term solution to a very long term problem. Also, the use of

barriers would tend to destroy the natural wetlands support of the infrastructure of the bay - ie, nursery habitat

for juvenile species, natural cleanser of pollutants and natural buffer against flooding and erosion. Introducing

additional wetlands and rebuilding/rehabing existing wetlands would tend to both support the bay restoration

and protect the land from additional floor damage.

23. Really believe we need a thoughtful combination of all three.

Build walls and other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal waters:

24. It would prevent coastal flooding

25. Less flooding on beaches and wetlands

26. limited amount of beaches here in Anne Arundel County, but have other types of water area need protected

(harbors, etc.)

27. To help us from the Chesapeake flooding.

60

(Post-survey follow-up to questions 16 and 17.)

Why would your least preferred strategy NOT work well in Anne Arundel County?

Buy adjacent lands to enable natural areas to move inland:

1. Buying adjacent land who be a tremendous cost to taxpayers.

2. I don't think the public appetite for buying adjacent lands could be maintained in the long run.

3. too expensive

Maintain beaches and wetlands against rising seas:

4. coastal flooding is not an issue for certain parts of Anne Arundel County

5. Not too many beaches here in Anne Arundel County.

6. people like to live on the beaches and historically they have chosen to rebuild after loss

Build walls and other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal waters:

7. an eye sore, expensive and wouldn't necessarily last

8. Barriers can be useful but they tend to be short-term actions as opposed to solutions.

9. Building structures seems to be a temporary solution that cost too much money.

10. Building wall has a tendency to transfer the problem to another disaster point. Therefore its not a good

mitigation strategy

11. Cost

12. Cost of initial construction and maintenance. Only benefits some people and not the county as a whole.

Exception is preserving the history of Annapolis where walls or other engineered structures may be the only

solution.

13. Expense, resistance to limitation to areas that are accessible, ecological impact could be adverse, beauty

compromised.

14. I don't think construction of walls and barriers in protected wetlands is environmentally friendly.

15. IT COST TOO MUCH AND THE ON GOING MAINTAINENCE

16. It is not practical to bulkhead the Anne Arundel County portion of the bay. The barriers will eventually fail. A

more permanent and cost effective solution is needed that is environmentally friendly

17. It will be cost prohibitive to build walls and other structural barriers are to protect all of the potentially effected

land area in the County; be expensive to maintain; and eventually have to be rebuilt; have adverse effect on

the environment (no wetlands no fish, no crabs, etc.) which also affects the economy for waterman as well as

the recreational and tourism industry.

61

18. It would probably only work well in selected areas, such as Annapolis, which I believe should be fully

protected.

19. Long term maintenance against a natural process. Not sure if it is strategic (long term) or operational (today’s

bandage).

20. people would see man-made structure as not suitable & unnsture like

21. The costs could not be justified by the continual maintenance the structures

22. Too much coastland to build structural barriers. Only a limited use of these should be done.

23. Too time consuming and costly

24. Walls

25. walls and other structural barriers are short term solutions, expensive to maintain and can do damage to

adjoining shorelines

26. Walls and structural barriers are, at best, a short term solution to a very long term problem. Also, the use of

barriers would tend to destroy the natural wetlands support of the infrastructure of the bay – i.e., nursery

habitat for juvenile species, natural cleanser of pollutants and natural buffer against flooding and erosion.

27. Walls are unsightly and expensive to maintain

28. Walls etc. cannot stop the natural occurrence of flooding due to global warming. It is cost prohibitive

29. Walls have to be maintained or they don't work and they are costly to build properly.

30. Walls present so many other problems

(Post-survey follow-up to questions 16 and 17.)

18. If you do not like any of the three strategies above, why?

1. The solution should be specific to each scenario. A one-size-fits-all solution does not exist. A combination of

all of these methods is needed and needs to be supported by the community in order to be successful.

2. The strategy used should fit the problem - there is no one answer to all situations. People should use the best

tool no just one or two chosen by people who may not have to live with the consequences.

3. They would cost taxpayers money that might not be there. These costs should be borne by the landowner and

local government should reduce its impact on the costs.

