A SURVEY OF REGIONAL PLANNING FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION...

A SURVEY OF REGIONAL PLANNING FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION

This survey and report were produced in partnership with the University of Colorado Denver and funded under a grant from the Sectoral Applications Research Program (SARP)

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office. The views expressed in this report represent those of the authors and do not necessarily

reflect the views or policies of NOAA.

About the National Association of Regional Councils

The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization and public interest group, which advocates for building regional communities through the representation of multi-purpose, multi-jurisdictional Regional Councils (RCs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). These organizations serve local elected officials and community leaders in developing common strategies for addressing complex issues, in the areas of transportation, economic development, homeland security and environmental challenges.

A recognized authority and leading advocate for regional organizations and regional solutions, NARC is a unique alliance with representation from local elected officials, RCs and MPOs nationwide. NARC has an active membership, representing more than 97% of the counties and 99% of the population in the U.S. Of the 39,000 local governments in the U.S. (counties, cities, townships, etc), 35,276 are served by RCs.

Project Staff Mia Colson Kristin Heery Allan Wallis

Program Analyst Program Analyst Associate ProfessorNARC NARC University of Colorado Denver, School of Public Affairs

[email protected] [email protected]

Introduction: Interest in Climate Change Planning

The U.S. is experiencing the warmest decade in record keeping history. With the frequency and severity of extreme weather events visibly increasing, climate change remains a concern among policy officials and the public. Although Americans may have differing opinions about the causes of climate change, there is often agreement about the preferred actions taken to combat and adapt to these rising temperatures and increasing weather events.1 Cimate change skeptics are willing to address climate change planning, albeit while maintaining that it is not caused by humans.2 Climate change adaptation planning is becoming a topic addressed by all levels of government to support community concerns.

Climate change planning consists of two distinct but interrelated activities: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation planning focuses on limiting global climate change by reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses, for instance increasing forested areas that absorb greenhouse gases. Mitigation has a long-term focus; local actions do not have immediate or visible local effects because the impacts of greenhouse gases are global. Interest in engaging in mitigation planning is most effective when there is strong civic capacity to organize public interest in global warming.3

In contrast, adaptation planning focuses on reducing the vulnerability of natural and man-made systems in response to actual or expected climate change – a hazards versus a vulnerability approach.4 Interest in adaptation planning often arises from the occurrence of extreme weather events rather than gradual changes in average climate conditions. Extreme events are those where a region exceeds its “coping range;” for example, a region experiencing severe floods more frequently than in the past 20 to 50 years.5

National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation 2

The objective of adaptation planning is to reduce potential harm from climate change or to exploit opportunities that might be presented by such change.6 Such planning typically involves a broad set of measures and a diverse set of stakeholders. Although long-term oriented, adaptation planning can produce some immediate effects with direct benefit to the stakeholders involved.

Figure 1. Characteristics of Mitigation and Adaptation PlanningMitigation Planning for

Climate ChangeAdaptation Planning for

Climate ChangeTarget systems All systems Selected systemsScale of effect Global Local to regional

Lead time Centuries Years to centuriesEffectiveness Certain Less certainActors benefit Only a little (indirect) Almost fully

Monitoring Relatively easy More difficult*Adapted from Fussel and Klein, 20067

Mitigation and adaptation planning are complementary activities. In the U.S., mitigation planning is focused at the municipal and state level. As local and state governments conclude their mitigation planning efforts, requirements to engage in long range planning for transportation, communication and other infrastructure systems logically lead to the need for adaptation planning.8

Research on Climate Change PlanningA considerable amount of recent climate change research focuses on what cities are doing in response to climate change, including mitigation planning and implementation.9 For example: what factors seem to motivate cities to engage in such activity; when localities do mitigation planning, and to what extent are mitigation plans implemented. Some studies do not focus specifically on climate change, but on the broader objective of sustainable development.

The focus on the municipal level reflects the networking of cities through efforts such as ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability U.S.A.’s (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. The Campaign, which includes an estimated 600 U.S. cities, encourages cities to adopt climate change and sustainability plans.10 In addition, the U.S. Conference of Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement Program includes planning for reduced urban sprawl and reforestation. Currently, the program has more than 1,000 cities participating.11 These municipal level programs provide convenient samples for research, including determining why are some cities but not others motivated to engage in climate change or sustainability planning, and understanding the extent to which some cities have moved beyond analysis of the problem to taking action.12

Although there is a growing understanding of municipal-level climate change planning, there is virtually no systematic research concerning the response of regional planning organizations (RPOs), such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and Councils of Governments (COGs). These RPOs are a logical complement to cities when formulating and carrying out climate change mitigation and adaptation work. Due to spillover or trans-boundary effects, etc., cities acting alone can only have limited impacts; modes of transportation, for example, are among the greatest generators of greenhouse gases, and most of these modes rely on regional interconnectivity. Similarly, water and power supply systems are significantly regional, as is the construction and maintenance of transportation and utility infrastructure.

Regional climate threats motivates local governments to collaborate on climate action planning.13 A recent research on forms of government and climate change policies found that over a third of local governments engaged in climate change planning include provisions to address intergovernmental coordination, and over half indicate working with other local governments in their region.14


Funding to support analysis and planning for climate adaptation can have a significant effect on action. A number of RPOs around the U.S. have begun to incorporate climate change elements into their regional plans, including long-range transportation plans or Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). Additionally, plans to include climate adaptation elements requires a Board of Directors, made up of local elected or appointed officials, and Staff willing to employ funds in that manner. Some RPOs have become more proactive in adaptation planning because their states have introduced climate change planning requirements and are providing localities technical assistance. An analysis of local governments shows that climate change planning is significantly affected by the presence of strong environmental interests in the region.15.

