The State of Climate Adaptation Planning Today

2023 was a year when the effects of climate change, from wildfires to increased precipitation to intense summers, were inescapably evident for people all across the globe. The year was the warmest on record, countries ranging from Libya to Myanmar faced devastating coastal storms, and all of the world’s major oceans saw above-average coastal storm formations. In North America, atmospheric rivers (narrow bands of enhanced water vapor transport) pummeled California at the start of the year and wildfires ravaged through Canada and Hawaii at an unprecedented rate, becoming some of the deadliest and most damaging wildfire events in human history. Closer to home in the tri-state region, skies turned orange as wildfire smoke from Canada blanketed the region with record-high levels of particulate matter, only to be followed by heavy rainfall that prompted a state of emergency in New York State. The collective message broadcast by these events is clearer than ever: the climate crisis is a regional, boundary-defying crisis unfolding here and now, and our efforts to mitigate climate change should be complemented with plans to adapt to this new normal.

It is within the larger context of the global and local events that this study ” was conducted. The study is a nation-wide stocktaking of climate adaptation and resilience planning efforts to understand what governing entities – cities, states, indigenous communities, and regional collaboratives – are doing to adapt to the climate crisis. By parsing through more than 50 plans from across the United States, we’ve identified distinctions between plan types and general trends, and highlighted exemplary practices within these plans. While the main goal of this project is to offer lessons for the tri-state region to improve its local adaptation planning efforts, it also identifies opportunities for synergistic regional efforts, and those for cross-learning for improvement. The study also serves as a reference for communities across the United States that are facing similar challenges and are devising their own plans to adapt to current and anticipated climate-induced crises.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study draws from a selected sample of climate adaptation and resilience plans limited to those published by public agencies (cities, counties, indigenous communities, states), have a pathway for implementation, and focus on climate resilience as a whole (as opposed to being focused on a specific climate risk). The strategies within this sample have been manually coded into thematic categories and then further categorized into sub-categories through numerical counts. These subcategories don’t have hard-set boundaries and strategies may be counted in more categories than one, as these categories are meant to capture the diversity of strategic priorities in these plans rather than to subdivide these plans. Key observations from each category are summarized within the following sections, with best practices highlighted. These observations are complemented by findings from a literature review of similar analyses of older and smaller samples of plans.

How do regions approach the creation of climate adaptation and resilience plans?

While all the selected plans broadly address adaptation and climate resilience needs, they do so in different ways according to the scales at which they operate, local priorities, and differing definitions of what resilience means to them.

Differences across scales:
Plans dealing with larger areas, like a region or state, tend to include non-prescriptive measures and general guidance for adaptation planning rather than specific requirements, while plans for smaller areas like cities and municipalities tend to include more specific actions and implementable strategies. While state-led plans include resources for technical assistance and training, local plans tend to include information on implementation plans for included strategies and potential funding sources.

Differences in plan types:
A plan’s content and focus areas can differ greatly based on its type.

• While adaptation plans focus on understanding and adapting to current and future climate risks, primarily through changes to the physical environment, climate resilience plans focus on reducing vulnerabilities, both at the community and physical level, and on increasing adaptive capacity against climate risks. Resilience plans, on the other hand, focus on reducing vulnerabilities and increasing adaptive capacity against general shocks and stresses facing a community, one among which would be climate change.

• The type of plan created through the resilience planning process often depends on the entity overseeing the planning process. Plans led by cities, states, indigenous communities, and counties tend to have an explicit, narrow focus on climate resilience and climate adaptation, while resilience plans created through Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative tend to focus on broader resilience challenges (such as economic resilience, equity, or public health resilience) and strategies beyond conventional land use tools, such as economic development strategies and local partnerships.

Differences in plan structure:
While most plans defined a set of broad goals and identified specific actions for each of these goals, some plans adopted other ways of organizing their strategies:

• By agency: The City of Philadelphia’s ​“Growing Stronger” plan is categorized based on the agencies responsible for each strategy.