62

19. How much would you support or oppose each of the following flood protection strategies for low-

density residential areas in the county, assuming the cost for the taxpayer was the same for each?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither support

nor oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

a. Retreat inland over

time, restricting new

building in areas likely to

flood, and moving or

abandoning existing

structures

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

52.5% 30.0% 5.0% 12.5% 0.0%

Post-surve

y

(

n=40

)

45.0% 35.0% 5.0% 7.5% 7.5%

∆

Post

–

Pre -7.5% 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% 7.5%

b. Maintain and restore

natural areas such as

wetlands and beaches as

buffers against coastal

flooding

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

60.0% 35.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

56.4% 35.9% 0.0% 2.6% 5.1%

∆

Post

–

Pre -3.6% 0.9% -2.5% 2.6% 2.6%

c. Design and retrofit

buildings to be more

flood resilient, including

elevating them and/or the

land

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

27.5% 37.5% 15.0% 15.0% 5.0%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

38.5% 33.3% 7.7% 10.3% 10.3%

∆

Post

–

Pre 11.0% -4.2% -7.3% -4.7% 5.3%

d. Build walls and other

structural barriers along

the shore to hold back

coastal waters

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

12.8% 33.3% 10.3% 30.8% 12.8%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

17.9% 23.1% 10.3% 23.1% 25.6%

∆

Post

–

Pre 5.1% -10.3% 0.0% -7.7% 12.8%

63

Retreat inland over

time, restricting

new building in

areas likely to

flood, and moving

or abandoning

existing structures

Maintain and

restore natural

areas such as

wetlands and

beaches as buffers

against coastal

flooding

Design and retrofit

buildings to be

more flood

resilient, including

elevating them

and/or the land

Build walls and

other structural

barriers along the

shore to hold back

coastal waters

20. Which of these strategies

do you most support?

Pre-surve

y

(

n=38

)

34.2% 50.0% 10.5% 5.3%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

30.8% 51.3% 7.7% 10.3%

∆

Post

–

Pre -3.4% 1.3% -2.8% 5.0%

21. Which is your second

preference?

Pre-surve

y

(

n=38

)

39.5% 26.3% 18.4% 15.8%

Post-surve

y

(

n=36

)

27.8% 38.9% 25.0% 8.3%

∆

Post

–

Pre -11.7% 12.6% 6.6% -7.5%

22. Which is your third

preference?

Pre-surve

y

(

n=34

)

11.8% 14.7% 52.9% 20.6%

Post-surve

y

(

n=38

)

23.7% 7.9% 47.4% 21.1%

∆

Post

–

Pre 11.9% -6.8% -5.6% 0.5%

64

(Post-survey follow-up to question 20, “Which of these strategies do you most support?”)

Why would this strategy work best in Anne Arundel County?

Retreat inland over time, restricting new building in areas likely to flood, and moving or abandoning

existing structures:

1. I don't know if this strategy would work best, but it's my preferred option. I suspect most people on the

shoreline would like to maintain the status quo. to protect their vested interests, in which case options B, C, D

would be equally more preferable to A.

2. In certain areas (south county) there are areas that frequently flood with the potential loss of life, this would

eliminate the problem.

3. It would allow water to flow and migrate naturally.

4. Less conflict with populest.

5. Long term solution. The others are bandaids to a problem that will not go away and in the end will be more

expensive due to maintenance.

6. Move impacted people away from the expected problem areas by not allowing new structures. Better

enforcement of laws.

7. Retreating would create new natural areas as well as providing new residents.

8. Seems to be the best and least costly choice. Also does not involve sudden change.

Maintain and restore natural areas such as wetlands and beaches as buffers against coastal flooding:

9. because it contains a lot of wetlands

10. It is an environmentally friendly and proactive solution. A natural buffer is better long term solution.

11. It maintains the integrity of the coastline.

12. It will have the most efficacy and be the most cost effective approach

13. It's natural

14. Large area ie Juglands to protect

15. Long term sustainability

16. low cost

17. people here like nature & this would the least intrusive for them, they want nature to flourish

18. protecting wetlands would also protect the land behind it

19. Same as before - Wetlands are our filtering system.

20. the availability of land use for residential and commercial

21. This strategy won't necessarily be appropriate for every situation in Anne Arundel County but I could only

choose one.

65

Design and retrofit buildings to be more flood resilient, including elevating them and/or the land:

22. It is unlikely that sea level rise will be eliminated so it is important to establish an environment that will allow

humans to exist in the changing environment. Building more resilient and resistant structures would have the

same effect as building earthquake resistant structures in active tectonic zones.

