0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
6 Ansichten37 Seiten
Cornell Smith Lever Funding (R. Schneider, PI) 2007-10 for three year study focused on natural resource prof i l G tf W t fessionals. Grant from Water Resources Institute (S. Allred, PI) 2011-2012 to study municipal officials in Hudson Valley study municipal officials in Hudson Valley.
Originaltitel
Hudson Valley Municipal OfficialViews on Climate Change Views on Climate Change
Cornell Smith Lever Funding (R. Schneider, PI) 2007-10 for three year study focused on natural resource prof i l G tf W t fessionals. Grant from Water Resources Institute (S. Allred, PI) 2011-2012 to study municipal officials in Hudson Valley study municipal officials in Hudson Valley.
Cornell Smith Lever Funding (R. Schneider, PI) 2007-10 for three year study focused on natural resource prof i l G tf W t fessionals. Grant from Water Resources Institute (S. Allred, PI) 2011-2012 to study municipal officials in Hudson Valley study municipal officials in Hudson Valley.
Allison M. Chatrchyan Cornell Cooperative Shorna Allred Associate Professor Maureen Mullen Communications Outreach p Extension (CCE) CCE Statewide Energy & Climate Change Team Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Dept. of Natural Resources Assistant Dept. of Natural Resources Cornell University Presentation to the Hudson Valley Climate Change Network Norrie Point Environmental Center, Staatsburg, NY August 13, 2012 Municipal Climate Change Study Cornell Smith Lever Funding (R. Schneider, PI) 2007-10 for three year study focused on natural f i l G t f W t resource professionals. Grant from Water Resources Institute (S. Allred, PI) 2011-2012 to study municipal officials in Hudson Valley study municipal officials in Hudson Valley. Collaboration between faculty CCE Extension Collaboration between faculty, CCE Extension, and project partners (NYS DEC, HREP) in survey design &outputs. design & outputs. I t f L l Importance of Local Governments Governments Cities are pivotal actors in climate change but a relatively understudied in U S (Sharp et al 2011) relatively understudied in U.S. (Sharp et al. 2011) Many local governments are crafting policy to address climate change (Sharp et al. 2011) Important to understand motivation for actions for Important to understand motivation for actions for climate protection policies as well as what actions are being taken for planning and implementation Goals of Study Were to Determine 1 G l i li t h i k d i 1. General views on climate change; risks and issues associated with climate change and natural resources 2 Adaptation tools which might successfully address climate 2. Adaptation tools which might successfully address climate change. 3. Attitudes towards various state and local policy solutions to address climate change. 4. If/if not already taking action in their positions to address climate change (why/why not) Benefits/obstacles of taking climate change (why/why not). Benefits/obstacles of taking action. 5. Information Needs/Tools to help implement solutions and adaptations. Research Methods Quantitative Web +Mail Survey Web + Mail Survey Factor Analysis Qualitative In-depth interviews Thematic coding Thematic coding Survey Methodology Survey of municipal officials in NewYork State with oversampling for Survey of municipal officials in New York State, with oversampling for Hudson Valley (N=1,488) Primarily web (mail for those without accessible e-mail addresses) County Executives, Mayors, Town Supervisors, Environmental Management Council members, and Conservation Advisory Council members, N=1,416 Conducted 2010-2011 1 invitation e-mail and up to 6 reminder e-mail contacts Response rate=21% (n=299) Our respondents were: Municipal Role n % Elected officials 201 70 5% Elected officials 201 70.5% Appointed officials 35 12.3% Paid Staff 23 8.1% Volunteer Position (i.e., committee member) 12 4.2% Conservation Advisory Commission (CAC) B d M b 25 8.8% or Board Member Municipal consultant 4 1.4% Other function 1 0.4% Codes, Ag Comp. Plan Respondents held these positions for: Number of years n % 0-9 years 158 59.0% 10 19 71 26 5% 10-19 years 71 26.5% 20-29 years 29 10 8% 20-29 years 29 10.8% 30-39 years 8 3.0% y 40-49 years 1 0.4% 50+ years 1 0.4% Region 1: 3.3% (10) Respondents were from: Region 2: 0% Region 3: 26.4% (79) (79) Region 4: 16.7% (50) Region 5: 11.4% (34) Region 6: 5% (15) Region 7: 13.8% Region 7: 13.8% (41) Region 8: 12% (36) 54.5% (36) Region 9: 10.4% (31) How would you assess your current level of knowledge about the causes and potential 1% o edge abou e causes a d po e a impacts of climate change in New York State? 