It should be noted that when discussing mitigation and adaptation planning at the regional scale, the basic modeling performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) compares the potential effectiveness of regional with global responses.16 The IPCC used different regional boundaries than those defined by the RPOs. While using the IPCC scale to define regions is useful for modeling purposes, this scale does not represent discrete political jurisdictions capable of mobilizing for action. Nevertheless, there have been multistate programs in the U.S. designed to generally address the mitigation of greenhouse gases and adaptation to climate change. Thirty-six states have completed comprehensive climate action plans, and over half of all states have set up advisory boards or commissions to help implement plans.17 Most of these plans focus on mitigation, 11 have plans for adoption and four are developing adaptation plans.18

Regional Planning Organizations and Climate Change Planning

The main purpose of the survey was to learn about the RPO responses to the challenges of climate changes around the country. Specifically, what are the RPOs doing to adapt to climate change?

The survey was funded by the Sectoral Applications Research Program (SARP) under the Climate Program Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and conducted through the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) in partnership with the University of Colorado Denver. Through the survey, NOAA sought to improve the kinds of information and technical assistance used by RPOs engaged in adaptation planning. NARC sought to better understand what RPOs are doing in order to help facilitate cross-regional discussion and best practice sharing.

Survey Design Design of the survey began with a review of other surveys, including surveys that addressed adaptation planning and targeted RPOs. The survey was structured to address adaptation planning as proceeding in phases beginning with awareness, progressing through assessment, to the formulation of planning recommendations and finally to implementation (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Stages of Response to the Climate Adaptation Challenge



The survey identified which stakeholders (municipalities, colleges and universities, nonprofits, or state and federal agencies) were involved at each phase of adaptation planning in a region, which stakeholders might be leading the process, and whether there was collaboration among the stakeholders. The survey was designed to determine whether exposure to severe climate events influences the level of activity reported by an RPO, for example are coastal regions more engaged in adaptation planning than those with a less direct exposure to climate change related risks?

The electronically administered survey included opportunities for respondents to provide further detail regarding their climate adaptation work. For example, if a question included a statement about whether planning work was done in partnership with a stakeholder, a following open-ended question asked for more detail on that partnership.

A draft of the survey was reviewed by NARC’s Climate Change Advisory Council for the project (see Appendix: Advisory Council Members). Their suggestions were incorporated in the final electronic survey instrument.

SampleThis survey was conducted using a convenience sample consisting of NARC’s mailing list. This list includes more than 400 NARC-member and non-member RPOs, as well as other individuals for a total of more than 1,200 contacts. Some organizations on the list have more than one contact name.

NARC conducted the survey in April 2011 via an email requesting participation, which was followed up by two reminder requests two weeks apart. The total response was 89, or a rate of 7.4 percent for the total list. Removing any direct non-RPO contacts from this list, the estimated valid response rate was 12.7 percent. It is important to note that many RPOs are required to focus only on specific topic areas such as transportation or public services, and do not have the authority or budgets to engage in environmental or land use related work. The email link to the survey was opened by 289 distinct recipients. Although this was neither a comprehensive nor a random sample, it provided suitable geographic coverage of the country and includes a wide range of RPOs by size.

Survey FindingsLocation of Responding Regional Planning OrganizationsRPOs responded from two-thirds of all states. [See Figure 3.] For those RPOs whose jurisdiction included parts of more than one state (for example, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments has members in 22 counties in D.C., Maryland and Virginia) all of their states were counted. The states with the highest number of responding RPOs were Illinois (10), Texas (7), Ohio (7), Oregon (5) and Florida (4). Responding RPOs ranged in size from under 100,000 (8.6% of respondents) to over 1.5 million (26.8% of the respondents).

Figure 3. Response Rates by State


Stage of Regional Planning Organizations in the Climate Adaptation Planning ProcessThe survey was structured in terms of the four sequential stages of climate adaptation planning: 1) awareness, 2) assessment, 3) planning and recommendations, and 4) adoption and implementation. Of the responding RPOs, 96.6 percent indicated they were doing work at the awareness stage. However, this high rate of reported activity may reflect the fact that those filling out the survey were motivated to do so by the fact that they were engaged in some level of adaptation work. Less than a third (29.2%) of responding RPOs were doing work at the assessment stage; over a quarter (27%) were also forming planning recommendations, but only 8.9 percent were at the implementation stage. [See Figure 4.] Currently, RPOs adopting climate adaptation planning recommendations, as part of a RPO’s plan and/or policies, remain fairly uncommon.

Figure 4. Percentage of Regions Engaged in Progressive Levels of Adaptation Planning

Awareness Stage. In order to assess what was happening at each stage, respondents were asked how well statements characterized their RPO. These statements were ordered by degree of involvement: general public awareness, discussions within the organization’s membership and the organization taking a leading role. As the level of engagement becomes higher, the reported degree of engagement got lower.

Almost 75 percent of those completing this section of the survey said that “increasing public awareness of climate change” either definitely (15.1%) or somewhat (59.3%) characterized their region. Almost 60 percent indicated that “discussion of climate change” either definitely (20.9%) or somewhat (38.4%) characterized their RPO. Over half said that their RPO was “taking a leading role in developing awareness of the challenges of climate change;” 16.3 percent said that this definitely characterized their region, while 34.9 percent said that it somewhat characterized their region. [See Figure 5.]

Figure 5. Degree of Involvement of Regional Organization in Climate Change Awareness Activities

96.6%

29.2% 27.0%

8.9%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Awareness Assessment Planning Adoption

22

35

42

29

51

33

30

34

13

18

14

22

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Public increasingly aware of the effects.