23. It seems more cost effective than relocating people

24. SEEMS TO BE A GOOD COMPROMISE

Build walls and other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal waters:

25. There are area such as Harbors etc. that need protection.

26. To protect us from Chesapeake flooding

(Post-survey follow-up to questions 20-22.)

Why would your least preferred strategy NOT work well in Anne Arundel County?

Retreat inland over time, restricting new building in areas likely to flood, and moving or abandoning

existing structures:

1. It seems very expensive to move people inland

2. its expensive

3. Lots of existing waterfront development is already in place.

4. RETREAT TO WHERE? AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR THE RETREATER

5. Retreating inland reduces the size and beauty of the county.

Maintain and restore natural areas such as wetlands and beaches as buffers against coastal flooding:

[No comments]

Design and retrofit buildings to be more flood resilient, including elevating them and/or the land:

6. Anne Arundel County is not at the Atlantic Ocean

7. Made not be built correctly in the first place because of builders budget cuts and may required addition cost

as if one is rebuilding a new house the correct way (New repairs can be costly as a New Home built for

flooding).

8. Overall costs.

9. Rebuilding and retrofitting would have to be done every so often to keep ahead of the sea level rise.

10. Retrofitting may be cost prohibitive. Additionally, as we learn more, the requirements of retrofitting may be

increased.

11. The historic buildings are in areas that do not support the elevating or retrofitting - and keep their cultural

significance.

12. too expensive –

66

Build walls and other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal waters:

13. Again, a structural barrier is only a temporary fix, not a solution.

14. As before expense

15. Building structures to hold back water seems to be a more temporary, and expensive undertaking since.

16. Building wall will only transfer the problem

17. Building permanent walls should be a last resort. It would upset the natural ecosystem and salinity of the bay.

Maybe a temporary wall would be a solution to episode flooding.

18. Cost of initial construction and maintenance. Only benefits some people and not the county as a whole.

Exception is preserving the history of Annapolis where walls or other engineered structures may be the only

solution.

19. I think building walls and structural barriers might create too many unintended side effects, and potentially be

eyesores for the public.

20. project cost and who will bear the burden of cost

21. Structural approaches are too expensive both in terms of the capital cost as well as the adverse impacts to the

environment and as a result of the environmental damage there will be adverse affects for waterman and

tourist economies.

22. The cost.

23. too costly

24. Ugly

25. Walls and structural barriers are, at best, a short term solution to a very long term problem. Also, the use of

barriers would tend to destroy the natural wetlands support of the infrastructure of the bay - ie, nursery habitat

for juvenile species, natural cleanser of pollutants and natural buffer against flooding and erosion.

26. Walls are costly to build and maintain.

27. Walls unsightly

28. when people think walls, they would reactive from the start.. no way

(Post-survey follow-up to questions 20-22.)

23. If you do not like any of the four strategies above, why?

1. One solution does not fit all, the solution should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some homeowners

will not be able to afford the expense to repair or retrofit their properties without government assistance.

2. People need a set of tools and to choose the best - not have only one course of action.

67

24. How much would you support or oppose each of the following flood

protection strategies for high-density commercial and residential areas in the county,

assuming the cost for the taxpayer was the same for each?

Strongly

support

Somewhat

support

Neither support

nor oppose

Somewhat

oppose

Strongly

oppose

a. Retreat inland over

time, restricting new

building in areas likely to

flood, and moving or

abandoning existing

structures

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

53.8% 35.9% 7.7% 2.6% 0.0%

Post-surve

y

(

n=40

)

37.5% 32.5% 10.0% 12.5% 7.5%

∆

Post

–

Pre -16.3% -3.4% 2.3% 9.9% 7.5%

p

<.01

b. Maintain and restore

natural areas such as

wetlands and beaches as

buffers against coastal

flooding

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

61.5% 33.3% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6%

Post-surve

y

(

n=37

)

56.8% 35.1% 2.7% 0.0% 5.4%

∆

Post

–

Pre -4.8% 1.8% 0.1% 0.0% 2.8%

c. Design and retrofit

buildings to be more

flood resilient, including

elevating them and/or the

land

Pre-surve

y

(

n=38

)

28.9% 44.7% 5.3% 5.3% 15.8%

Post-surve

y

(

n=37

)

