Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696591129371.pdf (United States)
Climate Adaptation and Resilience Planning Survey Minnesota Pollution Control Agency June 30, 2022 MAD Project Team Kristina Krull MPCA Project Manager Laura Millberg MAD Enterprise Director Beth Bibus MAD Assistant Directors Lisa Anderson Kris Van Amber Contact Information Telephone: 651-259-3800 Email: Management.Analysis@state.mn.us Website: mn.gov/mmb/mad Address: 658 Cedar Street Centennial Office Building Room 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Management Analysis and Development Management Analysis and Development is Minnesota government’s in-house fee-for-service management consulting group.
We have over 35 years of experience helping public managers increase their organizations’ effectiveness and efficiency.

We provide quality management consultation services to local, regional, state, and federal government agencies and public institutions.

Alternative Formats To request a reasonable accommodation and/or alternative format of this document contact us at 651-259- 3800, Management.Analysis@state.mn.us, or accessibility.mmb@state.mn.us.
2 Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Key findings ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Recommendations for future surveys ................................................................................................................. 13 Background and methodology ....................................................................................................................... 14 2022 response rate .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Aggregate response rate ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Statewide indicator of climate adaptation and resilience planning ................................................................. 19 Historical method: Look at each survey individually ........................................................................................... 19 New method: Look at aggregate data ................................................................................................................. 20 Benefits of the new methodology ....................................................................................................................... 21 Survey respondents’ planning efforts ............................................................................................................. 23 Comprehensive planning ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Standalone planning ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Health and safety planning .................................................................................................................................. 25 Water planning .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Natural resources planning .................................................................................................................................. 27 Additional planning efforts .................................................................................................................................. 28 Other types of planning ....................................................................................................................................... 29 A broader view of planning efforts ...................................................................................................................... 30 Other survey results ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Intergovernmental coordination ......................................................................................................................... 33 Utilized resources ................................................................................................................................................ 34 Actions taken ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Identified resources or assistance ....................................................................................................................... 36 Experience with events or trends associated with the changing climate ........................................................... 38 Other comments from survey respondents ........................................................................................................ 39 Key survey findings and recommendations for future surveys ........................................................................ 41 Key survey findings .............................................................................................................................................. 41 Recommendations for future surveys ................................................................................................................. 43 3 Appendix A: Methods detail ........................................................................................................................... 45 Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 45 Survey recipients .................................................................................................................................................. 45 Survey development ............................................................................................................................................ 45 Survey administration and analysis ..................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix B: 2022 Climate Adaptation and Resilience Planning Survey ........................................................... 47 Introductory text .................................................................................................................................................. 47 Questions ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 Appendix C: Other indicator methods ............................................................................................................ 53 Look at aggregate survey data, and analyze based on the number of invited organizations ............................. 53 Look at aggregate survey data, and analyze based on the number of responding organizations ...................... 54 Look at individual survey years, and analyze based on the number of responding organizations ..................... 55 Appendix D: Organizational plans over time ................................................................................................... 56 Appendix E: Survey respondents by region and organization type .................................................................. 57 Appendix F: Survey results—by broad categories ........................................................................................... 58 Organization type ................................................................................................................................................ 58 Region .................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Greater Minnesota/Metro ................................................................................................................................... 72 Number of employees ......................................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix G: Survey results—cities by size ...................................................................................................... 78 Results by size ...................................................................................................................................................... 78 Results by city population .................................................................................................................................... 82 Appendix H: Survey results—small cities and townships in Greater Minnesota .............................................. 84 Appendix I: Survey results—by experience with climate-related event or trend ............................................. 91 Appendix J: Survey results—by use of resources and partnerships ................................................................. 96 Appendix K: Use of resources and partnerships .............................................................................................. 99 Minnesota GreenStep .......................................................................................................................................... 99 Organizations that hosted Minnesota GreenCorps members ........................................................................... 106 4 Appendix L: Action as a result of planning .................................................................................................... 113 Appendix M: Governmental collaboration ................................................................................................... 115 5 Executive summary Background The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is committed to supporting climate adaptation and resilience planning statewide.
To better understand the needs of governmental entities planning and preparing for the impacts of the changing climate, MPCA asked Management Analysis and Development (MAD) to develop, administer, and analyze an online survey of governmental entities.

Respondents included Minnesota cities, townships, counties, watershed districts, soil and water conservation districts, and regional development organizations, as well as tribal nations in the state.
MAD conducted the survey in 2016 and 2019, and replicated the effort in 2022 to assess progress and benchmark the current needs in relationship to new funding enacted at the state and federal levels specifically to support local climate resilience.

MAD worked with experts from MPCA to update the survey each time.

The primary purposes of the survey were: • Estimate the percentage of governmental agencies in Minnesota that have climate adaptation planning efforts, to serve as a statewide indicator.
• Learn more about climate adaptation and resilience planning efforts by governmental organizations in Minnesota.

Learn about the climate adaptation actions being taken by governmental organizations in Minnesota.

• • Gain information about what types of resources might be useful to governmental organizations engaged in climate adaptation and resilience planning in Minnesota.

Response rate This is the third statewide survey of climate adaptation and resilience planning in Minnesota.
More than one thousand governmental entities—including Minnesota cities, townships, counties, tribal governments, watershed districts, soil and water conservation districts, and regional development organizations—received the 2022 survey, and about 33 percent responded (380 of 1,153).

The characteristics of responding organizations in 2022 generally reflected the characteristics of the organizations invited.
The organizations that participated generally responded in proportion to the percentage of organizations invited in that category.

For example, cities comprised 63 percent of all survey responses and 72 percent of survey invitations.

Responding organizations also broadly reflected the regions of the state, as shown in Figure 1.

6 Figure 1.

2022 data: Response rate by MPCA region Over the three survey iterations, more than half of the organizations ever invited have participated at least once.
Figure 2 shows that 57 percent of invited organizations (698 of 1,219) have responded one or more times, and 88 organizations have responded all three times.

Figure 2.

2016–2022 data: Number of times organizations have participated in the survey Analyzing the characteristics of all organizations that have ever responded or been invited shows that the survey has reached a wide variety of organizations around the state.
For example, more than three-quarters of SWCDs, watershed districts/organizations, and tribal governments participated at least once in the three survey years.

Cities and townships—the organization type with by far the highest number of invited organizations—had the lowest category response rate, but 51 percent of them still responded at least once.
Additionally, more than half the organizations in most regions have participated at least once; only North Central received a regional response rate of just under 50 percent.

7 Key findings Statewide indicator Historically, reports for this survey have estimated the extent of statewide planning efforts by examining survey data in the context of all surveyed organizations in a given year.
The new approach to calculating the indicator includes all three years of survey data—it expands the analysis from 33 percent of invited organizations in an individual year to 57 percent of organizations that have ever responded.

Like the historical approach, it calculates the percentage for the statewide indicator based on the number of invited organizations, but it also includes an analysis showing percentages based on the number of responding organizations.
Figure 3 shows how many organizations have ever reported having different plan types in any of the three surveys.

The bar on the left shows the aggregate data as a percentage of invited organizations, while the bar on the right shows the aggregate data as a percentage of responding organizations.

Over the three survey years, 43 percent of invited organizations, and 75 percent of responding organizations, have participated in the survey and reported having a relevant planning effort or plan.
Fifteen percent of invited organizations, and 25 percent of responding organizations, have participated in the survey and never reported a relevant plan.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Governmental organizations in Minnesota that have ever reported having climate adaptation or resilience content in any survey, as a percentage of responding and invited organizations1 1 A respondent was designated as being engaged in climate adaptation or resilience planning if they selected any of the plan/planning types in survey questions about climate adaptation or resilience planning efforts.
In a small number of cases, MAD designated a respondent as being engaged in planning based on their written comments.

Organizations were not counted multiple times.
8 metric organizations that haven't responded to the survey organizations that have responded and never had a relevant plan organizations that have responded and had any kind of relevant plan # organizations total Percent of organizations that have ever been invited Percent of organizations that have ever responded 43% 15% 43% 1,219 n/a 25% 75% 698 Studying the aggregate data provides a more accurate estimate of how many governmental organizations have engaged in this type of planning.
The historical approach of looking at each year’s results separately and not including participation in past surveys likely underestimated how many organizations have relevant plans.

An organization might have responded in 2019 that they had one or more relevant plans, but then not taken the survey again in 2022.

However, the organizations’ previously reported plan(s) likely are still in use.
The new methodology looks at percentages for both invited organizations and responding organizations, but the indicator continues to be based on invited organizations for now.
While respondents in each of the survey years have generally reflected the geography and organization types of all invited organizations (as discussed in the aggregate response rate section on page 17), it is still difficult to firmly conclude that responding organizations truly reflect the plans and planning efforts of all invited organizations.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Statewide indicator of climate adaptation and resilience As additional organizations participate in future surveys, the aggregated responses are even more likely to reflect actual overall planning by all invited organizations.

Respondents’ planning Responding governmental organizations are engaged in a wide range of planning efforts.
Figure 5 shows that, based on the results of all three surveys, organizations most often have water or health and safety plans that specifically address climate adaptation and resilience in some way.

9 Figure 5.
Aggregate 2016–2022 data: Organizations that have climate adaptation or resilience content in different plan types, as a percentage of invited organizations (n = 1,219) Plan type Water planning Health and safety planning Natural resources planning Additional planning Comprehensive planning Standalone climate adaptation planning Any plan % of invited organizations 34% 28% 19% 18% 16% 8% 43% Looking at the 2022 survey results alone, 75 percent of organizations that responded have at least one type of relevant plan.
On average, organizations selected 4.4 of the 36 planning options listed.

Relatively few are engaged in many different types of plans or planning efforts related to climate adaptation and resilience.

Other specific 2022 survey results regarding planning include: • More than half of responding organizations (59 percent) are engaged in water plans or planning efforts with climate adaptation and resilience content.
• About 41 percent of responding organizations indicated they are engaged in health and safety planning efforts that include content on climate adaptation and resilience.

• Relatively few responding organizations (12 percent) are engaged in standalone climate adaptation planning efforts.

• About one-fifth of respondents had coordinated with other governmental organizations within Minnesota on climate adaptation and resilience planning or implementation.
Respondents’ actions When asked about actions their organizations have taken in the past three years to increase resilience in their community or environment, 69 percent of 2022 respondents selected at least one listed action.

Figure 6 shows respondents most often said their organizations have planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species (29 percent).
Only 14 percent of respondents who selected an action said the steps their organizations have taken were a direct result of a written plan that addressed climate adaptation and resilience.

10 Figure 6.

2022 survey data: In the past three (3) years, what actions has your organization taken to adapt/increase the resiliency of the community or environment to our changing climate?

Please select all that apply.

(This list focuses on tangible actions.


We’ll ask in later questions about any planning or assessments your organization has completed.)
Choice Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species None that I am aware of Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation Improved community connectedness Implemented other watershed management best practices Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual-purpose green space Installed or invested in renewable energy Reduced impervious surfaces Installed electric vehicle charging stations Percent 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 22% 14% 14% 10% 8% 11 Choice Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate-vulnerable populations in the community Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Other Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat Installed new green roof(s) Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) Installed electric energy storage Percent 7% 6% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Resources and assistance needed Responding organizations in 2022 provided input on the types of resources or assistance that would be helpful to their organization for climate adaptation and resilience planning.
The most popular options involved financial assistance for construction, financial assistance for planning, and best practices for climate adaptation and resilience (42 percent each).

Figure 7.

2022 survey data: What kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to your organization to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Choice Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience Financial assistance for resiliency planning Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) None of these Climate resilient design standards New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience Climate resilience indicators / metrics Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections Other Percent 42% 42% 42% 36% 31% 30% 29% 23% 22% 20% 16% 16% 2% 12 Experience with events or trends associated with the changing climate When asked whether different events or trends associated with the changing climate have affected their organization or community in the past few years, the vast majority of respondents in 2022 (87 percent) selected at least one option.
Respondents most often selected extreme rainfall and storms (54 percent), representing a decrease from 65 percent in 2019.

The options that had the largest increases from 2019 were increased air quality problems (28 percent, up from 22 percent) and more frequent wildfires (7 percent, up from 3 percent).

Organizations that experienced one or more climate-related events or trends identified plans or planning activities far more frequently than those organizations that did not.
Recommendations for future surveys MAD’s role in this project was survey development, administration, and analysis, with the expectation that the MPCA would identify implications from the survey data and develop next steps.

Advice on survey issues may be useful, however, so MAD offers the following recommendations for future surveys.
Coordinate survey metrics and strategies with Minnesota’s Climate Action Framework: Future versions of this survey should align with the framework MPCA is developing to achieve a carbon-neutral, resilient, and equitable future for Minnesotans.

Continue with planned survey timing: MAD continues to recommend that the MPCA conduct the survey on a roughly three-year cycle.
This will provide relatively up-to-date information for measuring progress while simultaneously avoiding survey fatigue and allowing time for changes to take place.

Add or expand on questions, but use restraint: MAD recommends that the MPCA consider adding or refining questions or topics to address certain issues (such as exploring why organizations are not engaged in planning).

Detailed recommendations are on page 43.


Consider how and whether to include townships: Nearly 60 townships were invited to participate in this survey because they were included in the list of cities obtained from the League of Minnesota Cities.

However, the Minnesota Association of Townships estimates that the state has 1,780 townships, meaning only a small fraction of them were invited to take the survey.
In the next survey, the MPCA could continue the practice from the 2016 and 2019 surveys of inviting only cities and not townships, or it could consider inviting all townships.

Continue to explore cumulative results: Analyzing the results of individual surveys is necessary and helpful to understand snapshots in time.

It is also the best approach for questions that focus on events and planning work since the previous survey iteration.
However, MAD recommends continuing to calculate cumulative results across all survey years.

These analyses provide better estimates of the indicators than single-year results.

Use the survey as an opportunity to educate: On the question about resources and partnerships usage, only 16 percent of respondents indicated that they had used one of the listed options.

The respondents that had not used the resources, and even some of those that had, may be curious about those resources.
The MPCA could provide links to those programs in the survey to help agencies find existing resources.

13 Background and methodology The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is committed to supporting climate adaptation and resilience planning statewide.
To better understand the needs of governmental entities planning and preparing for the impacts of the changing climate, MPCA asked Management Analysis and Development (MAD) to develop, administer, and analyze an online survey of governmental entities.

The survey was sent to Minnesota cities, townships, counties, watershed districts, soil and water conservation districts, and regional development organizations, as well as tribal nations in the state.
MAD completed the survey in 2016 and 2019, and replicated the effort in 2022 to track progress and benchmark the current needs in relationship to new funding enacted at the state and federal levels specifically to support local climate resilience.

MAD worked with experts from MPCA to update the survey and conduct analyses that will be useful.