8% (24) 13% (38) (2) I don't knowmuch 23% (67) (38) I dont know much I know a little bit (67) I am moderately well- informed I amvery 55% I am very knowledgeable I am an expert (156) Key findings of municipal officials attitudes about climate change: 3% 7% 20% 40% 31% The science indicates our climate is changing g 3% There is sufficient evidence that over the coming decade, g g 4% 13% 21% 37% 26% climate change will affect the natural resources with which I work Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral 4% 14% 23% 40% 19% I already see evidence of how climate change is affecting New York's natural resources Neutral Agree Strongly agree 10% 38% 28% 20% 4% There is sufficient information available on how to address climate impacts at the local 0% 50% 100% climate impacts at the local level Please rate the relevancy and vulnerability of the following impacts to your municipality: g p y p y 5 Relevancy Vulnerability 3 4 2 3 1 2 Increased sea level Increased average winter temperature Increased temperature in summer, higher heat Increased summer drought Increased severity or frequency of other extreme Increased precipitation, flooding SCALE: 1 =not at all relevant/vulnerable, 5 =very relevant/vulnerable temperature with reduced freezing higher heat index other extreme weather events Has your municipality already taken actions to address climate change? g Yes 24% I don't know 9% 24% (60) 9% (23) No No 67% (169) What actions has your municipality taken to adapt to climate change? Adaptation Actions n % p g Partnering with local groups to address climate issues 25 42% Developing a flood mitigation plan/program 22 37% Developing a flood mitigation plan/program 22 37% Planning on long-term horizons (10+ years) 14 23% Conducting outreach and education 13 22% Practicing adaptive management 13 22% Developing a climate action plan 12 20% Pl i f ifi d t ti t th l l l l 12 20% Planning for specific adaptations at the local level 12 20% Implementing a climate action plan 6 10% What actions has your municipality taken to mitigate climate change? Mitigation Actions n % Investing in energy savings from buildings 52 87% g g Investing in energy savings from buildings 52 87% Planting trees 43 72% Investing in and protecting green and open spaces 36 60% Investing in and protecting green and open spaces 36 60% Investing in energy savings from transportation 24 40% Purchasing renewable energy 22 37% Purchasing renewable energy 22 37% Adopting Climate Smart Communities 22 37% Investing in energy savings from industrial & waste Investing in energy savings from industrial & waste processes 19 32% Conduct baseline GHG emissions inventory and forecast 16 27% Developing climate action plan for GHG 12 20% Adopting emissions reduction target for the forecast year 10 17% What factors prompted your municipality to take action? take action? Factor Mean Rating 1 Being a Responsible Leader 3.68 Fiscal Savings 3.59 Cooperation and Partnerships 3.37 Constituent Pressure 2.97 Inaction of Government Top-down Mandate Inaction of Government, Top-down Mandate, and Local Impacts 2.82 1 1=not important, 2=slightly important, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important Factors that Influenced Adaptation Actions Influencing Factors 1 Mean for Each Group F-Statistic P-value Proactive Leadership 1-2 actions= 3.53 3-12 actions= 4.06 5.757 .020* 1 2 ti 2 67 Inaction of Government 1-2 actions= 2.67 3-12 actions= 3.26 4.391 .042* Cooperation and 1-2 actions=3 27 Cooperation and Partnerships 1-2 actions= 3.27 3-12 actions= 3.76 2.885 .095 Fi l S i 1-2 actions= 3.54 1 507 225 Fiscal Savings 3-12 actions= 3.82 1.507 .225 Constituent Pressure 1-2 actions= 2.97 0 176 677 Constituent Pressure 3-12 actions= 3.10 0.176 .677 1 1=not important, 2=slightly important, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important *significant difference between groups at the p<.05 level Factors that Influenced Mitigation Actions Influencing Factors 1 Mean for Each Group F-Statistic P-value Proactive Leadership 1-4 actions= 3.42 5-10 actions= 4.10 9.778 .003* C ti d 1 4 ti 3 11 Cooperation and Partnerships 1-4 actions= 3.11 5-10 actions= 3.78 5.695 .021* 1-4 actions=2 70 Inaction of Government 1 4 actions 2.70 5-10 actions= 3.05 1.418 .240 Constituent Pressure 1-4 actions= 3.13 1 284 262 Constituent Pressure 5-10 actions= 2.8 1.284 .262 Fiscal Savings 1-4 actions= 3.52 5 10 actions=3 77 1.252 .268 g 5-10 actions= 3.77 1 1=not important, 2=slightly important, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important *significant difference between groups at the p<.05 level What factors are barriers to your municipality taking action? municipality taking action? Factor Mean Rating 1 Rating 1 Lack of Resources (Financial and Human) 3.72 Lack of Resources (Financial and Human) Inaction of Government atAll Levels 3 17 Inaction of Government at All Levels 3.17 Lack of Information and External Pressure toAct 3 06 Lack of Information and External Pressure to Act 3.06 Intra-Organizational Issues 2 42 Intra Organizational Issues 2.42 1 1=not a barrier, 2=minimal barrier, 3=slight barrier, 4=moderate barrier, 5=significant barrier In-Depth Interviews Focus on the Hudson Valley Qualitative Methods: face to face interviews Nine interviews with cross section of officials: Rural vs. Urban Views 4 