The Goleta Slough is central to the natural ecosystem in the Santa Barbara region, supporting ecological diversity and important watershed and shoreline processes. The Slough is also a built environment, incrementally filled and hemmed in by more than a century of urban expansion and economic growth. The challenges of managing the Slough in relation to the built environment have been an on-going concern for the last half-century, and a specific focus of the Goleta Slough Management Committee since the early 1990s. This management complexity is further exacerbated due to the array of governing jurisdictions and land owners in the Slough area.

Beyond its inherent management challenges, Goleta Slough faces the mounting threat of climate change, which is expected to bring more severe storms, increased flooding, coastal erosion, and rising sea levels. These physical processes manifest as coastal hazards in the built environment, causing increasing damage to development, infrastructure, public safety, the local economy, community well-being, and natural ecosystems. These effects are also compounded by increased drought, wildfire, and extreme heat days projected for the larger region. An array of organizations have conducted vulnerability studies, hazard and risk assessments, and climate forecasting to plan for a more resilient future.

The complexity of the socio-ecological system in the Slough demands a resilience framework and governance approach that is just as interconnected. 

This has led to a one-directional relationship, wherein the ecosystem is manipulated in service of built infrastructure. The paradigm of modern society generally, but particularly in this regional context, has been predisposed to development and expansion of the built environment, at times at the expense of the conservation and protection of the natural ecosystem and cultural resources of the Slough. 

To meet the social and economic needs of the region, it might seem more intuitive to address the immediate protection of the built environment. However, the results of this report signal a need for imagining more transformative changes to ensure the vitality of the whole socio-ecological system many decades into the future. It has also become increasingly evident that strengthening natural systems will ultimately positively benefit the entire socio-ecological system, including built infrastructure.

With a deep understanding of the current risks and projected future climate impacts to the region, there is now a pivotal opportunity to re-evaluate past decisions. However, changing this paradigm will take time. The community’s reliance on infrastructure that is located in the Slough means that the socio-ecological system cannot radically transform overnight. The natural ecosystem will continue to support the resilience and functioning of built infrastructure and in the short term the imposition of the built environment may slow or limit the extent to which the Slough can be restored to a more functioning wetland ecosystem. In the coming decades, management entities and the community can push for a more bi-directional approach to address the projected impacts of climate change, with infrastructure investments equally prioritizing the health and restoration of the natural systems. In this future paradigm, the built infrastructure and the natural ecosystem are managed in support of each other and the wider community’s resilience. 

Every investment made is a decision point that can reinforce the status quo or nudge the region towards a paradigm shift—particularly moments when infrastructure is reaching the end of its usable life or impacted in a shock event. If the restaurant at Goleta Beach is damaged by waves again, will it be reconstructed in place? And if so, for how long? When the airport floods repeatedly or local utilities have sewage spills, how will managers respond? 

These moments, particularly when a disaster (or shock) strikes, are the time to ask the question, what is the best path forward to reduce the potential future impacts? They represent opportunities to reassess whether rebuilding in place continues to serve the community's long-term interests. At these junctures, there are important questions to be answered: Why are we making this investment? Do we want to keep investing in this built asset? Is this investment being made at the expense of the ecosystem? Does it inherently prioritize the built environment? Does this investment make sense in the long term? Are there nature-based solutions and options we can explore or implement?