A detailed description of survey methods is in Appendix A (page 45), and the full survey is in Appendix B (page 47).
The primary purposes of the survey were: • Estimate the percentage of governmental agencies in Minnesota that have climate adaptation planning efforts, to serve as a statewide indicator.

• • Learn more about climate adaptation and resilience planning efforts by governmental organizations in Minnesota.

Learn about the climate adaptation actions being taken by governmental organizations in Minnesota.
• Gain information about what types of resources might be useful to governmental organizations engaged in climate adaptation and resilience planning in Minnesota.

Additionally, MPCA hoped that the survey introduction email from the MPCA Commissioner and the survey itself would increase general awareness of climate adaptation and resilience issues among survey recipients.

This report is organized so that the body of the report provides information relevant to the primary purposes of the survey.
Appendices C–M provide more detailed survey results for categories of respondents.

The graphs in the report typically show the proportion of responses based on the total number of survey respondents, not just the percentage of respondents who answered a particular question, unless otherwise noted.

For many questions, totals may not equal 100 percent because respondents could select multiple options, or because not all respondents answered the question.
For similar reasons, the sum of all responses to a particular question may be different than the total number of respondents.

2022 response rate Overall, 380 organizations responded to the 2022 survey, representing 33 percent of all survey recipients.

The 2022 response rate was the same as the 33 percent response rate in 2019.

The 2016 survey response rate was 30 percent.

14 The characteristics of responding organizations in 2022 generally reflected the characteristics of the organizations invited.
For example, the organizations that participated generally responded in proportion to the percentage of organizations invited in that category.

Table 1 shows that cities comprised 63 percent of all survey responses and 72 percent of survey invitations.

The representation of cities at 63 percent was an increase from 57 percent in 2019.

Table 1.
2022 data: Responses by organization type Organization type City Soil and water conservation district (SWCD) Town/township Watershed district/organization County Regional development organization/commission (RDC) Tribal government Responses Response rate Percent of survey responses Percent of survey invitations 240 48 30 30 23 6 3 29% 55% 46% 48% 27% 67% 30% 63% 13% 8% 8% 6% 2% 1% 72% 8% 6% 5% 7% 1% 1% While cities made up most of the respondents, cities also had one of the lowest response rates for an organizational type (29 percent).
It is worth noting that the vast majority of cities in Minnesota have populations of 5,000 or fewer.2 In addition to reflecting organization types, responding organizations also generally reflected the geography of invited organizations.

As shown below in Table 2, Figure 8, and Figure 9, most regions had similar percentages of survey responses and survey invitations.
The northeast region made up only 9 percent of invited and responding organizations, but it has fewer organizations than other regions; its regional response rate was similar to other regions’.

2 The League of Minnesota Cities provided a spreadsheet about its member cities.

MAD primarily used the spreadsheet to obtain contact information for cities, but the spreadsheet also included population estimates for most cities.
It is unclear from the spreadsheet where the estimates came from or how recent they are.

15 Table 2.

2022 data: Responses by region MPCA region Responses Response rate Percent of survey responses Percent of survey invitations Southeast Southwest Twin Cities Metro Northwest North Central Northeast 82 79 79 62 43 35 37% 39% 34% 28% 26% 34% 22% 21% 21% 16% 11% 9% 19% 18% 20% 19% 15% 9% Figure 8.

2022 data: Responses by MPCA region Figure 9.


2022 data: Response rate by MPCA region Table 3 below shows the 2022 distribution of responses by size of organization based on number of employees.

The 2022 survey received a higher percentage of responses from organizations with 0–10 employees: 60 percent, up from 52 percent in 2019.

Four percent of respondents did not answer this question.

16 Table 3.
16 Table 3.

2022 data: Responses by organization size (employees) 3 Number of employees Responses Percent of survey responses 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 228 63 37 22 4 9 60% 17% 10% 6% 1% 2% Aggregate response rate While only one-third of invited organizations participated in this survey, more than half of organizations that have ever been invited to take the survey have participated at least once.

Over the three survey iterations, 1,219 organizations have been invited to participate.
Not all organizations were invited each year; the 2022 survey invited some townships, for example, but did not invite state agencies that had previously been invited.

Most organizations, though, have been invited to participate all three times.

Figure 10 shows that 88 organizations have responded to every version of the survey.

Across all three surveys, 698 organizations, or 57 percent of invited organizations, have participated in the survey at least once.

Figure 10.
Figure 10.

2016–2022 data: Number of times organizations have participated in the survey There was a notable amount of overlap between the two most recent surveys: of the 380 responding organizations in 2022, 41 percent also participated in the 2019 survey.

As a result, the data from the three surveys can provide some organizational-level longitudinal data over six years.
On the other hand, due to the 3 While the previous two tables have a “percent of survey invitations” column, it is not possible to calculate that field for the “number of employees” characteristic.

MAD only receives that characteristic information from responding organizations that answer the relevant survey question.

17 large percentage of first-time respondents, the 2022 data can also contribute to aggregate information that now exceeds a majority of invited governmental organizations.
Analyzing the characteristics of all organizations that have ever responded or been invited demonstrates that the survey has reached a majority of every type of governmental organization.

Table 4 shows how many organizations of different types have responded or been invited.
At the high end, nearly all state agencies invited participated in 2016 and/or 20194, and more than three-quarters of SWCDs, watershed districts/organizations, and tribal governments participated at least once in the three survey years.

Cities and townships—the organization type with by far the highest number of invited organizations—had the lowest category response rate, but 51 percent of them still responded at least once.

Table 4.
Table 4.

2016–2022 data: Responses by organization type Organization type City/township County RDC State agency SWCD Tribal government Watershed district/organization # responded at least once # invited at least once % in category ever responded 472 923 52 6 29 78 9 52 88 9 31 91 12 65 51% 59% 67% 94% 86% 75% 80% The aggregate responses also prove that the different MPCA regions have been well represented in survey results.
Table 5 shows that more than half the organizations in all but one region have participated at least once; only North Central received a regional response rate of just under 50 percent.

The two southern regions were most represented at more than 60 percent each.

Taken together, these analyses show that participating organizations generally reflected the governmental type and regional representation of invited organizations.

Table 5.
Table 5.

2016–2022 data: Responses by MPCA region MPCA region Southwest Southeast Twin Cities Metro Northwest Northeast North Central # responded at least once # invited at least once % in region ever responded 136 139 137 119 55 83 207 231 244 226 108 172 66% 60% 56% 53% 51% 48% 4 State agencies were not invited to participate in the 2022 survey.
18 Statewide indicator of climate adaptation and resilience planning A primary purpose of this survey was to measure the statewide indicator of government planning efforts related to climate adaptation and resilience.

MAD used one methodology for calculating the indicator in 2016 and 2019, but analyzing the aggregate data across all three years revealed the opportunity to rethink the methodology.

This section presents the historical method and a new method of calculating the indicator.
Appendix C on page 53 examines other ways MAD and the MPCA explored calculating a new indicator.

Historical method: Look at each survey individually Historically, reports for this survey have estimated the extent of statewide planning efforts by examining the data for each survey in the context of all organizations invited to participate in the survey that year.
For the statewide indicator, MAD took the total number of responding organizations that indicated they were engaged in any type of planning efforts with content specifically related to climate adaptation or resilience (286 in 2022) and divided that by the total number of organizations invited to participate in the survey (1,153 in 2022).
Using this approach, 25 percent of organizations invited to take the survey in 2022 reported that they have at least one plan or planning effort with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience.

Using this historical method, Figure 11 below shows the single-survey statewide indicator values for all three survey years.

While the indicator increased to 25 percent in 2019 from 18 percent in 2016, the indicator stayed roughly flat from 2019 to 2022.
One possible explanation for this may be the COVID-19 pandemic, which might have limited organizations’ capacity to focus on climate adaptation and resilience.

Another factor could be differences in the characteristics of organizations that responded to this survey compared with each of the previous iterations.

The 2022 survey received relatively more responses from smaller organizations, which survey results show engage less often in this type of work.

19 Figure 11.
Governmental organizations in Minnesota that reported having climate adaptation or resilience content in each survey, as a percentage of invited organizations5 Metric organizations that responded and have any kind of relevant plan organizations that responded and don't have a relevant plan organizations that didn't respond to the survey organizations invited 2016 18% 13% 70% 1079 2019 25% 8% 67% 1088 2022 25% 8% 67% 1153 New method: Look at aggregate data The new approach to determining the statewide indicator includes all three years of survey data—it expands the analysis from 33 percent of invited organizations in an individual year to 57 percent of organizations that have ever responded.
Like the historical approach, it calculates the percentage for the statewide indicator based on the number of invited organizations.

This approach avoids overestimating the amount of relevant planning by the governmental organizations targeted in the survey.

On the other hand, this approach likely underestimates the actual percentage of governmental organizations with plans that address climate adaptation and resilience.
For this reason, the new approach also includes an analysis of the aggregate data showing a percentage based on the number of responding organizations for additional context.

Figure 12 shows how many organizations have ever reported in any of the three surveys having one or more plans with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience.
The bar on the left shows the aggregate data as a percentage of invited organizations as the indicator, while the bar on the right shows the aggregate data as a percentage of responding organizations to provide additional context.
Over the three survey years, 43 percent of invited organizations, and 75 percent of responding organizations, have participated in the 5 A respondent was designated as being engaged in climate adaptation or resilience planning if they selected any of the plan/planning types in survey questions about climate adaptation or resilience planning efforts.

In a small number of cases each year, MAD designated a respondent as being engaged in planning based on their written comments.
20 survey and reported having a relevant plan or planning effort.

Fifteen percent of invited organizations, and 25 percent of responding organizations, have participated in the survey and never reported a relevant plan.

Figure 12.
Governmental organizations in Minnesota that have ever reported having climate adaptation or resilience content in any survey, as a percentage of invited and responding organizations6 Metric organizations that haven't responded to the survey organizations that have responded and never had a relevant plan organizations that have responded and had any kind of relevant plan # organizations total Percent of organizations that have ever been invited Percent of organizations that have ever responded 43% 15% 43% 1,219 n/a 25% 75% 698 Benefits of the new methodology While the historical methodology made sense when there was more limited data, no individual survey has had more than 33 percent of invited organizations respond, meaning that any single-year analysis is a limited snapshot of how much relevant planning exists.
A large percentage of the specific responding organizations has changed with each survey (as shown in Figure 9 on page 27), even though respondents overall continue to generally reflect the broad categories and regional distribution of invited organizations.

Analyzing the aggregate data expands the analysis from 33 percent of invited organizations in an individual year to 57 percent of organizations that have ever responded.
Studying the total available sample provides a more accurate estimate of how many governmental organizations have engaged in this type of planning.

6 A respondent was designated as being engaged in climate adaptation or resilience planning if they selected any of the plan/planning types in survey questions about climate adaptation or resilience planning efforts.

In a small number of cases, MAD designated a respondent as being engaged in planning based on their written comments.
Organizations were not counted multiple times.

21 Looking at each year’s results separately and not including historical participation by different organizations likely underestimates how many organizations have relevant plans.

This is because the survey questions about planning are not time dependent; they do not ask about any new plans since the previous survey, but rather whether the organization has engaged in different types of planning.
An organization might have responded in 2019 that they had one or more relevant plans, but then not taken the survey again in 2022.

Only 41 percent of organizations that participated in 2022 also participated in 2019.

Not including their data from the previous surveys almost certainly underestimates the amount of planning that actually exists, because the previously reported plan(s) likely are still in use.
Studying the results of the 88 organizations that have taken the survey three times shows that they mostly increase their number of plans over time (see Appendix D on page 56).

The new methodology looks at percentages for both invited organizations and responding organizations, but the indicator continues to be based on invited organizations for now (see Figure 13).
While respondents in each of the survey years have generally reflected the geography and organization types of all invited organizations (as discussed in the aggregate response rate section on page 17), it is still difficult to firmly conclude that responding organizations truly reflect the plans and planning efforts of all invited organizations.
For example, a higher percentage of organizations that completed the survey may be more interested or engaged in climate adaptation and resilience planning than governmental organizations in general, which could drive up the number of affirmative responses to survey questions.

Figure 13.

Statewide indicator of climate adaptation and resilience Overall, the new indicator shows a more accurate estimate of how many governmental entities in Minnesota plan for climate adaptation and resilience.
As additional organizations participate in future surveys, the aggregated responses are even more likely to reflect actual overall planning by all invited organizations.

22 Survey respondents’ planning efforts The sections below show the results of the survey by type of plan or planning effort.
The survey asked respondents to review lists of types of plans and planning efforts, and to identify which of the plans or planning efforts their organization engaged in that included content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience.

Comprehensive planning In 2022, 15 percent of respondents said they had adopted a comprehensive plan with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience.
Additionally, 15 percent reported being in the process of developing a comprehensive plan with this content.

Figure 14 shows the full results.

Figure 14.

2022 survey data: Does your organization have a comprehensive plan with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?
Choice None of the above Comprehensive Plan with this content adopted Comprehensive Plan with this content in process This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 59% 15% 15% 11% 23 Standalone planning Figure 15 shows that most 2022 respondents do not have standalone planning that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience.
Of the options that affirmed they had some type of plan in process or completed, respondents most often indicated they have a climate adaptation plan/strategic framework in process (6 percent).

The 2022 survey also offered a new option, Climate action/sustainability plan.

Five percent of respondents have a climate action/sustainability plan in process, and 3 percent have one completed.

Figure 15.
Figure 15.

2022 survey data: Has your organization engaged in any of the following standalone planning efforts specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Choice None of the above Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework in process Climate action / sustainability plan in process Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment in process Climate action / sustainability plan completed Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework completed Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment completed This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 75% 6% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 10% 24 Health and safety planning Figure 16 shows that among health and safety plans, 2022 respondents most often have hazard mitigation plans (30 percent) and emergency response plans (23 percent) that contain relevant content.
Figure 16.

2022 survey data: Does your organization have any health and safety plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


Choice None of the above Hazard mitigation Emergency response Emergency operations Worker safety and work environment Building codes inspection and enforcement Continuity of operations Public health This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 46% 30% 23% 15% 11% 10% 8% 6% 11% 25 Water planning Figure 17 shows how many respondents chose each of the different types of water plans in 2022.
The three most common water plan types selected were wellhead protection (31 percent), stormwater (28 percent), and watershed (27 percent).

Figure 17.

Does your organization have any water plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


Choice None of the above Wellhead protection Stormwater / erosion control Watershed Water quantity (including groundwater) Sewer system Water supply infrastructure Wastewater treatment facilities This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 31% 31% 28% 27% 20% 18% 17% 15% 6% 26 Natural resources planning In 2022, parks and facilities planning and invasive species planning remained the most common natural resources plans selected.
Parks and facilities plans (16 percent) and invasive species plans (13 percent) were the most commonly selected options.