• By scale: Houston’s ​“Resilient Houston” plan categorizes its actions based on the scale at which they are implemented (individual, neighborhood, bayou, city, region).

• By sub-region: Norfolk’s ​“Resilience Strategy” divides the city into four zones with varying flood risk and opportunities to accommodate new development.

Common elements:
Despite these differences, most of the surveyed plans had a common set of sections / elements, which include:

1. A demographic profile
2. Risk and vulnerability assessments of their region
3. A timeline of past resilience-building or planning efforts and their outcomes
4. Community and stakeholder engagement
5. Adaptation priority areas / goals
6. Recommended actions

Inclusion of implementation steps:
Each plan had different levels of detail for the implementation of their recommended strategies.

• While some like Boston’s ​“Climate Ready Boston” plan and Chicago’s ​“Resilient Chicago” plan had a roadmap for each strategy, others like Massachusetts’ ​“State Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan” had a dedicated chapter focused on implementation and maintenance of proposed adaptation projects. Massachusetts’ plan also includes an ​“Action Tracker” spreadsheet measuring progress on plan implementation, which includes details like the action’s completion time frame, lead agency, funding sources, etc.

• To measure progress, some plans also had indicators and metrics for each strategy, with Oklahoma City’s adaptOKC plan including key performance indicators (KPIs) and Dallas’ Comprehensive Environmental and Climate Action Plan including output and outcome metrics for each strategy.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT / COMMUNICATION

In all the plans that were parsed for this study, engaging the local community and stakeholders and translating their insights into adaptation actions were key steps in the adaptation planning process. At the same time, plans differed greatly in terms of the methods they used to engage groups, the groups they engaged, the formats they used for short-term and long-term engagement, and the extent to which engagement was done. Some of the groups and stakeholders engaged include:

• Public agency representatives: City departments, utilities, infrastructure agencies, state agencies
• Partner organizations: Community-based organizations, neighborhood and block associations, environmental groups, representatives from disadvantaged communities
• Community: Community advisory council, youth, tribal elders
• Private: Resilience experts, business sector
• Other: Educational partners, faith-based groups

These groups were engaged using a variety of engagement tools, including digital tools like websites, surveys, and web-based applications, and in-person engagement formats like public forums, open houses, design charrettes, workshops, and stakeholder group meetings. Structured engagement formats were also created as part of the adaptation planning process to include stakeholder guidance in all phases of the plan’s creation, such as steering committees, neighborhood councils, technical and community advisory groups, and equity-focused community task forces.

Regions also adopted different approaches for using the plan as a communication tool, with some agencies including elements that made the plan more accessible and easier to read for a general audience. For example, Seattle’s ​“Preparing for Climate Change” plan included a ​“What You Can Do” section geared towards the general public, and Louisiana’s LA SAFE plan included a Frequently Asked Questions list towards the end of the report, which had answers to several common questions that were raised during the community engagement process.

FUNDING ADAPTATION

Most of the selected plans had a dedicated ​“Funding” section which listed out all the potential funding sources that implementing agencies could use to fund adaptation projects. The sources primarily include, but are not limited to, the following listed below. A few plans in the list, such as the City of Fremont’s ​“Climate Ready Fremont” plan and the ​“Climate Change Strategic Plan” by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), included a matrix of specific funding sources for each of their planned strategies.

Adaptation and resilience strategies

While adaptation priorities differ across the plans based on the varied climate risks that regions face and the resources at their disposal, some common categories of strategies have emerged through the analysis. The strategies have been classified into five main categories, each with their own subcategories.