Discussed at membership meetings and/or byorganization's executive board.

Our organization has taken a leading role in developingawareness.

Other organizations are taking a leading role (e.g.,nonprofits, universities and/or business groups) in raising

awareness.

Stronglycharacterizesour region

Somewhatcharacterizesour region

Definitely doesn’t characterize our region

Respondents were asked: “Are there specific concerns that are triggering climate change awareness in your region?” They were given a list of severe weather events and asked to check all that applied. Almost three-quarters (74.5%) indicated that “more extreme weather events” triggered concern. Almost two-thirds (65.5%) indicated that increased flooding was a concern; almost half (49.1%) indicated more frequent and prolonged droughts; while over a third (34.5%) indicated sea level rise as a concern. Arguably, awareness of climate change triggered by the perception of more severe and frequent weather events.19[See Figure 6.]

Figure 6. Weather Events Triggering Awareness of Climate Change

Assessment Stage. Assessment involves conducting or synthesizing analyses of climate change data to provide a basis for adaptation planning. Out of all organizations responding to the survey, less than a third reported having staff “assigned responsibility for analyzing how climate change is affecting [their]…region.” Those responding in the affirmative were asked to check what kinds of assessment they were engaged in (checking all that applied). Almost three-quarters (72.7%) were engaged in the identification and assessment of at-risk infrastructure; almost two-thirds (63.6%) were engaged in the assessment of flooding and stormwater drainage risk assessment; and over half (54.5%) in the analysis of risks associated with land use or zoning and climate change. [See Figure 7.]

Figure 7. Types of Climate Adaptation Change Assessments Being Conducted by Regions


63.6%

45.5% 45.5% 45.5%

72.7%

54.5%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%

Floo

ding

and

sto

rmw

ater

dra

inag

e

Wat

er re

sour

ces

(ade

quac

y of

supp

ly)

Em

erge

ncy

evac

uatio

n

Sea

leve

l ris

e or

coas

tal s

torm

sur

ge

Iden

tific

atio

n an

das

sess

men

t of a

t-ris

k in

frast

ruct

ure

Res

pons

iven

ess

ofla

nd u

se p

lans

and/

or z

onin

g to

clim

ate

chan

ge

34.5%

65.5%

49.1%

74.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Sea level rise

Increased flooding

More frequent andprolonged periods ofdrought

More extreme weatherevents


Respondents working at the assessment phase were asked whether other organizations in their region were also engaged in performing climate change assessments (checking all that applied). Almost 80 percent (78.0%) indicated colleges or universities; almost two-thirds (63.4%) indicated state agencies; while over half (51.2%) indicated nonprofits (including foundations) and other local governments in their region. [See Figure 8.]

More than one-third (36.6%) indicated that federal agencies were doing climate assessment work in their region. Of those, eight indicated using work being done by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, five indicated work being done by Federal Highway Administration, five indicated work by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and four indicated work by Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In addition to asking whether other organizations were working on climate adaptation assessments, respondents were asked if their RPO was working in partnership with these other organizations. Almost two-thirds (61.9%) indicated that they were. Of these, half indicated that their partnerships were with colleges or universities; more than a third with state agencies; and a quarter with one or more federal agencies.

Figure 8. Other Organizations Doing Climate Adaptation Assessments in Your Region

Planning Stage. At this stage, RPOs are formulating recommendations for adaptation to climate change. Most of the RPOs that completed some type of assessment work also began working on policy recommendations.

The first question in this section asked RPOs whether they were formulating adaptation planning recommendations. This was followed with questions about the types of recommendations being made, and whether those recommendations were being formulated with the involvement of key stakeholders or with other organizations. The sequencing of questions in this section were intended to determine whether the adaptation planning was largely internal to the organization or whether it was being done through some type of engagement or outreach.

Of the RPOs that were active in climate adaptation work (at least to the awareness level), fewer than a third (28.9%) had staff assigned to formulate adaptation planning recommendations. Of those, the most common recommendations being formulated concerned either “sustainability and/or smart growth planning” (81%) or “encouraging higher density development” (81%). Almost three-quarters (71.4%) were engaged in encouraging higher density development specifically near transit nodes. These responses suggest that RPOs already engaged in sustainability or transportation planning can more readily integrate adaptation planning to that work. Those that do land use or comprehensive planning work are often located in states where there is a statutory growth management/smart growth planning requirement. Indeed, in a follow up question, when respondents were asked — “Are climate adaptation activities in your region being motivated by state and/or federal initiatives (voluntary) or requirements (mandatory)” — over half (56.3%) answered in the affirmative.

78.0%

51.2%

12.2%

51.2%

63.4%

36.6%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

Col

lege

s or

univ

ersi

ties

Non

prof

its

Bus

ines

sor

gani

zatio

ns

Oth

er lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

inyo

ur re

gion

Sta

te a

genc

ies

Fede

ral

agen

cies


Of the RPOs engaged in formulating climate adaptation planning recommendations, almost two-thirds (64.5%) report that their work involves engaging key stakeholders. Almost three-quarters (71.9%) report consulting with other organizations in developing their planning recommendations. [See Figure 9.]

Figure 9. RPOs Consulting with Outside Organizations to Develop Plans

Adoption and Implementation Stage. This stage involves going beyond the formulation of planning recommendations to their actual adoption. Out of those RPOs that were active in the planning phase, one-third had formally adopted climate change adaptation elements as a part of their regional plans and/or policies. When asked what tools they were using to implement their adaptation policies and/or plans, almost three-quarters (72.7%) indicated “outreach and education;” 57.6 percent indicated infrastructure development; and 51.5 percent offered recommendations based on best practices. [See Figure 10.]

