https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0815-5596
Figures
Abstract
Climate change is making disaster events more frequent and intense, increasing the risk to economic security, ecosystem health, and human health and well-being. Hazard mitigation planning, overseen in the United States by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), aims to reduce disaster risk by identifying hazards and taking action to reduce their impact. While FEMA policy requires states and territories to consider the risks of climate change in their plans, guidance remains broad. As a result, jurisdictions have taken different approaches to integrating climate change into their hazard mitigation plans (HMPs). Thirty of 56 U.S. State and Territorial Hazard Mitigation Officers (SHMOs) responded to a survey concerning climate planning, building on a similar survey conducted in 2018. A majority of respondents recognized that their jurisdictions are vulnerable to climate change and agreed that climate change is a threat to their jurisdictions both now and in the future. Respondents were motivated to integrate climate change into their HMPs by factors including increased evidence for climate change projections and disaster events in either their jurisdictions or neighboring ones. Among the most frequently reported barriers was reliance on historical patterns of hazard exposure. Most respondents had incorporated at least one climate change adaptation strategy into their HMPs but reported having insufficient resources to plan for and implement climate-related hazard mitigation activities. Findings suggest that state and territorial hazard mitigation planning programs are taking more steps to integrate climate change into their plans and that SHMOs are more aware of the risks that climate change poses than in 2018. Further research is needed to explore how best to support state-level hazard mitigation program response to climate change.
Citation: Mix EC, Hamele M, Dannenberg AL, Freitag R, Errett NA (2024) Integrating climate change into state hazard mitigation plans: A five-year follow-up survey of state hazard mitigation officers. PLOS Clim 3(10): e0000385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000385
Editor: Ferdous Ahmed, IUBAT: International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, MALAYSIA
Received: October 9, 2023; Accepted: September 19, 2024; Published: October 24, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Mix et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The data supporting the findings of this research are publicly available through DesignSafe (https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-tt9k-5x22). Identifying data have been omitted from the publicly available dataset but are not necessary to recreate this study. This project was deemed exempt by the University of Washington Human Subjects Division (STUDY00017389). Data for a related study conducted in 2018 and referenced in this research are publicly available through Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2539908). Any questions related to the data or the research should be directed to the corresponding author, Nicole Errett (nerrett@uw.edu).
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Disaster risk is increasing due to climate change, which is expected to cause stronger, more frequent, and more intense weather-related events [1]. The consequences of this trend are unfolding in real time: in the U.S., there were eighteen weather and climate events with costs exceeding $1 billion in 2022 and 28 such disasters in 2023 [2]. Notably, climate change is impacting different areas of the U.S. in different ways–while all parts of the country are warming, experiencing various hazards as a result, and expected to experience more, coastal jurisdictions have endured most of the country’s most visible and damaging climate-related disasters to date [3].
Accordingly, climate adaptation–actions taken to prepare and respond to the current and project impacts of climate change–is necessary. Climate adaptation is distinct from climate mitigation, also referred to as greenhouse gas mitigation, which aims to minimize change by reducing global carbon emissions [4]. Hazard mitigation, a component of climate adaptation, attempts to anticipate future risks and vulnerabilities and articulate strategies to address them with the primary goals of protecting human life and minimizing damage to property. The US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines hazard mitigation as any sustainable action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from future disasters [5]. Mitigation focuses on longer term structural and non-structural projects that have protective effects. A 2019 study by FEMA highlights the financial benefits of mitigation planning, finding that every $1 invested in mitigation projects prevents $6 in damage [6]. However, hazard mitigation has a broader remit than hazards exacerbated by climate change; it includes the assessment of other hazards, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and security threats such as terrorism [7].
Jurisdictions across the U.S. are responding to the threat of climate change by developing plans, including climate change adaptation plans, which focus on the adjustment of natural and human systems to a new or changing environment [4], as well as by integrating climate change into hazard mitigation plans (HMPs). Formal climate change adaptation plans are typically developed separately from HMPs and may be undertaken by public officials other than emergency managers [8]. Climate plans are also typically created with the participation of non-governmental organizations, academic experts, and other third parties, which is uncommon in HMPs [8]. Hazard mitigation planning is federally regulated with funding contingent on compliance with specific mandates, policies, and guidelines, whereas climate adaptation planning is mostly done electively and is not supported by specific funding programs [8]. Some planning scholars have proposed integrating climate planning and hazard mitigation planning because research has highlighted the complementary nature of these practices [8].