In the past few decades, there has been increased recognition for natural and nature-based strategies as long-term resilience solutions on par with traditional ​“gray infrastructure”, especially for coastal adaptation. As opposed to gray infrastructure, which often serves the single purpose of ​“protection,” nature-based solutions have multiple benefits ranging from protecting and enhancing local ecosystems and nature-based economies, improving air quality, providing spaces for recreation, creating robust local food sources, and contributing to the health and wellbeing of surrounding communities. They also offer a multi-hazard response, helping with flooding concerns caused by sea-level rise, coastal storms, and increased precipitation, but also issues of increasing heat and urban heat island impacts. Their ability to sequester carbon also allows them to serve both mitigative and adaptive functions. Several of the strategies mentioned in this section are hybrid gray-green responses, which combine nature-based responses with traditional gray infrastructure like stormwater management systems, barriers, and pump stations to increase the retentive capacities of nature-based responses while capitalizing on the other benefits that they provide.

The nature-based responses selected by regions vary across the country, according to their degree of urbanization, existing landforms and ecological conditions, climatic conditions, and the types of climate risks they face. The most popular category – ​“Ecological Restoration and Conservation” – includes all actions that address the restoration and conservation of landscapes, especially those that have protective functions like detaining stormwater, stabilizing shorelines, breaking and attenuating wave action, supporting critical habitats, and sequestering carbon. In coastal regions, such strategies are focused on coastal landforms like wetlands, tidal marshes, other living shorelines, and beach nourishment; while inland regions focus on strategies like river and riparian buffer restoration and forest management (which has its own category). The second-most mentioned category, ​“green infrastructure” is prevalent in urban regions and has been included in several city-led adaptation plans. While there are many competing definitions of green infrastructure, some of which emphasize its networked and systemic nature, this study defines green infrastructure as practices (networked and otherwise) that imitate natural systems to provide adaptation benefits like stormwater management and heat reduction, such as green roofs, rain gardens, bioswales, and green streets. The third-most mentioned category, forest management, is a subset of ecological restoration that includes strategies solely focused on managing urban and non-urban forests. This section includes several actions addressing forest management for wildfire prevention and mitigation, especially in regions in the western and southwestern United States where wildfires are increasingly prevalent.

Apart from strategies that recommend the types of nature-based responses that would be appropriate for different contexts, there are also allied strategies addressing actions like awareness, implementation, and stewardship. These include education and outreach on the benefits of these strategies, non-traditional ways of increasing natural space in an urban environment (by integrating them into school parking lots, for example), and urban agriculture through community gardens.

Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels are recognizing the critical role played by nature-based responses as resilience infrastructure. This renewed interest is made evident through increased funding streams and policies that not only directly support project planning and implementation, but also call for increased investment in nature-based solutions and capacity-building to plan, construct, and maintain these projects. Other studies on adaptation planning highlight the need to quantify the costs of nature-based responses and the benefits that they offer, especially the non-monetized social and community benefits, to help their use as ​“tools of persuasion” in making the case for adaptation.

A special note: plans by Native American communities

In contrast to plans by cities, counties, and states, plans by Native American communities have an overwhelming focus on nature – as an entity at risk, an indicator of warning signs, and a tool for adaptation. Their approach towards adaptation is radically different, being one that views all living beings as ​“living relatives” who are equally worthy of protection through adaptation measures (kincentricity). This premise is rooted in the understanding that ecosystems and the species within them (including humans) cannot be isolated from one another, and that the health of one species is vital to the very existence of the other. As a result, these plans focus on practices of identifying and mitigating risks to plants and animals, ecological restoration, the management of natural resources like forests and water, and cultural practices for habitat restoration and forest management, among others. Beyond natural conservation, they also include strategies for improved community health, food security through farming and community gardens, institutionalizing and sharing their climate knowledge and cultural conservation practices, and advocating for the inclusion of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in adaptation and forest management plans.

Some non-Indigenous plans, especially those from states with a strong current or historic presence of Native American populations, integrate indigenous practices and Traditional Ecological Knowledge into their adaptation planning efforts. For example, San Diego’s resilience plan recommends fostering long-term partnerships with tribal liaisons with historic knowledge of tribal natural resource management, and the city of Flagstaff recommends assisted migration for at-risk plant species and prescribed burns for fire management.

