Download 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
Program Analyst
NARC
[email protected]
Kristin Heery
Program Analyst
NARC
Allan Wallis
Associate Professor
University of Colorado Denver, School of Public Affairs
[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 Planning
Target systems
Scale of effect
Lead time
Effectiveness
Actors benefit
Monitoring
Mitigation Planning for
Climate Change
All systems
Global
Centuries
Certain
Only a little (indirect)
Relatively easy
Adaptation Planning for
Climate Change
Selected systems
Local to regional
Years to centuries
Less certain
Almost fully
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 Planning
A 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
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
3
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
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
4
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.
Sample
This 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 Findings
Location of Responding Regional Planning Organizations
RPOs 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
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
5
Stage of Regional Planning Organizations in the Climate Adaptation Planning Process
The 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
120.0%
100.0%
96.6%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
29.2%
27.0%
20.0%
0.0%
8.9%
Awareness
Assessment
Planning
Adoption
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
Other organizations are taking a leading role (e.g.,
nonprofits, universities and/or business groups) in raising
awareness.
22
29
14
Our organization has taken a leading role in developing
awareness.
Somewhat
characterizes
42 our region
30
18
Discussed at membership meetings and/or by
organization's executive board.
Strongly
characterizes
our region
34
33
35
Definitely
doesn’t
characterize
our region
13
Public increasingly aware of the effects.
51
22
0
10
20
30
40
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
50
60
6
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 threequarters (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
80.0%
74.5%
70.0%
65.5%
Sea level rise
60.0%
49.1%
50.0%
Increased flooding
40.0%
34.5%
30.0%
More frequent and
prolonged periods of
drought
20.0%
10.0%
More extreme weather
events
0.0%
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
72.7%
45.5%
Emergency
evacuation
Sea level rise or
coastal storm surge
54.5%
Responsiveness of
land use plans
and/or zoning to
climate change
45.5%
Identification and
assessment of atrisk infrastructure
45.5%
Water resources
(adequacy of
supply)
63.6%
Flooding and storm
water drainage
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
7
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
78.0%
63.4%
51.2%
51.2%
36.6%
Federal
agencies
State agencies
Other local
governments in
your region
Business
organizations
Nonprofits
12.2%
Colleges or
universities
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
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.
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
8
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
28.1%
No
Yes
71.9%
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, onethird 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 threequarters (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
80.0%
72.7%
70.0%
57.6%
60.0%
39.4%
30.0%
21.2%
Partnership with other
communities
Outreach and
education
Best management
practices
Permitting /
enforcement
3.0%
Emergency
management powers
12.1%
9.1%
Infrastructure
development
Taxation policies
Zoning /subdivision
regulations
0.0%
12.1%
6.1%
10.0%
Public safety rules /
regulations
20.0%
Utility rates/fee setting
40.0%
Building codes /
design standards
50.0%
54.5%
51.5%
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]
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
9
Figure 11. Organizational Partners When Implementing Climate Adaptation Plans
79.4%
55.9%
61.8%
50.0%
44.1%
32.4%
Other
Other regions
Business
organizations
Nonprofits
Colleges or
universities
Federal
agencies
8.8%
State
agencies
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Information Needs
The 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
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
82.2%
69.9%
76.7%
65.8%
50.7%
Summaries of
scientific
information
Data/GIS files
Examples of
what regions
and local
governments
Webinars with
experts and
practitioners
Information
about funding
sources
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
10
Case Studies
The 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 Studies
Focus 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.
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
11
Atlanta Regional Commission:
Climate Adaptation Survey
Population: 4,124,300
Phase: 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.
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
12
Houston-Galveston Area Council:
Climate Adaptation Survey
Population: 6,087,133
Phase: Assessment
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 sealevel 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
Houston-Galveston
2009 H-GAC
Area Council
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.
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
13
San Diego Association of Governments:
Climate Adaptation Survey
Population: 3,224,432
Phase: Planning
www.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 regionallyrelevant 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
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
14
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments:
Climate Adaptation Survey
Population: 4,900,928
Phase: Planning
www.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
National Capital Region
climate
adaptation
Climate Change Report
guidebook, MWCOG
staff worked through
Adopted November 12, 2008
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.
