Explaining Local Commitment Explaining Local Commitment to Climate Change Policy in to Climate Change Policy in

the United Statesthe United StatesSamuel D. Brody, Texas A & M University Samuel D. Brody, Texas A & M University

Sammy Zahran, Himanshu Grover & Arnold VedlitzSammy Zahran, Himanshu Grover & Arnold Vedlitz

Environmental Planning and Sustainability Research UnitEnvironmental Planning and Sustainability Research UnitHazard Reduction and Recovery Center Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center

Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning Texas A & M University Texas A & M University

Microsoft Office Outlook.lnk

Role of Local JurisdictionsRole of Local Jurisdictions

Internet sources of Photographs : http://tiki.oneworld.net; http://www.foe.co.uk; http://www.oxfam.org.uk ; http://news.bbc.co.uk ; http://www.asahi.com ; http://www.ucar.edu

Cities for Climate ProtectionCities for Climate Protection

Launched in 1993 International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)

More than 691 local governments globally

112 U.S. localities joined the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)

10 local governments in Florida

Localities recognize climate change as significant local concern

Conduct an energy and emissions inventory and forecast

Establish an emissions target

Develop and obtain approval for the Local Action Plan

Implement policies and measures

Monitor and verify results

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

Counties Party to the CCP Counties Party to the CCP CampaignCampaign

Four Reasons Not to Join CCPFour Reasons Not to Join CCP

Reducing local emissions will not fully insulate a locality Reducing local emissions will not fully insulate a locality from the adverse transboundary effectsfrom the adverse transboundary effects

The costs of climate change mitigation may be greater than The costs of climate change mitigation may be greater than the expected benefitsthe expected benefits

The collective benefits of climate protection are non-The collective benefits of climate protection are non-excludableexcludable

No federal mandate or assistance for the implementation of No federal mandate or assistance for the implementation of climate change protection programsclimate change protection programs

Why would a U.S. locality commit to the CCP campaign Why would a U.S. locality commit to the CCP campaign when there are strong incentives to do otherwise? when there are strong incentives to do otherwise?

Place as a Source of Selective Place as a Source of Selective IncentivesIncentives

Selective incentives to participate in the CCP Selective incentives to participate in the CCP campaign spring from two major sources:campaign spring from two major sources:

1) 1) The extent to which a locality is vulnerable to the The extent to which a locality is vulnerable to the risks of climate change and variabilityrisks of climate change and variability

2) 2) The socioeconomic capacity of or opportunity for The socioeconomic capacity of or opportunity for a a locality to commit to emission reduction targetslocality to commit to emission reduction targets

Climate Change Risk Climate Change Risk IncentivesIncentives

Coastal proximity and sea level riskCoastal proximity and sea level risk

Expected temperature changeExpected temperature change

Extreme weather eventsExtreme weather events

Socioeconomic Capacity Socioeconomic Capacity IncentivesIncentives

Carbon intensive activities and industriesCarbon intensive activities and industries

Political and civic compositionPolitical and civic composition

Environmental concernEnvironmental concern

Factors Influencing CCP Factors Influencing CCP AdoptionAdoption

Climate Change Risk Variables Extreme Weather Casualties Temperature Change Coastal County

Socioeconomic Capacity Variables Net Percent Democrat Percent Recycled Percent Solar Use Non-Profit Environmental Groups Carbon Emissions Per Capita Percent Carbon Employment

Control Variables Percent Urban Percent College Educated

Drivers of Climate Change Drivers of Climate Change PolicyPolicy

Climate Change Risk Variables Extreme Weather Casualties Temperature Change Coastal County

Socioeconomic Variables Net Percent Democrat Percent Solar Energy Percent Recycled Non-Profit Environmental Groups Carbon Emissions Per Capita Percent Carbon Employment (-)

Control Variables Percent Urban Percent College Educated

Drivers of Climate Change Policy

• Coastal county (percent of land area in coastal

watershed) is 81.7% more likely to commit to the CCP

• Increase in casualties increases the probability of CCP involvement by 43.7%

• For every projected degree Celsius increase in temperature there is a 26 % increase in the odds of CCP commitment