Guidelines and frameworks for state, tribal, territorial, and local government hazard mitigation planning stem from the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 [9]. States, tribes, and territories must have FEMA-approved HMPs adhering to applicable procedures and regulatory standards in order to be eligible for certain federal financial assistance following a disaster [9, 10]. Local jurisdictions are eligible for funding only through sub-grants provided by the state, tribe, or territory, incentivizing the adoption of state, tribal, and territorial level hazard mitigation plans (HMPs) [10]. State and Territorial Hazard Mitigation Officers (SHMOs) act as the primary points of contact between state and territorial governments and FEMA. They also aid in the development of both state/territorial and local hazard mitigation planning activities [6].
Climate change impacts disaster management in complex ways, introducing new challenges for hazard mitigation professionals [11]. Risk assessment is at the center of the hazard mitigation planning process; state, tribal, territorial, and local governments first identify their unique disaster risks and vulnerabilities, then develop long-term strategies to protect people and property from those risks [3, 10]. Most jurisdictions assess risk by analyzing historic trends. Climate change complicates this process because it can be perceived as a risk in and of itself or as a factor that influences the severity or frequency of other hazards [11]. Since climate change is already altering the frequency and severity of existing hazards, reliance on historical trends is likely to be a poor way to assess future risk [12].
FEMA has updated its hazard mitigation policies to address climate change. In 2012, the agency released its Climate Change Adaptation Policy, requiring all agency programming, policies, and operations to integrate climate change adaptation planning [4]. A 2015 update adds the expectation that states and territories will work with community partners and all pertinent public agencies to identify and incorporate appropriate and relevant climate data in their risk assessment process [12]. However, this updated guidance remains broad, leading jurisdictions to take different approaches to integrating climate change into hazard mitigation plans and policies [12, 13].
A 2018 survey of 35 SHMOs (or their designees) found that while 85.7% of respondents reported incorporating climate change into their jurisdictions’ HMPs, only 28.1% reported expanding hazard mitigation strategies related to climate change [13]. Funding and competing priorities were identified as barriers to integration, while political prioritization was identified as both a barrier and facilitator to integration [13]. Subsequent shifts in federal political prioritization of climate change warrant a follow-up assessment.
Beginning in 2016, the Trump Administration dismantled several pieces of key climate policy, including by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement [14]. Indeed, the 2018–2022 FEMA Strategic Plan omits discussion of climate change entirely [15]. In contrast, the Biden Administration has prioritized climate change response and preparation, including the creation of a National Climate Task Force, expanded funding for hazard mitigation planning, and new programs to spur infrastructure development in response to climate change [16].
Unlike its predecessor, FEMA’s 2022–2026 Strategic Plan focuses on leveraging FEMA policies and tools to address the climate crisis [17]. Given the significant change in the political environment and FEMA’s priorities, a resurvey of SHMOs is warranted to gauge what impact this evolution in policy has had on the integration of climate change planning into HMPs. While the relationship between federal and state policy is complex, we expect that the growth and proliferation of federal climate initiatives, including the expansion of funding and grant programs, will prompt states and territories to integrate climate change risk and adaptation solutions into their strategies [18].
Research questions
This study builds on the aforementioned 2018 survey of SHMOs [13]. We aim to examine whether, how, and why climate change risk and climate adaptation solutions are being considered in state hazard mitigation planning and how this has changed since 2018 given significant federal policy changes under the Biden Administration to prioritize climate action. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:
- How has the integration of climate change risk into state and territorial hazard mitigation planning evolved since the 2018 survey?
- Are states and territories incorporating climate adaptation strategies into their hazard mitigation plans?
For each of these two questions, we ask an additional sub-question: does the answer differ between coastal and non-coastal jurisdictions? This last line of inquiry is motivated by the geographically distinct impacts of climate change on different regions of the U.S.
Our results can inform the incorporation of climate change into hazard mitigation planning by creating a more streamlined planning process, potentially increasing resilience and minimizing loss in the face of both disaster events and climate change.
Materials and methods
In early 2023, we sent a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) electronic survey to 56 state and territorial hazard mitigation officers. Survey results from the initial 2018 survey and this 2023 follow-up were analyzed and compared. The UW Human Subjects Division determined this research to quality for exempt status (Category 2) because it is no more than minimal risk, uses survey procedures, and disclosure of responses would not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to their financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputations (STUDY00017389). Our initial recruitment email communicated to recipients a request for participation, information about the purpose of the study, a brief description of the research procedures, an explanation of how the data would be used, and contact information for the research team. Consent to participate was inferred where recipients chose to respond to the survey after receiving this information.
Study sample and recruitment
SHMOs from each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and five major territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands) were invited via email to complete an electronic survey. We asked SHMOs to coordinate with their colleagues to ensure only one response per jurisdiction was submitted.
Contact information was obtained from a publicly available list of SHMOs posted on the FEMA website. We monitored this list throughout the survey response period and reached out to any new state contacts as they became available. The survey was open for approximately two months, with initial contact made by email on February 22, 2023. If an email was returned due to an invalid email address, alternative contact information–including alternative email addresses and telephone numbers–was obtained from state government websites. SHMOs in all jurisdictions received three email messages, and, if necessary, up to two phone calls in the last week of March 2023. The survey officially closed on April 10, 2023.
Data collection
Survey questions aimed to assess changes since the 2018 survey [12]. Most questions aligned with those posed in 2018, with updates to account for new FEMA hazard mitigation policies and respondent-jurisdiction perceptions of climate change. Additional questions sought information on climate adaptation planning, which was not a subject of inquiry in the 2018 survey. These adaptation questions are adapted from a previous study examining the integration of climate adaptation actions into hazard mitigation plans based on FEMA’s hazard mitigation planning guidelines [18].
Study data for most jurisdictions were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the Institute of Translational Health Sciences. REDCap is a secure, web-based application designed to support data capture for research studies that provides: 1) an intuitive interface for validated data entry; 2) audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures; 3) automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages; and 4) procedures for importing data from external sources [19]. The SHMO for one jurisdiction responded to the survey separately via electronic mail; those responses were incorporated into the REDCap database.
Data analysis
We sorted respondents into groups of coastal and non-coastal jurisdictions. A coastal jurisdiction is defined as one with at least one boundary contiguous with the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, or Gulf of Mexico; all other jurisdictions are non-coastal. Basic summary statistics were calculated using R and Stata statistical software to compare 2023 data to 2018 data across the metrics discussed below. The denominator is the number of responses to each individual question and thus varies to the extent respondents skipped questions. We note all instances in which the number of responses to a particular question deviates from the full sample of n = 35 for the 2018 survey or n = 30 for the 2023 survey.
Results
Summary of 2023 survey responses
Of 56 SHMOs invited to participate, 30 completed the survey (53.6%); hereafter, these 30 individuals are referred to as the “respondents,” the jurisdictions they represent (states, territories, and the District of Columbia) are referred to as the “jurisdictions,” and all statistics are calculated with reference only to the number of respondents who actually responded to the specific question at issue. Twenty-four respondents (80.0%) were SHMOs themselves. Other respondents included Planning Branch Chiefs, Mitigation Strategic Planners, and Emergency Management Planning Specialists. Thirteen respondents (43.3%) were from coastal jurisdictions and the remaining 17 (56.7%) were not. Fifteen of the 29 respondents who reported their lengths of tenure (51.7%) had been in their role for 3 years or less, 7 (24.1%) for 3–6 years, 1 (3.4%) for 6–9 years, and 6 (20.7%) for 9 or more years. Respondents from a total of 22 jurisdictions took the survey in both 2018 and 2023, with non-coastal states accounting for 14 (63.4%) of paired respondents. We do not attempt a longitudinal analysis of results from these 22 jurisdictions because of the small number of responses and resulting risk of bias. Additionally, we do not identify the specific jurisdictions that responded in either timeframe because we do not have permission to do so.
We first provide context by summarizing the 2023 respondents’ general perceptions of climate change (Table 1). In the sections that follow, we turn to the two specific research questions posed above: how climate risk integration has changed since 2018 and how jurisdictions are incorporating climate adaptation into their plans.
General perceptions of climate change
While a majority of respondents across all jurisdictions generally agreed that climate change is a source of hazard risk, coastal-jurisdiction SHMOs appear more attuned to the impact of climate change than those from non-coastal jurisdictions. Twelve respondents from coastal jurisdictions (92.3%) and 12 from non-coastal jurisdictions (70.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that climate change is a threat now. Similarly, all 13 coastal-jurisdiction respondents (100.0%) and 15 non-coastal respondents (88.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that climate change will be a threat in the future.
All 13 coastal respondents (100.0%) and 15 non-coastal respondents (93.8%) agreed that climate change influences the severity or frequency of natural hazards in their jurisdictions. There was less consensus about the impact of climate change on technological hazards: just 6 respondents from coastal jurisdictions (46.2%) and 8 from non-coastal jurisdictions (47.1%) agreed with this connection; most of the remaining respondents in both coastal and non-coastal jurisdictions were unsure.
Coastal jurisdictions also tended to devote more personnel to climate change work: 8 coastal-jurisdiction respondents (61.5%) and 8 non-coastal respondents (47.1%) reported at least one employee, with an additional 1 coastal jurisdiction (7.7%) planning to hire within five years. Among jurisdictions with such employees, coastal jurisdictions reported a median of 3 full-time equivalent employees while non-coastal jurisdictions reported a median of 1.
Research Question 1: Evolution of climate risk integration from 2018 to 2023
We set out to investigate how SHMOs are working to incorporate the concept of climate-related hazard risk into their jurisdictions’ HMPs and how this has changed since the 2018 survey. In particular, we examine resources available to engage in climate-related risk planning, factors that facilitate the incorporation of climate risk into HMPs, and factors that impede such incorporation. Respondents from 35 jurisdictions completed the 2018 survey, 16 of whom (45.7%) were from coastal jurisdictions. 30 responded in 2023, 13 of whom (43.3%) were from coastal jurisdictions.
Sufficiency of planning resources
Both surveys asked respondents whether they had sufficient data/evidence, funding, staff capacity, and staff expertise to carry out climate-related hazard mitigation activities. Two trends emerge from these data, which are summarized in Table 2.
First, there is a trend over time in all jurisdictions toward greater certainty regarding the resources available. Fewer respondents in both coastal and non-coastal jurisdictions were uncertain whether they had access to sufficient data, funding, and personnel to engage in climate-related hazard mitigation. This trend was most pronounced with respect to funding: while 5 respondents (15.6%) indicated they were unsure whether funding was sufficient in 2018, none were unsure in 2023.
Second, a larger proportion of both coastal and non-coastal respondents reported in 2023 that each of these resources were insufficient in 2023 than did so in 2018. Funding again saw the most sizeable change. Eight coastal respondents (53.3%) reported insufficient or no funding for climate-related hazard mitigation in 2018 compared to 10 (76.9%) in 2023; 9 non-coastal respondents (52.9%) reported insufficient funding in 2018 compared to 12 (70.6%) in 2023.
Facilitators of climate risk integration
Respondents were asked in both surveys to indicate whether each of several factors facilitated the integration of climate risk into their most recently issued HMPs. Two specific facilitators not addressed in the 2018 survey were added in 2023 along with an “other” category. Table 3 summarizes these results. Fig 1 visualizes the results for facilitators queried in both 2018 and 2023, while Fig 2 visualizes those queried only in 2023.
A larger proportion of overall respondents identified each of the surveyed factors as a facilitator in 2023 than did so in 2018. However, we observed notable variation both over time and based on geography. For example, in 2018 evidence supporting climate projections was the most frequently reported facilitator—24 respondents (70.6%) identified this as a factor in 2018, including 10 in coastal jurisdictions (66.7%) and 14 in non-coastal jurisdictions (73.7%). This facilitator was reported more frequently in 2023, identified as important by 22 respondents (73.3%). However, a higher proportion of coastal jurisdictions (n = 11, 84.6%) reported this as a facilitator than of non-coastal jurisdictions (n = 11, 64.7%)—a reversal from 2018. Another commonly reported factor was the occurrence of disaster events in the respondent’s jurisdiction or a neighboring one. Sixteen respondents identified this facilitator in 2018 (47.1%), with relatively even geographical distribution. This grew to 22 respondents in 2023 (73.3%), comprising 10 from coastal jurisdictions (76.9%) and 12 from non-coastal jurisdictions (70.6%).
Political priorities at the jurisdictional, national, and international level were less frequently reported as facilitators. In 2023, 7 coastal respondents (53.8%) identified in-jurisdiction political priorities as important; otherwise, political priorities were not reported as facilitators by a majority of respondents in either time period, at any jurisdictional level, or with either geographical group. In particular, only 1 respondent in each survey considered international priorities to be a facilitator for climate risk integration.
Both of the specific facilitators newly surveyed in 2023 were reported as influential by a majority of respondents, particularly in coastal jurisdictions. Twenty respondents (66.7%) reported that their work was facilitated by new guidance or rules, including 10 (76.9%) from coastal jurisdictions. Seventeen (56.7%) reported that their work was facilitated by increased grant funding for climate change-related projects, including 10 (76.9%) from coastal jurisdictions.
Barriers to climate risk integration
We also asked respondents in both surveys whether any of several factors were barriers to integrating climate risk into their most recent HMPs. We observe both notable change over time in these results and divergence between coastal and non-coastal jurisdictions. The results are summarized in Table 4 and visualized in Fig 3.
In 2018, 13 respondents (43.3%) reported de-prioritization in favor of other hazard mitigation priorities, making this the most common barrier to climate risk integration in that survey. By 2023, only 8 respondents (26.7%) reported this barrier. This shift was driven almost entirely by coastal jurisdictions—7 coastal respondents (58.3%) chose this option in 2018 while only 2 (15.4%) did so in 2023, compared to little change in non-coastal jurisdictions. This pattern is consistent with a decline among jurisdictions reporting that climate change was a low priority in their jurisdictions overall: 10 (33.3%) in 2018, including 3 from coastal jurisdictions (25.0%), compared to 7 (23.3%) in 2023, including 1 from a coastal jurisdiction (7.7%).
We observe the inverse trend with respect to reliance on historical data rather than future projections. Nine jurisdictions (30.0%) reported this barrier in 2018 compared to 14 (46.7%) in 2023, making this the most frequently reported barrier in 2023. This increase was again driven by coastal jurisdictions: 2 coastal jurisdictions (16.7%) reported this barrier in 2018 compared to 9 (69.2%) in 2023—counteracting a decrease among non-coastal jurisdictions from 7 (38.9%) in 2018 to 5 (29.4%). in 2023.
Other barriers were less prominent overall but exhibited notable shifts. Lack of evidence was a barrier for 6 jurisdictions in 2018 (20.0%) but only 2 jurisdictions in 2023 (6.7%). This shift was due almost entirely to a drop from 5 non-coastal jurisdictions in 2018 (27.8%) to 1 in 2023 (5.9%). By contrast, we observe an increase in the number of jurisdictions in which other agencies were responsible for climate adaptation: n = 5 jurisdictions reported this scenario in 2018 (16.7%) compared to 10 in 2023 (33.3%). Most of these jurisdictions were coastal, including 4 in 2018 (33.3%) and 8 in 2023 (61.5%).
Plans for future integration
In addition to investigating respondents’ experiences with facilitators and barriers during the development of their current HMPs, both surveys asked about strategies for the future. This question presented a range of options encompassing various ways to integrate climate risk further into future plans, decenter it, or remove it altogether. The results are summarized in Table 5 and visualized in Fig 4. Because no respondents reported plans to remove or decenter climate change from their plans in 2023, those results are omitted.
Broadly, all integration strategies surveyed were more popular in 2023 than in 2018. The strategy reported most frequently in both 2018 and 2023 was to add discussion of the impact of climate change to extant plan sections on various hazards. Overall, 21 respondents in 2018 (65.6%) and 21 in 2023 (70.0%) planned to do so. This trend plays out differently depending on coastal status. Seven coastal respondents (46.7%) selected this option in 2018, increasing to 9 respondents (69.2%) in 2023; by contrast, 14 non-coastal respondents (82.4%) did so in 2018, decreasing to 12 respondents (70.6%) in 2023.
Another popular strategy was to expand an existing section on climate change. Twelve respondents (37.5%) planned to do so in 2018 compared to 18 (60.0%) in 2023. This approach was more popular with non-coastal jurisdictions—7 such jurisdictions (41.2%) planned to expand existing climate change content in 2018 and 11 (64.7%) planned to do so in 2023. In addition, 9 respondents in 2018 (28.1%) planned to expand climate-specific hazard mitigation strategies, increasing to 16 (53.3%) in 2023. This increase was driven almost entirely by respondents from coastal jurisdictions—while only 4 coastal respondents (26.7%) planned to expand climate-specific hazard mitigation strategies in 2018, 10 (76.9%) planned to do so in 2023.
Finally, one strategy was less popular overall but saw the largest proportional increase of any we investigated. In 2018, just 2 respondents (6.3%) planned to add new climate-influenced hazards to their plans—1 coastal and 1 non-coastal. In 2023, 10 respondents (33.3%) planned to do so. Much of this growth came from coastal jurisdictions, 6 of which (46.2%) planned to introduce these new hazards.
Research Question 2: Integrating climate adaptation
The 2023 survey included additional questions, not asked in 2018, to investigate whether jurisdictions are incorporating climate adaptation into their planning strategies. We queried both climate adaptation in general—including its relationship with hazard mitigation—and whether jurisdictions incorporated each of eleven specific climate change adaptation strategies into their HMPs.
Climate adaptation generally
Only 9 respondents (30.0%) indicated that their jurisdictions had climate change adaptation plans; 10 (33.3%) indicated their jurisdictions did not and a plurality of 11 (36.7%) were unsure. Adaptation plans were most commonly reported among coastal jurisdictions, 5 of which (38.5%) had such plans.
While adaptation plans were uncommon at the jurisdictional level, 15 respondents (50.0%) reported helping local jurisdictions create climate change adaptation plans, including 7 coastal jurisdictions (53.8%). Eleven respondents (36.7%) were unsure whether their agencies had helped local jurisdictions in climate adaptation planning, including 6 coastal jurisdictions (46.2%).
Table 6 summarizes these results.
Specific climate adaptation strategies
In addition to asking about climate adaptation plans, we queried 11 individual adaptation strategies. Although a majority of respondents either indicated that their jurisdictions had no climate adaptation plans or were unsure whether such plans existed, at least half of respondents reported that nine of these specific adaptation strategies were integrated into their HMPs. These results are summarized in Table 7 below.
The single most popular adaptation strategy, both overall and among both coastal and non-coastal jurisdictions, was promoting insurance coverage for hazards (n = 24, 80.0%). Many adaptations were popular in both coastal and non-coastal jurisdictions, but there were geographical differences. For example, 10 coastal jurisdictions (76.9%) had implemented building resilience standards compared to 8 non-coastal jurisdictions (47.1%). Similarly, 5 coastal jurisdictions (38.5%) were incorporating managed retreat, while only 1 non-coastal jurisdiction (5.9%) was doing so (Fig 5).
Discussion
Our findings indicate increased integration and prioritization of climate adaptation in hazard mitigation planning compared to 2018; however, results point to outstanding opportunities to integrate state and territorial hazard mitigation experts more robustly into jurisdictional climate adaptation planning and related activities. As mentioned above, the results presented here were obtained by surveying relatively small samples of SMHOs and other hazard mitigation professionals. As a result, we are cautious in drawing firm conclusions from these results and mostly limit our conclusions to those we surveyed rather than the larger population they represent. We discuss our results with reference to the research questions posed above.
Research Question 1: Climate risk integration over time
The state hazard mitigation experts we surveyed in 2023 appear more focused on—and knowledgeable about—the impacts of climate change than those surveyed in 2018. Overwhelming majorities of respondents are engaged in planning and other mitigation activities from the perspective that climate change is a clear and present danger to their jurisdictions. While most do not conceptualize climate change as a standalone risk, they do understand that climate change is interacting with existing hazards in ways that require rethinking one’s approach. Many have devoted staff and other resources specifically to addressing these realities, suggesting they are taking the problem seriously. This increasing focus may have cascading benefits for local jurisdictions that are planning for climate change, as sub-national jurisdictions’ preparedness helps bridge gaps in federal and local government policy [18].
The case for climate-related hazard mitigation planning is facilitated by increasing awareness of concrete climate evidence. Respondents generally agreed that there is evidence to support climate hazard mitigation, and a perceived lack of evidence is even less of a source of resistance to their work than it was in 2018. Perhaps as a result of this, climate change became a higher priority between 2018 and 2023 both individually and in relation to other planning priorities. Meanwhile, political considerations are generally less relevant to the work of hazard mitigation professionals. Specific regulatory changes and new federal grant funding were important ways in which climate-related hazard mitigation was facilitated in 2023, but political agendas at the jurisdictional level appear to be less important as facilitators or barriers, while national and international agendas barely register as considerations for these respondents. This points to the importance of specific, material incentives over rhetoric and the generalized political climate.
However, there are still important gaps to be addressed in both understanding and resources. For example, a majority of respondents still did not make the connection between climate change and human-caused hazards, despite clear and compelling evidence of such connections [3]. Several respondents indicated that their jurisdictions are still relying on historical data over projections that account for climate impacts. And while respondents have a clearer understanding of the resources available to them for climate-related hazard work, more of them have concluded that those resources—especially funding and staff—are insufficient for the task at hand. This reported resource gap may be explained in part by increasing awareness of the scope of the problem rather than an actual resource shortfall relative to past planning cycles; further study would be needed to establish such a connection.
Research Question 2: Integrating climate adaptation
Our results suggest that climate adaptation is less well understood as a concept, with many respondents reporting uncertainty about the subject. Despite this, many jurisdictions are actively engaging in climate adaptation work primarily through updates to their hazard mitigation plans. Popular strategies in the jurisdictions we surveyed run the gamut from promoting the adoption of hazard insurance—likely a popular option because this insurance is provided by private entities and therefore requires little in terms of state action—to adding specific climate-related hazard mitigation strategies to future hazard mitigation plans. Taken together, these results suggest that even respondents who may be unfamiliar with the terminology of adaptation and the ways in which it is conceptually distinct from hazard mitigation are still taking steps in practice to adapt to climate change.
The role of geography
Finally, while there are important differences between coastal and non-coastal jurisdictions, these differences appear in complex and sometimes unexpected ways. For example, at a high level of abstraction coastal jurisdictions are more focused on climate change as a threat, likely to be devoting more attention and resources to addressing it, and more likely to consider those increased resources inadequate for the task. Coastal respondents are also more likely to be operating in a political environment that facilitates—or at least does not impede—their climate planning goals. However, there are counterexamples to this trend. For instance, non-coastal respondents are more likely to be focused on certain specific climate adaptation strategies, such as smart growth and providing data to policy makers. Geography, as well as divergent political attitudes and cultural traditions at the jurisdictional level, may be partly responsible for these differences, but it is likely that the full explanations are complex and idiosyncratic to the jurisdiction. Our dataset is inadequate to explore the full range of these possibilities.
Respondents indicated that their jurisdictions’ internal priorities motivated or impeded the integration of climate change into HMPs more frequently than those at the federal and international levels. This is consistent with prior research suggesting that even without strong national commitment, climate policy may defy the “race-to-the-bottom” argument as states move to implement climate change policy regardless of federal trends [20, 21]. While federal leadership on climate policy may encourage jurisdictions like those we surveyed to implement policy and especially provide funding to support those efforts, a lack of federal leadership may not necessarily prevent action by these jurisdictions. Collectively, these jurisdictions have power to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis regardless of the federal government’s position on the issue.
Despite sharing goals and purposes across the fields of hazard mitigation, climate adaptation, and disaster risk reduction, state and territorial officials are hindered from collaborating with officials at other agencies in their jurisdictions by barriers such as varying terminology, scope of practice, and operational contexts [22]. Our results illustrate these challenges. Over a third of the SHMOs who responded to our survey were either unsure whether their jurisdictions had climate adaptation plans or unsure whether their HMPs were the primary plans for climate-related hazards; nearly a quarter were unsure of both. These findings are consistent with the 2018 survey, which found low levels of collaboration between SHMOs and other relevant agencies [13]. Better collaboration and coordination between agencies working on climate planning may help avoid duplicative efforts and streamline climate change response. Although hazard mitigation planning and climate adaptation planning are typically undertaken by different agencies with differing resources, our results suggest that these planning processes can and should occur in tandem to build community resilience to climate-related disaster events in a more effective and efficient way [8, 23].
Limitations
This study is limited in several ways. First and foremost, there are only 56 jurisdictional hazard mitigation officers in the U.S. and only 30 respondents in our sample. This limits the statistical tests that can be performed on the data and therefore the conclusions we can draw. With just over half of SHMOs responding (n = 30), data from the 26 jurisdictions not represented in our sample could differ systematically from what was captured by this survey. Our analysis is further limited by the fact that only 22 jurisdictions responded to both the 2018 and 2023 surveys, making it difficult to present a meaningful analysis of in-jurisdiction change over time. Moreover, our study is situated in the United States, where hazard mitigation planning is heavily influenced by federal policy and national emergency management systems, limiting generalizability to other countries. Future research should more broadly explore engagement in hazard mitigation across countries and contexts.
Data collected were based solely on respondents’ perceptions and recall, which may be biased–especially on a topic as politically charged in the U.S. as climate change. In particular, respondents may have felt pressure to answer in a specific way or may be unaware of climate change work happening within or outside of their organizations. Qualitative interviews with SHMOs might yield a better understanding of the influence that factors such as political dynamics and access to resources–including funding, staff capacity, staff expertise, and climate change data–have on hazard mitigation planning. They may also reveal facilitators or barriers to climate change integration that were not captured in our survey and illuminate whether, how, and why coastal status influences climate change integration.
We did not analyze the contents of HMPs themselves to evaluate climate change integration directly, which could have provided more concrete conclusions around climate change planning. To explore these findings more in depth, future work examining the integration of climate change into hazard mitigation plans should include content analysis of HMPs. 60.0% of survey respondents reporting that they expect to release updated HMPs in 2023, and analysis of these updated plans may provide more conclusive information on the integration of climate change into HMPs.
Assessing plans alone, without evaluating the implementation or impact of specific strategies, cannot identify increased community disaster resilience [23]. In other words, even if a SHMO reports that climate change is well integrated into their jurisdiction’s HMP, that does not explicitly translate into reduced risk on the ground. Additional research is necessary to assess the implementation and effectiveness of specific strategies.
Finally, we recognize that the jargon used in the survey–though common in hazard mitigation planning, climate adaptation planning, and climate mitigation–may be misinterpreted by SHMOs. In particular, the term “mitigation” is often interpreted to refer to emissions reduction rather than efforts to reduce the impacts of climate-change-related hazards [4]. Future survey research should integrate specific definitions into survey instructions or evaluate SHMO understanding of these terms as part of the survey itself.
Conclusion
Almost all the jurisdictions we studied are incorporating climate change into their hazard mitigation plans in some way. Findings suggest both further integration and more awareness of climate-related hazards when compared to results from 2018 [13]. In 2023, respondents most commonly cited increasing evidence to support climate change projections and recent disaster events as facilitators for climate-related hazard mitigation work.
Most respondents also reported including climate adaptation strategies in their jurisdictions’ HMPs. Despite this, they reported being hampered by insufficient data and evidence, staff capacity, and staff expertise. Future research should analyze HMPs directly for quality of climate change integration and plans to implement specific strategies and approaches. Deeper engagement with SHMOs in the form of interviews may reveal themes not captured in this study.
Acknowledgments
REDCap at ITHS is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1 TR002319.
The authors would like to thank Erika Lund, Recovery Coordinator, Seattle Office of Emergency Management, for piloting the updated survey and providing feedback.
References
- 1. Solecki W, Leichenko R, O’Brien K. Climate change adaptation strategies and disaster risk reduction in cities: connections, contentions, and synergies. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2011 May 1;3(3):135–41.
- 2.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters [Internet]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [cited 2024 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions.
- 3.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. Fifth National Climate Assessment [Internet]. Crimmins AR, Avery CW, Easterling DR, Kunkel KE, Stewart B, Maycock TK, editors. Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH1
- 4. Horn DP. FEMA Hazard Mitigation: A First Step toward Climate Adaptation [Internet]. Congressional Research Service; 2022 Mar. Available from: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46989.
- 5.
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation.
- 6.
Hazard Mitigation Planning [Internet]. [cited 2022 Sep 11]. Available from: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigation-planning.
- 7. Berke PR. Enhancing Plan Quality: Evaluating the Role of State Planning Mandates for Natural Hazard Mitigation. J Environ Planning Manag. 1996 Mar 1;39(1):79–96.
- 8. Matos M, Gilbertson P, Woodruff S, Meerow S, Roy M, Hannibal B. Comparing hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation planning approaches. J Environ Planning Manag. 2023 Dec 6;66(14):1–21.
- 9. Hazard Mitigation Planning. 44 C.F.R. Sect. 206.400 et seq. (1988).
- 10.
Mitigation Planning and Grants [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 2]. Available from: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigation-planning/requirements.
- 11. O’Brien GO’Keefe P, Rose J Wisner BClimate change and disaster management. Disasters. 2006 Mar;30(1):64–80. pmid:16512862
- 12. State Mitigation Plan Review Guide [Internet]. FEMA; 2015 Mar. Report No.: FP 302-094-2. Available from: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema-state-mitigation-plan-review-guide_03-09-2015.pdf.
- 13. Gonick SA, Errett NA. Integrating Climate Change into Hazard Mitigation Planning: A Survey of State Hazard Mitigation Officers. Sustain Sci Pract Policy. 2018 Nov 12;10(11):4150.
- 14. Asadnabizadeh M. Climate Change in the Foreign Policy of the Trump Administration. Environ Policy Law. 2019 Aug 16;49(2):195–202.
- 15. 2018–2022 Strategic Plan Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internet]. FEMA; 2018. Available from: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/fema-strategic-plan_2018-2022.pdf.
- 16.
Biden-Harris Administration Announces Funding Opportunity for New Community Resilience Program [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20221220/biden-harris-administration-announces-funding-opportunity-new-community.
- 17.
2022–2026 FEMA Strategic Plan [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.fema.gov/about/strategic-plan.
- 18. Hu Q, Tang Z, Zhang L, Xu Y, Wu X, Zhang L. Evaluating climate change adaptation efforts on the US 50 states’ hazard mitigation plans. Nat Hazards. 2018 Jun 1;92(2):783–804.
- 19. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377–81. pmid:18929686
- 20. Jordaan SM, Davidson A, Nazari JA, Herremans IM. The dynamics of advancing climate policy in federal political systems. Environ Pol Gov. 2019 May;29(3):220–34.
- 21. Harrison K. Federalism and Climate Policy Innovation: A Critical Reassessment. Can Public Policy. 2013;39:S95–108.
- 22. Klima K, Jerolleman A. Bridging the Gap: Hazard Mitigation in the Global Context. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag. 2014 Jun 13;11(2):209–16.
- 23. Woodruff SC, Stults M. Numerous strategies but limited implementation guidance in US local adaptation plans. Nat Clim Chang. 2016 May 2;6(8):796–802.