The 2022 survey added a new option, Wildlife management, which 4 percent of respondents selected.

Figure 18.

Does your organization have any natural resources plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Choice None of the above Parks and park facilities Invasive species Open / green space (excluding parks) Urban and community forestry/tree canopy Forest management Wildlife management This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 56% 16% 13% 10% 9% 6% 4% 8% 27 Additional planning efforts One of the last planning questions asked whether organizations have engaged in specific types of additional planning efforts (not covered in previous categories) that specifically address climate adaptation and resilience.
Land use and strategic planning were the most common selections for types of additional planning.

The 2022 survey added a new option, Social equity/human rights, and 3 percent of respondents said they have engaged in this type of planning.

Figure 19 details the 2022 results.

Figure 19.

Has your organization engaged in any additional planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Choice None of the above Land use Strategic planning Energy Economic development Capital budget Solid waste Transportation Facilities and grounds (excluding parks and water systems) Construction and demolition waste Workforce planning and development Hazardous waste Social equity / human rights This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 63% 12% 9% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 4% 4% 3% 3% 7% 28 Other types of planning Another survey question asked respondents, “If your organization has engaged in any other planning not covered in any of the previous questions with content specifically related to climate adaptation and resilience, please describe it.” About 10 percent of survey respondents offered some comments (excluding responses like “none” or “not applicable”).
About one-quarter of the comments described relevant actions their organization had taken that did not involve planning.

Among other things, they said their organizations: • Applied for the Xcel Partners in Energy program.

• Began a carbon sequestration program development/evaluation.

• Created a committee to work with a seed legacy program.

• Completed wastewater and storm sewer projects to help address flooding issues.
• Assessed peatland restoration for its application in water quality and quantity management.

Most of the remaining comments described additional types of planning that involved climate adaptation and resilience content.

Among other topics, they mentioned: • Diversion plan of updating their infrastructure.

• Flood risk and resiliency analysis.

• Systems-based planning.


29 A broader view of planning efforts Planning efforts by type of plan Reviewing survey results by type of plan can provide a broader view of the survey respondents’ planning efforts.

Figure 18 provides an overview of planning efforts by type of plan: • More than half of responding organizations are engaged in water plans or planning efforts with climate adaptation and resilience content.
• Health and safety planning efforts that include content on climate adaptation and resilience were the second most common plan type.

• Similar percentages of respondents are engaged in natural resource and comprehensive planning.

• Relatively few responding organizations are engaged in standalone climate adaptation planning efforts.

Figure 20.
Figure 20.

2022 survey data: climate adaptation or resilience content in planning efforts by type of plan7 (n = 380) Choice Water planning Health and safety planning Natural resources planning Comprehensive planning Additional planning Standalone climate adaptation planning Any plan Percent 59% 41% 31% 30% 26% 12% 75% While Figure 20 explores the prevalence of planning types within the 2022 survey, it only shows a snapshot of governmental organizations that responded this year.
Figure 21 examines how many organizations have ever 7 A respondent was designated as being engaged in climate adaptation or resilience planning if they selected any of the plan/planning types in survey questions about climate adaptation or resilience planning efforts.

These totals when compared with previous tables may not add up to 100 percent because respondents may select more than one answer and some respondents did not provide any answer.
To review the detailed survey questions for each type of plan, see the preceding sections.

30 reported having different plan types in any of the three surveys, as a percentage of all organizations that have ever taken the survey.

Across survey iterations, 75 percent of responding organizations have reported having any kind of plan at least once.
The most common types of plans have been water planning (59 percent of responding organizations over three surveys) and health and safety planning (49 percent of responding organizations over three surveys).

Figure 21.
Aggregate 2016–2022 data: organizations that have climate adaptation or resilience content in different plan types, as a percentage of responding organizations8 (n = 698) Plan type Water planning Health and safety planning Natural resources planning Additional planning Comprehensive planning Standalone climate adaptation planning Any plan % of responding 59% 49% 33% 31% 28% 14% 75% Comparing Figure 20 and Figure 21 shows that the 2022 survey results generally reflected the results of all organizations that have ever responded to the survey; the proportions of different plan types are very similar across the two figures.
Figure 22 recalculates the data from Figure 21 as a percentage of all organizations that have ever been invited to the survey.

This reflects a more likely—but probably conservative—estimate of how many organizations in Minnesota have different types of plans.

By this metric, 34 percent of governmental organizations have a water plan with relevant content, and 28 percent have a health and safety plan with relevant content.
8 A respondent was designated as being engaged in climate adaptation or resilience planning if they selected any of the plan/planning types in survey questions about climate adaptation or resilience planning efforts.

Organizations were not counted multiple times.

Among the three surveys, 698 unduplicated organizations have participated in the survey at least once.

31 Figure 22.
Aggregate 2016–2022 data: organizations that have climate adaptation or resilience content in different plan types, as a percentage of invited organizations (n = 1,219) Plan type Water planning Health and safety planning Natural resources planning Additional planning Comprehensive planning Standalone climate adaptation planning Any plan % of invited organizations 34% 28% 19% 18% 16% 8% 43% Extent of planning efforts Another data point provides useful insights from the survey regarding planning efforts: the average number of planning activities for individual organizations.
Respondents in 2022 could choose from a maximum of 36 options related to planning.

The largest number of plans an individual respondent this year chose was 28, and the lowest was zero.

On average, respondents selected 4.4 items, a slight decrease from an average of 4.6 in 2019.9 The median number of planning efforts per organization was 3, the same as in 2019.

As shown in Table 6, larger organizations had a higher average and median number of plans.
Small organizations with 10 or fewer employees averaged 3.7 plans, compared with 5.0 and 17.1, respectively, for organizations of 501–1,000 employees or over 1,000 employees.

Table 6.
Table 6.

2022 survey data: Number of plans, by organization size Number of employees Average number of plans Median number of plans Number of responses 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 3.7 3.5 7.1 6.1 5.0 17.1 2 2 6 6 4 15 228 63 37 22 4 9 9 MAD counted all of the planning options selected by each respondent and then derived the average for all respondents.
32 It is worth noting that compared with past surveys, a higher percentage of 2022 respondents came from the smallest organizations: 60 percent of respondents were from organizations with 10 or fewer employees, compared with 52 percent in 2019.

Because smaller organizations tend to have fewer types of plans than larger organizations, this shift in the respondent set may partially explain the slightly lower average number of plans picked.
The above results for the two largest categories of organizations show how difficult it can be to analyze small groups of respondents.

The average number of plans reported by organizations with over 1,000 employees was substantially larger in 2022 (17.1 plans) than it was in 2019 (10.6 plans).

However, only nine organizations identified as belonging to that category in 2022, compared with 17 in 2019.
Similarly, the average number of plans reported by organizations of 501–1,000 employees decreased to 5.0 in 2022 from 9.3 in 2019.

Again, though, only four organizations were in that category in 2022, and only six in 2019.

With such small respondent counts, the numbers can vary widely depending on which particular organizations responded in a given year.

The results for these groups should be interpreted cautiously.
Overall, the responses suggest a wide range of planning efforts among surveyed organizations.

The vast majority of responding organizations have plans or are engaged in planning efforts that specifically address climate adaptation and resilience.

However, some governmental organizations in Minnesota are still not engaging in this work, and this survey has largely not explored the reasons why.
The 2022 survey did add options for respondents to indicate that different types of plans were not relevant to their organization, but future surveys could explore additional reasons for not having plans through new questions.

Other survey results Intergovernmental coordination The 2022 survey introduced a new question about coordinating with other governments on climate adaptation and resilience planning or implementation.
Figure 23 shows about one-fifth of respondents said they had coordinated with others, while nearly two-thirds said they had not.

Appendix M on page 115 explores which types of organizations have coordinated with other governmental organizations.

Figure 23.

2022 survey data: Has your organization coordinated with any other local/regional/tribal governmental organization(s) within Minnesota on climate adaptation and resilience planning or implementation?
Choice Yes No I don't know Percent 21% 65% 12% 33 Utilized resources Figure 24 shows that in 2022, 16 percent of respondents said they had used at least one of the listed resources or partnerships.

The 2022 survey removed two options from the 2019 survey, leaving just two resource choices.

About one-fifth of organizations had made use of the Minnesota GreenStep program (11 percent) and/or had hosted a Minnesota GreenCorps member (9 percent); 16 respondents selected both options.
Appendix J on page 96 explores survey results based on whether respondents had used either of these resources.

Appendix K on page 99 further examines survey results for respondents who participated in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program and for respondents who hosted a Minnesota GreenCorps member.

Figure 24.

2022 survey data: Has your organization made use of the following resources or partnerships?

Please select all that apply.


Choice None of the above Participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Program Hosted a Minnesota GreenCorps member Percent 79% 11% 9% Actions taken The survey asked about actions organizations have taken in the past three years to increase resilience in their community or environment.

More than two-thirds of 2022 respondents (69 percent) had taken at least one action, which was a slight increase from 65 percent in 2019.
Figure 25 on the following page shows the 2022 results for individual actions.

Most often, respondents said their organizations have planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species (29 percent).

The 2022 survey offered more options than the 2019 survey, and modified some of the option language.

Where the options between surveys are comparable, results were largely similar between 2019 and 2022, with no more than an increase or decrease of five percentage points.
Twenty-eight percent of respondents said they were not aware of any actions to increase resilience, which was similar to the result in 2019 (29 percent).

34 Figure 25.

2022 survey data: In the past three (3) years, what actions has your organization taken to adapt/increase the resiliency of the community or environment to our changing climate?

Please select all that apply.

(This list focuses on tangible actions.


We’ll ask in later questions about any planning or assessments your organization has completed.)
Choice Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species None that I am aware of Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation Improved community connectedness Implemented other watershed management best practices Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual-purpose green space Installed or invested in renewable energy Reduced impervious surfaces Installed electric vehicle charging stations Percent 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 22% 14% 14% 10% 8% 35 Choice Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate-vulnerable populations in the community Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Other Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat Installed new green roof(s) Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) Installed electric energy storage Percent 7% 6% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% If respondents selected “Other,” the survey asked them to describe those actions.
All six respondents that chose this option wrote a response.

Comments included: • Beginning the process of learning about carbon credits and how our office can assist in the process to our landowners.

• Developed a new Natural Resources Management Program Plan, adopted a Climate Action Work Plan.

• Expanded soil health cost share programs.

• In process in upgrading storm drain.

• Planning with local units of government and communities.

• Wetland restoration.


On a later question about other planning (see page 29), some organizations described relevant actions their organization had taken that did not involve planning, including: • Created a committee to work with a seed legacy program.

• Completed wastewater and storm sewer projects to help address flooding issues.

• Assessed peatland restoration for its application in water quality and quantity management.
The 2022 survey introduced a new question asking whether the actions respondents had selected were a direct result of a written plan that addressed climate adaptation and resilience.

This question appeared only to the 263 respondents who chose at least one action in the previous question.

Figure 26 shows that only 14 percent of these respondents said their actions were a direct result of a written plan.
Note that for this question, the percentages shown are calculated based on the number of respondents who received the question (263), not the total number of survey respondents (380).

Four percent of respondents did not answer the question.

Appendix L on page 113 explores which types of organizations answered yes to this question.

Figure 26.

2022 survey data: Were any of the actions you took a direct result of a written plan that addressed climate adaptation and resilience?
Choice Yes No I’m not sure Percent 14% 69% 13% Identified resources or assistance The survey sought information from respondents regarding what kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to their organization for climate adaptation and resilience planning.

The 2022 survey offered more options than the 2019 survey and modified some of the option language.

Figure 27 on the following page shows the results.


36 Respondents most often selected the two financial assistance options, as well as best practices for climate adaptation and resilience (each at 42 percent).

Nearly one-quarter of respondents (23 percent) indicated they were not interested in any of the resources or assistance listed.

These respondents were mostly from small municipalities.
More than three-quarters of the respondents that chose “none of these” were from cities (79 percent), and another 13 percent were from townships.

About nine-tenths of the respondents who were not interested in the options listed were from organizations with 50 or fewer employees.

Figure 27.

2022 survey data: What kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to your organization to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Choice Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience Financial assistance for resiliency planning Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) None of these Climate resilient design standards New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience Climate resilience indicators / metrics Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections Other Percent 42% 42% 42% 36% 31% 30% 29% 23% 22% 20% 16% 16% 2% If the respondent selected “Other,” the survey asked them to describe the resources or assistance that would be helpful.
All six respondents that chose this option provided an answer: • Elected officials who want climate change.

37 • Financial assistance to facilitate community conversations about adaptation and resilience.

• Financial assistance to increase staff capacity.

• Funding for Climate Action Work Plan implementation: stormwater/green infrastructure projects, gap funding for fleet electrification, loans to enable renewable (PPA) and energy efficiency projects, community center/resiliency hubs, etc.
Information on working best management practices for climate adaptation and resilience into production agriculture.

“What can farmers actively do to help?” • • We need changes to existing city policies, ordinances, and design standards that shift planning, design, and implementation from the current linear models with singular benefits to system-based models with multiple synergistic benefits that are measured across social, environmental, and economic outcomes.
There is very little funding available for planning and feasibility studies that are pursuing restorative or circular economy solutions to climate change, systemic inequity, infrastructure debt.

Experience with events or trends associated with the changing climate In the opening question to the 2022 survey, respondents were asked to select from a list of events or trends associated with the changing climate that have affected their organization or community in the past few years.
The list was not intended to be exhaustive.

This question was designed to frame the issue for survey respondents, and to gather respondents’ general ideas and impressions to potentially better understand organizational planning regarding climate adaptation and resilience.

The 2022 survey offered some different options than the 2019 survey, but roughly the same number of total options.

Figure 28 shows the 2022 results.


Overall, the vast majority of respondents (87 percent) selected at least one event or trend.

The same percentage selected at least one option in the 2019 results, although the options were not identical across the surveys.

Respondents most often selected extreme rainfall and storms (54 percent), representing a decrease from 65 percent in 2019.
The options that had the largest increases from 2019 were increased air quality problems (28 percent, up from 22 percent) and more frequent wildfires (7 percent, up from 3 percent).

These trends align with documented events: Minnesota experienced major drought in 202110, as well as the worst air quality conditions in recorded history (which were triggered by mostly out-of-state wildfires)11.
As in the previous two surveys, organizations that experienced one or more climate-related events or trends far more frequently identified plans or planning activities than those organizations that did not.

This is explored further in Appendix I on page 91.

10 “The Drought of 2021,” Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, updated January 28, 2022, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/journal/drought-2021.html.
11 “Are smoky summers the new normal?” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, updated May 5, 2022, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/featured/are-smoky-summers-new-normal.

