Climate change and environmental planning: Working to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in Washington State, USA

Habitat International 33 (2009) 246–252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Climate change and environmental planning: Working to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in Washington State, USA Casilda Saavedra a, William W. Budd b, * a

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, USA Division of Governmental Studies and Services, WSU Extension and Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, PO Box 644870, Troy Hall 310, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA b

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Adaptation Mitigation Climate change Planning

This work focuses on the efforts being made by King County, Washington to respond to the challenges of global climate change, concentrating on both mitigation and adaptation. King County is a leader in the United States in the development and implementation of meaningful climate change efforts in local government. The county, in conjunction with ICLEI, recently produced a workbook on Preparing for Climate Change at the Local, Regional, and State levels. While the vast majority of local governments in the United States have only taken limited steps to respond to global warming, King County stands out as aggressively looking to move in a new direction. The King County Climate Plan is based on the conviction that climate change is both a problem and an opportunity for communities to improve environmental quality through mitigation of greenhouse gases and simultaneously build resilience to adapt to global climate change. Its exceptional combination of responsibilities in planning and opportunities makes this an invaluable experience to other local governments throughout the world. The work to be presented is a case study that examines the underlying issues and challenges faced by this jurisdiction in adopting its climate change plan; the development and adoption of the plan; issues associated with monitoring and sustaining these efforts; and the broader challenges of building more resilient and adaptive communities. The case study will focus both on procedural issues, as well as, on the types of mitigation and adaptive responses. One aspect of the paper will examine King County’s efforts to link climate change efforts/policy/plans to other critical community concerns (e.g., issues of equity and race), and to the economic opportunities that have become critical motivators to successfully as moving forward the county attempts to establish itself as a global leader in meeting the challenges of global climate change. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes in its 2007 Synthesis Report that there is ‘‘high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts; however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change’’ (IPCC, 2007). Adaptation is clearly necessary in the short and longer term to address impacts resulting from the warming. Early mitigation actions would avoid further reliance on a carbon intensive infrastructure and reduce climate change and associated adaptation needs. Viewed at a national or regional level, such strategies do not appear in conflict with one another. Although national policies are essential, the responses to climate change must be local. And at

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 509 335 4114; fax: þ1 509 335 2362. E-mail address: [email protected] (W.W. Budd). 0197-3975/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.004

a local level the questions of whether adaptation and mitigation strategies for addressing climate change be addressed simultaneously have been raised. It is clear, however, that dealing with the problem of climate change requires communities to develop or enhance their ability to cope with, adapt to, and shape change without losing options for future adaptability (Folke, Colding, & Berkes, 2003). This will require that the steps that communities take with respect to climate change must be made with an appreciation of the dynamics of the complex social–ecological systems in which they are a part. This means developing resilience in terms of combined human and natural systems. And this in turn means anticipating change and then shaping community responses in order to promote a more sustainable future without losing options in the process. This paper looks at one of the most progressive counties in the United States, King County, Washington and its efforts of taking on this challenge. King County has from the outset recognized that both mitigation and adaptation must be a part of any successful