Figure 10. Tools Being Used to Implement Climate Adaptation Policy Recommendations

Finally, respondents were asked if their climate adaptation implementation efforts involved partners. Of those responding, almost 80 percent indicated partnering with state agencies, while well over half (55.9%) indicated partnering with federal agencies. This partnering pattern is different than in the assessment phase where colleges and universities were identified more frequently as partners. [See Figure 11, next page]

28.1%

71.9%

NoYes

39.4%

6.1%

21.2%

3.0%

12.1%

57.6%

9.1%

51.5%

72.7%

12.1%

54.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Zoni

ng /s

ubdi

visi

onre

gula

tions

Taxa

tion

polic

ies

Bui

ldin

g co

des

/de

sign

sta

ndar

ds

Util

ity ra

tes/

fee

setti

ng

Pub

lic s

afet

y ru

les

/re

gula

tions

Infra

stru

ctur

ede

velo

pmen

t

Per

mitt

ing

/en

forc

emen

t

Bes

t man

agem

ent

prac

tices

Out

reac

h an

ded

ucat

ion

Em

erge

ncy

man

agem

ent p

ower

s

Par

tner

ship

with

oth

erco

mm

uniti

es


Figure 11. Organizational Partners When Implementing Climate Adaptation Plans

Information NeedsThe final section of the survey sought to identify the most critical information needs of RPOs and their staff. The most common responses were that federal agencies (49.4%) and state agencies (47.2%) were a source of information for climate adaptation planning. Although RPOs also look to their peers, colleges and universities, and nonprofits frequently for information, it is clear that state and federal agencies are the primary authority for most respondents. This may correlate with the fact that most RPOs receive a substantial amount of their funding from these agencies.

When given a list of types of information that would be most useful to an RPO seeking to develop policies and recommendations for climate adaptation, all options were frequently selected. [See Figure 12] Perhaps most interesting, however, is how many respondents were interested in learning more from their peers.

Figure 12: Information Needs

79.4%

55.9%50.0%

61.8%

32.4%44.1%

8.8%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

Sta

teag

enci

es

Fed

eral

agen

cies

Col

lege

s or

univ

ersi

ties

Non

prof

its

Bus

ines

sor

gani

zatio

ns

Oth

er re

gion

s

Oth

er69.9% 65.8%

82.2%

50.7%

76.7%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

Summaries ofscientific

information

Data/GIS files Examples ofwhat regions

and localgovernments

Webinars withexperts andpractitioners

Informationabout funding

sources


Case StudiesThe design of any electronic survey is constrained in length because the longer the instrument the lower the response rate is likely to be. In order to get a more in depth understanding of the activities by an RPO, beyond the awareness phase, five respondents who indicated that they were active at the assessment, planning and adoption stages were selected to be profiled in brief case studies.

Conclusions from Case StudiesFocus on resiliency. Climate change is often a new issue embraced by RPOs, and it can provoke political debate. Therefore, it is important to keep a focus on projects with tangible benefits to the community that also may provide adaptation benefits in the future, including infrastructure improvements or more accurate floodzone mapping. Using terms such as “resiliency” and/or “sustainability” to describe these types of projects can be more productive and acceptable than “climate change adaptation,” to a region’s member local governments and the general public.

Regional planning organizations by design are positioned between local and state and/or federal government agencies. RPOs initiatives in the area of climate change planning may be driven by innovative local member governments, or by state or federal requirements. Regardless of the direction, regional involvement in climate adaptation planning seems to benefit from a champion on the Board of Directors or Staff who is willing to take on this issue. Furthermore, a region – as defined by its RPO boundary – is often a good geography for adaptation planning.

Partnerships are important. This is particularly evident in the partnerships with colleges and universities who are also doing climate assessment work. Institutions of higher education often partner with RPOs, perhaps because they are perceived as neutral analysts as they are not advocating for a particular cause. Partnerships with state and federal agencies were also found to be critical, especially with those RPOs that were in later stages of implementing their adaptation recommendations.

Finding resources to conduct an assessment can be challenging. There may be many projects competing for the use of limited discretionary funds, though climate change planning costs can be offset when data and technical support are available from state and/or federal agencies. Grants are important to reduce the burden of direct costs on RPOs.


Atlanta Regional Commission:Climate Adaptation Survey

Population: 4,124,300Phase: Assessment

www.atlantaregional.com

The Atlanta, Georgia region is not coastal, but one nevertheless subject to flooding as well as periods of severe drought. The region has been proactive in sustainability planning, including elements relating to climate change. In part, the region seems motivated by a desire to shed its image as a place suffering from tremendous sprawl and roadway gridlock. Instead, it wants to promote itself as a region embracing sustainable development.

In 2008, a county commissioner who was also then chair of the Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) board observed that there were a lot of communities in the region doing work to advance sustainability. They were falling short in achieving greater region-wide impact, however, because there was no coordination of these efforts. Staff was asked to research best practices from around the country. This resulted in a comprehensive list of more than 60 actions that could be adopted, each one of which could produce a measureable outcome. The list was used to help create the Certified Green Communities (CGC) program whose overall objective is to reduce the region’s environmental impact.20 A motivation for becoming a Certified Green Community is receiving free technical assistance regarding what action might be individually most appropriate. There are currently 16 certified communities.21

ARC also undertook an extensive scenario planning for climate change study beginning in 2008. This work sought to quantify emissions from the transportation network in the region using an air quality and travel demand model. The study outlines possible alterations to land use patterns and policy to bring the region’s CO2 emissions down to a target level by 2030.