38 Figure 28.

2022 survey data: The following types of events and longer-term trends are associated with the changing climate.

During the past few years, which of the following have affected your community (e.g., residents, economy, infrastructure, natural resources)?

Please select all that apply.
Choice Extreme rainfall and storms Extreme drought conditions Less consistent snow cover More frequent freeze-thaw cycles More frequent localized flooding Extended heat wave Increased air quality problems from wildfire smoke, pollen, or other Late ice-in and/or early ice-out Increased problems with invasive species Longer growing season Changes in wildlife and ecosystems Warmer overnight low temperatures More frequent wildfires locally Other event or trend that is connected to climate change Percent 54% 49% 46% 35% 33% 29% 28% 26% 22% 11% 11% 11% 7% 3% If the respondent selected “other event or trend,” the survey asked them to describe the event or trend.
One dozen survey respondents offered comments.

About one-half discussed changes in precipitation and water, including changes in precipitation amounts, flooding, water levels, and ice coverage.

A few others mentioned changes in seasonal transitions.

The remaining comments covered changes in erosion and ecological diversity.

Other comments from survey respondents At the end of the survey, respondents were offered the opportunity to provide any additional thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments.
Thirty respondents provided a response to this question, excluding comments like “none.” Several were complimentary of the survey itself and the state’s prioritization of this topic, while others provided more detail on their earlier responses.

39 Several other respondents discussed how critical funding is for them to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience.
Example comments include: • We would love to connect a walking/bike trail from one which exists just east of us and also would like to get green energy solutions for our community center, office/storage building, and our municipal liquor store but don’t have the funds or the knowledge on how to sign up for grants for these things.

Also our storm shelter needs a backup generator but we don’t have the funds for it.
• State funding/loans to cover the matching dollars needed for federal grant program applications would be very welcome!

• MPCA funding is needed to support efforts focused on planning, rethinking, redesigning, or reframing the current infrastructure and waste paradigm.

There needs to be funding available for feasibility studies and demonstrative closed-loop systems, where all materials are utilized as valued resources.
MPCA needs to reexamine their own internal policies and ask why they are still only seeking siloed solutions to a systems-based problems.

I have yet to review a grant or funding program that is not entrenched in a siloed approach.

All MPCA projects and initiatives should be able to be evaluated based on their ability to achieve a net positive outcome across social, environmental, and economic indicators (no externalities).
Anything short of a restorative, systems-based approach is only committing all of us to today’s entrapments.

Other respondents wrote that they wanted more regulatory flexibility, that climate issues are not a priority in small organizations like theirs, and that they did not believe humans were causing climate change.
40 Key survey findings and recommendations for future surveys Key survey findings Although the responding organizations may not be completely reflective of the state as a whole, the data from the survey can provide useful information to the MPCA.

Statewide indicator This survey provided a new indicator of how many governmental organizations have engaged in planning efforts related to climate adaptation and resilience based on aggregate results from all three iterations of the survey.
While individual survey response rates have not exceeded 33 percent, 57 percent of invited organizations have responded to at least one survey over the three iterations.

Aggregate results provide a better picture of how many governmental organizations have engaged in this type of planning.

Over the three survey years, 43 percent of invited organizations, and 75 percent of responding organizations, have responded to the survey and reported having a relevant planning effort or plan.
Fifteen percent of invited organizations, and 25 percent of responding organizations, have responded to the survey and never reported a relevant plan.

At an individual survey level, 25 percent of organizations invited to participate in 2022 reported that they have at least one type of plan or planning effort with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience.
While that percentage increased to 25 percent in 2019 from 18 percent in 2016, the percentage stayed roughly flat from 2019 to 2022.

One possible explanation may be the COVID-19 pandemic, which might have limited organizations’ capacity to focus on climate adaptation and resilience in the past two years.

Another factor could be differences in which organizations responded to this survey compared with previous iterations.
The 2022 survey received relatively more responses from smaller organizations, which survey results show engage less often in this type of work.

Respondents’ planning and actions Overall, responding governmental organizations are engaged in a wide range of planning efforts.
Analyzing the three survey iterations together, the most common types of plans have been water planning (34 percent of invited organizations over three surveys) and health and safety planning (28 percent of invited organizations over three surveys).

Looking at the 2022 survey results alone, 75 percent of responding organizations have plans or are engaged in planning efforts that specifically address climate adaptation and resilience in some way.
Aggregate results for all three surveys told the same story: 75 percent of responding organizations have relevant plans or planning efforts.

41 On average, organizations in 2022 selected 4.4 of the 36 planning options listed.

Specific 2022 survey results regarding planning include: • More than half of responding organizations (59 percent) are engaged in water plans or planning efforts with climate adaptation and resilience content.
• About 41 percent of responding organizations indicated they are engaged in health and safety planning efforts that include content on climate adaptation and resilience.

• Nearly one-third of respondents have engaged in comprehensive planning efforts that include content on climate adaptation and resilience.

• About one-quarter of respondents indicated they are engaged in some additional type of planning effort that includes climate adaptation and resilience.
• Relatively few responding organizations (12 percent) are engaged in standalone climate adaptation planning efforts.

• In each question about types of planning (standalone, health and safety, natural resources, etc.

), respondents could select the specific kinds of plans they had with relevant content.

Across all the planning type questions, respondents most often selected that they did not have any of the listed plan types with relevant content.
Only within water planning did respondents choose a plan type (wellhead protection) nearly as often they chose “none of the above.” • About one-fifth of respondents have coordinated with other governmental organizations within Minnesota on climate adaptation and resilience planning or implementation.

When asked about actions their organizations have taken in the past three years to increase resilience in their community or environment, 69 percent of respondents selected at least one listed action.
Most often respondents said their organizations have planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species (29 percent), taken new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots (27 percent), and improved community connectedness (26 percent).

Only 14 percent of respondents who took an action said the steps they took were a direct result of a written plan that addressed climate adaptation and resilience.
Resources and assistance needed Responding organizations in 2022 provided input on the types of resources or assistance that would be helpful to their organization for climate adaptation and resilience planning.

The most popular options involved financial assistance for construction and for planning, and best practices for climate adaptation and resilience (42 percent each).
Twenty-three percent of respondents chose “none of these,” the vast majority of which were from cities and townships, and from organizations with 50 or fewer employees.

Experience with events or trends associated with the changing climate When asked whether different events or trends associated with the changing climate have affected their organization or community in the past few years, the vast majority of respondents in 2022 (87 percent) selected at least one option.
Respondents most often selected extreme rainfall and storms (54 percent), representing a decrease from 65 percent in 2019.

The options that had the largest increases from 2019 were increased air 42 quality problems (28 percent, up from 22 percent) and more frequent wildfires (7 percent, up from 3 percent).

Organizations that experienced one or more climate-related events or trends far more frequently identified plans or planning activities than those organizations that did not.
Recommendations for future surveys MAD’s role in this project was survey development, administration, and analysis, with the expectation that the MPCA would identify implications from the survey data and develop next steps.

Advice on survey issues may be useful, however, so MAD offers the following recommendations for future surveys.
Coordinate survey metrics and strategies with Minnesota’s Climate Action Framework: The MPCA is developing a framework for achieving a carbon-neutral, resilient, and equitable future for Minnesotans, and it should be available later this year.12 Future versions of this survey should align with the final framework.

Continue with planned survey timing: MAD continues to recommend that the MPCA conduct the survey on a roughly two-to-three-year cycle.
This will provide relatively up-to-date information for measuring progress while simultaneously avoiding survey fatigue and allowing time for changes to take place.

Review and potentially revise survey questions: MAD recommends that the group consider adding or refining questions or topics: • Continue to review open-ended survey responses to the “other” options.

The 2022 version adjusted survey options based on responses to the 2019 survey.
The overall number of open-ended comments decreased, which may have been in part because respondents saw more of the options they wanted to select.

Continuing this practice will ensure respondents have options to select that best reflect their situation and wishes.

• Adjust question language where it makes sense.

The 2022 survey modified the climate-related events and trends options based on weather events over the past three years.
If the MPCA wishes to gauge how many organizations noticed recent trends, then continuing to modify the options each time is the best course.

Alternatively, if there is an interest in examining trends over time, the MPCA could modify the language options to have more neutral choices rather than pre-designating a direction.
For example, offering “changes in the consistency of snow cover” instead of “less consistent snow cover” would allow the MPCA to track the same types of events, regardless of whether the next survey happens after a winter with much more or much less snow than average.

• To date, this survey has largely not explored why relatively few governmental organizations in Minnesota have engaged in plans or planning efforts related to climate adaptation and resilience.
The 2022 survey did add options for respondents to indicate that different types of plans were not relevant to their organizations, and this captured one reason organizations have not engaged in planning.

However, future surveys could explore other reasons, such as small organization size or lack of interest.

They could also explore what motivated organizations to take specific actions.
12 “Minnesota’s Climate Action Framework,” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, accessed June 1, 2022, https://climate.state.mn.us/minnesotas-climate-action-framework.

43 Consider how and whether to include townships: Nearly 60 townships were invited to participate in this survey because they were included in the list of cities provided by the League of Minnesota Cities.
However, the Minnesota Association of Townships estimates that the state has 1,780 townships, meaning only a small fraction of townships were invited to the survey.

The analyses in this report that isolate township responses cannot be interpreted to be representative of all townships.

In the next survey, the MPCA could continue the practice from the 2016 and 2019 surveys of inviting only cities and not townships, or it could consider inviting all townships.
Including townships would likely skew the response sample toward smaller organizations, and survey results show that smaller organizations engage in relevant planning efforts at lower rates than larger organizations.

However, the MPCA may also be interested in providing additional supports and resources for townships, in which case including them in the survey could help focus those efforts.
Continue to explore cumulative results: Analyzing the results of individual surveys is necessary and helpful to understand snapshots in time.

It is also the best approach for questions that focus on events and planning work since the previous survey iteration.

However, MAD recommends continuing to calculate cumulative results across all survey years.

These analyses provide better estimates of the indicators than single-year results.
As more organizations respond to the survey for the first time in the future—making the organizations that have responded more reflective of all invited organizations—it may also be effective to highlight the inverse of current indicators.

In other words, to focus on the negative responses instead of the positive ones.
For example, an inverse metric from the 2022 results is that 25 percent of all governmental organizations who have ever responded to the survey have no plan or planning effort of any type that has content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience.

(Compared with 75 percent that have a plan or planning effort.)
Use the survey as an opportunity to educate: On the question about resources and partnerships usage, only 16 percent of respondents indicated that they had used one of the listed options.

The respondents that had not used the resources, and even some of those that had, may be curious about those resources.

The MPCA could provide links to those programs in the survey to help agencies find existing resources.
Use restraint on survey expansion: Although there are benefits to adding questions and collecting additional information, MAD suggests that the MPCA be cautious.

Maintaining a brief survey with narrow scope will minimize the burden on respondents, and maintaining the survey’s focus on climate adaptation and resilience planning will make it easier to repeat the survey and have consistent data over time.
44 Appendix A: Methods detail Overview Number of survey recipients: 1,153 Survey design: MPCA and Management Analysis and Development (MAD) Survey in the field: February 14 through March 11, 2022 Distribution: Contacts in township, city, county, and tribal governments; contacts for soil and water conservation districts, watershed districts, and regional development organizations/commissions (additional description below in Survey recipients section) Data collection: MAD Analysis/report: MAD, with input from MPCA Design/sampling: Attempt at a 100 percent census of the governmental organizations selected Survey recipients MPCA obtained the email list of cities from the League of Minnesota Cities.
The contacts for city governments were typically the city administrator, city clerk, city clerk/treasurer, or some combination of those titles.

The email list of cities included some townships, but not all townships in Minnesota.

MPCA provided contact information for MAD to obtain the email list of counties from the Association of Minnesota Counties.

The contacts for counties were typically the county administrator or coordinator.
MPCA obtained lists for soil and water conservation districts, watershed districts, and water management organizations from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.

In these organizations, the survey typically went to the district manager or administrator.

MPCA provided lists of tribal government contacts, who were typically in natural resources, environmental, or planning departments.

MAD found contacts for regional development organizations/commissions on their organizational websites.
MAD sent an introductory email addressed from the MPCA Commissioner to these individuals to explain the survey, identify any outdated email addresses, and offer to change the contact person for the organization.

MAD updated the original list to reflect changes in contact details.

Survey development The MPCA and MAD research team developed the survey questions based on the previous survey.
They focused on questions that would facilitate the development of an overall indicator for climate adaptation and resilience 45 planning, provide information about the extent of planning efforts across the state, identify actions taken, and explore resources and assistance desired by the responding organizations.

The team intentionally did not include questions about barriers to implementation or attitudes regarding climate change.
MAD tested the questionnaire with its internal survey team and with MPCA staff not directly involved in development of the survey.

Survey administration and analysis MAD administered the survey online using Snap Survey Software, which records data as questionnaires are completed.

The survey invitation from the MPCA Commissioner indicated that MAD was conducting the survey for the MPCA, and that MAD would maintain private data from survey respondents.
For the first time, the survey stated that some organizational data might be identified publicly in data dashboards.

It is not known if this had any impact on the response rate, which remained consistent with the 2019 survey.

The survey was open from February 14, 2022, through March 8, 2022.
To increase response rates, MAD’s survey software sent three reminder emails to nonrespondents during the course of the survey; the first two were from MAD, while the final email was from the MPCA Commissioner indicated that the survey deadline was extended.

When MAD received information from its system indicating that a message was not delivered to an email address, MAD attempted to obtain a valid address.
Partial responses and data cleaning: The survey dataset includes partial responses, but only those where the respondent advanced past the first question in the survey.

Precision of estimates and representativeness: Researchers can provide information on precision of estimates (level of confidence or margin of sampling error) when survey respondents are selected randomly from a population and when survey response rates are sufficiently high.
This survey was designed to collect information from as many representatives of local, regional, tribal, and state governmental organizations in Minnesota as possible.

Because this was not a truly random sample, it would not be appropriate to calculate measures such as margin of error.

The tables and charts in this report present the information provided by individual organizations that responded to the survey.
Some surveys are designed to gauge the attitudes or behaviors of an entire population or group, and the results can be said to be representative.

As noted above, this survey was designed to collect input from as many organizations as possible.
The organizations that responded to this survey may not be representative of all governmental organizations invited—the survey respondents may be particularly interested in climate adaptation and resilience or may be more inclined to affirm that they are engaged in planning activities with content specifically related to climate adaptation or resilience.

46 Appendix B: 2022 Climate Adaptation and Resilience Planning Survey Introductory text Thank you for taking this survey!
It will take about 10 minutes to complete.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is conducting this survey to assess progress from previous surveys in 2016 and 2019 on efforts by local and tribal governmental entities to plan and prepare for the impacts of our changing climate.

This survey has been sent to you as the contact for your organization.

Please respond for your organization to the best of your ability, and also feel free to check with others to get the answers you need.
If you cannot complete the survey at one time, you can select the “Save” button at the bottom of the page to save your answers, and return to complete the survey later by using the survey link you received in your invitation.

What is climate adaptation?

Climate adaptation is developing and implementing strategies, initiatives, and measures to help human and natural systems respond and become more resilient to the impacts of our changing climate.
Observed and projected climate change in Minnesota includes: warmer and wetter overall with increasing intensity and frequency of heavy rainfall, declining severity and frequency of extreme cold, and increasing incidence of heat waves and periods of drought.

Data privacy Management Analysis and Development (MAD) is conducting this survey.

MAD is a neutral consulting group within Minnesota Management and Budget, which is a separate agency from the MPCA.
MAD will create a summary report of all survey responses and will share responses with the MPCA.

MAD will not attach your personal name or email address to your responses in files shared with the MPCA, and will remove potentially identifying information from written comments.

Any potentially identifying information that you provide is considered private data under the Minnesota Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes §13.64).
MPCA may use the survey responses to create online data dashboards, and these may show some specific data for your organization such as types or number of plans.

Accessibility The MPCA is committed to providing access to everyone who wishes to participate in the survey.

If you would prefer a text-based version of the survey (for example, if you use a screen reader), you can select the link at the top of the page.
If you need other accommodations in order to complete the survey, please contact Kristina Krull at Kristina.Krull@state.mn.us.

47 Questions?

If you have any questions about climate adaptation and resilience, please contact Laura Millberg at the MPCA at laura.millberg@state.mn.us or 651-757-2568 or Sharon Stephens at the MPCA at sharon.stephens@state.mn.us or 651-757-2172.
If you have any technical problems with this survey, or if you received a link to the survey without receiving the email explaining the survey’s purpose, please contact Kristina Krull at Kristina.Krull@state.mn.us or 651-259- 3813.

Reminder: If you cannot complete the survey at one time You can select the “Save” button at the bottom of the page to save your answers, and return to complete the survey later by using the survey link you received in your invitation.
If you forget to complete the survey, you will receive a reminder email.

Thank you for your time!

Questions 1.

The following types of events and longer-term trends are associated with the changing climate.

During the past few years, which of the following have affected your community (e.g., residents, economy, infrastructure, natural resources)?

Please select all that apply.
Longer growing season Less consistent snow cover • Late ice-in and/or early ice-out • More frequent freeze-thaw cycles • • Warmer overnight low temperatures • • Extended heat wave • Extreme rainfall and storms • More frequent localized flooding • Extreme drought conditions • More frequent wildfires locally • • • Changes in wildlife and ecosystems • Other event or trend that is connected to climate change Increased air quality problems from wildfire smoke, pollen, or other Increased problems with invasive species 2.
If you selected “other event or trend,” please describe: 3.

In the past three (3) years, what actions has your organization taken to adapt / increase the resiliency of the community or environment to our changing climate?

Please select all that apply.

(This list focuses on tangible actions.

We’ll ask in later questions about any planning or assessments your organization has completed.)
• Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual-purpose green space 48 • Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species • • Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation Installed new green roof(s) (e.g., frequently flooded roadway, sewer capacity) • Reduced impervious surfaces (e.g., installing permeable pavers, pervious concrete or porous asphalt, conversion to green space) • Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation • • Implemented shoreline restoration Implemented other watershed management best practices (e.g., habitat and stream connectivity, septic system improvements) • Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) • Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling • • • • • Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy • Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat (e.g., white roofs) Installed or invested in renewable energy (e.g., wind or solar installation, solar garden participation) Installed electric energy storage Installed electric vehicle charging stations Improved community connectedness (e.g., walkability, bikability, public gathering spaces, pedestrian safety) • Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate-vulnerable populations in the community • Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience • Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures • Other • None that I am aware of 4.
If you selected “Other,” please describe what other actions your organization has taken: 5.

[If they selected any actions in Q3] Were any of the actions you took a direct result of a written plan that addressed climate adaptation and resilience?

• Yes • No • I’m not sure Planning for climate change, including adaptation and resilience measures, is one approach that governmental organizations can take.
The next series of questions asks for information about the types of plans your organization may have in place.

6.

Does your organization have a comprehensive plan with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

• Comprehensive Plan with this content adopted • Comprehensive Plan with this content in process • None of the above • This type of plan is not relevant to my organization 49 7.
[Routed based on Q6] Which year did your organization adopt your comprehensive plan that addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

8.

Has your organization engaged in any of the following standalone planning efforts specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


• Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework completed • Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework in process • Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment completed • Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment in process • Climate action / sustainability plan completed • Climate action / sustainability plan in process • None of the above • This type of plan is not relevant to my organization 9.
[Routed based on Q8] Which year did your organization complete your climate adaptation plan / strategic framework?

10.

[Routed based on Q8] Which year did your organization complete your climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment?

11.

[Routed based on Q8] Which year did your organization complete your climate action / sustainability plan?

12.
12.

Has your organization coordinated with any other local/regional/tribal governmental organization(s) within Minnesota on climate adaptation and resilience planning or implementation?

• Yes • No • I don’t know 13.

Does your organization have any health and safety plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


• Hazard mitigation (e.g., FEMA-related) • Emergency response • Continuity of operations • Emergency operations • Worker safety and work environment • Public health (e.g., vector-borne diseases, extreme heat, asthma/air quality) • Building codes inspection and enforcement • None of the above • This type of plan is not relevant to my organization 14.
Does your organization have any water plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.

• Sewer system • Stormwater / erosion control 50 • Wastewater treatment facilities • Water quantity (including groundwater) • Water supply infrastructure • Watershed • Wellhead protection • None of the above • This type of plan is not relevant to my organization 15.
Does your organization have any natural resources plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.

• Parks and park facilities • Open / green space (excluding parks) • Forest management • Wildlife management • Invasive species • Urban and community forestry/tree canopy • None of the above • This type of plan is not relevant to my organization 16.
Has your organization engaged in any additional planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


• Capital budget • Economic development • Facilities and grounds (excluding parks and water systems) • Energy • Land use • Solid waste • Hazardous waste • Construction and demolition waste • Transportation (e.g., roads, multimodal) • Social equity / human rights • Workforce planning and development • Strategic planning • None of the above • These types of plans are not relevant to my organization 17.
If your organization has engaged in any other planning not covered in any of the previous questions with content specifically related to climate adaptation and resilience, please describe it: 18.

Has your organization made use of the following resources or partnerships?

Please select all that apply.

• Participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Program for Cities, Tribal Nations, or Schools • Hosted a Minnesota GreenCorps member • None of the above 19.
What kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to your organization to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
51 Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) • • Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections • Climate resilient design standards • Climate resilience indicators / metrics • Financial assistance for resiliency planning • Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure • New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience • Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience • Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides • Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience • Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances • Other • None of these 20.
If you selected “other,” please describe the resources or assistance that would be helpful: Please provide information about your organization: 21.

Organization type • City • Town / township • County • Regional development organization / commission • Tribal government • Watershed district / organization • Soil and water conservation district 22.

Number of employees in your organization • 0–10 • 11–50 • 51–200 • 201–500 • 501–1,000 • over 1,000 23.
Please share any additional thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments: Thank you for completing the survey!

Please select “Submit” below to finish.

52 Appendix C: Other indicator methods This section presents more information about the methodologies MAD and the MPCA considered for calculating the indicator.

Look at aggregate survey data, and analyze based on the number of invited organizations Figure 29 shows part of the new indicator, along with the historical results of this method.
Specifically, it shows how many organizations have ever reported having relevant planning on any of the three surveys, as a percentage of all invited organizations.

Of the 1,219 organizations ever invited to the survey, 521 (43 percent) have reported having a relevant plan type at least once.

Fifteen percent of invited organizations have reported never having any relevant plan type, and 43 percent of organizations have never participated in the survey.
The analysis shows a relatively steady percentage of responding organizations which have no relevant plan in each of the three surveys, but the percentage with a relevant plan increases with each successive survey.

Figure 29.
Governmental organizations in Minnesota that have ever reported having climate adaptation or resilience content in any survey, as a percentage of invited organizations13 Metric organizations that responded and have any kind of relevant plan organizations that responded and don't have a relevant plan organizations that didn't respond to the survey organizations invited 2016 18% 13% 70% 1079 2016/2019 33% 14% 53% 1088 2016/2019/2022 43% 15% 43% 1153 13 A respondent was designated as being engaged in climate adaptation or resilience planning if they selected any of the plan/planning types in survey questions about climate adaptation or resilience planning efforts.
In a small number of cases, MAD designated a respondent as being engaged in planning based on their written comments.

Organizations were not counted multiple times.

53 It is also possible to study the indicator as a percentage of how many organizations have ever responded to the survey, instead of how many have ever been invited.

Over the three years of the survey, 698 organizations have responded to the survey at least once, and 521 of them have reported having a relevant plan at least once.
That means that 75 percent of responding organizations have engaged in relevant planning.

Look at aggregate survey data, and analyze based on the number of responding organizations Another approach is to examine how many of the responding organizations have ever reported having different plan types in any of the three surveys, as a percentage of all organizations that have ever taken the survey.

Figure 30 shows part of the new indicator as well as the historical aggregate values.
As of 2022, 75 percent of responding organizations have reported having a relevant planning effort or plan.

The data show that compared with 2019, only an additional 5 percent of responding organizations in 2022 reported having relevant plans.

This could be in part because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the change in the types of responding organizations, as discussed earlier in the report.

Figure 30.
Governmental organizations in Minnesota that have ever reported having climate adaptation or resilience content in any survey, as a percentage of responding organizations14 Survey year(s) 2016/2019 2016/2019/2022 % responding organizations that have ever had a relevant plan % responding organizations that have never had a relevant plan # organizations that have ever responded 2016 57% 70% 75% 43% 30% 25% 329 522 698 14 A respondent was designated as being engaged in climate adaptation or resilience planning if they selected any of the plan/planning types in survey questions about climate adaptation or resilience planning efforts.
In a small number of cases, MAD designated a respondent as being engaged in planning based on their written comments.

Organizations were not counted multiple times.

54 Look at individual survey years, and analyze based on the number of responding organizations This approach involves analyzing individual survey years.
Specifically, it calculates how many organizations have engaged in relevant planning as a proportion of all responding organizations, not as a proportion of all invited organizations for an individual survey.

Figure 31 shows the results for each survey using this approach.

Overall, 75 percent of responding organizations reported having any kind of plan in both 2019 and in 2022.
This shows the limitations of the looking at individual survey years: the 2019 indicator was 75 percent in the figure below, which is 5 percentage points higher than the aggregate 2019 indicator in Figure 30.

Figure 31.
Governmental organizations in Minnesota that reported having climate adaptation or resilience content in any survey, as a percentage of responding organizations15 Survey year 2016 2019 2022 % respondents with a relevant plan 57% 75% 75% % respondents without a relevant plan 43% 25% 25% # respondents 329 358 380 15 A respondent was designated as being engaged in climate adaptation or resilience planning if they selected any of the plan/planning types in survey questions about climate adaptation or resilience planning efforts.
In a small number of cases each year, MAD designated a respondent as being engaged in planning based on their written comments.

Organizations were not counted multiple times.

55 Appendix D: Organizational plans over time Eighty-eight organizations have taken all three iterations of the survey.

This appendix explores how their planning has changed over time.

More than half (56 percent) of these organizations reported a larger number of plans with related content in 2022 than they did in 2016.
About one-fifth (18 percent) reported the same number of plans in 2022 as they did in 2016.

Table 7 shows how often these organizations reported having different types of relevant plans.

With each iteration of the survey, a larger percentage of these organizations have reported having each of the plan types.
The two exceptions were with additional planning in 2016 and 2019, where the percentage of organizations with an additional plan type stayed the same, and with standalone planning in 2019 and 2022, where the percentage decreased slightly.

Table 7.
Table 7.

Plan type prevalence among organizations that have taken the survey three times (n = 88) Plan type 2016 2019 2022 Standalone plan 8% 14% 13% Comprehensive plan 17% 32% 40% Health and safety plan 38% 34% 45% Water plan 39% 53% 65% Natural resources plan 26% 27% 36% Additional plan 25% 25% 27% Any plan 57% 70% 82% 56 Appendix E: Survey respondents by region and organization type The figure and table below show the number of responses within each MPCA region by organization type.
Region Northwest Northeast North Central Twin Cities Metro Southwest Southeast City / Township SWCD Watershed district County RDC Tribal government Appendix F: Survey results—by broad categories This appendix shares survey results for respondents by organization type, region, and size of organization.
Organization type 2022 data: Engaged in standalone planning activity specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience Org.

type City County RDC SWCD Township Tribal government Watershed district Total None One or more Total One or more % 2016–2022 data: Engaged in standalone planning activity specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City/township County RDC State agency SWCD Tribal government Watershed district Total Never reported having 434 47 3 16 62 2 33 597 Reported having at least once Total 472 38 53 6 3 6 29 13 77 15 7 9 52 19 698 101 Reported having at least once % 8% 11% 50% 45% 19% 78% 37% 14% 58 2022 data: Engaged in comprehensive planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City County RDC SWCD Township Tribal government Watershed district Total None One or more Total One or more % 2016–2022 data: Engaged in comprehensive planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City/township County RDC State agency SWCD Tribal government Watershed district Total Never reported having 387 41 5 22 30 3 12 500 Reported having at least once Total 472 85 53 12 1 6 29 7 77 47 6 9 52 40 698 198 Reported having at least once % 18% 23% 17% 24% 61% 67% 77% 28% 59 2022 data: Engaged in health/safety planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City County RDC SWCD Township Tribal government Watershed district Total None One or more Total One or more % 2016–2022 data: Engaged in health/safety planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City/township County RDC State agency SWCD Tribal government Watershed district Total Never reported having 240 17 3 10 53 1 32 356 Reported having at least once Total 472 232 53 36 6 3 29 19 77 24 9 8 52 20 698 342 Reported having at least once % 49% 68% 50% 66% 31% 89% 38% 49% 60 2022 data: Engaged in water planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City County RDC SWCD Township Tribal government Watershed district Total None One or more Total One or more % 2016–2022 data: Engaged in water planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City/township County RDC State agency SWCD Tribal government Watershed district Total Never reported having 217 20 4 17 15 3 7 283 Reported having at least once Total 472 255 53 33 6 2 29 12 77 62 9 6 52 45 698 415 Reported having at least once % 54% 62% 33% 41% 81% 67% 87% 59% 61 2022 data: Engaged in natural resources planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City County RDC SWCD Township Tribal government Watershed district Total None One or more Total One or more % 2016–2022 data: Engaged in natural resources planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City/township County RDC State agency SWCD Tribal government Watershed district Total Never reported having 346 29 5 16 41 2 30 469 Reported having at least once Total 472 126 53 24 1 6 29 13 77 36 7 9 52 22 698 229 Reported having at least once % 27% 45% 17% 45% 47% 78% 42% 33% 62 2022 data: Engaged in any additional planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City County RDC SWCD Township Tribal government Watershed district Total None One or more Total One or more % 2016–2022 data: Engaged in any additional planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
type City/township County RDC State agency SWCD Tribal government Watershed district Total Never reported having 364 26 3 10 42 2 33 480 Reported having at least once Total 472 108 53 27 3 6 29 19 77 35 7 9 52 19 698 218 Reported having at least once % 23% 51% 50% 66% 45% 78% 37% 31% 63 2022 data: Engaged in any type of relevant planning activity (respondents who selected plans or planning efforts in any category) Org.
type City County RDC SWCD Township Tribal government Watershed district Total None One or more Total One or more % 2016–2022 data: Engaged in any type of relevant planning activity (respondents who selected plans or planning efforts in any category) Org.
type City/township County RDC State agency SWCD Tribal government Watershed district Total Never reported having 146 10 2 4 9 1 5 177 Reported having at least once Total 472 326 53 43 4 6 29 25 77 68 9 8 52 47 698 521 Reported having at least once % 69% 81% 67% 86% 88% 89% 90% 75% 64 Region 2022 data: Engaged in standalone planning activity specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total None One or more 18 1 3 5 10 8 45 61 42 32 57 72 71 335 Total One or more % 23% 2% 9% 8% 12% 10% 12% 79 43 35 62 82 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in standalone planning activity specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience Never reported having 103 75 47 111 124 121 597 Reported having at least once 34 8 8 8 15 15 101 Total 137 83 55 119 139 136 698 Reported having at least once % 25% 10% 15% 7% 11% 11% 14% Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total 65 2022 data: Engaged in comprehensive planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total None One or more 47 8 6 12 20 20 113 32 35 29 50 62 59 267 Total One or more % 59% 19% 17% 19% 24% 25% 30% 79 43 35 62 82 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in comprehensive planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Never reported having 55 66 44 95 109 109 500 Reported having at least once 82 17 11 24 30 27 198 Total 137 83 55 119 139 136 698 Reported having at least once % 60% 20% 20% 20% 22% 20% 28% Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total 66 2022 data: Engaged in health/safety planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total None One or more 28 13 18 28 35 33 155 51 30 17 34 47 46 225 Total One or more % 35% 30% 51% 45% 43% 42% 41% 79 43 35 62 82 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in
 health/safety planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Never reported having 71 46 27 64 68 70 356 Reported having at least once 66 37 28 55 71 66 342 Total 137 83 55 119 139 136 698 Reported having at least once % 48% 45% 51% 46% 51% 49% 49% Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total 67 2022 data: Engaged in water planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total None One or more 55 20 20 36 47 47 225 24 23 15 26 35 32 155 Total One or more % 70% 47% 57% 58% 57% 59% 59% 79 43 35 62 82 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in water planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Never reported having 40 36 23 52 55 60 283 Reported having at least once 97 47 32 67 84 76 415 Total 137 83 55 119 139 136 698 Reported having at least once % 71% 57% 58% 56% 60% 56% 59% Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total 68 2022 data: Engaged in natural resources planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total None One or more 32 15 10 19 23 19 118 47 28 25 43 59 60 262 Total One or more % 41% 35% 29% 31% 28% 24% 31% 79 43 35 62 82 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in natural resources planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Never reported having 77 55 38 80 98 105 469 Reported having at least once 60 28 17 39 41 31 229 Total 137 83 55 119 139 136 698 Reported having at least once % 44% 34% 31% 33% 29% 23% 33% Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total 69 2022 data: Engaged in any additional planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total None One or more 27 10 6 14
 26 14 97 52 33 29 48 56 65 283 Total One or more % 34% 23% 17% 23% 32% 18% 26% 79 43 35 62 82 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in any additional planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Never reported having 84 54 41 88 97 106 480 Reported having at least once 53 29 14 31 42 30 218 Total 137 83 55 119 139 136 698 Reported having at least once % 39% 35% 25% 26% 30% 22% 31% Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total 70 2022 data: Engaged in any type of relevant planning activity (respondents who selected plans or planning efforts in any category) Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total None One or more 65 27 28 47 58 61 286 14 16 7 15 24 18 94 Total One or more % 82% 63% 80% 76% 71% 77% 75% 79 43 35 62 82 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in any type of relevant planning activity (respondents who selected plans or planning efforts in any category) Never reported having 21 27 13 38 33 41 177 Reported having at least once 116 56 42 81 106 95 521 Total 137 83 55 119 139 136 698 Reported having at least once % 85% 67% 76% 68% 76% 70% 75% Region TC Metro North Central Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total 71 Greater Minnesota/Metro 2022 data: Engaged in standalone planning activity specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total None One or more 27 18 45 274 61 335 Total One or more % 9% 23% 12% 301 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in standalone planning activity specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total Never reported having 478 103 597 Reported having at least once 54 34 101 Reported having at least once % 10% 25% 14% Total 532 137 698 2022 data: Engaged in comprehensive planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total None One or more 66 47 113 235 32 267 Total One
 or more % 22% 59% 30% 301 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in comprehensive planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total Never reported having 423 55 500 Reported having at least once 109 82 198 Reported having at least once % 20% 60% 28% Total 532 137 698 72 2022 data: Engaged in health/safety planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total None One or more 127 28 155 174 51 225 Total One or more % 42% 35% 41% 301 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in health/safety planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total Never reported having 275 71 356 Reported having at least once 257 66 342 Reported having at least once % 48% 48% 49% Total 532 137 698 2022 data: Engaged in water planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total None One or more 170 55 225 131 24 155 Total One or more % 56% 70% 59% 301 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in water planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total Never reported having 226 40 283 Reported having at least once 306 97 415 Reported having at least once % 58% 71% 59% Total 532 137 698 73 2022 data: Engaged in natural resources planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total None One or more 86 32 118 215 47 262 Total One or more % 29% 41% 31% 301 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in natural resources planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total Never reported having 376 77 469 Reported having at least once 156 60 229 Reported having at least once % 29% 44% 33% Total 532 137 698 2022
 data: Engaged in any additional planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total None One or more 70 27 97 231 52 283 Total One or more % 23% 34% 26% 301 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in any additional planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total Never reported having 386 84 480 Reported having at least once 146 53 218 Reported having at least once % 27% 39% 31% Total 532 137 698 2022 data: Engaged in any type of relevant planning activity (respondents who selected plans or planning efforts in any category) Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total None One or more 221 65 286 80 14 94 Total One or more % 73% 82% 75% 301 79 380 2016–2022 data: Engaged in any type of relevant planning activity (respondents who selected plans or planning efforts in any category) Region Greater Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Total None One or more 380 116 521 152 21 177 Total One or more % 71% 85% 75% 532 137 698 Number of employees While 380 organizations total responded to the 2022 survey, 17 of them did not answer the question about the number of employees in their organization.
This appendix studies the 363 organizations that did answer the organizational size question.

This section does not study the aggregate data because it is difficult to calculate.

Organizations’ number of employees can change over time, and more than 50 organizations selected different categories in different years.

75 2022 data: Engaged in standalone planning activity specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 21 5 6 6 1 6 45 207 58 31 16 3 3 318 Total One or more % 9% 8% 16% 27% 25% 67% 12% 228 63 37 22 4 9 363 2022 data: Engaged in comprehensive planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 61 15 16 7 1 6 106 167 48 21 15 3 3 257 Total One or more % 27% 24% 43% 32% 25% 67% 29% 228 63 37 22 4 9 363 2022 data: Engaged in health/safety planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 82 23 21 13 2 8 149 146 40 16 9 2 1 214 Total One or more % 36% 37% 57% 59% 50% 89% 41% 228 63 37 22 4 9 363 76 2022 data: Engaged in water planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 140 32 24 12 4 9 221 88 31 13 10 0 0 142 Total One or more % 61% 51% 65% 55% 100% 100% 61% 228 63 37 22 4 9 363 2022 data: Engaged in natural resources planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 63 17 18 10 1 7 116 165 46 19 12 3 2 247 Total One or more % 28% 27% 49% 45% 25% 78% 32% 228 63 37 22 4 9 363 2022 data: Engaged in any additional planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 48 15 16 10 1 7 97 180 48 21 12 3 2 266 Total One or more % 21% 24% 43% 45% 25% 78% 27% 228 63 37 22 4 9 363 2022 data: Engaged in any type of relevant planning activity (respondents who selected plans or planning efforts in any category) Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 173 44 29 17 4 9 276 55 19 8 5 0 0 87 Total One or more % 76% 70% 78% 77% 100% 100% 76% 228 63 37 22 4 9 363 Appendix G: Survey results—cities by size This appendix provides select 2022 survey results for responding cities.

Results by size While 240 cities total responded to the 2022 survey, 12 of them did not answer the question about the number of employees in their organization.
This appendix studies the 228 cities that did answer the organizational size question.

Experienced any event or trend connected to climate change Org.

employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 103 46 27 10 4 2 192 24 7 2 1 0 2 36 Total One or more % 81% 87% 93% 91% 100% 50% 84% 127 53 29 11 4 4 228 Engaged in standalone planning activity specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 8 2 5 4 1 1 21 119 51 24 7 3 3 207 Total One or more % 6% 4% 17% 36% 25% 25% 9% 127 53 29 11 4 4 228 Engaged in comprehensive planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 16 11 12 5 1 1 46 111 42 17 6 3 3 182 Total One or more % 13% 21% 41% 45% 25% 25% 20% 127 53 29 11 4 4 228 Engaged in health/safety planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 57 21 14 5 2 3 102 70 32 15 6 2 1 126 Total One or more % 45% 40% 48% 45% 50% 75% 45% 127 53 29 11 4 4 228 Engaged in water planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 68 26 17 7 4 4 126 59 27 12 4 0 0 102 Total One or more % 54% 49% 59% 64% 100% 100% 55% 127 53 29 11 4 4 228 80 Engaged in natural resources planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 32 13 13 5 1 2 66 95 40 16 6 3 2 162 Total One or more % 25% 25% 45% 45% 25% 50% 50% 127 53 29 11 4 4 228 Engaged in any additional planning with content specifically addressing climate adaptation and resilience Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 21 11 11 5 1 2 51 106 42 18 6 3 2 177 Total One or more % 17% 21% 38% 45% 25% 50% 22% 127 53 29 11 4 4 228 Engaged in any type of relevant planning activity (respondents who selected plans or planning efforts in any category) Org.
employees 0–10 11–50 51–200 201–500 501–1,000 over 1,000 Total None One or more 94 36 22 8 4 4 168 33 17 7 3 0 0 60 Total One or more % 74% 68% 76% 73% 100% 100% 74% 127 53 29 11 4 4 228 Results by city population The League of Minnesota Cities provided a spreadsheet about its member cities.
The primary use of the spreadsheet was to obtain contact information for cities, but the spreadsheet also included population estimates for most cities.16 Analyzing this data can show how well survey respondents reflected all Minnesota cities.

2022 results Table 8 shows that the 2022 survey sample seems to reflect all Minnesota cities based on size.
Overall, the distribution of cities that responded to the survey aligned with the distribution of cities invited; small cities comprised the vast majority of both groups.

Table 8.
Table 8.

2022 survey data: Population of cities that responded to the survey and were invited to the survey City population <5,000 5,000–9,999 10,000–24,999 25,000–49,999 50,000+ Unknown population # cities responded % cities responded # cities invited % cities invited 200 15 10 9 6 - 83% 680 81% 6% 4% 4% 3% - 49 56 23 20 15 6% 7% 3% 2% 2% In general, smaller cities had fewer plans than larger cities.
All cities had an average of 4.4 plans, but cities with populations under 5,000 had an average of 3.4 plans.

Cities larger than that had an average of 7.0 plans.

Small cities have fewer plans, and they less often reported having taken any of the actions listed in the survey.

Ninety percent of cities with populations of 5,000 or more had taken at least one action, while only 58 percent of smaller cities said the same.
When small cities had taken action, they averaged 1.2 actions, compared with large cities’ average of 5.6 actions.

When asked about what types of resources or assistance would be most helpful to their organizations, small and large cities’ priorities were mostly similar.

Large cities picked almost all of the options at higher rates than small cities, but the most commonly picked resources were the same for both groups.
For example, “financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure” was one of the two most common choices for both groups of cities, but 63 percent of large cities chose it, compared with 37 percent of small cities.

The only option that small cities chose more often than large cities was “none of these.” Only 3 percent of large cities chose “none,” compared with 35 percent of small cities.

16 It is unclear from the spreadsheet where the population estimates came from or how recent they are.
82 Aggregate results Table 9 shows that the aggregate survey sample across three years also seems to reflect all Minnesota cities based on size.

Overall, the distribution of cities that responded to the survey aligned with the distribution of cities invited; small cities comprised the vast majority of both groups.

Table 9.
Table 9.

2016–2022 survey data: Population of cities that responded to the survey and were invited to the survey17 City population <5,000 5,000–9,999 10,000–24,999 25,000–49,999 50,000+ Unknown population # cities responded % cities responded # cities invited % cities invited 373 84% 701 81% 22 21 15 15 - 5% 5% 3% 3% - 51 57 23 20 12 6% 7% 3% 2% 1% 17 Four responding cities changed population buckets over the three survey years.

In those cases, MAD allocated the cities to their 2022 population buckets.
MAD allocated invited cities to their 2022 population bucket, or to their 2019 population bucket if 2022 data was not available.

83 Appendix H: Survey results—small cities and townships in Greater Minnesota A large and potentially interesting subset of organizations that responded to the 2022 survey is the set of small cities and townships in Greater Minnesota.
This appendix provides select survey results for cities and townships that indicated that they have 0–10 or 11–50 employees and are located in the Northeast, Northwest, North Central, Southwest, or Southeast MPCA region.

Eight respondents did not select an organizational size.

For these respondents, MAD identified them as relevant to this analysis if their municipality population was less than 5,000 and if their region was outside the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
The percentages in this appendix are the percent of all respondents that fit into this category (182).

Figure 32.

2022 survey data: Small cities and townships by region (n = 182) Region Southwest Southeast Northwest Northeast North Central Percent 25% 24% 23% 14% 14% Figure 33.
2022 survey data: Small cities’ and townships’ planning efforts by type of plan (n = 182) Plan Has relevant water plans or planning efforts Has relevant health and safety plans or planning efforts Has relevant natural resources plans or planning efforts Has relevant additional plans or planning efforts Has a comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Engaged in any standalone planning activity with relevant content Organizations with any type of relevant plans or planning efforts % 47% 42% 22% 15% 10% 4% 68% 84 Figure 34.
2022 survey data: The following types of events and longer-term trends are associated with the changing climate.

During the past few years, which of the following have affected your community (e.g., residents, economy, infrastructure, natural resources)?

Please select all that apply.
Choice Extreme drought conditions Less consistent snow cover Extreme rainfall and storms More frequent freeze-thaw cycles Extended heat wave Increased air quality problems from wildfire smoke, pollen, or other More frequent localized flooding Late ice-in and/or early ice-out Increased problems with invasive species Longer growing season More frequent wildfires locally Changes in wildlife and ecosystems Warmer overnight low temperatures Other event or trend that is connected to climate change Percent 45% 41% 38% 29% 22% 20% 19% 18% 12% 7% 6% 5% 3% 2% Figure 35.
2022 survey data: Does your organization have a comprehensive plan with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Choice None of the above Comprehensive Plan with this content in process Comprehensive Plan with this content adopted This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 73% 7% 4% 15% 85 Figure 36.

2022 survey data: Has your organization engaged in any of the following standalone planning efforts specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.
Choice None of the above Climate action / sustainability plan in process Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework completed Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework in process Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment in process Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment completed Climate action / sustainability plan completed This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 77% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 15% Figure 37.
2022 survey data: Does your organization have any health and safety plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.

Choice None of the above Hazard mitigation Emergency response Worker safety and work environment Emergency operations Building codes inspection and enforcement Continuity of operations Public health This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 47% 30% 23% 13% 12% 9% 5% 4% 8% 86 Figure 38.
2022 survey data: Does your organization have any water plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.

Choice None of the above Wellhead protection Sewer system Water supply infrastructure Wastewater treatment facilities Stormwater / erosion control Water quantity (including groundwater) Watershed This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 40% 31% 20% 19% 18% 15% 13% 6% 9% Figure 39.
2022 survey data: Does your organization have any natural resources plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.

Choice None of the above Parks and park facilities Open / green space (excluding parks) Invasive species Urban and community forestry/tree canopy Forest management Wildlife management This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 66% 16% 7% 4% 3% 0% 0% 8% 87 Figure 40.
2022 survey data: Has your organization engaged in any additional planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


Choice None of the above Economic development Strategic planning Land use Capital budget Solid waste Facilities and grounds (excluding parks and water systems) Energy Workforce planning and development Hazardous waste Transportation Construction and demolition waste Social equity / human rights This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Percent 72% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 8% 88 Figure 41.
2022 survey data: In the past three (3) years, what actions has your organization taken to adapt/increase the resiliency of the community or environment to our changing climate?

Please select all that apply.

(This list focuses on tangible actions.

We’ll ask in later questions about any planning or assessments your organization has completed.)

89 In the past three years, what actions that you are aware of has your organization taken to increase the resiliency of the community or environment?
select all that apply.
None that I am aware of Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species Improved community connectedness Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation Installed or invested in renewable energy Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual-purpose green space Implemented other watershed management best practices Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling Installed electric vehicle charging stations Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures Installed new green roof(s) Reduced impervious surfaces Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Installed electric energy storage Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate-vulnerable populations in the community Other # 82 37 33 30 21 14 9 8 8 8 6 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 % 45% 20% 18% 16% 12% 8% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Figure 42.
2022 survey data: What kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to your organization to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Choice None of these Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure Financial assistance for resiliency planning Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience Climate resilient design standards Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections Climate resilience indicators / metrics Other Percent 36% 34% 30% 30% 26% 24% 23% 18% 15% 9% 7% 5% 0% 90 Appendix I: Survey results—by experience with climate-related event or trend This appendix explores organizations that have experienced climate-related events or trends.
In the figures below, the percent shown represents the percentage of the 2022 survey responding organizations of that characteristic (e.g., 85 percent of responding cities have experienced a climate-related event or trend).

In total, 331 organizations noticed a climate-related event or trend in 2022.

Figure 43.
Figure 43.

2022 survey data: Organizations that experienced one or more climate-related event/trend by type (n = 331) Organization type Regional development commission Tribal government Watershed district Soil and water conservation district County City Town / township # 6 3 29 46 21 203 23 % 100% 100% 97% 96% 91% 85% 77% Figure 44.
2022 survey data: Organizations that experienced one or more climate-related event/trend by region (n = 331) Region Twin Cities Metro Southeast Southwest Northwest North Central Northeast # 74 73 69 53 35 27 % 94% 89% 87% 85% 81% 77% Figure 45.
2022 survey data: Organizations that experienced one or more climate-related event/trend by size (n = 331) 91 Number of employees 0-10 11-50 51-200 201-500 501-1,000 over 1,000 # 195 55 35 21 4 7 % 86% 87% 95% 95% 100% 78% Figure 46 and Figure 47 show how many organizations in 2022 reported having different types of plans, split based on whether or not they had experienced a climate-related event or trend within the past few years.
In general, organizations that have experienced climate-related events and trends have more often engaged in planning than organizations that have not experienced events and trends.

Figure 46.
2022 survey data: Planning efforts of organizations that experienced climate-related event/trend (n = 331) Choice Has relevant water plans or planning efforts Has relevant health and safety plans or planning efforts Has relevant natural resources plans or planning efforts Has a comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Has relevant additional plans or planning efforts Engaged in any standalone planning activity with relevant content Organizations with any type of relevant plans or planning efforts Percent 59% 48% 29% 31% 33% 15% 79% The percentages in Figure 46 are similar to those in the aggregate 2016–2022 dataset, as shown in Table 10.
For some plan types, like health and safety plans, the 2022 dataset values are somewhat lower than the aggregate dataset.

Table 10.
Planning efforts among organizations that experienced a climate-related event/trend at least once Type of plan Water plans or planning efforts Health and safety plans or planning efforts Natural resources plans or planning efforts Comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Additional plans or planning efforts Standalone planning activity with relevant content Any type of relevant plans or planning efforts 2022 2016–2022 63% 43% 34% 33% 29% 14% 78% 65% 53% 37% 31% 35% 16% 80% 92 Figure 47.
2022 survey data: Planning efforts of organizations that DID NOT identify climate-related event/trend (n = 49) Choice Has relevant water plans or planning efforts Has relevant health and safety plans or planning efforts Has a comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Has relevant natural resources plans or planning efforts Has relevant additional plans or planning efforts Engaged in any standalone planning activity with relevant content Organizations with any type of relevant plans or planning efforts Percent 24% 20% 20% 9% 11% 0% 43% The percentages in Figure 47 are generally similar to those in the aggregate 2016–2022 dataset, as shown in Table 11.
However, the percentages in 2022 tended to be somewhat higher than the aggregate dataset.

Table 11.
Planning efforts among organizations that DID NOT experience a climate-related event/trend at least once Type of plan Water plans or planning efforts Health and safety plans or planning efforts Comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Natural resources plans or planning efforts Additional plans or planning efforts Standalone planning activity with relevant content 2022 2016–2022 33% 29% 10% 8% 4% 0% 21% 16% 5% 4% 2% 0% Any type of relevant plans or planning efforts 55% 32% 93 Those who had noticed climate events and trends more often reported taking the listed actions than those who had not noticed events and trends.
The largest differences were for the actions “Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species” and “Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows/extreme precipitation.” More than 30 percent of respondents who had noticed climate-related events reported that they had taken these actions, compared with 10 percent or fewer of those who had not noticed a climate-related event.

Table 12.
2022 survey data: Action taken, by respondents’ experience of climate events/trends % of all survey respondents % of respondents that noticed climate events/trends % of respondents that DID NOT notice climate events/trends Action taken Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species None that I am aware of Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation Improved community connectedness Implemented other watershed management best practices Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual-purpose green space Installed or invested in renewable energy Reduced impervious surfaces Installed electric vehicle charging stations Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 22% 14% 14% 10% 8% 7% 6% 32% 24% 30% 28% 28% 26% 24% 16% 16% 11% 9% 8% 6% Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures 4% 5% 10% 49% 8% 6% 8% 10% 8% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 94 Action taken Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate-vulnerable populations in the community Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Other Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat Installed new green roof(s) Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) Installed electric energy storage % of all survey respondents % of respondents that noticed climate events/trends % of respondents that DID NOT notice climate events/trends 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 95 Appendix J: Survey results—by use of resources and partnerships In total, 16 percent of respondents (59) to the 2022 survey said their organization had used at least one of the following resources or partnerships: • Participate in the Minnesota GreenStep (GS) Program for Cities, Tribal Nations, or Schools • Hosted a Minnesota GreenCorps (MNGC) member Those who had used at least one of these resources or partnerships had a higher average number of plans (8.3) than those who had not (3.7).18 They also more often had taken at least one of the actions listed (100 percent) than those who had not used one of the resources or partnerships (64 percent).
Those who had used a resource or partnership had a higher average number of actions taken (5.7) than those who had not used a resource (1.7).

Table 13 shows that those who had used a resource more often reported taking the listed actions than those who had not used a resource.
The largest difference was for the action “Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species.” Three-quarters of respondents who had used a resource reported that they had taken this action, compared with about one-fifth of those who had not used a resource.

Table 13.
2022 survey data: Action taken, by respondents’ usage of specific resources Action taken % of all survey respondents % of those who had used GS or MNGC % of those who had NOT used GS or MNGC Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species None that I am aware of Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows/extreme precipitation Improved community connectedness (e.g., walkability, bikability, public gathering spaces, pedestrian safety) Implemented other watershed management best practices (e.g., habitat and stream connectivity, septic system improvements) 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 75% 0% 49% 64% 46% 21% 33% 23% 18% 21% 18 For this appendix, the grouping of organizations that had not used a listed resource includes both respondents who chose “None of the above” and respondents who did not answer the question.
96 Action taken Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation (e.g., frequently flooded roadway, sewer capacity) Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual- purpose green space Installed or invested in renewable energy (e.g., wind or solar installation, solar garden participation) Reduced impervious surfaces (e.g., installing permeable pavers, pervious concrete or porous asphalt, conversion to green space) Installed electric vehicle charging stations Amended/implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Provided outdoor structures for shading/added publicly-accessible water features for cooling Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate- vulnerable populations in the community Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Other Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat (e.g., white roofs) Installed new green roof(s) Designated new community/public cooling center(s)/created resilience hub(s) % of all survey respondents % of those who had used GS or MNGC % of those who had NOT used GS or MNGC Action taken % of all survey respondents % of those who had used GS or MNGC % of those who had NOT used GS or MNGC Installed electric energy storage 1% 2% 0% Table 14 shows that those who had used a resource had different preferences for the types of assistance they would like.
They more often chose every option listed except for “none of these.” Table 14.
2022 survey data: Desired assistance, by respondents’ usage of specific resources Desired assistance % of all survey respondents % of those who had used GS or MNGC % of those who had NOT used GS or MNGC Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience Financial assistance for resiliency planning Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) None of these Climate resilient design standards New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience Climate resilience indicators / metrics Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections Other Appendix K: Use of resources and partnerships MPCA has a particular interest in how two of its programs, Minnesota GreenStep and Minnesota GreenCorps, may be affecting organizations’ climate adaptation planning.
MAD analyzed survey responses among two groups of respondents: participants in Minnesota GreenStep and organizations that hosted Minnesota GreenCorps members.

Minnesota GreenStep The tables and charts below illustrate the responses of organizations that identified themselves as participants in Minnesota GreenStep and those who did not.
The majority of the 41 organizations identified as GreenStep participants are city governments, but several are other types of organizations (soil and water conservation districts, regional development organizations, and counties).

For ease of analysis and comparison across the survey report, the data below show GreenStep participants and all non-GreenStep organizations of all types.
Responses are listed in the same order as they appear in the body of the report (sorted by highest proportion of responses in the whole data set).

Planning activities The figures below show the types of planning activities taken by GreenStep participants and non-GreenStep organizations.

In general, participants in GreenStep engage in more planning efforts than organizations that do not participate in GreenStep.
The two groups were most closely matched in water planning efforts—66 percent of GreenStep participants and 58 percent of non-GreenStep organizations had some type of water plan or planning effort.

For most other plan types, GreenStep participants had significantly higher rates.

Standalone planning showed the biggest difference between groups; GreenStep participants engage in these planning activities 39 percentage points more often than non-GreenStep organizations.

99 Figure 48.
2022 survey data: Overview of planning efforts Has a comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Engaged in any standalone planning activity with relevant content Has relevant health and safety plans or planning efforts Has relevant water plans or planning efforts Has relevant natural resource plans or planning efforts Has additional relevant plans or planning efforts Organizations with any type of relevant plans or planning efforts Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 88 26 131 198 92 73 251 % 26% 8% 39% 58% 27% 22% 74% GreenStep (n=41) # % compare % rt rt 25 19 24 27 26 24 35 61% 46% 59% 66% 63% 59% 85% Type of plan Has a comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Engaged in any standalone planning activity with relevant content Has relevant health and safety plans or planning efforts Has relevant water plans or planning efforts Has relevant natural resource plans or planning efforts Has additional relevant plans or planning efforts Organizations with any type of relevant plans or planning efforts 73 Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 88 26 131 198 92 251 Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 26% 8% 39% 58% 27% 22% 74% GreenStep (n=41) # 25 19 24 27 26 24 35 GreenStep (n=41) % 61% 46% 59% 66% 63% 59% 85% Figure 49.
2022 survey data: Comprehensive planning Does your organization have a comprehensive plan with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

None of the above Comprehensive Plan with this content adopted Comprehensive Plan with this content in process This type of plan is not relevant to my organization.
Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 208 40 48 39 % 61% 12% 14% 12% GreenStep (n=41) # % compare % % % 15 17 8 1 37% 41% 20% 2% Does your organization have a comprehensive plan with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

None of the above Comprehensive Plan with this content adopted Comprehensive Plan with this content in process This type of plan is not relevant to my organization.
Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 208 40 48 39 Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 61% 12% 14% 12% GreenStep (n=41) # 15 17 8 1 GreenStep (n=41) % 37% 41% 20% 2% 100 Figure 50.

