A question of ‘fit’: local perspectives on top-down flood mitigation policies in Vermont

Despite consensus on the need to adapt to climate change, who should adapt, and how, remain open questions. While local-level actions are essential to adaptation, state and federal governments can play a substantial role in adaptation. In this paper, we investigate local perspectives on state-level flood mitigation policies in Vermont as a means of analysing what leads top-down adaptations to be effective in mobilizing local action. Drawing on interviews with town officials, we delineate local-level perspectives on Vermont's top-down policies and use those perspectives to develop a conceptual framework that presents the ‘fit’ between top-down policies and the local-level context as comprised of three components: Receptivity, Ease of Participation, and Design. We explain how these components and their interactions influence local-level action. This analysis points to how careful consideration of the components of ‘fit’ may lead to greater local-level uptake of top-down adaptation policies.     

The climate adaptation imperative: local choices targeting global problems?

When confronted with the demands of global climate change, what causes some policy-makers to move the climate adaptation agenda forward in their communities, while others seemingly get little accomplished? To answer this question, we first discuss work on policy-drivers in a coupled human–natural systemic context. This summary review of past research helps us develop a set of competing and complementary explanations for why some communities aggressively pursue climate adaptation policies, while others do less. Following the discussion of policy-drivers, we then undertake an aggregate-level analysis of data collected across the 169 towns in Connecticut regarding climate adaptation, thus linking policy to its fundamental global cause. The quantitative data are augmented with interview data from policy-makers and activists from around the New England region.     

Making cities resilient to climate change: identifying “win–win” interventions

Urbanisation is truly a global phenomenon. Starting at 39% in 1980, the urbanisation level rose to 52% in 2011. Ongoing rapid urbanisation has led to increase in urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Urban climate change risks have also increased with increase in climate-induced extreme weather events and more low-income urban dwellers living in climate sensitive locations. Despite increased emissions, including GHGs and heightened climate change vulnerability, climate mitigation and adaptation actions are rare in the cities of developing countries. Cities are overwhelmed with worsening congestion, air pollution, crime, waste management, and unemployment problems. Lack of resources and capacity constraints are other factors that discourage cities from embarking on climate change mitigation and adaptation pathways. Given the multitude of problems faced, there is simply no appetite for stand-alone urban climate change mitigation and adaptation policies and programmes. Urban mitigation and adaptation goals will have to be achieved as co-benefits of interventions targeted at solving pressing urban problems and challenges. The paper identifies administratively simple urban interventions that can help cities solve some of their pressing service delivery and urban environmental problems, while simultaneously mitigating rising urban GHG emissions and vulnerability to climate change.     

“There is nothing political in it”: triggers of local political leaders' engagement in climate adaptation

Local government is attributed a vital role in climate-change adaptation. Previous studies contend that conflicting priorities, insufficient institutional incentives and knowledge of risks, and inadequate resources all impede local climate adaptation. Though the importance of local political support in enabling climate adaptation is widely acknowledged, the views of local politicians have rarely been analysed. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with local politicians in Sweden, we explore what affects their engagement in climate adaptation. The study claims that climate adaptation contrary to mitigation is not viewed as political beyond directing attention and sanctioning guidelines set by officials. A limited number of interviewees claim a more strategic political role in adaptation. The combined effect of institutional incentives (e.g. fragmented national guidelines, unappealing goals, and lack of funding), relative weight in local politics, and ability to exercise political leadership (e.g. campaign value, public and media pressure, and lack of ideology) is perceived as too insignificant to trigger strong political engagement. In less-populous municipalities, adaptive measures were highly valued for demonstrating political action.     

Risk and vulnerability analysis: A feasible process for local climate adaptation in Sweden?

Climate change is an important new challenge for local authorities. This study analyses the potential for using the Swedish mandatory process for risk and vulnerability analysis (RVA) as a vehicle to improve local climate adaptation work. An advantage with RVA is its comprehensive approach in dealing with all relevant threats and all vital functions of society. In order to test the applicability of incorporating climate adaptation into RVA, we studied practical experiences from three Swedish municipalities. In all municipalities, a pre-study to identify relevant climate-induced events was performed. In one municipality, this was followed by a more detailed analysis of the potential impacts of these events on the functions of the various administrations and companies within the local authority. Problems identified in successful integration of climate change into the municipal RVA process were lack of sufficient knowledge to identify the impacts of climate change on the level of the respective specialist or district administration and lack of resources to perform the analysis. There were also some difficulties in including a long-term perspective relevant for climate adaptation into RVA, which usually focuses on current threats. A positive outcome was that work on extreme climate events in RVA provided a traceable method to identify events with a potentially great impact on the function of local society and results that could be fed into other ongoing processes, such as spatial planning and housing plans.     

Are Wastewater Systems Adapting to Climate Change?

Wastewater (WW) systems are vulnerable to extreme precipitation events; storm‐induced WW system failures pollute the environment and put public health at risk. Despite these vulnerabilities, we know very little about how WW managers are responding to current climate risks or to future climate change. This study aims to fill this critical gap in the literature. Data from surveys and interviews were used to understand what WW managers are doing to adapt to the current climate, what facilitates those adaptations, and if they are adapting to future climate change. Findings show most WW managers (78%) are making changes to build resiliency to storms they have experienced in the past (e.g., extra fuel on site, extra staff on call, more training, better communication, adding generators, elevating components, adding capacity); most are not adapting to future climate change. Our work suggests organizational leadership, concern about future climate‐related impacts, and experiencing storm impacts drive resiliency changes while regulatory requirements drive adaptation to future climate change. Beyond advancing science, our work offers practical suggestions for building WW system resilience and for increasing WW system's consideration of future climate impacts in their resiliency building efforts.