Another initiative focusing on sustainability is ARC’s Plan 2040, which is the region’s long range regional plan that serves as Atlanta’s Regional Plan for Sustainable Development. The region expects to grow by 2.5 million people in the next 25 years and the plan is

designed to help guide that growth. The plan employs ongoing measures to evaluate whether it is tracking on goals and if it isn’t, then to redirect resources (technical assistance, transportation funding, etc.) toward that end. Due to a recommendation in the climate change scenario planning study, ARC included greenhouse gas emissions as a criterion in the transportation project evaluation for the first time. Meetings with local governments following adoption of the plan are designed to make sure that they understand its goals and requirements, and that they will work toward its objectives. ARC provides its member local governments technical assistance to help them achieve this end.

ARC’s Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) is a program that awards planning grants on a competitive basis to local governments and nonprofit organizations to prepare plans for the enhancement of existing centers and corridors consistent with regional development policies.22 Like the Green Communities Certification program, LCI emphasizes measurable outcomes and places a great deal of effort into gathering data on impacts, including changing attitudes towards dimensions of livability. ARC builds participation and supports LCI plan implementation by allocating Federal Surface Transportation funds for transportation project improvements in LCI communities consistent with program goals. A majority of these funds go to pedestrian

transportation facilities to enhance a multi-modal environment within urban centers or corridors.

In summary, ARC has not singled out climate adaptation planning as a specific activity, but has integrated elements of such planning into its long range transportation planning and other initiatives. Rather than “adaptation,” it prefers to employ the more inclusive concept of “sustainability” as its operative term. ARC uses its ability to prioritize allocation of federal transportation funds and the offer of free technical assistance as incentives for member governments to participate in the program and work toward adopted goals.


Houston-Galveston Area Council:Climate Adaptation Survey


www. h-gac.com

In 2008, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) published the report of its Foresight Panel on Environmental Effects.23 The panel focused on adaptation strategies that would address the goals of protecting human health, property (including infrastructure), and the natural environment. The Panel offered 25 specific strategies with an emphasis on those that would increase transportation efficiency (especially maintenance and operating costs) and reduce heat island effects. In determining its focus, the Panel thought in terms of “resiliency” (increasing the region’s ability to rebound from severe weather events) rather than in long-term trends, such as sea-level rise.

In authorizing the Panel, the H-GAC Board made clear that it was not to address the validity of climate change models or the potential contribution of human activity on climate change. This caveat reflected divided opinion within the board regarding climate change. Nevertheless, the executive director of H-GAC felt that developing a set of recommendations focusing on resiliency would be valuable to member local governments in the region. The study was funded by using $25,000 in

unrestricted funds, which also included support for some work on energy efficiency activities. The external expert panelists worked for free.

The Panel based its work on climate change scenarios developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The scenarios modeled such things as the potential for increased flooding in the 100 year flood plain and various degrees of sea level rise possible by the year 2100.

Of the nine people invited to be members of the panel, six were university-based., though they were not exclusively climate scientists. One was a political scientist whose work focused on the changing perceptions of public officials. Another panel member was a futurist familiar with working with scenarios. The Panel provided expertise for the study that was not available within H-GAC. By being removed from H-GAC, it also provided an important degree of objectivity for its recommendations.

Three years after the report was published, it is not clear what use local governments in the region are making of its recommendations because no monitoring capacity was built into the study.24 However, because H-GAC was successful in obtaining a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Sustainability Community Regional Planning Grant, it now has the time and resources to develop a more comprehensive approach to climate adaptation. Moreover, because the HUD grant focuses on “sustainability” and “livability,” it is expected to attract the interest of a wider group than the focus on climate adaptation was able to do.

2009 H-GACHouston-Galveston Area Council


San Diego Association of Governments:Climate Adaptation Survey

Population: 3,224,432Phase: Planningwww.sandag.org

The San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG) Climate Action Strategy (CAS) report serves as a guide to help local and regional policymakers “address climate change as they make decisions to meet the needs of a growing population, maintain and enhance the region’s quality of life, and promote economic stability.”25 Published in 2010, the report was made possible in part by a grant of about $400,000 from the California Energy Commission.

While the CAS primarily focuses on climate mitigation, it also examines climate adaptation measures for transportation and energy sectors. It provides a set of nine specific goals and associated strategies ranging from reducing vehicle miles traveled to protecting energy infrastructure from the impacts of climate change. The document was designed to support the development of the region’s long-range transportation plan and its comprehensive plan. The former plan meets federal requirements, while the latter is an effort adopted by the region itself.

Although the CAS reads as an expression of the acceptance of climate change, in fact the issue of the causes of climate change - specifically the role of human action in bringing it about - was a matter of debate within the SANDAG’s executive board. Some members were skeptics while others felt that not nearly enough was being done by the regional planning organization to address the challenge. Consequently, very careful consideration was given to wording in the report. For example, while the words “adaptation planning” were employed, more frequent reference is made to resiliency planning to rebound from severe weather events.

An important factor motivating development of the report has been the enactment of state legislation requiring climate action

planning. This was accompanied by equally strong executive emphasis on the issue by both former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and current Governor Jerry Brown. The original objective of the report was to develop actual planning elements that would be incorporated into the region’s long-range transportation and regional comprehensive plans; however, with pending passage of some critical state legislation regarding climate change, it was felt that focusing on “strategies” rather than planning elements was more appropriate at the time.

One result of the state’s level of policy action in the area of climate change has been the generation of more data and sources of technical support for climate planning than is available in most other states. Another benefit has been a fostering of greater coordination and collaboration among regional associations of governments across the state. The state wanted to ensure the same measures and assumptions are being used when performing modeling for transportation and air quality planning.