40.5% 27.0% 13.5% 10.8% 8.1%

∆

Post

–

Pre 11.6% -17.7% 8.3% 5.5% -7.7%

d. Build walls and other

structural barriers along

the shore to hold back

coastal waters

Pre-surve

y

(

n=38

)

13.2% 36.8% 2.6% 26.3% 21.1%

Post-surve

y

(

n=37

)

29.7% 21.6% 10.8% 21.6% 16.2%

∆

Post

–

Pre 16.6% -15.2% 8.2% -4.7% -4.8%

68

Retreat inland over

time, restricting

new building in

areas likely to

flood, and moving

or abandoning

existing structures

Maintain and

restore natural

areas such as

wetlands and

beaches as buffers

against coastal

flooding

Design and retrofit

buildings to be

more flood

resilient, including

elevating them

and/or the land

Build walls and

other structural

barriers along the

shore to hold back

coastal waters

25. Which of these strategies

do you most support?

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

35.9% 43.6% 10.3% 10.3%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

20.5% 30.8% 17.9% 30.8%

∆

Post

–

Pre -15.4% -12.8% 7.7% 20.5%

26. Which is your second

preference?

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

41.0% 33.3% 17.9% 7.7%

Post-surve

y

(

n=38

)

26.3% 39.5% 21.1% 13.2%

∆

Post

–

Pre -14.7% 6.1% 3.1% 5.5%

27. Which is your third

preference?

Pre-surve

y

(

n=35

)

20.0% 11.4% 48.6% 20.0%

Post-surve

y

(

n=38

)

18.4% 21.1% 34.2% 26.3%

∆

Post

–

Pre -1.6% 9.6% -14.4% 6.3%

69

(Post-survey follow-up to question 25, “Which of these strategies do you most support?”)

Why would this strategy work best in Anne Arundel County?

Retreat inland over time, restricting new building in areas likely to flood, and moving or abandoning

existing structures:

1. High Density should not be located in flood-prone areas.

2. Long term solution. The others are bandaids to a problem that will not go away and in the end will be more

expensive due to maintenance.

3. Not sure if this would work but if we remove the problem that people create by causing new infrastructures

which are nice for the people but hasten the long term problem by removing natural areas and habitats.

4. Some land erosion over time can be expected, due to the nature of water. Therefore, making adjustments in

life-style seems to be the natural solution to the problem.

5. We don't have many high density areas so the time to act is now.

Maintain and restore natural areas such as wetlands and beaches as buffers against coastal flooding:

6. a buffer protects the inland

7. because of the bay

8. It is an environmentally friendly and proactive approach.

9. Its the best mitigation strategy

10. keep it natural & historical

11. low cost and keep natural resources

12. Most realistic.

13. We already have these areas, they just need to be utilized, not destroyed

Design and retrofit buildings to be more flood resilient, including elevating them and/or the land:

14. As noted previously, this will help people to live in the changing environment.

15. Businesses might be more agreeable to redesign their property

16. High density areas are more difficult to move inland so other solutions should be examined.

17. It depends on the location. Most of the existing high density development is already on the shoreline, so

maintaining a natural area buffer isn't an option. In these existing locations, the best strategy is retrofitting and

design approach. Additionally, in some locations because of the number of land owners involved

accompanied by the economic engine that is a downtown (Baltimore Inner Harbor, Annapolis) the only

reasonable approach is structural.

18. It would make the existing structures less vulnerable. I would prefer moving or abandoning but it would meet

too much resistance.

19. It would protect the most people.

20. MITIGATE LONG TERM COSTS

70

Build walls and other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal waters:

21. Anne Arundel had Harbor

22. It would protect structures that could not be replaced or rebuilt elsewhere

23. Only for commercial/historic area such as City Dock

24. this may be only ave., though not the most appealing

25. To not get flooding from the Chesapeake

26. We need to protect historical buildings as best we can.

27. With high density commercial and residential, I think strong protection is the only option, and building structural

impediments to sea rise the most obvious and palatable solution.

(Post-survey follow-up to questions 25-27.)

Why would your least preferred strategy NOT work well in Anne Arundel County?

Retreat inland over time, restricting new building in areas likely to flood, and moving or abandoning

existing structures:

1. cost efficiency

2. For high density areas the number of property owners involved and the economic impacts or retreating makes

it an unrealistic approach.