In this study, ​“engineered solutions” is a broad term referring to gray infrastructure, constructed barriers, and mechanized systems for managing climate risks, especially risks due to sea level rise and coastal flooding. This category also includes all forms of engineered retrofits to existing infrastructure and buildings, such as stormwater system enhancement and facility / infrastructure elevation. While conventional engineering approaches may provide immediate protection from climate risks and a greater perception of safety for affected communities, they come with their own disadvantages. They are generally more expensive to construct and maintain than nature-based solutions. Their single-hazard approach prevents them from protecting against multiple hazards and may, in some cases, lead to an exacerbation of other risks – for instance, storm surge barriers protect against coastal flooding, but may be detrimental to pluvial or cloudburst flooding conditions, such as those experienced by New York and New Jersey in September 2023. Some of the challenges posed by gray infrastructure-only approaches were highlighted by RPA in its response to the New York-New Harbor and Tributaries Study (HATS), a study which proposes multiple engineered responses to mitigate flood risks in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary. The dynamic, unpredictable nature of climate risks means that these static systems are less malleable to change – one engineered system may need to be replaced by another a few decades down the line, either due to the underestimation of risk levels or changes in climate projections in response to global conditions and mitigation efforts. They also tend to be focused on one threat in isolation (e.g. storm surge) versus addressing multiple hazards. The environmental and ecological impacts of these solutions also need to be considered, as they may disrupt ecological cycles of aquatic habitats and degrade coastal landscapes.

Several of the adaptation strategies mentioned within the studied plans are designed with these considerations in mind, recognizing the diversity of non-engineered adaptation responses available today and understanding that engineered approaches may not be suited to all conditions as long-term solutions. Among the themes addressed by engineered responses, ​“stormwater management” is the most popular one, with strategies like adding smart sensors to expanded drainage systems, pumping stations at outfalls, deep tunnel storage and conveyance, and on-site stormwater storage vaults. Strategies also focus on improving the knowledge base of stormwater system designers, such as updating intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves; collaboration with flood control districts and municipal utilities; and strategic planning for stormwater management, such as through stormwater and urban runoff masterplans. The second-most mentioned theme is ​“barriers and shoreline hardening”, which includes all engineered approaches for coastal protection, from revetments and seawalls to deployable floodgates to concrete breakwaters.

Along with specific strategies for implementation, this category also includes several considerations pertaining to collaboration and implementation. The prioritization of locations for implementing these expensive and time-intensive projects is one. While some highlight large population and economic centers, others locate these projects where there are concentrations of critical infrastructure (energy substations and emergency service centers, for instance); and others still focus on regions with socially vulnerable communities. The strategies also emphasize the critical role of collaboration with local, state, and federal partners. While local-level partners may include departments of transportation, construction, city planning, and environmental protection, federal partners like the US Army Corps of Engineers play a critical role as managers of federal water resources and implementers of major engineered flood protection projects that are often regional in nature. Regions highlight the need to engage the US Army Corps of Engineers on a broader array of issues – especially those that are local priorities – and to consider and prioritize locally-preferred solutions in their plans. The plans also note the importance of prioritizing and incorporating resilience in capital projects, adopting a ​“dig-once” approach that leads to multiple successful outcomes, increasing coordination between different agencies while building these projects to future climate change standards.

The frequency and intensity of extreme climate events have surpassed all known levels in human history, making one question the effectiveness of place-based adaptation as a long-term solution. In the wake of repeated coastal disasters, regions have begun considering strategic retreat – the planned relocation of communities away from high-risk regions – as a long-term adaptation response. Buyouts – the acquisition of private land by public entities, which is then returned to its former natural state – are one of the many tools that regions use for managed retreat. The ​“Retreat and Relocation” category in this study considers all such tools that regions have at their disposal, from buyout programs to zoning and development incentives to the planned relocation of infrastructure and non-human living beings.