Modeling and planning efforts are also bringing local governments and stakeholder groups together in a more

engaged way than in the past. This engagement is being fueled in part by the strong engagement on the part of communities facing more imminent environmental stresses, such as coastal areas facing the threat of sea level rise and flooding, and interior communities exposed to increased wildfire hazard. Another factor fostering collaboration includes investments by The San Diego Foundation in regionally-relevant climate change research, as well as technical assistance and peer-to-peer networking for local governments and public agencies engaging in climate action planning throughout the San Diego region.26


Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments:Climate Adaptation Survey

Population: 4,900,928Phase: Planningwww.mwcog.org

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) in the Washington, DC region has been working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a climate adaptation guidebook. The guidebook was supported primarily through an EPA award, but is the natural progression of a series of initiatives taken by MWCOG to address climate change over the last several years.

In 2007, the MWCOG Board of Directors adopted a resolution to establish a regional climate change program that would include “developing a greenhouse gas inventory, setting regional goals, identifying best practices for reducing emissions, advocating policies at the federal and state levels, making recommendations on regional climate change policy, and recommending a structure to guide [the] COG’s efforts in the future.”27 This led to the creation of a Climate Change Steering Committee and the development and adoption of the National Capital Region Climate Change Report in 2008. As stated clearly in its preface, an overarching tenet of the report is the steering committee’s acceptance of “the evidence that the Earth is gradually warming and this warming trend is due in large part to human activities.” The report also stated that the need for action to address global climate change is due to the growing evidence of changes already taking place in the region.

In addition to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and about 70 other recommendations, the Climate Change Report made several recommendations for how MWCOG should continue moving forward with climate-related work. The report recommended the formation of a new committee at MWCOG: the Climate, Energy, and Environment Policy Committee (CEEPC), which was formed in 2009. This committee has taken an interest in adaptation planning in response to climate change, and has been MWCOG’s outlet for exploring adaptation efforts. The Climate Change Report also included a chapter on “Preparing for the Impacts of Climate Change.” This section includes recommendations for adapting to the risks of climate change in the region. Following this lead, and with guidance from CEEPC, MWCOG staff sought out and won an award in 2010 from EPA’s Smart Growth Implementation Assistance program, to plan and develop local government approaches for adapting to risks from climate change. The award enables EPA to hire a consultant (in this case, SRA International) on behalf of MWCOG to assist with the development of a climate adaptation guidebook. In addition, the MWCOG Board has allocated general funds to support MWCOG staff time to work on the guidebook.

In developing the climate adaptation guidebook, MWCOG staff worked through several initial steps. First, they solicited input from a technical expert panel, which included representatives from several universities and organizations in the region, garnering advice on current climate data and studies. MWCOG hosted a workshop where NOAA Coastal Services Center presented tools for risk and vulnerability assessment. The workshop helped educate local government staff from a variety of sectors on climate adaptation, and provided many resources and steps for conducting a local climate adaptation planning process. MWCOG staff then worked, in partnership with George Mason University, to survey what local governments throughout the region are doing to adapt. This preliminary work, in addition to MWCOG staff presentations on climate adaptation in different MWCOG committees, led to the identification of four sectors on which to focus: transportation, land-use, buildings, and water. MWCOG staff analyzed the risk and vulnerability data, demonstrating potential impacts for each of these sectors, while SRA completed a comprehensive review of adaptation strategies from across the country. This information was then used to help teams of stakeholders from each of these sectors evaluate potential strategies to incorporate into the guidebook. The key components in moving forward on this adaptation guidebook have been strong support from the MWCOG Board of Directors, and the SGIA program award from the EPA’s Office of Sustainable Communities. Although climate change is often a contentious issue, MWCOG staff credit the Board’s approval of the Climate Change Report and its recommendations in part to an extensive outreach campaign, in which high-level staff visited each of MWCOG’s 21 member localities to present on the report and garner support. The Board has continued to support the effort, allocating limited resources to provide for staff time. But a pivotal catalyst to moving forward with an adaptation guidebook was receiving the EPA SGIA program award, providing for some of the technical assistance needed.

National Capital Region

Climate Change ReportPrepared by the Climate Change Steering Committee for theMetropolitan Washington Council of Governments Board of Directors

Adopted November 12, 2008


Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council:Climate Adaptation Survey


www.tbrpc.org

The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) is a well-developed metropolitan coastal region with a strong economic link to its coastal resources. TBRPC has a long history of studying climate change related issues, especially sea level rise and storm surge. There is an overall general awareness and concern for issues related to climate change and adaptation planning at the Board of Directors and Staff levels, even if not phrased that way. TBRPC is also at the forefront of emergency response, hurricane evacuation, and post-disaster redevelopment planning, all of which lead neatly into adaptation-related work. This has led to several climate adaptation projects in the last few years, which are influencing the update of TBRPC’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan.28

In 2007, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council led a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-funded grant effort to have all regional planning councils in the state undertake a sea level rise study. The study was different in each region, but followed similar methodology. In the Tampa Bay region, TBRPC’s results indicated a severe impact; but when the study was disseminated to local governments in the region, there was little support or action taken. In hindsight, it appears that the study did not incorporate enough education and outreach into its scope; therefore, the results were perceived as too controversial or intimidating to act upon.

To address this concern, TBRPC engages public and private partners to examine sustainability in the Tampa Bay region. In February 2011, TBRPC partnered with the University of South

Florida’s Patel Center for Global Sustainability and others to facilitate a “knowledge exchange” with Dutch and local water experts called Resilient Tampa Bay 2011. The three-day workshop brought together local, regional, state, and international stakeholders, and more than 150 attendees discussed resiliency issues such as urban flooding, storm surge and sea level rise. The workshop helped identify priorities for the Tampa Bay area, and outlined them in a concise report29, with the goal of improving the region’s overall resiliency through coordinated future efforts.