Climate Smart Communities (CSC) vs. 5 Non-CSCs 5 Communities that had experienced significant FEMA- level flooding events vs 5 Communities level flooding events vs. 5 Communities with less flooding events Municipalities Interviewed / l l d / l l d CSC/FEMALevelFlooding: - City,MidHudsonValley - LargeUrbanizedTown,LowerHudsonValley NoCSC/FEMALevelFlooding: - PopulatedSuburbanTown,MidHudson Valley - SmallRuralTown,LowerHudsonValley ll l d d ll - SmallRural Town,MidHudsonValley CSC/LessFEMALevelFlooding: - Small,RuralTown,MidHudsonValley - City,UpperHudsonValley NoCSC/LessFEMALevelFlooding: - SmallRuralTown,MidHudsonValley - SmallTown,LowerHudsonValley Municipal Officials Interviewed: Town Supervisors (7), City Mayor (1), City Alderman (1) Town Board (1) CAC (1) Staff (3) Alderman (1), Town Board (1), CAC (1), Staff (3) Counties Represented: Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Green, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster In-Depth Interview Questions How much knowledge do you feel you have? Have you seen any local effects of climate change? How vulnerable do you think your municipality is? Has your municipality started any local planning? Has your municipality started any local planning? What are the barriers to addressing climate change? What kinds of local projects or planning tools would be most useful? What specific information do you need? Key Findings: Knowledge 9 Municipalities: 4 minimal knowledge; 3 fair bit of knowledge; 2 High level of knowledge Unclear about Science, but See Changes: I would say I have limited knowledge as to the theoretical causes for weather changes Im not sure how to tie the cause and effect We have weather changesI m not sure how to tie the cause and effect. We have had some extreme weather situations in the past 2-3 years, but I haven't had anyone connect the dots as to the causes of those events. Precautionary Principle: Precautionary Principle: I think if we wait for the scientists to definitively say oh there is climate change, I think its too late so I think that we need to...just start changing our behavior patterns to do what we can to I wont say combat climate change behavior patterns to do what we can to, I won t say combat climate change, but counteract it with, with our activities. Key Findings: Local Effects Are you seeing local effects in your municipality? 1. Flooding *(*mentioned in every municipality) 2. Effects on infrastructure - roads, bridges, culverts ects o ast uctu e oads, b dges, cu e ts 3. Heavy rainfall over short periods of time, effecting streams 4. Blizzards &ice storms, causing downed trees and power outages 5. Negative Budget Impacts 6 Milder inters and decreased sno fall/road salt costs 6. Milder winters and decreased snowfall/road salt costs 7. Sea Level Rise & Ecosystem Effects 8 Periods of high temperature that negatively 8. Periods of high temperature, that negatively affect air quality Key Findings: Local Effects Are you seeing local effects in your municipality: Weve had these spectacular events - that 17 of snow in October, the huge snowstorm a couple years ago; weve had flooding, and thing is, all these events are extreme events. Theres never a nice dusting, theres never just a spring shower anymore, you knowIts a torrent. Supervisor large Town in Mid-Hudson Valley Supervisor, large Town in Mid-Hudson Valley Inconsistency: Planning & Budgeting Challenges: Inconsistency: Planning & Budgeting Challenges: We see such an inconsistency in the weather. Other than that big snowstorm there hasnt been any snow this winter. Last year we had 40 something events of snow - so from one year to the otherits incredibly difficult to plan. y y p Supervisor, large Town in Mid-Hudson Valley Key Findings: Vulnerability 9 Municipalities: 1 limited vulnerability; 5 somewhat vulnerable; 3 very vulnerable 1 limited vulnerability; 5 somewhat vulnerable; 3 very vulnerable Higher vulnerability assessment did not lead to greater action g Id say were significantly vulnerable because of the fact that one-third of our community is surrounded by water Mayor, Small City in Upper Hudson Valley Key Findings: Local Action 9 Municipalities: 8 Taken Some Action; 1 Indicated No Action Taken (actions not necessarily linked to knowledge of climate change Taken (actions not necessarily linked to knowledge of climate change impacts): 1. Adaptation: Stormwater/Green Infrastructure 2 Adaptation: Emergency Preparedness 2. Adaptation: Emergency Preparedness 3. Mitigation Climate Smart Community/ICLEI 4 Municipalities 4. Adaptation: Comprehensive Plan/Local Laws 5. Mitigation: Energy Conservation 6. Mitigation: Community Education 7. Mitigation: GHG Inventory g y 8. Mitigation: Renewable Energy Some municipalities unclear about mitigation vs. adaptation measures B i t Add i Cli t Barriers to Addressing Climate Change Locally: Change Locally: 1. Financial 2. Lack of general understanding of climate change g g g 3. Excessive Government Regulation 4. Technical 5. Competing