Within this category, the subcategory of Development Controls and Incentives is the one with the highest number of strategies, potentially because these actions are easier to gain buy-in for and cost much less for the implementing agency. This subcategory includes actions that penalize development in high-risk regions or incentivize development in low-risk regions through common development incentives like density bonuses or expedited permitting. It also includes programs like development rights transfers, which allow communities to capture the development potential of high-risk regions through increased density in low-risk regions. Buyouts are the second-most mentioned strategy type, with some regions having dedicated programs with special provisions for vulnerable populations, renter households, multi-family properties, emergency shelters, and non-residential uses (like institutions, commercial, and industrial properties). Some buyout strategies also include details on how properties will be used after the buyout, as well as recommendations for resettling the displaced populations. Land acquisition strategies also focus on preserving wetlands and other ecologically critical landscapes from development and encroachment. Several plans, especially those by Native American communities, have strategies addressing the relocation of non-human species at risk which are vital to the ecological and cultural ecosystems of the region, such as assisted migration for land-based and aquatic species and seed banking practices.

Like in other categories, the strategies in ​“Retreat and Relocation” are accompanied by allied considerations that implementing agencies need to keep in mind. The financing of property acquisition for buyouts and the resettlement of migrating communities is a major factor, and plans recommend strategies ranging from relocation expense grants, dedicated affordable properties for rehousing relocated communities, and down-payment assistance programs for relocation. Some of these strategies also attempt to account for the social capital and communal networks of relocating communities, with some offering payout bonuses for relocating individuals when they move with their neighbors. Other programs highlight the need to offer mental health resources to relocating communities, especially those with spiritual and cultural ties to their land, to help them cope with the mental distress of relocation and adapt to their new surroundings.

While being the smallest category in this study, the theme of managed retreat is perhaps the most contentious one among all the categories recorded here. Some plans state explicitly that they will not consider retreat among their adaptation strategies, while others have full-fledged retreat programs which have been active for years. Other regions, like the Tri-State Region, have already existing programs (like NJ Blue Acres) or are in the planning stages of setting up an ongoing, long-term managed retreat program and could benefit from the lessons offered by existing local level programs. The low number of retreat-focused strategies in local-level plans may also be because the most commonly sought-out retreat programs are at the federal level, like FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which funds buyouts for homeowners affected by federally declared disasters. However, federal buyout programs need to be complemented by more dedicated state or regional buyout programs that can help local communities navigate complex federal programs and operate outside the context of a disaster. Considering that buyout programs are generally set up to favor single-family suburban homes, local retreat programs need to be adapted to better address urban, multi-family communities.

The previous strategy categories were primarily focused on flood mitigation and coastal protection, as they are key resilience priorities for regions given the magnitude of their economic impacts (for instance, the cost of damages from Hurricane Katrina was $170 billion, making it the costliest natural disaster in US history). However, extreme heat is a much deadlier phenomenon and costs more human lives than any other climate-induced disaster – in fact, it costs more lives than hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes combined. Heat is a slow and silent killer, contributing to both direct impacts on human health, like heat strokes and exhaustion, and indirect impacts that exacerbate underlying health conditions in affected people, like respiratory and heart diseases. It also impacts critical infrastructural elements in our urban environment, creating urban heat islands and affecting material longevity. Due to the slow-moving nature of their impact, heat-related events rarely receive the same public attention and crisis calls that flooding and severe coastal storms receive. This lack of attention is also reflected in adaptation plans, with heat-related adaptation actions accounting for only 17% of all strategies.