Prepared by the Climate Change Steering Committee for the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Board of Directors
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 Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
15
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council:
Climate Adaptation Survey
Population: 3,500,000
Phase: Assessment
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.
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
16
Recommendations
RPOs 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.
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
17
Appendix
Advisory Council Members
Member
Organization
Fred Abousleman, Executive Director
National Association of Regional Councils
Tim Brennan, Executive Director
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Hon. David Danielson, Commissioner
Town of Bedford, NH
Walter Diggles, Executive Director
Deep East Texas Council of Governments
Josh Foster
Oregon Climate Change Research Institute,
Oregon State University
Maia 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 Commission
Elisabeth Hamlin, Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional
Planning, University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Tom Jacobs, Director of Environment
Mid-America Regional Council
Bob Leiter, Former Director of Land Use and Transportation
San Diego Association of Governments
Jan Mueller, Senior Policy Associate
Environment and Energy Study Institute
Kevin Nelson, AICP
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Sustainable Communities
Tim Owen, Operations Planning Officer
NOAA – National Climatic Data Center
Joan Rohlfs, Environmental Resources Program Director
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Suzanne Rynne, AICP, Senior Research Associate
American Planning Association
William Solecki, Professor
CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities
Missy 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 - Denver
Brandi Whetstone, Center for Energy and Environment
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Lara Whitely-Binder, Outreach Specialist
University of Washington, Climate Impacts Group
Acronym List
AGs
Associations of Governments
ARC
Atlanta Regional Commission
CAS
Climate Action Strategy
CEEPC Climate, Energy, and Environment Committee
CGC
Certified Green Communities
COG Council of Governments
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highways Administration
H-GAC Houston-Galveston Area Council
HUD
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ICLEI ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCI
Livable Centers Initiative
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MWCOGMetropolitan Washington Council of Governments
NARC National Association of Regional Councils
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RPOs Regional Planning Organizations
SANDAGSan Diego Association of Governments
SARP Sectoral Applications Research Program
SGIA Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Program
TBRPC Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
18
Works Cited
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fussel, H-M (2007) Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessments, approaches, and key lessons, Sustainability Science
2: 265-275.
McCarthy JJ, Canzlani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fussel, H-M and Klein, RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessment: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climate Change 75(3):
301-329
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.
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.
ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection Campaign: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=800; October 15, 2012.
U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm; October 15, 2012.
See, for example, Ligeti E (2007) Cities Prepare for Climate Change: a study of six urban areas. Toronto, Canada: Clean Air Partnership.
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.
Feiock R and Francis (2011)
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.
Pachauri, RK and Reisinger, A (eds) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva Switzerland: IPCC
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.
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.
Some coastal states exposed to severe storms did not respond to the survey (e.g., Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina).
For a description of the Certified Green Communities program, go to http://www.atlantaregional.com/environment/green-communities;
October 15, 2012.
For a list of those communities, go to http://www.atlantaregional.com/environment/green-communities/certified-green-communities;
October 15, 2012.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
National Capital Region Climate Change Report, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 2008. http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/zldXXg20081203113034.pdf; October 15, 2012.
Strategic Regional Policy Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report http://www.tbrpc.org/srpp/pdf/SRPP%20EAR%20DRAFT%208-8-11.pdf; October 15, 2012.
Recommendations from Resilient Tampa Bay 2011 workshop http://sgs.usf.edu/rtb/content/rtb-recs.pdf; October 15, 2012.
NOAA’s Coastal Services Center Digital Coast http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/.
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA’s Climate Resilient Communities Program http://www.icleiusa.org/climate_and_energy/Climate_Adaptation_Guidance; October 15, 2012.
Envision Tomorrow: Suite of Urban and Regional Planning Tools http://www.frego.com/services/envision-tomorrow/; October 15, 2012.
National Association of Regional Councils’ Report: A Survey of Regional Planning for Climate Adaptation
19
About The National Association of Regional Councils
The 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 Councils
777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20002
202.986.1032 phone
202.986.1038 fax
www.NARC.org