interests 6. Knowledge local effects 7. Lack of time/volunteer burnout 8. Not a local problem Thats the biggest hurdle we still have to overcome is getting the vocabulary more in use. Its also a competition of interestsOur biggest immediate issues are economic, employment, economic development, balancing the budget, living within a 2% tax cap paying for retirement plans for employees etc All of living within a 2% tax cap, paying for retirement plans for employees, etc. All of those financial issues sit on the table every day and call our names, so how could you even acknowledge climate change. - City Alderman, Mid-Hudson Valley Information & Assistance Needs: 1. Knowledge of Local Effects 2. Education to Improve Basic Understanding 3. Funding 4. Technical/Government tell us what to do 5. Partnerships/Consultations/Cooperation 6. Planning Help/Adaptation Resources 7 Emergency Planning 7. Emergency Planning We tend to have a reactive plan, you know based around a historic set of weather conditions and we act accordingly No one has given us any foresight into what to conditions, and we act accordingly. No one has given us any foresight into what to expect. If I knew that we were going to get x amount more snow in the next year, wed have to budget accordingly with materials, or if I knew we were going to have rainfall of 4 greater in certain months, then thats something wed have to look at certain roads and figure out what the 4 increase in rainfall would mean to those roads. But I dont have that. - Supervisor of a small, rural town in the Mid-Hudson Valley How useful would the following resources be in your work to address climate change at the local Information about veryuseful y g level? 22% 13% 34% 29% 22% 25% 12% 15% 10% 18% Educationaland Informationabout regulations y useful 24% 22% 31% 34% 22% 22% 13% 12% 10% 10% Climatechangeresearch communicationresources somewhat useful slightly useful 29% 24% 33% 31% 17% 22% 12% 13% 9% 10% Climatechange information and planning anddata slightlyuseful notatall useful 55% 29% 22% 33% 10% 17% 7% 12% 6% 9% Informationon informationandplanning resources useful 55% 22% 10%7%6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% funding/incentivesources What information does your municipality need to address climate change? need to address climate change? Information Needs % Information Needs % How likely or severe the effects will be 52% Things you can do to prevent it 51% General information about climate change 44% Available responses to the effects of climate change 41% The process of climate change 27% Multiple answers were allowed Conclusions and Recommendations The majority of municipal officials have some knowledge about climate change but they knowledge about climate change, but they would like to know more about the likeliness and severity of the predicted climate change and severity of the predicted climate change effects in their community, how they can prevent and/or respond to these effects as well prevent and/or respond to these effects, as well as learn more about climate change in general. Conclusions and Recommendations Municipal officials would most like access to resources about funding sources and resources about funding sources and incentive programs, followed by climate change information and data (e g monitoring change information and data (e.g., monitoring programs, vulnerability assessments, adaptation research) and management plans adaptation research), and management plans (e.g., model ordinances, hazard mitigation). Implications New York has adopted an 80/50 goal for GHG emission reductions Large number of small governments (62 counties, 932 towns, and 62 cities) ( ) Municipalities control energy use, infrastructure, planning, and land use decisions locally. p g, y Although a majority of municipal officials believe in the science of climate change, only 24% of the municipal officials surveyed have begun addressing climate change in their community. Tools Cornell Climate Change Website: www.climatechange.cornell.edu g Climate Change Fact Sheets Speakers & PPT Presentations To Be Developed: Decision To Be Developed: Decision Tools, based on Needs Forthcoming Publications Addressing Climate Change at the Municipal Level. Cornell Climate Change Program Work Team Fact Sheets Series 2012 Fact Sheets Series, 2012. Local Climate Change Challenges and Opportunities: Local Climate Change Challenges and Opportunities: Understanding Municipal Official Perspectives. Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit, Outreach Series Outreach Series. Climate Change Adaptation and Community Climate Change Adaptation and Community Resilience. Community and Rural Development Institute (CaRDI) Research and Policy Brief. Contacts/Questions: Allison Chatrchyan (amc256@cornell.edu) wwwclimatechange cornell edu www.climatechange.cornell.edu Shorna Allred (srb237@cornell.edu) Shorna Allred (srb237@cornell.edu) www.human-dimensions.org Maureen Mullen (mlm394@cornell.edu)