Considering the increasing risk posed by extreme heat, this section focuses solely on extreme heat mitigation and adaptation responses included in these adaptation plans. These responses include technical solutions and facilities, nature-based solutions, temperature monitoring, and preparing for increased resource demands due to heat. The most popular sub-category, with 59 listed actions, is ​“Trees and Green Spaces”, which includes strategies to increase tree canopies and build more parks and accessible green spaces. Since these actions also count towards the ​“Natural and Nature-Based Responses” category for their ability to absorb stormwater and reduce surface run-off and also help with carbon sequestration, they are highly popular strategies among those adopted by regions. The second-most mentioned subcategory focuses on Building-Level Adaptation, which includes strategies designed to improve indoor comfort and reduce indoor temperatures. These include nature-based responses like green roofs and landscaping to reduce indoor heat gain, active strategies like air-conditioning and the installation of heat pumps, and passive design strategies like site-sensitive design and building elements to reduce heat gain and improve energy efficiency. The third-most mentioned subcategory of strategies is ​“Water Conservation & Reuse”, which is especially common in plans from Southwestern states as they frequently face water shortages and drought conditions during low-precipitation seasons. Apart from these action subcategories, plans also recommend designing new and redeveloped infrastructure for increased future temperatures, setting ​“maximum indoor temperature” mandates, evaluating temperature thresholds for heat warnings, and mapping and measuring heat vulnerability and heat islands.

It is important to note that most strategies in the ​“Natural and Nature-Based Responses” category also help regions adapt to extreme heat by reducing the albedo effect that causes urban heat islands to form, evapotranspiration to cool urban environments, and acting as shade structures for people, animals, and other urban elements like roads, pavements, and buildings.

Although climate change is often called the ​“great equalizer” as it spares no one from experiencing its impacts, communities experience climate impacts differently and have different adaptive capacities to respond to them, with some being less equipped than others due to structural and physical inequities. Adaptation and resilience planning needs to account for these differences in their efforts. This entails understanding the vulnerabilities that different groups have and structural inequities that put them at a disadvantage, and tailoring actions to adequately address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of these communities. Accounting for equity in adaptation planning should start at the very beginning of the plan’s creation, especially in community engagement processes, where disadvantaged and vulnerable communities should be intentionally and consistently represented, engaged, and involved in visioning, decision-making, and implementation processes, and more importantly, be in leading roles in these phases.

The plans included in this study have accounted for equity in different ways and to varying degrees. They differ as to who they consider to be disadvantaged, vulnerable, or at-risk, with most plans considering the following groups: low-income and unhoused residents; children; the elderly; communities of color and indigenous origin; non-male genders; people with limited English proficiency; differently-abled people; and environmental justice communities. A few plans also identify long-term renters, essential workers, currently and formerly incarcerated residents, and undocumented residents as vulnerable groups. A big distinction between adaptation and resilience plans in their approach towards equity is that adaptation plans tend to focus on physical actions that directly address climate risks and ensure that communities are protected equitably, while resilience plans focus on improving the economic resilience of communities and hence their adaptive capacity, such as access to affordable housing, economic mobility, and energy access. The plans also differ in their approach towards integrating equity and justice in the plan’s strategies – while some plans have dedicated chapters for equity and justice, others have equity-related actions under each goal or objective. Some plans also prioritize equity more than the others, with some considering equity as an additional aspect but not a central priority, while others make it an integral part of all aspects of their plan.

The equity-related strategies in these plans include recommendations for directly engaging vulnerable groups, such as through leadership and representation, capacity-building, and active participation and collaboration in the adaptation planning process. Strategies also recommend broadening funding and cost-benefit analyses criteria beyond economic criteria to help prioritize regions where adaptation actions could positively influence a community’s health, wellbeing, and productivity. The most-mentioned subcategory of strategies is ​“Prioritization of Vulnerable Groups in Adaptation,” where vulnerable groups and communities are prioritized beneficiaries of adaptation initiatives. The second-most popular subcategory is Public Health and Food Security, which includes initiatives like urban gardens and food banks to improve food security in underserved communities. The third-most mentioned subcategory focused on Outreach and Engagement, where vulnerable populations were targeted in adaptation-related outreach efforts to inform them of impending risks and to provide resources that would improve their adaptive capacity against these risks, such as grants and support programs.