Drivers of Climate Change Policy

• County almost 3 times more likely to join the CCP for every additional environmental non-profit

• Unit increase in carbon intensive industries decreases the odds of CCP enactment by 44 %

• Unit change in the risk and opportunity factors corresponds to approximately a 90 % increase in the likelihood of joining the CCP campaign

Geography of Climate Geography of Climate Change RiskChange Risk

Legend

-1.45945 - -0.64479

-0.64478 - -0.37238

-0.37237 - -0.06522

-0.06521 - 0.49810

0.49811 - 20.74817

±0 190 380 570 76095

Miles

Geography of Socio-economic Geography of Socio-economic Capacity Capacity

Legend

-8.13260 - -0.74191

-0.74190 - -0.30012

-0.30011 - 0.07238

0.07239 - 0.64926

0.64927 - 9.03097

±0 190 380 570 76095

Miles

Scatter Plot of Risk and Scatter Plot of Risk and Capacity by CCP Status Capacity by CCP Status

-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

Structural Readiness Dimension

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Ris

k D

imen

sion

CCP Status

Non-Committed

Committed

Socioeconomic Capacity Dimension

Conclusions and Policy Conclusions and Policy ImplicationsImplications

Decisions makers appear sensitive to physical risks of Decisions makers appear sensitive to physical risks of climate changeclimate change

Socioeconomic make-up of a jurisdiction is a primary Socioeconomic make-up of a jurisdiction is a primary motivator of adoptionmotivator of adoption

CCP Recruitment opportunity: High-High quadrant as CCP Recruitment opportunity: High-High quadrant as “low hanging fruit”“low hanging fruit”

Regional Hotspots of Climate Risk

Regional Hotspots of Climate Stress

Regional Hotspots of Climate Opportunity

Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Confluence of high risk-low stress-high opportunity characteristics offers greatest potential for CCP recruitment

• CCP participation may rest more on civic composition and perceptions than physical reality

• Visible disconnect between climate change stressor communities and those most vulnerable to adverse impacts

• Hotspot maps reveal regional boundaries for potential collaboration

Scatter Plot of Risk and Scatter Plot of Risk and Capacity by CCP Status Capacity by CCP Status

-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

Structural Readiness Dimension

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Ris

k D

imen

sion

CCP Status

Non-Committed

Committed

Socioeconomic Capacity Dimension

Scatter Plot of Risk and Capacity Scatter Plot of Risk and Capacity by CCP Status- Floridaby CCP Status- Florida

Florida High Risk-High Capacity Counties

Alachua & Marion vs. FL

Alachua vs. Marion

Climate Change Risk

CC RiskNational Rank

CC RiskFlorida Rank

AlachuaCounty

0.43674 676 / 3146 62nd

Marion County 1.60220 147 / 3146 21st

Climate ChangeCapacity

CC CapacityNational Rank

CC CapacityFlorida Rank

AlachuaCounty

2.01920 99 / 3146 4th

Marion County 0.67482 606 / 3146 33rd

Alachua County

• Compared to U.S.: high risk, high capacity, low stress

• Compared to FL: less risk, high capacity, less stress

• Compared to Marion: less risk, more capacity, less stress

Marion County

• Compared to U.S.: high risk, high capacity, low stress

• Compared to FL: less risk, less capacity, more stress

• Compared to Alachua: more risk, less capacity, more stress

Policy Options

• Mitigation = transportation sector• Mitigation not as important as adaptation• Need regional and super-regional collaboration• Adaptation strategies are priority

– Protect vulnerable areas (wetlands, floodplains)– Protect vulnerable populations– Relocation and in-migration– Structural techniques– Education programs– Land use/comprehensive planning– Visualization/decision support systems

http://epsru.tamu.edu

Research supported by the U.S. National Oceanic Research supported by the U.S. National Oceanic

Atmospheric AdministrationAtmospheric Administration & the Institute for Science, & the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy at Texas A&M UniversityTechnology and Public Policy at Texas A&M University