3. HIGH DENSITY WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ENGAGE

4. It would adversely affect the most people.

5. It would be very impractical to displace a large group of people and businesses.

6. not all areas are prone to coastal flooding

7. Retreating inland over time in these types of areas would, I expect, be received as defeatism from a public

policy standpoint. Any of the other options, therefore, would be more preferable to the general voting public,

especially those most immediately impacted in the high-density area.

8. Retrofit communities

Maintain and restore natural areas such as wetlands and beaches as buffers against coastal flooding:

9. Too time consuming and costly

10. Most high density areas do not have much natural areas to work with.

71

Design and retrofit buildings to be more flood resilient, including elevating them and/or the land:

11. Cannot affect structure of some historical buildings

12. Cost

13. expensive, impractical

14. It is a cost that would have to be redone every few years to meet the continual rise of sea level

15. Many environments are not affected by the problem and essentially, many will be taxed for their perceived non

problem

16. Total cost

Build walls and other structural barriers along the shore to hold back coastal waters:

17. Building permanent walls will upset the ecosystem.

18. Building structures (walls, etc...) seems to be a more expensive, less effective solution.

19. Cost

20. For High Density areas - while permanent walls help to prevent flooding, all it does is shunt it to another area

to flood.

21. It does not solve the problem

22. it is unclear who will bear this economic cost

23. Restrict water view and beauty

24. Structural barriers are temporary actions, not solutions.

25. too costly

26. Walls and structural barriers are, at best, a short term solution to a very long term problem. Also, the use of

barriers would tend to destroy the natural wetlands support of the infrastructure of the bay - ie, nursery habitat

for juvenile species, natural cleanser of pollutants and natural buffer against flooding and erosion.

27. Walls are expensive to build and maintain and don't work in the long run.

(Post-survey follow-up to questions 25-27.)

28. If you do not like any of the four strategies above, why?

1. A combination of all solutions is needed depending on the situation and risk to the infrastructure.

2. Communities should have access to all useful strategies and not relegated to only one or two.

72

29. The following questions ask you how you feel generally about public policy questions.

Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither disagree

nor agree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

a. Most local public

policy issues are so

complex that someone

like me can’t understand

them.

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

25.0% 22.5% 2.5% 42.5% 7.5%

Post-surve

y

(

n=38

)

34.2% 21.1% 10.5% 31.6% 2.6%

∆

Post

–

Pre 9.2% -1.4% 8.0% -10.9% -4.9%

p

<.05

b. People like me do not

have any say in what

local government does.

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

25.0% 22.5% 12.5% 22.5% 17.5%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

30.8% 20.5% 15.4% 28.2% 5.1%

∆

Post

–

Pre 5.8% -2.0% 2.9% 5.7% -12.4%

c. I have the ability to talk

about and participate in

local public policy

discussions.

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

12.8% 7.7% 20.5% 33.3% 25.6%

Post-surve

y

(

n=38

)

13.2% 10.5% 7.9% 26.3% 42.1%

∆

Post

–

Pre 0.3% 2.8% -12.6% -7.0% 16.5%

d. Local public officials

care a lot what people

like me think.

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

23.1% 10.3% 25.6% 33.3% 7.7%

Post-surve

y

(

n=37

)

27.0% 24.3% 10.8% 35.1% 2.7%

∆

Post

–

Pre 4.0% 14.1% -14.8% 1.8% -5.0%

73

30. The following questions ask what impact citizens can have in influencing local government policies.

Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither disagree

nor agree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

a. Organized citizens can

have an impact on the

policies of local

government.

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

5.1% 0.0% 5.1% 61.5% 28.2%

Post-surve

y

(

n=40

)

7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 45.0% 37.5%

∆

Post

–

Pre 2.4% 5.0% -0.1% -16.5% 9.3%

b. Local elected officials

will respond to the needs

of citizens.

Pre-surve

y

(

n=38

)

15.8% 15.8% 21.1% 42.1% 5.3%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

7.7% 17.9% 10.3% 53.8% 10.3%

∆

Post

–

Pre -8.1% 2.2% -10.8% 11.7% 5.0%

c. As citizens, we can

successfully work

together to promote

important local policy

issues.