Currently, TBRPC is working with EPA’s National Estuary Program on a project to bring adaptation planning data to land use planners in the region. The project is focused on how sea level rise will affect habitat, and consequently fish and wildlife in the region. An online GIS-based tool will allow for various scenarios to be visualized over different time periods, showing how changes in sea level will

impact wetlands, marshes and mangroves along the coast. This tool is set to be online by the end of 2012.

TBRPC relies on partnerships and grant opportunities to work on resiliency and adaptation planning, but several staff members have been given leeway to work on these types of efforts, through the Council’s support of local government land use planning and mitigation efforts, updating the regional plan, or emergency response and preparedness actions. Resiliency will be included in the update of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, allowing for continued and perhaps expanded work in this area.


RecommendationsRPOs are a logical unit of response in addressing the challenges posed by climate change. They are spatially large enough to deal with spillover effects that can result from individual municipalities engaged in mitigation and adaptation work; while they are small enough to allow participating local governments and their citizens to experience the benefits of planning recommendations translated into action. Adaptation planning in particular fits well with the type of work that RPOs are already engaged in developing transportation long range plans, water supply or stormwater planning, and in monitoring and protecting air quality. RPOs often have the experience to deal with the multiple stakeholder groups and cross-jurisdictional issues inherent in climate adaptation planning. Finally, RPOs are natural conveners, bringing together public and private partners on a variety of issue areas, including environmental programs such as climate change. This survey was designed to provide baseline information regarding RPOs work in climate adaptation planning. Although it was not based on a random sample, the responses provided good geographic coverage of the nation. The following are several recommendations derived from survey findings and feedback.

• Regional Coordination. For certain adaptation measures to be successful, it is critical to coordinate across traditional jurisdictional boundaries. Changes in one local area often affect adjacent areas, and certain adaptation measures will be less effective in the absence of coordination. Funding that supports adaptation planning should require regional coordination.

• Regional Partnerships. A variety of different partnership arrangements are being employed to help conduct climate adaptation planning activities. Colleges and universities seem to be especially active in this area. Consideration should be given to how these partnerships could be further encouraged through financial support, such as a grant program.

• Data Needs. Mining data is expensive and many municipalities and RPOs do not have the technical capacity to use large datasets. In order for climate information to be effectively used for planning, it is necessary to transofrm data into user-friendly and accessible formats, such as maps, simulations and indicators, for example, the Digital Coast developed by NOAA’s Coastal Services Center.30 Some of these tools may exist only on a local level, such as the ICLEI Climate Resilient Communities Program’s ADAPT31, or without a good connection to climate data, such as Envision Tomorrow software32 used for regional scenario planning. The gap in data needs to be bridged in order for planning efforts to continue to move forward.

• Public Interest. Local governments, and therefore their representative RPOs, may not be motivated to take action on climate change because of its long time horizon. They may be more motivated to respond when the issue is presented in terms of climate related risks, such as increased extreme weather events. Therefore, in order to gain greater understanding and support for adaptation planning, it may be useful to present it in terms of sustainability or resiliency planning, which seems to engender less debate over causes and more attention to desired outcomes.

• Further Research. RPOs are just getting started with work on adaptation planning. It would be useful to expand the study of their activities to provide a more systematic characterization of their work, similar to the research that has been possible using the membership of ICLEI and similar municipal-level climate adaptation coalitions. It would be especially useful to have longitudinal data that could help track how RPOs are moving through stages of the planning process from awareness, to the adoption and implementation of planning recommendations. This data should include measures of changes in public attitudes, since this may serve as a leading indicator for political change.


AppendixAdvisory Council Members

Member OrganizationFred Abousleman, Executive Director National Association of Regional CouncilsTim Brennan, Executive Director Pioneer Valley Planning CommissionHon. David Danielson, Commissioner Town of Bedford, NHWalter Diggles, Executive Director Deep East Texas Council of GovernmentsJosh Foster Oregon Climate Change Research Institute,

Oregon State UniversityMaia Davis, Environmental Planner Jeannine Altavilla (alternate), Environmental Planner

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Rob Graff, Office of Energy and Climate Change Initiatives Delaware Valley Regional Planning CommissionElisabeth Hamlin, Professor Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional

Planning, University of Massachusetts - AmherstTom Jacobs, Director of Environment Mid-America Regional CouncilBob Leiter, Former Director of Land Use and Transportation San Diego Association of GovernmentsJan Mueller, Senior Policy Associate Environment and Energy Study InstituteKevin Nelson, AICP U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Sustainable CommunitiesTim Owen, Operations Planning Officer NOAA – National Climatic Data CenterJoan Rohlfs, Environmental Resources Program Director Metropolitan Washington Council of GovernmentsSuzanne Rynne, AICP, Senior Research Associate American Planning AssociationWilliam Solecki, Professor CUNY Institute for Sustainable CitiesMissy Stults, Adaptation Manager ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability U.S.A.Jeff Taebel, FAICP, Director of Community and Environmental Planning

Houston-Galveston Area Council

Allan Wallis, Professor University of Colorado - DenverBrandi Whetstone, Center for Energy and Environment Mid-Ohio Regional Planning CommissionLara Whitely-Binder, Outreach Specialist University of Washington, Climate Impacts Group