C. Saavedra, W.W. Budd / Habitat International 33 (2009) 246–252

climate change planning effort. In what follows, we will look briefly at the demographics of King County, its climate change profile, and the County’s Climate Change Plan as illustrations of how one US jurisdiction is responding to the climate change crisis. King County, Washington King County is located in the State of Washington, in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. This jurisdiction was founded in 1852. The county covers 2130 Square Miles, making it the 11th largest in the State of Washington by area. With a population of 1,860,000, it is the most populous in the State of Washington and the 14th largest in the United States. It possesses a rich diversity of races with 73.4% Non-Hispanic White, 11.2% Asian Pacific Islanders, 5.5% Hispanic or Latinos, 5.3 % African American, 1.1% Native American, and 3.5% of other races (King County, 2008d). The county is characterized by a combination of urban and rural landscapes. There are 39 cities within King County which cover 18% of the total area of the county and 80% of its population. The unincorporated land or area outside the urban limits represents 82% of the total area and 20% of the population (King County, 2008d). The geomorphology of the region is very diverse, including coastal areas, rivers floodplains, lakes, plateaus, hills, and mountains, with some of the best scenery in the nation. The rural landscape is dominated by forestland, which covers 50% of the county’s area (King County, 2007b), followed by small farms and rural towns. King County’s economy is the largest in the State of Washington, with more than one million employees within the county limits. Major economical activities vary among the urban and rural areas. For instance, urban activities include aerospace, high technology, and services and trade, while in the rural areas common activities are commercial forestry, mining, and farming (King County, 2008d). This mix of technical expertise and economic vitality is a tremendous resource for the County, providing it with assets that the jurisdiction can make use of in its efforts to address a wide array of environmental, social, and economic challenges. King County greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts profile The King County region emits approximately 23,000,000 metric tons of Carbon dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, which represents 0.08% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, the United States emits 7,100,000,000 MTCO2e per year or 26.30% of the world emissions (King County, 2007a). Main sources of greenhouse gas emissions differ between the US and King County. For the nation as a whole the main emissions sources are electricity, transportation and industrial, while in King County the principal sources are transportation, and un-captured methane gas from landfills and wastewater treatment plants. Unlike other regions within the US, the county does not generate energy from coal; its primary source of electricity is hydropower (King County, 2007a). Therefore, its priorities in terms of mitigation options to address climate change are mainly focused on transportation, and methane capture and its conversion to energy. On the other hand, the region’s most significant potential impacts of climate change are related to water resources, sea level rise, salmon, and wildfires (King County, 2008a). Downscaled forecasts indicate, for instance, that there will be significant changes in river flows, with higher winter flows and lower spring and summer flows due to a shift in the type of winter precipitation from snow to rain (King County, 2008a). This shift in river flows will affect future availability of drinking water and other water uses within the region. In relation to sea level rise, projections estimate increases in the county’s coastal areas of 15 cm by the year 2050 and 34 cm by 2100 (most likely projection). This will result in loss of

247

salt marshes and valuable shoreline city development (King County, 2008a). Temperature and river flow changes will also affect the recovery of the Pacific Northwest salmon, decreasing its productivity and population. In relation to wildfires, studies project dramatic increases with climate change, with consequences such as habitat loss and impacts on biodiversity. The King County climate plan While mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue, the consequences of global climate change are felt at the local level. Local communities will need to deal with increased flooding, windstorms, drought, vector-born diseases, sea level rise, and other consequences of climate change. Nevertheless, in responding to climate change, the main international focus has been on mitigation through reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. But it is now been recognized that even the most aggressive mitigation actions will not be enough to address climate change impacts (Settle, Shogren, & Kane, 2007; Wildbanks & Sathaye, 2007). Mitigation is, however, necessary to reduce the severity of the impacts. Yet it remains clear that many negative effects of climate change can no longer be avoided, consequently there is also a need to look at adaptation as a means to address the resulting effects. According to Lindseth (2004), the success of reducing the impacts of global climate change depends on actions at the local level, since it is the level closest to the people and local governments are in the best position to apply polices with direct influence on individual communities. Local governments have the opportunity to apply strategies for adaptation that are best for their specific conditions and impacts (ICLEI, 2007). Even though there is no national legislation in the United States to deal with climate change issues, communities are starting to take action. King County, Washington, is recognized as a national leader in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and in planning to improve community resilience to climate change. Its Climate Plan is a very positive and ambitious document, which is based on the conviction that climate change is both a problem and an opportunity at the local level to improve environmental quality through mitigation of greenhouse gases and simultaneously build resilience to adapt to the impact of global climate change. Although the Plan was released in 2007, the county efforts to deal with climate change began several years earlier. For instance, in 2001 county departments were directed to adopt green building practices, and in 2002, the first greenhouse emission inventory for the county was published (King County, 2007a). In October 2005, King County organized a national conference to discuss issues related to mitigation and adaptation to climate change. This conference had far reaching influence on public awareness and led to the development of the document: ‘‘Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Government’’, a joint effort by King County, the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The guidebook is a practical tool intended to help decision makers at the local, regional and state levels to build community resilience to the impacts of global climate change by identifying local vulnerabilities and selecting alternatives for adaptation. How is King County planning to reduce GHG emissions and build community resilience? The county is working toward becoming a national and international model of management strategies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Its Climate Plan requires the county departments to take action on mitigation issues in four strategic areas: greenhouse gas emissions, accountability and limits; climate friendly transportation choices; energy conservation, efficiency, clean energy and clean fuels; and finally, land use, building design and materials (King County, 2007a).

248

C. Saavedra, W.W. Budd / Habitat International 33 (2009) 246–252

On the other hand, adaptation to the unavoidable consequences of climate change is also a priority for King County. In this regard, actions are underway in six strategic areas: climate science; public health, safety and emergency preparedness; surface water management, freshwater quality and water supply; land use, buildings and transportation infrastructure; economic impacts; and biodiversity and ecosystems (King County, 2007a). Planning for sustainability and for building community resilience requires long-term vision. But long-term community planning requires translation of scientific information from the global scale into local conditions and the best way to accomplish it is by joining efforts with local and regional climate scientists since well grounded decisions should be based on the best scientific knowledge and modeling. The jurisdiction is building research capacity in conjunction with the Climate Impacts Group of the University of Washington, an interdisciplinary team composed of hydrologists, climatologists, aquatic resources scientists, and ecologists. Relevant scientific information generated by this partnership has allowed long-term decision making to increase community resilience. Important features of the King County Climate Plan include its focus on ‘‘no regret’’ policies, or policies that either save money or increase public health, and in seeking to maximize additional benefits to the community such as economic development and environmental protection; its flexibility and adaptive capacity to new conditions as understanding of the climate system increases, and its mechanisms for performance evaluation and improvement. Its Climate Plan was built with the understanding that there is still a lot to be learned about the complex climate system. Therefore, it includes mechanisms for permanent research and monitoring of the changes in the climate systems and evaluation of the results of strategies for mitigation and adaptation applied. Communication is another important feature of the climate plan and it is accomplished by posting information in the county’s website and the

yearly publication of progress reports. The plan seeks to incorporate climate change mitigation and adaptation into county’s policies, plans and major investments.

Mitigation strategies King County has a combination of responsibilities and opportunities for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. In relation to mitigation issues, it has a significant role in land use planning, transportation planning and growth management for the region. It also operates Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, which is managing 1 million tons of solid waste each year, several wastewater treatment facilities serving more than 1.4 million people, and the largest transit fleet of the region. In order to achieve effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions, it is important to know the profile for emissions in each jurisdiction. As mentioned above, the county’s main source of GHG emissions are transportation, and methane release from landfills and wastewater treatment plants, therefore major actions are underway to reduce emissions in these areas such as the promotion of climate friendly transportation, clean fuel, and methane capture in landfills and wastewater treatment facilities. Table 1 summarizes the most significant strategies for mitigation to climate change. However, since land use planning is one of the areas where cobenefits for adaptation and mitigation can be achieved, a considerable emphasis has been placed on the inclusion of mitigation and adaptation strategies to climate change into the County’s Comprehensive Plan. This plan is the most important policy document guiding future growth of the County and directing policymakers’ decisions on issues such as land use and development. For example, the county implementation of smart growth plan is designed to

Table 1 King County major strategies on mitigation (King County, 2007a, 2008a). Strategic area

Major mitigation actions

Greenhouse gas accountability and limits

King County has a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 2007 levels by the year 2050. It is the first county to become member of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the first carbon cap-and-trade system in the US. In addition to updating its GHG emissions inventory, King County also initiated actions to develop a regional carbon monitoring system that will produce more precise emissions information for planning and decision-making. The county has been working to institutionalize the goals of the climate plans in departments, divisions and programs. One important action is the connection of high density communities to new bus routes and implementation of more than 56,000 new hours of transit service during 2007. The county intends to expand its transit service by 15% in the next 10 years. With the active promotion of public transit, a change from single occupancy vehicles to buses of around 50,000 commuters every weekday is estimated. King County maintains over 175 miles of the best trails in the US for hiking, biking, and walking and is planning to extend pedestrian and bike trails to over 300 miles, with the benefit of creating more walkable and healthy communities. Under the HealthScape program the county started the development of tools to assess the benefits of non-motorized travel for public health. Coordinated land use and transportation planning is an effective way by which King County is promoting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In this regard, policies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change were included into the 2008 Update of the county’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it has implemented smart growth plans to prevent sprawl by encouraging growth in urban areas and protecting rural landscapes and forestland through the transfer of development rights. In order to incorporate mitigation actions in all major investments, the county managed to include greenhouse gas emissions into the environmental review of projects under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The county maintains updated regulations on Green Building Design and also published in 2007 a Green Tools CD-ROM to help other local communities create green building programs, which is being used it as a guide for training programs. The county is also working with major industries and materials production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, it is promoting the use of cement substitutes in regional construction projects. The Eat Local Thanksgiving Initiative is a program recently launched to promote the consumption of locally produced food to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with long distance travel of food. Major actions in clean energy include: metro transit purchase in 2007 of 2 million gallons of biofuel grown from canola produced within the region and fertilized with biosolids from its wastewater facilities; expansion of existing fleet of articulated hybrid buses from 213 to more than 700 units; and waste to energy technologies. For instance, high efficiency in methane capture from Cedar Hills Landfill prevents more than 200,000 million tons of GHG emissions from going to the atmosphere every year.

Climate friendly transportation choices

Land use, building design and materials

Energy conservation, efficiency, clean energy and clean fuels

C. Saavedra, W.W. Budd / Habitat International 33 (2009) 246–252

prevent sprawl by encouraging growth in urban areas and protecting rural landscapes and forestland through the transfer of development rights. Adaptation strategies In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the county is working to address the challenge of building more resilient communities. Some of the opportunities for adaptation include: making use of the County’s world-class staff of scientists, its duties in relation to management of floods hazards and shorelines, responsibilities for storm water and wastewater management, activities in planning for and investing in major public work projects, public health and emergency preparedness, and programs on salmon recovery, biodiversity and forest protection. In this regard, significant advancement has been achieved in research, monitoring, and application of scientific information in decision making with a focus on building community resilience and public awareness. However, King County authorities have recognized that building community resilience to climate change impacts will require coordination among stakeholders including businesses and the public, but especially the participation of state, regional, and local governments. Table 2 includes major strategies for adaptation to climate change impacts. Integrating mitigation and adaptation to climate change Although mitigation and adaptation strategies to climate change have been traditionally addressed separately, recent work has suggested that there is a need to treat them as complementary and/ or synergic community responses (Burdreau & McBean. 2007; Dawlatabadi, 2007; Jones, Dettmann, Park, Rogers, & White, 2007; Mata & Budhooram, 2007; Ravindranath, 2007; Rosenzweig & Tubiello, 2007; Scheraga & Grambsch, 1998; Tol, 2007; Wilbanks,

249

Leiby, Perlack, Ensminger, & Wright, 2007). For instance, Wilbanks et al. (2007) suggest that mitigation and adaptation are complementary rather than competitive strategies. If mitigation can keep climate change impacts at reasonable levels, adaptation would be able to deal with the impacts. Wilbanks also argues that the optimal combination of mitigation and adaptation depends on the magnitude of the climate impacts within each management jurisdiction and is scale dependent, with adaptation being more successful at the local level. In addition, it is important to recognize that mitigation and adaptation strategies which bring co-benefits to the communities will be more acceptable to citizens and therefore, will presumably be more effective. In this regard, Burdreau and McBean (2007) suggest multi-faceted approaches to increase adaptive capacities for climate change, which also address other immediate community problems. King County Climate Plan addresses both mitigation and adaptation with a vision of building community resilience and seeking to solve other critical local problems in the process. Four specific examples are presented here: land use planning and transportation, green building design, planning for use of reclaimed water, and building research capacity and green jobs. In responding to the impacts of climate change, a paradigm shift is required for local governments. This paradigm shift involves changing the way the Earth’s natural resources are used and the way in which communities are organized and the way they plan. Regarding planning, Nelson and Malicia (2006) assert that ‘‘For planning to succeed in this new era, I argue that we must understand future demand across all land uses, realistically assess opportunities for redeveloping existing urbanized areas, remove constraints on land use that are inconsistent with modern planning goals, and champion the financial incentives and institutional changes that will make it possible to meet future needs’’. Planning plays an essential role in guiding communities toward a more resilient and sustainable world.

Table 2 King County strategies on adaptation (King County, 2007a, 2008a). Strategic area

Major adaptation actions

Climate science

A climate change adaptation team was formed with responsibilities of advising departments on strategies to adapt to climate change impacts. Special emphasis has been placed on research, monitoring and the application of climate science in planning and decision-making. The county also developed an inventory of vulnerable facilities for long-term management. In 2007 King County, in conjunction with the University of Washington and ICLEI, published the guidebook ‘‘Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Government’’ which is used as a guide for planning for climate change impacts by other jurisdictions within the US and Canada. Raising public awareness is also a priority since success in adaptation depends on the participation of agencies, organizations and residents. In this regard, the county is supporting climate research and outreach programs coordinated by Washington State University. One of the most important actions was the creation of the King County Flood Control Zone District to increase protection to coastal communities by rebuilding the levee system. Research is underway on issues of climate change impacts to most vulnerable communities. Review and update of the county Comprehensive Plan included incorporation of climate change preparedness. Climate change adaptation issues were also incorporated into the Green Building Ordinance. In 2006 King County adopted the Flood Hazard Management Plan, which is considered a model for land use regulation. King County is investing in reclaimed water from the Brightwater Treatment Plant currently under construction. The facilities will initiate operations in 2010 and will produce 7 million gallons per day of reclaimed water to be used in irrigation and industry. Reclaimed water will play an important role on adaptation to predicted drought and water shortage. In addition, the county initiated the development of the Reclaimed Water Comprehensive Plan. Monitoring programs of freshwater quality and sediments are regularly conducted for planning and policy purposes. King County, in conjunction with Washington State University, is providing technical assistance to small forestland-owners for maintaining forest health and for reducing risk of forest fires. Educational outreach with Washington State University is continuing to engage the public on climate change and land use, in particular on forestry and agriculture. The county is also conducting research on building capacity for green collar jobs. In 2006 a watershed-based habitat recovery plan was completed with the participation of local governments, businesses, Indian tribes, environmental groups and State agencies.

Public health, safety and emergency preparedness. Land use, buildings and transportation structure

Surface water management, freshwater quality and water supply

Economic, agricultural and forestry impacts

Biodiversity and ecosystems

250

C. Saavedra, W.W. Budd / Habitat International 33 (2009) 246–252

Coordinated land use and transportation planning are effective ways by which King County is dealing with mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The local authorities have developed comprehensive land use plans which take into account the projected climate change impacts. Its Transfer of Development Rights Program has received national recognition as a ‘‘wall against the sprawl’’, focusing development in urban areas while protecting agricultural and forestland from development. As a result, the county is promoting high density residential neighborhoods with mixed land use, which increase the use of public transit and nonmotorized transportation such as biking and walking. Taking into consideration that the main source of GHG emissions within King County is transportation, land use and transportation planning will play a key role in mitigation, because it can reduce vehicle miles travel (VMT). Land use patterns integrated to transportation choices has the potential to shape travel behavior of present and future generations in King County. According to Winkelman (2007), even major improvements in vehicles and fuels will not be enough to curtail US greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources to the required levels, largely because VMT are estimated to grow at a rate of 2% per year in the next 25 years within the United States. He mentions that multiple factors contribute to that situation, such as suburban sprawl, poor accessibility to public and non-motorized transportation or lack of it. A critical element in a community’s response to addressing this problem, Winkelman asserts, is the promotion of compact development with mixed use and walkable communities and that in turn could lead to a reduction in VMT by 30%. Besides being an effective and long-term beneficial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, changes in land use patterns and climate friendly transportation choices are also adaptive strategies. By reducing dependency on cars, they also reduce dependency on fossil fuels, improve air quality and provide opportunities for a more physically active and healthier population. According to Duerksen (2008) it was estimated that in 2004, 60% of the US population and 15% of US children were overweight. In King County, the obesity rate has been increasing. Data from 2005 indicated that 19.5% of population was obese and that more than 50% was overweight, while 9% of children were overweight (King County, 2008b). Relative to high density mixed use planning; Duerksen argues that in countries with compact development where people walk more, they also have a lower body mass index and lower propensity to high blood pressure. Obviously, a healthier community is more resilient to heat weaves and new disease related to climate change. Another aspect of land use planning related to mitigation and adaptation to climate change is the protection of forests. Within King County, approximately 78% of the land is designated rural and more that 50% is forested (King County, 2007b). In addition, very little transformation of forestland to other uses has occurred since 1995. In relation to the preservation of more than 90,000 acres of Snoqualmie Forest in 2004, Executive Rom Sims said, ‘‘The wall against sprawl we’ve spent years creating is now reinforced to forever protect East King County quality of life. Instead of a suburb envisioned for this area two decades ago, we will leave a legacy of open space, timber jobs and a buffer for the Cascade wilderness for generations to come.’’ (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/tdr/). While protecting forests is a key factor in the reduction of GHG emissions, it also creates ecological resilience to climate change, since forests are less vulnerable to changes in climate conditions and more effective in dealing with invasive species than monocultures. A second area in which King County is addressing climate change is through the implementation of green building practices. Green building promotes the design, construction and operation of infrastructure to enhance sustainable site planning, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste minimization, pollution prevention and indoor environmental quality. The use of green building design is

a mitigation strategy because it reduces energy consumption for cooling and heating thus, reducing GHG emissions. But green building practices also help to achieve sustainable development by promoting conservation of the planet resources for present and future generations. King County is working to increase adaptive capacity of local agriculture through the use of reclaimed water for irrigation, which will help in conserving drinking water. The County feels that reclaimed water will play an important role in adaptation to predicted drought and water shortages, especially when considering the predicted impacts of climate change on stream flows in the US Pacific Northwest region. These reclaimed waters can be safely used in landscape, agricultural irrigation, heating and cooling, and industrial processing. Consequently, in a region noted for its abundance of regular rainfall, plans are currently underway to extend the use of reclaimed water by investing in infrastructure at the Brightwater Treatment Plant. These new facilities will produce 7 million gallons per day of reclaimed water to be used in irrigation and industry. Through community education and research, public support for reclaimed water use has been increased, with 75% of the population willing to use reclaimed water in their gardens (http://www. kingcounty.gov/). While helping to decrease demands on drinking water and providing a reliable source of water for irrigation, the use of reclaimed water also has co-benefits such as improving stream water quality and quantity and protecting aquatic biodiversity. Finally, adaptation to climate change is being promoted through research on and the development of a ‘‘green economy’’. In order to take proactive steps to reduce GHG emissions and plan successfully to adapt to the impacts of climate change, scientific information on local effects and learning from experience through monitoring and assessment is crucial. Local governments deal with the local problems and universities and research institutions have research capacity that can assist in these efforts. Together these institutions can find long-term solutions to global warming. In this regard, a partnership with the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington and Washington State University has played a key role in helping King County address the challenges of understanding the local dimensions of the climate change problem the County faces. In addition, King County is now also partnering with faculty from Washington State University (WSU) and through WSU Extension to address other issues of community training, monitoring, and communication of climate change information. One thing has become clear in these efforts, is that climate change represents opportunities for diversifying the local economy. Opportunities for ‘‘green jobs’’ can be found in clean energy strategies, green building practices and other areas. As is noted in the King County Climate Report (King County, 2008a), ‘‘.sound climate policy does not conflict with economic development, as previously argued by opponents, but such policy can in fact save money, grow the economy and create jobs, if complemented by well-structured workforce training programs’’. Besides seeking for green jobs within the county and community, training programs to connect people to the green economy are currently in development. The challenge of building resilient communities Within social–ecological systems change is the only constant. Humans need to learn to adapt to change and resilience is a key to successful adaptation and sustainable living. In order to be successful in dealing with climate change it is necessary to consider that mitigation and adaptation strategies should be focused on increasing the capacity of communities to adapt and live with change and surprises. In doing so, communities have to be aware of the dynamic relationship between social and ecological systems in order to increase their capacity to deal with the potential impacts of climate change.

C. Saavedra, W.W. Budd / Habitat International 33 (2009) 246–252

Walker et al. (2006) define resilience as ‘‘the capacity of a system to experience shocks while retaining essentially the same function, structure, feedbacks, and therefore, identity’’. Managing resilience means to be able to identify when it is desirable to enhance resilience and when it is best to erode it (Lebel et al., 2006). Lebel et al. (2006) maintain that when uncertainty and change drive a system, sustainability can be promoted through building resilience, and increasing the capacity to adapt to change and to renew and reorganize. A social–ecological system with little resilience is susceptible to disturbance. Climate-related disturbances could lead to communities crossing a threshold and thereby shifting to an undesirable state from which they may not be able to return. In fact, many scientists around the world argue that global climate is close to a tipping point. This is the position that King County has adopted. It is the County’s position that further changes beyond this tipping point will be irreversible (King County, 2008a). While there is still uncertainty about climate change and its potential impacts, significant disturbances such as hurricanes, storms, floods, and droughts are already occurring. Since local communities may not be able to control the occurrence of those events, they need to create the capacity to deal with the resultant change. Building resilience involves understanding these changes and creating the capacity to live with those changes instead of being a victim of them (Walker & Salt, 2006). Folke et al. (2003) note that building resilience and adaptive capacity requires four elements. These are learning to live with change and uncertainty; nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal; combining different types of knowledge for learning; and creating opportunities for self-organization. These elements of resilience are interdependent. Communities must strive to accomplish each of them. Indeed, Folke et al. (2003) argue that recognition of these principles and their interactions is a prerequisite for directing all of society toward a more sustainable future. While that conclusion remains to be tested, it is apparent that King County viewed as a complex social–ecological system has attempted to do just that. Folke et al. (2003) maintain that in the face of uncertainty and surprise social–ecological resilience can be enhanced by promoting the capacity to expect the unexpected and by learning to live with change. In this regard, research and monitoring of the behavior of systems increase the ability to adapt to and shape change. With the implementation of the Climate Plan, and its institutionalization, King County is learning to live with disturbances created by climate change through a permanent process of research and monitoring and through the periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the mitigation and adaptation strategies applied. Evaluation mechanisms are necessary to generate knowledge and understanding of the feedbacks of the system, which in turn increase the ability to respond to disturbances. Nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal is the second element to build resilience. Walker and Salt (2006) assert that sustaining all forms of diversity, including ecological, landscape, social, and economic is an essential characteristic for achieving a resilient world. Ecological memory is required for renewal after a crisis and protection of species and habitats nurture that memory. In enhancing ecological memory, efforts are underway within the county to protect forestland and agriculture through smart growth and transfer of development rights. On the other hand, social and economic diversity is increased with actions such as the development of local food networks to enhance local food security, the promotion of climate friendly transportation choices that reduce dependency on fossil fuels, the use of reclaimed water that release demand on water supplies and the diversification of local economy. Walker and Salt also argue that the ability to absorb a shock is in direct relation with the variations available to respond to the shock and social–ecological diversity enhances the capability to respond to disturbances.