Pre-surve

y

(

n=40

)

2.5% 10.0% 12.5% 42.5% 32.5%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

0.0% 10.3% 7.7% 41.0% 41.0%

∆

Post

–

Pre -2.5% 0.3% -4.8% -1.5% 8.5%

d. We can cooperate as

citizens to evaluate

information and make

important decisions that

affect our local

communities.

Pre-surve

y

(

n=39

)

5.1% 7.7% 12.8% 41.0% 33.3%

Post-surve

y

(

n=39

)

2.6% 5.1% 5.1% 48.7% 38.5%

∆

Post

–

Pre -2.6% -2.6% -7.7% 7.7% 5.1%

74

APPENDIX C







KNOWLEDGE QUESTION REFERENCES



75

8a. About half of observed sea-level rise in the region is due to sinking land. [TRUE]

>For Chesapeake Bay subsidence rate estimates, including Annapolis, see page 25.

Boon, J. D., Brubaker, J. M., & Forrest, D. R. (2010). Chesapeake Bay land subsidence and sea level change:

An evaluation of past and present trends and future outlook. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester

Point, VA.

8b. Most scientists expect the rate of sea-level rise to stay the same the next 100 years. [FALSE]

>“Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century.” Page 409.

Bindoff, N. L., Willebrand, J., Artale, V. Cazenave, A., Gregory, J., Gulev, S., Hanawa, K., Le Quéré, C.,

Levitus, S., Nojiri, Y., Shum, C.K., Talley, L.D., & Unnikrishnan, A. (2007). Observations: Oceanic Climate

Change and Sea Level. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor & H.L.

Miller (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

>“Results of climate model studies suggest sea-level rise in the twenty-first century will significantly exceed

rates over the past century.” Page 11.

CCSP. (2009). Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: A focus on the mid-Atlantic region. A report by the U.S.

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. J. G. Titus

(Coordinating Lead Author), K. E. Anderson, D. R. Cahoon, D. B. Gesch, S. K. Gill, B. T. Gutierrez, E. R.

Thieler, & S. J. Williams (Lead Authors). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

8c. Global sea levels have never been higher than they are today. [FALSE]

>“The last interglacial period, Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e, was characterized by global mean surface

temperatures that were at least 2 _C warmer than present. Mean sea level stood 4–6m higher than modern sea

level.” Page 38.

Rohling, E. J., Grant, K., Hemleben, Ch., Siddall, M., Hoogakker, B. A. A., Bolshaw, M., & Kucera, M. (2008).

High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period. NatureGeoscience 1, 38 – 42.

76

8d. Climate change is one of the causes of observed changes in sea-level rise. [TRUE]

>“Sea-level rise is the combination of the increase in volume of water as a result of global warming and

decrease in size of the ocean basins due to mid-ocean ridge spreading.” Page 4.

Maryland Commission on Climate Change. (2008). Comprehensive strategy for reducing Maryland’s

vulnerability to climate change, Phase I: Sea level rise and coastal storms. Report of the Maryland Commission

on Climate Change Adaptation and Response Working Group.

8e. Current sea-level rise is entirely the result of natural cyclical processes. [FALSE]

>“Consensus in the climate science community is that the global climate is changing, mostly due to mankind’s

increased emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, from burning of

fossil fuels and land-use change (measurements show a 25 percent increase in the last century). Warming of

the climate system is unequivocal, but the effects of climate change are highly variable across regions and

difficult to predict with high confidence based on limited observations over time and space. Two effects of

atmospheric warming on coasts, whichare relevant at regional, national, and global scales, are sea-level rise

and an increase in major cyclone intensity.” Page 11.

CCSP. (2009). Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: A focus on the mid-Atlantic region. A report by the U.S.

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. J. G. Titus

(Coordinating Lead Author), K. E. Anderson, D. R. Cahoon, D. B. Gesch, S. K. Gill, B. T. Gutierrez, E. R.

Thieler, & S. J. Williams (Lead Authors). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.







77



78



Public Opinion and Policy Preferences on Coastal Flooding and Sea-Level Rise: Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Risky business: Engaging the public on sea level rise and inundation

Overcoming uncertainty in multi-scenario sea level rise risk analysis in order to prioritize adaptat...

Public health, energy & climate change: A survey of Maryland residents, 2014

Exploring Adaptation Policy Options: Contributions of Graduate Student Courses to Local Adaptation E...