Acronym ListAGs Associations of Governments IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ARC Atlanta Regional Commission LCI Livable Centers InitiativeCAS Climate Action Strategy MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization CEEPC Climate, Energy, and Environment Committee MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of GovernmentsCGC Certified Green Communities NARC National Association of Regional CouncilsCOG Council of Governments NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RPOs Regional Planning OrganizationsFEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency SANDAG San Diego Association of GovernmentsFHWA Federal Highways Administration SARP Sectoral Applications Research ProgramH-GAC Houston-Galveston Area Council SGIA Smart Growth Implementation Assistance ProgramHUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development TBRPC Tampa Bay Regional Planning CouncilICLEI ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability


Works Cited1. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E & Roser-Renouf C. (2009) Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ climate change beliefs, attitudes, policy

preferences, and actions. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Available online at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/; October 15, 2012.2. Carter, R.M. (2007) The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change. Brisbane, AU: The AusIMM New Leader’s Conference, 2-3

May 2007. Available online at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf; October 15, 2012.3. Brody, S.D., Zahran S, Grover G and Vedliz, A (2008) A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the United States: Risk, stress and

opportunity. Landscape and Urban Planning 87: 33-41.4. Burton, I, Malone E, Huq S, Lim B, Spanger-Siegfried E (2005) Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies,

policies, and measures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.5. Fussel, H-M (2007) Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessments, approaches, and key lessons, Sustainability Science

2: 265-275.6. McCarthy JJ, Canzlani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.7. Fussel, H-M and Klein, RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessment: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climate Change 75(3):

301-3298. Cruce, T (2009) Adaptation Planning – What U.S. States and Localities are Doing. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Available online at: http://www.c2es.org/working-papers/adaptation; October 15, 2012. 9. Feiock RC, Francis N (2011) A guide for Local Government Executives on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability. Washington, DC: IBM

Center for the Business of Government.10. ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection Campaign: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=800; October 15, 2012. 11. U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm; October 15, 2012. 12. See, for example, Ligeti E (2007) Cities Prepare for Climate Change: a study of six urban areas. Toronto, Canada: Clean Air Partnership. 13. Sharma A, Kearins K (2010) Interorganizational Collaboration for Regional Sustainability: What Happens When Organizational

Representatives Come Together? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47: 168-203.14. Feiock R and Francis (2011)15. Brody (2008); Sharp (2010); Yi H (2010).Policy Choice for Local Sustainability: Predicting ICLEI Membership in The U.S. Cities. Chicago,

IL: Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting.16. Pachauri, RK and Reisinger, A (eds) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva Switzerland: IPCC17. Pew Center on the States, Regional Climate Change Plans

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/regional_initiatives.cfm; October 15, 2012.18. Pew Center on the States, State Adaptation Plans

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/adaptation_map.cfm; October 15, 2012.19. Some coastal states exposed to severe storms did not respond to the survey (e.g., Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina).20. For a description of the Certified Green Communities program, go to http://www.atlantaregional.com/environment/green-communities;

October 15, 2012.21. For a list of those communities, go to http://www.atlantaregional.com/environment/green-communities/certified-green-communities;

October 15, 2012.22. See the Livable Centers Initiative 2011 Implementation Report at

http://www.atlantaregional.com/File%20Library/Land%20Use/LCI/lu_lci_2011_implreportexecsummary_2011-06-20.pdf; October 15, 2012.23. Houston-Galveston Area Council Foresight Panel on Environmental Effects available at

http://www.h-gac.com/community/environmental-stewardship/fpee/documents/foresight_panel_on_environmental_effects_report.pdf; October 15, 2012.24. A follow-up study, done for one of the panel members by graduate students at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A

& M, showed that amongst local government officials the same divisions regarding use of the term “climate change” that had been evident on the H-GAC board were present there as well.

25. For the full report go to: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1481_10940.pdf; October 15, 2012. Also see The Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report which identifies and recommends regional and local government actions to increase the use of alternative fuels and vehicles in the fleets of local governments and their franchises. http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?listbyclassid=17&fuseaction=publications.listbyclassid; October 15, 2012.

26. See more information about The San Diego Foundation’s Climate Initiative and related investments, at http://www.sdfoundation.org/CivicLeadership/Programs/Environment/climate.aspx; October 15, 2012.

27. National Capital Region Climate Change Report, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 2008. http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/zldXXg20081203113034.pdf; October 15, 2012.

28. Strategic Regional Policy Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report http://www.tbrpc.org/srpp/pdf/SRPP%20EAR%20DRAFT%208-8-11.pdf; October 15, 2012.

29. Recommendations from Resilient Tampa Bay 2011 workshop http://sgs.usf.edu/rtb/content/rtb-recs.pdf; October 15, 2012. 30. NOAA’s Coastal Services Center Digital Coast http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/. 31. ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA’s Climate Resilient Communities Program

http://www.icleiusa.org/climate_and_energy/Climate_Adaptation_Guidance; October 15, 2012. 32. Envision Tomorrow: Suite of Urban and Regional Planning Tools

http://www.frego.com/services/envision-tomorrow/; October 15, 2012.

About The National Association of Regional CouncilsThe National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), representing local elected officials and their regional planning organizations, serves as a national voice for regionalism by advocating for regional cooperation as the most effective way to address a variety of topics including transportation, economic and community development, environment and homeland security. NARC’s member organizations are composed of multiple local governments that work together to serve American communities - large and small, urban and rural. For additional information, please visit www.NARC.org.

The National Association of Regional Councils777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 305

Washington, DC 20002202.986.1032 phone

202.986.1038 faxwww.NARC.org

A SURVEY OF REGIONAL PLANNING FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION...

Documents

Transcript of A SURVEY OF REGIONAL PLANNING FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION...