Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros2Cities of HopeHope in Action: Resilience and Ad...

Cities of Hope

Hope in Action: Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change at the Municipal Level in Massachusetts

Camille Washington-Ottombre, Una Soleil Elizabeth Fonte, Irina Jameron et Amandine Océane Lacroix

Résumés

Alors que se multiplient les sombres récits et les prévisions inquiétantes sur le changement climatique, le Commonwealth du Massachusetts a invité toutes les municipalités de l’État et leurs résidents à participer à son programme de Préparation à la Vulnérabilité Municipale (MVP), destiné à planifier l’adaptation ainsi qu’à renforcer la résilience au changement climatique. Sept ans après le lancement du programme MVP, cette étude se demande si le programme a réussi à favoriser un « espoir », compris comme capacité à envisager « la possibilité d’un avenir favorable », tout en planifiant la résilience et l’adaptation au changement climatique. Pour cela, nous avons analysé 334 rapports de planification et 233 demandes de subventions produites par des municipalités du Massachusetts. Ce travail de recherche contribue à la littérature scientifique sur l’adaptation au changement climatique et la résilience en formulant pour la première fois une analyse agrégée de cas d’études de planification et d’action à l’échelle d’un État. Ce faisant, cette étude met en lumière la valeur, les limites mais aussi les possibilités d’amélioration de telles initiatives conduites pas les États.

Cette étude montre que, sur de nombreux points, le programme MVP est un véritable succès : il s’est imposé dans tout l’État, a suscité un engagement très significatif de la part des municipalités, et a placé l’adaptation au changement climatique et la résilience au cœur de l’action municipale. Bien que le programme MVP n’ait pas encore complètement transformé les municipalités, il a permis de redéfinir les débats autour du changement climatique et de l’urbanisme, au Massachusetts et au-delà. Alors que de nombreuses villes du Massachusetts avaient connu un lent déclin et se sentaient abandonnées par l’État depuis des décennies, le MVP leur a redonné de l’importance en leur montrant qu’elles seraient soutenues, face aux incertitudes liées au changement climatique. Il a donné aux municipalités et aux résidents un espace de discussion ainsi qu’une raison d’espérer.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

1There is no doubt that climate change already has and will continue to transform the world in which we all live in dramatic ways (IPCC). From extreme weather events such as droughts, heatwaves, and storms to slow-moving shifts such as the spread of invasive species and ocean acidification, climate change is transfiguring the human experience. Dread concerning those drastic changes combined with the feeling that both individuals and communities are powerless in combatting them often lead to despair. Research has documented how this bleak outlook on a future characterized by climate change can lead to depression and anxiety (Clayton). In this context, opportunities to hope and to project a more favorable yet realistic future are scarce. However, proactive climate change policies offer some hope in overcoming and adjusting to the negative impacts of climate change. After primarily focusing on mitigating the effects of climate change, governance bodies across the world from municipal to regional and national scales of governance are also actively planning to adapt to climate change and to implement more resilient societies.

2Adapting to climate change and enhancing local resilience represent potential pathways for overcoming rather than simply mitigating the negative impacts of climate change. Adaptation to climate change is defined as “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects” (IPCC), and resilience is “the ability to withstand and recover” from climate change (Walker et al.). In terms of urban planning, these similar approaches differ in that adaptation plans tend to focus more narrowly on the local impacts of climate change and to explicitly address uncertainty, whereas resilience plans generally adopt a more system-based and participatory approach to risk management (Woodruff et al.). In contrast with the dominant gloom and doom narratives about climate change (Hinkel et al.), climate anxiety (Clayton), and climate injustices that vulnerable populations are encountering (Saraswat and Kumar), policies that focus on adaptation to climate change and resilience have the capacity to foster a sense of “hope.” “Hope” in a context of climate change can be understood as the ability to envision “the possibility for a favorable future.” Planning and adapting for climate change and enhancing resilience can offer glimpses into a different, meaningful, and bright future that can be collectively, successfully achieved (Zomeren et al.). In addition to global, national, and regional approaches aiming for climate change adaptation and resilience, municipalities of all sizes which find themselves on the front lines of climate change are also striving for these goals. This paper examines one such policy developed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the state’s municipalities, that offers a rare opportunity to analyze the path towards adaptation, resilience, and hope of over 300 municipalities.

3In Massachusetts, residents, elected official, and administrators throughout the state are grappling with the effects of climate change on every aspect of their lives. Historically, the local climate has been characterized by significant temperature variations between winter and summer and distinct seasons (Young and Young). During the long and snowy winters that have characterized this region in the past, the ground was frozen and covered with snow from November to April. The region’s summers used to be relatively mild with temperatures rarely exceeding 32°C. Precipitation was fairly abundant and stable throughout the year in the form of snow in the winter and rain in the summer. However, current climate trends have disrupted traditional patterns. Consistent with recent evolution, climate models project a significant increase in temperatures throughout the year and an increase in heatwaves, with the number of days over 32°C becoming more common in the summer. Temperatures will also fluctuate during the winter alternating between phases of freeze and thaw. Models also project increases in precipitation and in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with heavy rain and snow events becoming more and more common. As a coastal state, Massachusetts is also projected to experience significant sea-level rise, leading to impactful coastal flooding (Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs).

4In the midst of such dreadful climate projections, the state has developed an innovative policy, the Municipality Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program, in order to foster proactive adaptation to climate change and enhance local resilience. The state-funded MVP initiative targets municipalities. It therefore offers a rare opportunity to examine the relationships between municipal adaptation and resilience strategies and collective visioning, planning, and implementation processes. Seven years after the launch of the MVP, this work assesses whether the program succeeded in guiding stakeholders to envision the possibility of a more favorable future and in planning for climate change-related adaptation and resilience. Given that these two elements can also be understood as indicators of the program’s ability to envision “the possibility for a favorable future,” this work is an examination of the MVP’s success at fostering hope. More specifically, we ask to what extent the financial resources available to the municipalities, technical resources, adaptation framework and approach, and stakeholder involvement and participation have fostered hope through cities and towns in Massachusetts. The study situates this research within the local context and the relevant urban planning literature, and presents the results of our analysis of planning documents produced by municipalities. The result is not only the first comprehensive, aggregated analysis of the MVP program since its launch but also the first study to situate and evaluate the program within the rubric of “hope.” In these ways, this macro policy analysis goes beyond both the scale and scope of existing case studies on the MVP (Mattes; Malloy; Sheinbaum). Studying the MVP program provides a well-needed analysis of an ambitious state-led adaptation policy across a large number of municipalities in order to highlight the value, limits, and room for improvement of such state-sponsored programs for both practical and academic purposes.

2. Literature Review and Background

2.1. Municipalities and Climate Change in Massachusetts

5Municipalities, which manage land use and many of the services that will be directly impacted by climate change, will have to bear most of the cost of adaptation. They oversee urban plans (such as flooding and coastal zone management), building codes, public works (such as water and sewer supply and stormwater management), energy and utilities, as well as open land management and biodiversity conservation (Hamin et al.). Public transportation infrastructure such as roads and railroads will also be greatly impacted by climate change because of increased precipitation and extreme weather events. Energy and utilities will also greatly be under stress due to increased temperatures and extreme weather events. They are also responsible for public safety and health. Public safety and more generally health and well-being will be greatly impacted by climate change because of the need to efficiently structure emergency response in a context of increased heat waves and other extreme weather events (Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs). Other health-related impacts that municipalities are concerned with include degraded air quality, extreme heat, and the general degradation of ecosystem services. Hence, because of the scope of their responsibilities, municipalities, especially in Massachusetts, are key actors in framing adaptation to climate change and resilience. However, most cities and town in Massachusetts have been negatively impacted by post-industrial development and the disinvestment of federal and state actors.

6In a post-industrial context, cities and towns tell the story of “a tale of two Commonwealths” because large and small municipalities face different realities as do municipalities in the Eastern or Western parts of the State (State Auditor Office) (Fig. 1). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is composed of 351 municipalities, the main administrative level below the state. Only 5 cities in Massachusetts, including Boston, have populations above 100,000 people. Most municipalities are mid-sized and small cities and towns, with population levels below 50,000 (Cuberes and Ramsawak). Indeed, after a long and successful history of industrialization starting in the eighteenth century in industries such as textiles, steel production, mining, paper manufacture, railroad, and shipping, these municipalities have suffered from massive deindustrialization starting in the late 1960s, largely due to globalization. At the same time, the shift in public policy programs from state-based actions to market-driven solutions has concretely translated into less funding for municipalities, especially smaller and rural ones (Norman 6-9). Lack of public funding for higher levels of governance as well as low economic output constrain municipalities to increasingly rely on local taxes for their financing. Those municipalities whose productive bases and abilities to invest in public services have declined most have experienced high rates of outmigration (Norman 19-20; Cuberes and Ramsawak). Many, especially in the Western part of the state, are small towns with a median population of 1875 residents (State Auditor Office). Municipalities in Western Massachusetts are often characterized by a limited productive base, limited financial resources, and as well as modest human resources and capital (Cuberes and Ramsawak).

Figure 1. Map of Massachusetts displaying the East/West divide, municipalities that participate in the MVP program via the MVP 1.0, MVP 2.0, or MVP Action Grants programs (Source: MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs).

7For years, many municipalities in Massachusetts, mostly in Western Massachusetts, have struggled financially and at times failed to meet local needs (State Auditor Office). Municipalities in Western Massachusetts, in contrast to more favorable dynamics in the coastal part of the State around Boston’s metropolis, are facing aging and declining populations, stagnant or decreasing property values, and increased education costs. Large municipalities in the Western part of the State like Springfield (MA) have been in decline since the 1960s. The city is experiencing significant and expanding income inequalities as well as increases in poverty rates (Norman 27-71; Pioneer Valley Planning Commission). However, whereas such large municipalities can avail themselves of statewide policies often tailored to benefit larger and more dynamic urban areas, this has not been the case for smaller villages and towns in Massachusetts. Small municipalities in rural areas are also experiencing slow growth and a limited, relatively stagnant tax base which restricts municipal resources. To complicate things, when those smaller municipalities are eligible for State funding, they often lack the staffing and expertise to pursue existing and available funding (State Auditor Office). In this “tale of two Commonwealths,” some municipalities are likely to have access to sufficient funding and capacities to adapt to climate change and enhance resilience, while others would confront climate change with far fewer resources and assets.

2.2. Municipalities and Adaptation to Climate Change and Resilience Planning

8Because municipalities regulate land uses that will be deeply impacted by climate change, research on adaptation to climate change and resilience as well as both plans and actions have often focused on that specific scale of governance. In the European Union, cities have become a key actor for adaptation to climate change and resilience through initiatives such as the European Adaptation Strategy and the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy that foster connections and synergies among European cities (Aguiar et al.). In the US, the 100 Resilient Cities project (100RC) is particularly notable. This pioneering 2013 USA-based Rockefeller Foundation program aimed at preparing cities for the impacts of climate change and climate injustices by promoting equity and inclusion (Fitzgibbons and Mitchel; Woodruff et al.). In the US, programs at the federal level that seek to promote city-level adaptation and resilience are still relatively limited, although the $1 billion National Disaster Resilience Competition launched in 2014 which supported resilience at the municipal level is a notable exception (Housing and Urban Development). It has since then exhausted its funding and the MVP program is now the main source of funding for municipalities in Massachusetts seeking support to adapt to climate change.

9Adaptation to climate change and enhanced resilience are complex objectives that require substantial and specific resources that smaller municipalities often lack. Whereas large municipalities often successfully plan and fund adaptation and resilience efforts and draw scholarly attention, smaller ones continue to face a number of particular challenges that remain relatively unexamined (Hamin et al.; Guyadeen and Henstra; Fila et al.). Indeed, they often face significant barriers such as insufficient financial resources, lack of technical capacity, uneasy political commitment, weak political and administrative leadership, conflicting values and beliefs, and inadequate fiscal capacity. Smaller municipalities also tend to respond reactively to extreme weather events rather than proactively. Another risk in small municipalities with low capacities is for plans to remain at the project stage—what Fila et al. refer to as “project-based” adaptation planning—rather than developing into long term adaptation and resilience actions. Yet another challenge is the reliance of municipality-level planning for adaptation and resilience on the shoulders of one individual, a policy-entrepreneur. Consequently, projects at this scale tend to be short-termed and dependent on the capacity of that individual (Fila et al.). Small and medium-sized municipalities can, however, develop and mobilize research-supported strategies to successfully address these concerns.

10Past research has highlighted key planning characteristics that can facilitate successful adaptation to climate change and climate resilience at the municipal level. Smaller municipalities that succeed in adaptation and resilience rely on clear mandates and financial support from national and/or regional entities to develop and implement climate change strategies (Guyadeen and Henstra). Funding proves most useful when it allows room for municipalities to make flexible financial arrangements and to tailor adaptation and resilience policies to documented local needs. Two other characteristics in successful examples of municipal climate adaptation and resilience are robust stakeholders and participatory planning. This approach provides local political legitimacy, allowing the municipality to engage in long-term planning even when that may conflict with some immediate needs or preoccupations. Scholars have also highlighted the importance of actors’ commitment to engaging in experimental problem-solving, which often means developing and embracing time-intensive solutions built in an iterative manner rather than a reliance on often illusive quick-fixes (Susskind and Kim). When those criteria are met, municipalities have been shown to be able to harness local knowledge to tailor adaptation to climate change to local needs and activate a range of tools from land use regulation, flood management, infrastructure investment, to building codes and inspections (Guyadeen and Henstra).

2.3. The MVP Program

11The MVP program is the first statewide policy that supports adaptation and resilience to climate change at the level of the municipalities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Prior to the MVP program, the State had developed an ambitious climate mitigation policy starting back in 2004, but its adaptation policy was limited (ResilientMass). Furthermore, the city of Boston has become a national and even international leader in climate resilience planning through moves such as its combined 2010 mitigation and adaptation plan and its participation in the 100 Resilient Cities program, even though significant policies at the state-level were still in their infancy. Before the start of the MVP, the state had no clear policy on climate change adaptation and climate resilience aside from a late 2011 advisory plan on climate adaptation (Hamin et al.). In 2017, however, the state government created the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP 1.0) program. It offered “planning grants” for municipalities to build climate change adaptation and climate resilience through participatory planning exercises and “action grants” to fund implementation of adaptation projects. Municipalities first need to complete the planning phase and receive designations as “MVP communities” in order to become eligible to apply for action grants to fund adaptation and resilience projects. Launched by the Republican Baker-Polito administration via Executive Order 569 in 2017, it has since been securely funded and even renewed by the Democratic Healy-Driscoll administration, who launched the MVP 2.0 program in 2023 (ResilientMass).

12On paper, the MVP program appears to be proactively addressing many of the largest barriers to climate change adaptation and climate resilience that both large and small municipalities could be facing and to have implemented the key characteristics for successful adaptation to climate change and climate resilience at the municipal level. Indeed, the MVP program provides a clear mandate from the state to plan for and implement measures to adapt to climate change and enhance resilience. The fact that a higher level of governance establishes such policy objectives potentially lessens conflicting values and motivates hesitant leadership. Through the program, municipalities have access to significant financial resources to both plan and implement concrete projects. The planning award covers all costs whereas municipalities have to match a percentage of the action grant awarded by the State. As discussed above, such resources are particularly essential for smaller municipalities.

13The MVP program also provides much needed technical resources and a clear framework to guide the planning and action phases. For instance, the State developed and shared small-scale climate projections relevant for the scale of municipal planning with program participants. Regional MVP coordinators are available to guide municipalities through the planning and action phases. The planning grant provides funding to hire planning consultants specialized in resilience planning. The MVP also provides a clear framework, guides municipalities and lessens their burdens by explicitly focusing on planning options centered around ecosystem-based solutions—focused on biodiversity conservation and the preservation or restoration of ecosystem services to adapt to climate change (Vasseur)—and vulnerable populations—people or groups that may be more susceptible to the effects of climate change (ResilientMass)—in order to address climate injustices. The combined planning and action phases aim at going beyond “project-based” adaptation planning and concretely implementing transformative change. Finally, the program includes robust stakeholder involvement and participation throughout the planning and action phases. The planning phase is structured around participatory planning workshops and meetings with the local community. At the action phase, meaningful stakeholder engagement continues to be strongly encouraged.

14The MVP program specifically relates to the notion of “hope” since it focuses in its planning phase not only on current concerns and challenges presented by climate-change related hazards but also on strengths and assets that communities can mobilize to respond to climate change. Even though on paper the MVP program appears to have fostered successful planning and action for a better future, we ask if since its launch in 2017 the program has actually been effective in fostering adaptation to climate change and resilience as regard to criteria defined by the literature detailed above. More precisely, we build on our review of the literature and to what extent it promoted hope and succeeded in terms of mobilizing technical and financial resources, producing concrete long-range adaptation, and robust stakeholder involvement and participation. Our methodology assesses each of the variables listed above in both aspects of the MVP program: planning and action grants.

3. Methods

3.1. Analysis of Planning Reports

15The project sought to determine the extent to which the MVP program guided stakeholders to envision the possibility of a more favorable future and in planning for climate change-related adaptation and resilience. To gauge MVP’s success at mobilizing technical and financial resources, producing concrete long-range adaptation planning, and robust stakeholder involvement and participation, we examined both planning reports and action grant reports that provide detailed information about the implementation of the policy at the level of each municipality. First, we accessed and coded the planning reports of all 334 towns that received MVP Community Designation in 2023. Planning reports are publicly available and are an account of a series of planning workshops that took place in municipalities throughout the state of Massachusetts from 2017 to 2022. We used a combination of deductive and inductive coding to code the qualitative content of the reports (Proudfoot). Given that all MVP workshops are required to follow a similar methodology and structure, we were able to code the same data sets for all 334 planning reports. To assess the diffusion of the policy throughout the state, we examined the spread of the policy by gathering data on the municipalities that conducted a workshop, their geographic region, and the year during which the workshops were conducted. We put this data in conversation with the financial resource allocated to municipalities to examine the spatial and temporal allocation of the MVP budget (Table 1).

16To assess if municipalities engaged in robust stakeholder involvement and participation, we assessed both the total number of participants as well as the percentage of participants who were town administrators or urban planning professionals and not lay citizens. By doing so, we hope to capture the nature of public participation in the planning workshops. To assess how the technical resources and a clear framework provided by the MVP program were mobilized by workshop participants, we coded the top hazards mentioned during the workshop as well as the top concerns and challenges in a context of climate change relative to infrastructure, the environment, or other social concerns. We also coded the main local strengths highlighted by workshop participants. This particular work aims at not only aggregating the workshop participants’ concerns but also assessing participant’s understanding of the complex dynamics of adaptation to climate change and use of the knowledge provided by the MVP program. Finally, to evaluate how workshop participants were envisioning long-range adaptation planning beyond “project-based” adaptation planning, we coded future actions that the workshop participants voted as top priority actions/steps for future resilience and adaptation to climate change. We used JASP 0.18.3.0, a freely accessible and commonly used statistical software to calculate basic statistics such as the mean, median, and standard deviation of each continuous variables and the frequency of each category for the other variables (JASP Team).

3.2. Analysis of Grant Reports

17Second, we collected and coded the information relative to 233 action grants received by 142 municipalities between 2018 to 2022. Action grants are awarded to municipalities that have completed the planning phase. Municipalities can apply for and receive more than one action grant and each action grant is to be used for funding a different project. Most data were extracted from action grant summaries that municipalities are asked to submit and that were acquired through the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Information gathered in newspaper articles, public notices, and town records were used to complement the grant reports. We collected and analyzed data that mostly mirror the data that we gathered relative to the planning grants in order to answer our research questions. Indeed, to answer our research question on the adequacy of the financial resources and the overall success and spread of the policy, we gathered data on the municipalities that received an action grant, their geographic region, the year during which the grant was awarded, as well as the amount of the award (Table 2).

18To assess if the technical resources as well as the planning framework provided by the state in the planning phase had been mobilized by the municipalities, we analyzed the nature and scope of the adaptation and resilience actions to be implemented. We then coded both the topic (e.g., flooding, drinking water) as well as the mode (e.g., study, outreach) of the project funded by the grant. To assess the participatory nature of the project as well as the extent to which it aimed at addressing issues of environmental justice, we assessed and coded the scope of community involvement and public engagement by examining a range of possible actions that gradually involve community members in a more explicit way from outreach and education, to hearings, surveys, and interviews, to participatory planning, and finally to the co-design and co-production of adaptation measures. We assessed measures to improve equity and inclusion by outlining a clear focus on vulnerable populations, the increased inclusion of vulnerable populations throughout the process via accessibility initiatives, and the participation of vulnerable populations in the project design or development (Table 2). Here as well, we used JASP 0.18.3.0 to calculate the mean, median, and standard deviation of each continuous variables and the frequency of each category for the other variables.

4. Results

4.1. Planning Grants

19The analysis of planning reports reveals that nearly all of the municipalities throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have become MVP communities. Indeed, at the time of data collections, 95.1% of the municipalities in the state had participated in the planning phase. The participation of municipalities is spread equally across the state except in the Berkshires and Hilltowns, a smaller region with fewer municipalities. Whereas a very small number of municipalities completed a vulnerability assessment similar to the MVP program prior to 2018 (2.5%), most municipalities became MVP Communities in 2018 (23%), 2019 (28%), and 2020 (26%). The few remaining municipalities did so in 2021 (14%), 2022 (6%), and 2023 (0.5%). The mean number of participants was 23.5 participants with a standard deviation of 10.2. The vast majority of workshop participants were town administrators or urban planning professionals (mean 71.5%, median 72%) even though the composition of the workshops varied considerably across our sample (standard deviation 18.5).

20During the workshops, participants mostly named inland flooding (51%) as the main hazard related to climate change about which they were concerned, followed by coastal flooding and erosion (12%), average and extreme temperatures (11.5%), severe winter storms (6.5%) and other hazards such as tornadoes and droughts. The infrastructure that they were mainly concerned about consisted of roads, bridges, dams, and coastline infrastructure (45%) followed by stormwater, wastewater, and sanitation infrastructure (29%), power infrastructure (11%), drinking water infrastructure (10%) and other (5%). The main social concern in a context of climate change named by workshop participants were vulnerable populations (52.5%) followed by emergency response systems and shelters (26.5%), cooling and heating systems (3.5%), population decline and growth (2.5%), and other (5%). The main environmental concern was loss of conservation and open land (28%) followed by water quality and quantity (25%), tree health (10.5%), soil erosion (10.5%), and other (26%). Workshop participants were also asked to name the main local strength or asset that would be useful in adapting to climate change and enhancing climate resilience. They first listed infrastructure systems (30.5%) followed by emergency response systems and shelters (26.5%), ecosystems and ecosystem services (14.5%), social networks and social capital (13%), urban planning (11.5%) and other (4%) as the main local strength in the face of climate change. Finally, the actions voted as top priorities during the workshops in order to adapt to climate change and enhance resilience were directed towards infrastructure (51.5%), ecosystems and ecosystem services (19.5%), emergency response systems and shelters (13%), planning and bylaws (11%), and other (5%).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of 334 planning reports

Variable

Details

Descriptive Statistics

Region

Berkshires and Hilltowns

14%

Greater Connecticut River Valley

18%

Central

16.5%

Northeast

16.5%

Greater Boston

17%

Southeast

18%

Year MVP Community Designation

2014

0.5%

2016

0.5%

2017

1.5%

2018

23%

2019

28%

2020

26%

2021

14%

2022

6%

2023

0.5%

Number of participants

Mean

23.5

Median

22

Standard Deviation

10.2

Percentage of participants who were town administrators or urban planning professionals

Mean

71.5

Median

72

Standard Deviation

18.5

Main hazard related to climate change

Inland flooding

51%

Coastal flooding and erosion

12%

Average/Extreme Temperatures

11.5%

Severe Winter Storms

6.5%

Other

19%

Main infrastructure of concern

Roads, bridges, dams, and coastline infrastructure

45%

Stormwater, wastewater, and sanitation infrastructure

29%

Power infrastructure

11%

Drinking water infrastructure

10%

Other

5%

Main social concern

Vulnerable populations

52.5%

Emergency response systems and shelters

26.5%

Cooling and heating systems

3.5%

Population decline and growth

2.5%

Other

15%

Main environmental concern

Loss of conservation and open land

28%

Water quality and quantity

25%

Tree health

10.5%

Soil erosion

10.5%

Other

26%

Main strength to adapt to climate change and enhance resilience

Infrastructure systems

30.5%

Emergency response systems and shelters

26.5%

Ecosystem and ecosystem services

14.5%

Social networks and social capital

13%

Urban planning

11.5%

Other

4%

Top-priority actions to enhance adaptation to climate change and resilience

Infrastructure

51.5%

Ecosystem and ecosystem services

19.5%

Emergency response systems and shelters

13%

Planning and bylaws

11%

Other

5%

4.2 Action Grants

21At the time of data collection, 142 out of the 334 municipalities designated as MVP Communities had received an action grant, about 40% of all the municipalities in Massachusetts. The analysis of the grant reports reveals that 27% of the municipalities that received a grant are located in the Greater Boston area, 23.5% in the Northeast, 17% in the Greater Connecticut River Valley, 11% in Central Massachusetts, and 6.5% in the Berkshires and Hilltowns. So, only 23.5% of the action grants were received by municipalities in Western Massachusetts. The awards were granted over a five-year period: 16% of them were awarded in 2018, 15% in 2019, 23% in 2020, 17.5% in 2021, and 28.5% in 2023. The mean award amount is $252,624 with a median of $150,000 and a standard deviation of 324,034.4.

22The action grants focus mostly on flood mitigation (27%) followed by ecosystems and ecosystem services restoration (18%), climate change (13%), stormwater management (12%), drinking water (7%), extreme temperatures (7%), and other (16%). 30% of award recipients are granted funding to conduct a study or an assessment, 19% to design infrastructure, conduct estimates, or apply for permits, 14% to engage in further planning activities, 13% to conduct outreach or education initiatives, 8% to develop additional participatory planning activities, 5% to restore ecosystems, 4% to enhance infrastructure, and 3% to engage in other projects. Action grants are characterized by significant community involvement and public engagement with 42% of grantee projects carrying out outreach and education, 23% conducting hearings, surveys, or interviews, 16% organizing participatory planning activities, 12% co-designing or co-producing projects whereas 12% do not involve the local community in any way. Municipalities that received an action grant conducted measures to improve equity and inclusion by focusing on vulnerable populations (29%) and increasing inclusion through the project funded by the action grant (25%) through efforts such as providing translations or interpretation. In 22% of the projects funded by an action grant, vulnerable populations participated in the project design or development. 17% of the projects funded by an action grant did not include measures to improve equity and inclusion.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of 233 action grants

Variable

Details

Descriptive Statistics

Region

Berkshires and Hilltowns

6.5%

Greater Connecticut River Valley

17%

Central

11%

Northeast

23.5%

Greater Boston

27%

Southeast

15%

Award year

2018

16%

2019

15%

2020

23%

2021

17.5%

2022

28.5%

Award amount

Mean

$252,624

Median

$150,000

Standard Deviation

$324,034.4

Topic of action

Flood mitigation

27%

Ecosystems and ecosystem services restoration

18%

Other

16%

Climate change

13%

Stormwater

12%

Drinking water

7%

Extreme temperatures

7%

Mode of action

Study and assessment

30%

Design of infrastructure/

Estimates/Permits

19%

Plan (e.g., urban, adaptation, resilience)

14%

Outreach and education

13%

Participatory planning

8%

Ecosystem restoration

5%

Infrastructure and public works

4%

Other

7%

Community involvement and public engagement

Outreach and education

42%

Hearings, surveys, and interviews

23%

Participatory planning

16%

Co-design and co-production

4%

None

12%

Other

3%

Measures to improve equity and inclusion

Project focus on vulnerable populations

29%

Increased inclusion throughout the process (e.g. use of multiple languages, accessibility)

25%

Vulnerable populations participation in project design or development

22%

None

17%

Other

7%

5. Discussion

23Although it appears that MVP program has provided appropriate financial resources to standardize planning for climate change adaptation and resilience, concrete actions remain limited geographically and unevenly distributed across the state. In many respects, the MVP program is an astonishing success because it spread through the state with over 95% of municipalities in Massachusetts having participated in the planning phase of the program. Although large urban centers such as Boston or Cambridge preceded the action of other municipalities, over time, both large and small, rural and urban municipalities in all regions of the State became MVP Communities. This program put adaptation to climate change and resilience on the agenda of municipalities that for the most part would probably not have done so on their own. The technical resources provided by the program help municipalities to envision climate change as a long-term political investment beyond immediate responses to individual hazards. Even during the COVID years when organizing participatory workshops was a significant challenge, municipalities continued to actively engage with the program. Even if in terms of diffusion, the program is a great success, the assessment of the action phrase is more contrasted.

24However, concrete adaptation projects remain unevenly distributed across the state and benefit from significantly uneven budgets. Municipalities that were awarded action grants were mostly located on the Eastern part of the State. As discussed above, such municipalities are generally larger and benefit from a more dynamic economic environment due to their proximity to Boston and other coastal amenities. They have the staffing and technical capacity to successfully apply for grants. In addition, the fact that the municipalities have to match part of the grant may have deterred poorer municipalities in other parts of the state from applying for an action grant. Similarly, the amount of money awarded to conduct adaptation and resilience-related project varied greatly across the State with half the projects receiving $150,000 or less to fund projects with more limited scopes than those proposed by larger urban centers.

25Data also shows that many municipalities have mobilized the technical resources as well as the clear framework provided by the program to engage in proactive planning and action to respond to climate change. Indeed, during the planning phase, workshop participants used climate projections to highlight a variety of climate-change related hazards as well as infrastructure, social, and environmental concerns. For instance, workshop participants discussed intersectional issues such as the vulnerability to climate change of vulnerable or disenfranchised populations, a kind of conversation that may not have often occurred in the day-to-day management of municipalities until the MVP. Similarly, a significant portion of the action grants focused on climate change as a whole, understood as a long-term phenomenon that extends beyond the consideration of a single hazard.

26Even if the participatory aspect of the MVP program appears to have been successful, robust stakeholder involvement and participation was not as broad as originally envisioned. It did, however, penetrate many aspects of the program. Our data shows that over 6000 people participated in these participatory exercises during the planning phase. However, the vast majority of workshop participants were town elected officials, administrators or urban planning professional. MVP program coordinators, workshop facilitators, and municipalities struggled to attract regular residents and invite them to think about the future of their municipalities in a context of climate change. Nonetheless, the participatory nature of the MVP planning phase transpired through the action grant and probably explains why over 20% of municipalities sought funding to conduct additional outreach, education, or participatory planning in collaboration with community members. A small minority of municipalities even chose to fully integrate community members to their actions to enhance resilience by co-designing and co-producing projects with them. Overall, many municipalities tried hard to get residents to participate and to include them into a hopeful vision for a better future.

27Although the MVP program explicitly aimed at centering both the experiences and the well-being of vulnerable populations in a context of climate change, its capacity to achieve such a goal is mixed. During the planning phase, a majority of workshop participants highlighted vulnerable populations as the main local social concern relative to adaptation to climate change. And yet, a very limited number of top-priority actions voted by workshop participants explicitly focused on vulnerable populations. Indeed, most top-priority actions focus on material issues rather than systemic ones that may require more in-depth planning and long-term actions. During the action phase, the assessment is also mixed. Probably because focusing on vulnerable populations was a program requirement, about a third of the award recipients focused on vulnerable populations while another third increased accessibility of their funded project for diverse audiences, and another third included vulnerable populations in the project design and development. However, almost 20% of municipalities disregarded that requirement entirely to focus on more technical aspects of adaptation to climate change.

28Finally, the MVP program somewhat failed to escape the pitfall of “project-based” adaptation planning. Indeed, a majority of MVP communities had not applied for an action grant at the time of data collection. It is possible that smaller municipalities found that the resources made available by the program were still insufficient in order for them to successfully apply for funding. Those who received an action grant mostly did not implement concrete and transformative projects to adapt to climate change and enhance resilience. Actions initiated by municipalities remained timid and somewhat perpetuated the planning phase. Indeed, about 50% of the action grants focused on studies, assessments, designs, estimates, or permits. Those are of course essential part of a project but it is unclear if concrete projects have since been implemented.

6. Conclusion

29In the midst of grim narratives about climate change and dreadful climate projections, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts invited municipalities across the state and their residents to participate in the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program and plan for adaptation to climate change and enhanced resilience. Seven years after the launch of the MVP program, this work has asked if the program succeeded in practicing hope, understood as the act of envisioning “the possibility for a favorable future” (Zomeren et al.). More specifically, we analyzed 334 planning reports and 233 action grants produced by municipalities throughout the Commonwealth to assess whether the MVP program successfully supported planning for adaptation to climate change and resilience at the municipal level. This research contributes to the literature on adaptation and resilience policies by providing the field’s first comprehensive aggregated case-study analysis of state-wide planning and action. As such, it highlights the value of state-sponsored programs such as the wide-spread policy and spatial diffusion of planning and acting to support adaptation to climate change and resilience. In order to address the limited community participation, particularly the participation of vulnerable community members, the relative lack of concrete long-range adaptations, and funding asymmetries throughout the state, improvement to the program must be made.

30Indeed, the MVP program is in many ways a near-complete success because it spread through the State, received very significant buy in from municipalities, and placed adaptation to climate change and resilience at the heart of municipal action. Indeed, 95.1% of the municipalities in the State had participated in the MVP 1.0 program by June 2023 and over 6,000 individuals have taken part in related resilience planning activities. The financial resources provided by the state to plan and act for adaptation to climate change and resilience put these topics on the agenda of municipalities. Many of the cities and towns were hard hit by recent climate trends and most had not engaged in adaptation to climate change and resilience planning prior to participating in the MVP. Whereas municipalities tend to mostly respond to emergencies such as disaster relief as a result of an extreme weather event, the MVP program gave them the space, time, and resources to engage in long-term planning and adopt a proactive stance in the face of climate change.

31However, outcomes in terms of long-range adaptation, community engagement, and climate justice did not fully reach the program’s goals. First, larger municipalities in the Eastern part of the State benefited more from the action phase of the project than smaller and more disenfranchised ones in the Western part of the State. Second, even if participatory planning is one of the core principles of the MVP program, program coordinators, workshop facilitators, and municipalities struggled to attract regular residents and invite them to think about the future of their municipalities in a context of climate change. Finally, although one of the main goals of the program is the promote climate justice by addressing the situation of vulnerable populations, not all municipalities framed their activities along those lines. As a whole, the program elicited great enthusiasm for planning for adaptation to climate change and resilience but has not yet succeed in transforming municipalities. It fostered hope among municipal officials, planners, and other throughout the state.

32Aware of the success of the MVP, the need to continue to fund adaptation at the municipal level, and to address the issues described above, the newly elected state administration launched the MVP 2.0 program in 2023 to focus on the socio-economic roots of vulnerability to climate change and strengthen transformative action beyond planning (ResilientMass). In particular, it includes funding for training in the area of climate justice and more concrete measures to include a larger number of diverse residents. MVP 2.0 also guarantees State-funding of projects that emerge from the planning phase, hopefully leading to broader implementation and transformative change. Future research should continue to analyze planning grant and action grant reports to assess the reality of adaptation to climate change and resilience in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, in spite of significant issues, the MVP is an innovative program that has also inspired policy makers beyond the borders of the State. In the years since the MVP program’s 2017 implantation, a host of similar programs, most notably in other New England States such as Connecticut or Maine, have been developed (DEEP Climate Resilience Fund; Community Resilience Partnership).

33Like in Massachusetts, workshop participants across New England not only learned about the local impacts of climate change but found reasons to envision a better future, building not only on the local constraints and threats but also on local assets and strengths. Workshop participants acknowledged that in addition to the local infrastructure, ecosystems, and emergency response systems, social attributes such as social capital and social networks and governance functions such as urban planning have been key elements in dreaming and hoping for a better future. Even though the MVP program has not fully transformed municipalities and readied them for climate change, it has reframed narratives around climate change and urban planning in Massachusetts and beyond. Whereas in many parts of Massachusetts municipalities had experienced a slow decline and felt abandoned from the State for decades, the MVP program underlined their importance and showed them that they would be supported through their journey to an uncertain future characterized by climate change. Hope is not about action per se; it is the possibility to envision a better future, and stakeholders participating in MVP program’s two iterations were actively doing just that. Far from “bowling alone” (Putman), elected officials, urban planners, and residents came together with the support of the State and began to hope for a better future.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

AGUIAR, Francisca. C., Julia BENTZ, João M. N. SILVA, Ana L. FONSECA, Rob SWART, Filipe DUARTE SANTOS, and Gil PENHA-LOPES. Adaptation to Climate Change at Local Level in Europe: An Overview. Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 86, Aug. 2018, p. 38–63.

BRYAN, F. M. Real Democracy. The New England Town Meeting and How It Works. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004.

CLAYTON, Susan. “Climate Anxiety: Psychological Responses to Climate Change.” Journal of Anxiety Disorders, vol. 74, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263.

COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PARTNERSHIP. Maine’s Community Resilience Program. 2024, maine.gov/future/climate/community-resilience-partnership. Accessed 22 May 2024.

CUBERES, David, and Richard RAMSAWAK. “Understanding Recent Growth Dynamics in Small Urban Places: The Case of New England.” City & Community, vol. 19, no 1, 2020, p. 44-75.

DEEP CLIMATE RESILIENCE FUND. Connecticut’s Resilience Program. 2024, portal.ct.gov/ConnecticutClimateAction/Executive-Order/DEEP-Climate-Resilience-Fund. Accessed 22 May 2024.

FILA, Dennis, Hartmut FÜNFGELD and Heindriken DAHLMANN. “Climate Change Adaptation with Limited Resources: Adaptive Capacity and Action in Small-and-Medium Sized Municipalities.” Environment, Development, and Sustainability, vol. 26, 2024, p. 5607-5627.

FITZGIBBONS, Joanna, and Carrie L. MITCHELL. “Just Urban Futures? Exploring Equity in ‘100 Resilient Cities.’” World Development, vol. 122, 2019, p. 648-659.

GORDON, Noah. Prioritizing Climate Equity: A Qualitative Analysis of the Massachusetts MVP Program. 2023. University of Massachusetts, Master’s Thesis.

GUYADEEN, Dave, and Daniel HENSTRA. “Evaluating Rural Municipal Climate Change Plans in Ontario, Canada.” Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 97, Jan. 2023, p. 123-139.

HAMIN, Elisabeth. M., Nicole GURRAN, and Ana MESQUITA EMLINGER. “Barriers to Municipal Climate Adaptation from Coastal Massachusetts’s Smaller Cities and Towns.” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 80, no 2, 2014, p. 110-122.

HINKEL, Jochen, Diana MANGALAGIU, Alexander BISARO and J. David TÀBARA. “Transformative Narratives for Climate Action.” Climatic Change, vol. 160, June 2020, p. 495-506.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, US Department, National Disaster Resilience Competition. 2024. hud.gov/program_offices/economic_development/resilience/competition. Accessed 22 May 2024.

I.P.C.C. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Eds. Rajendra K. Pachauri and Leo Meyer. Geneva: IPCC, 2015.

JASP Team. JASP (Version 0.18.3) [Computer software], 2024.

KRUEGER, Rob, and David GIBBS. “‘Third Wave’ Sustainability? Smart Growth and Regional Development in the USA.” Regional Studies, vol. 42, no 9, 2008, p. 1263-1274.

MALLOY, Jeffrey Thomas. Implementing Socially Just Climate Adaptation: A Case Study of Boston, Massachusetts. 2021. University of New Hampshire, PhD dissertation.

MATTES, Darya. Preparing to Adapt: Massachusetts Municipalities Engaging Stakeholders in Planning for Climate Change. 2018. Tufts University, Master’s Thesis.

MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, 2022 “Massachusetts Climate Change Assessment, Volume 1, Executive Summary.” 2022. mass.gov/doc/2022-massachusetts-climate-change-assessment-december-2022-volume-i-executive-summary. Accessed 18 November 2024.

MUNICIPAL RESILIENCE PROGRAM. “Providence: Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank.” 2024. riib.org/solutions/programs/municipal-resilience-program/. Accessed 18 November 2024.

NORMAN, Jon R. Small Cities USA: Growth, Diversity, and Inequality. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2013.

PIONEER VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, Data Atlas by Neighborhood, For the City of Springfield, MA. 2023. www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/files/Springfield%2520Data%2520Atlas%2520UPDATE%2520III-6-20-23.pdf. Accessed 18 November 2024.

PROUDFOOT, Kevin “Inductive/Deductive Hybrid Thematic Analysis in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 17, no 3, 2022, p 308-326.

PUTMAN, Robert D. Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000.

RESILIENTMASS. 2024. resilient.mass.gov/. Accessed 22 May 2024.

SARASWAT, Chitrech, and Pankaj KUMAR. “Climate Justice in Lieu of Climate Change: A Sustainable Approach to Respond to the Climate Change Injustice and an Awakening of the Environmental Movement.” Energy, Ecology and Environment, vol. 1, no 2, 2016, p. 67-74.

SHEINBAUM, Perri. Centering Equity and Justice in the Emerging Concept of Nature-Based Solutions in Massachusetts. Tufts University, 2022. Master’s thesis.

STATE AUDITOR OFFICE, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. “Public Infrastructure in Western Massachusetts. A Critical Need to Regional Investment and Revitalization.” Local Financial Impact Review, 2021.

SUSSKIND, Lawrence, and Amber KIM. “Building Local Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change.” Climate Policy, vol. 22, no 5, 2022, p. 593-606.

VASSEUR, Liette. “How Ecosystem-Based Adaptation to Climate Change Can Help Coastal Communities through a Participatory Approach.” Sustainability, vol. 13, no 2344, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/su13042344.

WALKER, Brian, C.S. HOLLING, Stephen R. CARPENTER, and Ann KINZIG. “Adaptability and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society, vol. 9, no 5, 2004. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/. Accessed 11 November 2024.

WOODRUFF, Sierra C., Sara MEEROW, Missy STULTS, and Chandler WILKINS. “Adaptation to Resilience Planning: Alternative Pathways to Prepare for Climate Change.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 42, no 1, 2022, p. 64-75.

YOUNG, Stephen S., and Joshua S. YOUNG. “Overall Warming with Reduced Reasonability: Temperature Change in New England, USA, 1900-2020.” Climate, vol. 9, n12, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/cli9120176.

ZOMEREN, Martjin van, Inga L. PAULS and Smadar COHEN-CHEN. “Is Hope Good for Motivating Collective Action in the Context of Climate Change? Differentiating Hope’s Emotion-and Problem-Focused Coping Functions.” Global Environmental Change, vol. 58, Sept. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.04.003.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Légende Figure 1. Map of Massachusetts displaying the East/West divide, municipalities that participate in the MVP program via the MVP 1.0, MVP 2.0, or MVP Action Grants programs (Source: MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/docannexe/image/24524/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 229k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Camille Washington-Ottombre, Una Soleil Elizabeth Fonte, Irina Jameron et Amandine Océane Lacroix, « Hope in Action: Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change at the Municipal Level in Massachusetts »Transatlantica [En ligne], 2 | 2024, mis en ligne le 01 décembre 2024, consulté le 09 février 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/24524 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/134hd

Haut de page

Auteurs

Camille Washington-Ottombre

Smith College, MA

Una Soleil Elizabeth Fonte

Smith College, MA

Irina Jameron

Science Po Paris

Amandine Océane Lacroix

Université de Genève

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search