251

Learning from experience and combining different types of knowledge is an important feature of adaptive management. Gonzalez (2002) asserts that adaptive management of complex systems is based on incremental learning and on decision making which involves monitoring and feedback of the outcomes of actions. King County is enhancing outreach activities to engage the public on issues related to climate change. Public participation in climate change issues and decisions may bring the benefit of incorporating experiential (community) knowledge to the experimental or scientific information to find long lasting solutions. As Folke et al. (2003) argue, ‘‘Practice informs theory as much as theory informs practice’’. Building resilience also involves sharing of lessons learned with other levels of society. In this regard, the county is communicating its experiences to other jurisdictions through the release of important tools such as the Guidebook Preparing for Climate Change and the Green Tools CD-ROM to help other local communities in the creation of green building programs. Finally, building resilience is also about creating opportunities for reorganization. In dealing with climate change, King County has taken the approach of focusing on the new opportunities that change creates for economic development while taking into consideration the solution of other critical problems. It is evident in its efforts to diversify the economy through the creation and promotion of green jobs. Opportunities for reorganization can also be found in the strategies for land use planning and transportation, and the promotion of green building practices, since both promote a more sustainable use of resources. Equity issues and global climate change Climate change raises issues of equity because the poorest countries of the world are those who will suffer disproportionate consequences (Grasso, 2007). But when natural disasters happen in wealthy nations, often the most affected groups are the most disadvantaged. This can be clearly seen in the case of hurricane Katrina in Louisiana (Van Heerden & Bryan, 2006). Climate change, it can be argued may well be the most severe suite of natural disasters to affect humankind. Consequently, in addressing climate change solutions, equity issues are considerations that need to be also addressed. In February 2008 King County launched the Equity and Social Justice Initiative with the goal of ending local inequalities and injustice, reflected in disparities in wealth, health, education and job opportunities. New approaches to this initiative include: identifying and addressing the root of inequities, promoting policies to reduce the problem, empowering communities, working across agencies and departments, recognizing and respecting cultural differences, and aiming for strategies for long-term permanent change (King County, 2008c). These and other equity issues and vulnerabilities are now a part of and incorporated into decision-making for climate change action throughout the county. For example, the HealthScape Program is an effort to improve public health and decrease greenhouse gas emissions through reducing dependency on cars, making healthier and walkable communities and promoting physical activity in citizens in poor neighborhoods. Projects in the HealthScape Program are prioritized on the basis of equity. For example, the Department of Transportation is connecting communities with mixed income by building pedestrian pathways (King County, 2008c). Other aspects of equity within climate change actions include the promotion of a ‘‘green economy’’ with the creation of green collar jobs which represent opportunities for economically disadvantaged communities. Efforts in this direction include the detection of green collar jobs within the local government departments, businesses and the community and the development of training programs to connect people to the job opportunities. In addition,

252

C. Saavedra, W.W. Budd / Habitat International 33 (2009) 246–252

the Executive Office has directed the Climate Team to research and make efforts to address the impact of climate change on the most vulnerable communities within the region (King County, 2008c).

Conclusions With the undeniable evidence of human induced climate change and its potential impacts, adaptation and mitigation strategies should be a priority in the agenda of governments at any level from the international, national, and regional to the local jurisdictions. In dealing with climate change, it has now been recognized that strategies that promote complementarities and synergy of adaptation and mitigation are preferred, as well as solutions that address other critical local problems in the process. Within the United States, although the Federal government has failed to address climate change issues, local governments are becoming increasingly aware of the situation and are beginning to take action. King County, Washington is one of the local governments with a clear commitment to address both mitigation and adaptation to climate change. This jurisdiction is making use of its responsibilities and opportunities to build community resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change. Mitigation strategies are focused in important strategic areas such as reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, climate friendly transportation choices; clean energy and clean fuels, and land use, building design and materials. On the other hand, adaptation strategies include: climate science; public health, safety and emergency preparedness; surface water management, freshwater quality and water supply; land use, buildings and transportation infrastructure; economic impacts; and biodiversity and ecosystems. King County Climate Plan was built with the vision of flexibility to accommodate to new conditions and impacts, with the understanding that a learning process is required to deal with change and surprise and with the capacity to incorporate stakeholders including universities and research institutions to achieve longterm solutions to climate change. Although there are opportunities to work on the improvement of the plan, some strategies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change already applied are in close relationship with the four elements required to build community resilience presented by Folke et al. (2003): learning to live with change and uncertainty, nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal, combining different types of knowledge for learning, and creating opportunities for reorganization. In the four areas of planning examined here: land use planning and transportation, green building design, planning for use of reclaimed water, and building research capacity and green jobs an adaptive approach consistent with the resilience principles has been adopted. These elements can also be found in other areas of the County’s Climate Change Plan. King County, Washington has made a dedicated commitment to use both mitigation and adaptation strategies in its effort to address climate change. But in doing so, they have also established a natural laboratory for further testing and evaluating the principles of resilience in local government. Further work on benchmarking these efforts and evaluating them in terms of their effectiveness is clearly warranted.

References Burdreau, D., & McBean, G. (2007). Climate change, adaptive capacity and policy direction in the Canadian North: can we learn anything from the collapse of the east coast cod fishery? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 1305–1320. Dawlatabadi, H. (2007). On integration of policies for climate and global change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 651–663. Duerksen, C. (2008). Saving the world through zoning. Planning, 74(1), 28–33. Folke, C., Colding, J., & Berkes, K. (2003). Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems (pp. 352–387). Cambridge University Press. Gonzalez, R. (2002). GIS-assisted joint learning: a strategy in adaptive management of natural resources. Inadaptive management: From theory to practice IUCN Technical Paper Series, 3. Grasso, M. (2007). A normative ethical framework in climate change. Climate Change, 81, 223–246. International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). (2007). Preparing for climate change: a guidebook for local, regional and state governments. King County: University of Washington. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Jones, R., Dettmann, P., Park, G., Rogers, M., & White, T. (2007). The relationship between adaptation and mitigation in managing climate change risks: a regional response from the North Central Victoria, Australia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. King County. (2007a). King County climate plan. King County. (2007b). King County benchmarks: Anticipating and responding to global climate change. King County. (2008a). King County climate report. King County. (2008b). King County AIMs high: Annual indicators and measures. King County. (2008c). King County equity and social justice initiative: Working toward fairness and opportunity for all. King County. (2008d). King County comprehensive plan. Lebel, L., Anderies, J., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfielf-Dodds, S., Hughes, T., et al. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional socialecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 19. Lindseth, G. (2004). The cities for climate protection campaign (CCC) and the framing of local climate policy. Local Environment, 9(4). Mata, L., & Budhooram, J. (2007). Complementarities between mitigation and adaptation; the water sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 799–807. Nelson, A., & Malicia, E. (2006). Planning leadership in a new era. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 393–409. Ravindranath, N. H. (2007). Mitigation and adaptation synergy in forest sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 843–853. Rosenzweig, C., & Tubiello, F. (2007). Adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture: an analysis of potential synergies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 855–873. Scheraga, J., & Grambsch, A. (1998). Risks, opportunities, and adaptation to climate change. Climate Research, 10, 85–95. Settle, C., Shogren, J., & Kane, S. (2007). Assessing mitigation-adaptation scenarios for reducing catastrophic climate risk. Climatic Change, 83, 443–456. Tol, R. S. J. (2007). The double trade-off between adaptation and mitigation for sea level rise: applications of FUND. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 741–753. Van Heerden, I., & Bryan, M. (2006). The storm: What went wrong and why during Hurricane Katrina-the inside story from one Louisianan scientist. The Penguin Group. Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006). A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 13. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press. Wilbanks, T., Leiby, P., Perlack, R., Ensminger, T., & Wright, S. (2007). Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 713–725. Wildbanks, T., & Sathaye, J. (2007). Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to climate change: a synthesis. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 957–962. Winkelman, S. (2007). Comment on stone: could the worst of times for the planet be the best of times for planning? Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 418–420.