2022 survey data: Standalone planning Has your organization engaged in any of the following standalone planning efforts specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
None of the above Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework in process Climate action / sustainability plan in process Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment in process Climate action / sustainability plan completed Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework completed Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment completed # 263 15 12 9 2 4 1 Non-GreenStep (n=339) GreenStep (n=41) % 78% # 22 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 0% 6 7 3 9 4 5 0 This type of plan is not relevant to my organization 38 11% Has your organization engaged in any of the following standalone planning efforts specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.
None of the above Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework in process Climate action / sustainability plan in process Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment in process Climate action / sustainability plan completed Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework completed Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment completed This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 263 15 12 9 2 4 1 38 Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 78% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 0% 11% GreenStep (n=41) # 22 6 7 3 9 4 5 0 GreenStep (n=41) % 54% 15% 17% 7% 22% 10% 12% 0% Figure 51.
2022 survey data: Health and safety planning Does your organization have any health and safety plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.

None of the above Hazard mitigation (e.g., FEMA-related) Emergency response Emergency operations Worker safety and work environment Building codes inspection and enforcement Continuity of operations Public health (e.g., vector-borne diseases, extreme heat, asthma/air quality.)
This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Non-GreenStep (n=339) GreenStep (n=41) # 156 93 74 46 36 31 22 18 40 % 46% 27% 22% 14% 11% 9% 6% 5% 12% # 17 20 15 12 7 6 7 5 0 Does your organization have any health and safety plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


None of the above Hazard mitigation (e.g., FEMA-related) Emergency response Emergency operations Worker safety and work environment Building codes inspection and enforcement Continuity of operations Public health (e.g., vector-borne diseases, extreme heat, asthma/air quality.)
This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 156 93 74 46 36 31 22 18 40 Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 46% 27% 22% 14% 11% 9% 6% 5% 12% GreenStep (n=41) # 17 20 15 12 7 6 7 5 0 GreenStep (n=41) % 41% 49% 37% 29% 17% 15% 17% 12% 0% % compare % %% 54% 15% 17% 7% 22% 10% 12% 0% % compare % %% 41% 49% 37% 29% 17% 15% 17% 12% 0% 101 Figure 52.
2022 survey data: Water planning Does your organization have any water plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


None of the above Wellhead protection Stormwater / erosion control Watershed Water quantity (including groundwater) Sewer system Water supply infrastructure Wastewater treatment facilities This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Does your organization have any natural resources plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
None of the above Parks and park facilities Invasive species Open / green space (excluding parks) Urban and community forestry/tree canopy Forest management Wildlife management This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Non-GreenStep (n=339) GreenStep (n=41) # 104 101 90 93 70 60 54 47 20 % 31% 30% 27% 27% 21% 18% 16% 14% 6% # 200 45 39 31 18 15 14 29 % 59% 13% 12% 9% 5% 4% 4% 9% % compare % %% 32% 37% 41% 27% 15% 17% % compare % %% 32% 37% 22% 17% # 13 15 17 11 6 7 # 13 15 9 7 10 24% 9 1 22% 2% GreenStep (n=41) % 32% 37% 41% 27% 15% 17% 24% 22% 2% 16 39% 9 2 2 22% 5% 5% Does your organization have any water plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.

None of the above Wellhead protection Stormwater / erosion control Watershed Water quantity (including groundwater) Sewer system Water supply infrastructure Wastewater treatment facilities This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 104 101 90 93 70 60 54 47 20 Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 31% 30% 27% 27% 21% 18% 16% 14% 6% GreenStep (n=41) # 13 15 17 11 6 7 10 9 1 Figure 53.
2022 survey data: Natural resource planning Non-GreenStep (n=339) GreenStep (n=41) Does your organization have any natural resources plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


None of the above Parks and park facilities Invasive species Open / green space (excluding parks) Urban and community forestry/tree canopy Forest management Wildlife management This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 200 45 39 31 18 15 14 29 Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 59% 13% 12% 9% 5% 4% 4% 9% GreenStep (n=41) # 13 15 9 7 16 9 2 2 GreenStep (n=41) % 32% 37% 22% 17% 39% 22% 5% 5% 102 Figure 54.
2022 survey data: Additional planning Has your organization engaged in any additional planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
None of the above Land use Strategic planning Energy Economic development Capital budget Solid waste Transportation (e.g., roads, multimodal) Facilities and grounds (excluding parks and water systems) Construction and demolition waste Workforce planning and development Hazardous waste Social equity / human rights These types of plans are not relevant to my organization Has your organization engaged in any additional planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.
None of the above Land use Strategic planning Energy Economic development Capital budget Solid waste Transportation (e.g., roads, multimodal) Facilities and grounds (excluding parks and water systems) Construction and demolition waste Workforce planning and development Hazardous waste Social equity / human rights These types of plans are not relevant to my organization Actions taken Non-GreenStep (n=339) GreenStep (n=41) # 221 35 24 14 20 17 19 13 13 12 9 10 4 26 % 65% 10% 7% 4% 6% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 8% % compare % %% 41% 27% 29% 37% 15% 20% 15% # 17 11 12 15 6 8 6 11 27% 8 3 5 2 7 0 20% 7% 12% 5% 17% 0% Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 221 35 24 14 20 17 19 13 13 12 9 10 4 26 Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 65% 10% 7% 4% 6% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 8% GreenStep (n=41) # 17 11 12 15 6 8 6 11 8 3 5 2 7 0 GreenStep (n=41) % 41% 27% 29% 37% 15% 20% 15% 27% 20% 7% 12% 5% 17% 0% The figure on the following page shows the types of actions taken to increase resiliency.
In general, GreenStep participants were more likely to have taken an action than other types of survey respondents.

The largest differences were “Improved community connectedness (e.g., walkability, bikability, public gathering spaces, pedestrian safety)” and “Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species;” more than three- quarters of responding GreenStep participants had taken these actions, compared with less than one-quarter of non-GreenStep organizations.
GreenStep participants, on average, took more actions to increase resiliency than survey respondents as a whole.

As noted in Appendix J, those organizations who had used a resource took an average of 5.7 actions, and those who had not used a resource took an average of 1.7 actions.

By comparison, GreenStep participants took an average of 6.1 actions.

103 Figure 55.
103 Figure 55.

2022 survey data: Actions taken In the past three (3) years, what actions has your organization taken to adapt / increase the resiliency of the community or environment to our changing climate?

Please select all that apply.
Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species None that I am aware of Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation Improved community connectedness (e.g., walkability, bikability, public gathering spaces, pedestrian safety) Implemented other watershed management best practices (e.g., habitat and stream connectivity, septic system improvements) Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation (e.g., frequently flooded roadway, sewer capacity) Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual- purpose green space Installed or invested in renewable energy (e.g., wind or solar installation, solar garden participation) Reduced impervious surfaces (e.g., installing permeable pavers, pervious concrete or porous asphalt, conversion to green space) Installed electric vehicle charging stations Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate- vulnerable populations in the community Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat (e.g., white roofs) Other Installed new green roof(s) Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) Installed electric energy storage In the past three years, what actions that you are aware of has your organization taken to increase the resiliency of the community or environment?
Select all that apply.
Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species None that I am aware of Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation Improved community connectedness (e.g., walkability, bikability, public gathering spaces, pedestrian safety) Implemented other watershed management best practices (e.g., habitat and stream connectivity, septic system improvements) Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation (e.g., frequently flooded roadway, sewer capacity) Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual-purpose green space Installed or invested in renewable energy (e.g., wind or solar installation, solar garden participation) Reduced impervious surfaces (e.g., installing permeable pavers, pervious concrete or porous asphalt, conversion to green space) Installed electric vehicle charging stations Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate-vulnerable populations in the community Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat (e.g., white roofs) Other Installed new green roof(s) Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) Installed electric energy storage Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 80 105 88 63 81 74 71 39 33 23 12 19 12 9 7 3 2 4 3 2 1 Non-GreenStep (n=339) GreenStep (n=41) # 80 105 88 63 81 74 71 39 33 23 12 19 12 9 7 3 2 4 3 2 1 % 24% 31% 26% 19% 24% 22% 21% 12% 10% 7% 4% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% # 32 0 15 34 15 17 13 16 22 14 20 7 10 8 7 8 4 2 2 2 1 % % %% compare 78% 0% 37% 83% 37% 41% 32% 39% 54% 34% 49% 17% 24% 20% 17% 20% 10% 5% 5% 5% 2% Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 24% 31% 26% 19% 24% 22% 21% 12% 10% 7% 4% 6% 4% 3% 2%
 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% GreenStep (n=41) # 32 0 15 34 15 17 13 16 22 14 20 7 10 8 7 8 4 2 2 2 1 GreenStep (n=41) % 78% 0% 37% 83% 37% 41% 32% 39% 54% 34% 49% 17% 24% 20% 17% 20% 10% 5% 5% 5% 2% 104 Desired assistance The figure below shows the types of assistance organizations identified as most helpful to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience.
Compared with non-GreenStep organizations, GreenStep participants more frequently selected all of the listed options except “None of these.” Figure 56.

2022 survey data: Desired assistance What kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to your organization to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience Financial assistance for resiliency planning Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) None of these Climate resilient design standards New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience Climate resilience indicators / metrics Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections Other What kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to your organization to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.
Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience Financial assistance for resiliency planning Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) None of these Climate resilient design standards New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience Climate resilience indicators / metrics Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections Other Non-GreenStep (n=339) GreenStep (n=41) # 129 132 127 107 95 88 89 88 61 59 43 51 4 % 38% 39% 37% 32% 28% 26% 26% 26% 18% 17% 13% 15% 1% # 32 27 31 28 24 25 22 1 22 16 19 9 2 % % %% compare 78% 66% 76% 68% 59% 61% 54% 2% 54% 39% 46% 22% 5% Non-GreenStep (n=339) # 129 132 127 107 95 88 89 88 61 59 43 51 4 Non-GreenStep (n=339) % 38% 39% 37% 32% 28% 26% 26% 26% 18% 17% 13% 15% 1% GreenStep (n=41) # 32 27 31 28 24 25 22 1 22 16 19 9 2 GreenStep (n=41) % 78% 66% 76% 68% 59% 61% 54% 2% 54% 39% 46% 22% 5% 105 Organizations that hosted Minnesota GreenCorps members The following tables and charts illustrate the responses of organizations that identified themselves as having hosted a Minnesota GreenCorps member and those who did not.
In total, 34 organizations identified as having hosted a Minnesota GreenCorps member.

The data below show these respondents compared with all other responding organizations.

Responses are listed in the same order as they appear in the body of the report (sorted by highest proportion of responses in the whole data set).

Planning activities The figures below show the types of planning activities taken by organizations that had and had not hosted a Minnesota GreenCorps member.
In general, Minnesota GreenCorps hosts engage in more planning efforts than organizations that did not host a member.

The two groups were most closely matched in health and safety planning efforts—56 percent of Minnesota GreenCorps hosts and 39 percent of organizations that did not host a member had some type of health and safety plan or planning effort.

Figure 57.
2022 survey data: Overview of planning efforts Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # % MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # % compare % rt rt Has a comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Engaged in any standalone planning activity with relevant content Has relevant health and safety plans or planning efforts Has relevant water plans or planning efforts Has relevant natural resource plans or planning efforts Has additional relevant plans or planning efforts Organizations with any type of relevant plans or planning efforts 92 27 136 198 96 77 254 27% 8% 39% 57% 28% 22% 73% 21 18 19 27 22 20 32 62% 53% 56% 79% 65% 59% 94% Type of plan Has a comprehensive plan with relevant content in place or in process Engaged in any standalone planning activity with relevant content Has relevant health and safety plans or planning efforts Has relevant water plans or planning efforts Has relevant natural resource plans or planning efforts Has additional relevant plans or planning efforts Organizations with any type of relevant plans or planning efforts Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 92 27 136 198 96 77 254 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 27% 8% 39% 57% 28% 22% 73% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 21 18 19 27 22 20 32 MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 62% 53% 56% 79% 65% 59% 94% 106 Figure 58.
2022 survey data: Comprehensive planning Does your organization have a comprehensive plan with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

None of the above Comprehensive Plan with this content adopted Comprehensive Plan with this content in process This type of plan is not relevant to my organization.
Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # % MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # % % % % compare 208 40 48 39 60% 12% 14% 11% 15 17 8 1 44% 50% 24% 3% Does your organization have a comprehensive plan with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

None of the above Comprehensive Plan with this content adopted Comprehensive Plan with this content in process This type of plan is not relevant to my organization.
Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 208 40 48 39 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 60% 12% 14% 11% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 15 17 8 1 MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 44% 50% 24% 3% Figure 59.

2022 survey data: Standalone planning Has your organization engaged in any of the following standalone planning efforts specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # % MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # % %% % compare None of the above 263 76% 22 65% Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework in process Climate action / sustainability plan in process Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment in process Climate action / sustainability plan completed Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework completed Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment completed 15 12 9 2 4 1 4% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% This type of plan is not relevant to my organization 38 11% 6 7 3 9 4 5 0 18% 21% 9% 26% 12% 15% 0% Has your organization engaged in any of the following standalone planning efforts specifically to address climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.
None of the above Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework in process Climate action / sustainability plan in process Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment in process Climate action / sustainability plan completed Climate adaptation plan / strategic framework completed Climate change vulnerability / climate vulnerable populations assessment completed This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 263 15 12 9 2 4 1 38 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 76% 4% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 11% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 22 6 7 3 9 4 5 0 MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 65% 18% 21% 9% 26% 12% 15% 0% 107 Figure 60.
2022 survey data: Health and safety planning Does your organization have any health and safety plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # % MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # % %% % compare None of the above Hazard mitigation (e.g., FEMA-related) Emergency response Emergency operations Worker safety and work environment Building codes inspection and enforcement Continuity of operations Public health (e.g., vector-borne diseases, extreme heat, asthma/air quality.)
This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Does your organization have any health and safety plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.


None of the above Hazard mitigation (e.g., FEMA-related) Emergency response Emergency operations Worker safety and work environment Building codes inspection and enforcement Continuity of operations Public health (e.g., vector-borne diseases, extreme heat, asthma/air quality.)
This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 156 93 74 46 36 31 22 18 40 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 45% 27% 21% 13% 10% 9% 6% 5% 12% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 17 20 15 12 7 6 7 5 0 MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 50% 59% 44% 35% 21% 18% 21% 15% 0% Figure 61.

2022 survey data: Water planning Does your organization have any water plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # % MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # % %% % compare None of the above Wellhead protection Stormwater / erosion control Watershed Water quantity (including groundwater) Sewer system Water supply infrastructure Wastewater treatment facilities This type of plan is not relevant to my organization 104 101 90 93 70 60 54 47 20 Does your organization have any water plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.
None of the above Wellhead protection Stormwater / erosion control Watershed Water quantity (including groundwater) Sewer system Water supply infrastructure Wastewater treatment facilities This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 104 101 90 93 70 60 54 47 20 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 30% 29% 26% 27% 20% 17% 16% 14% 6% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 38% 44% 50% 32% 18% 21% 29% 26% 3% 108 Figure 62.
2022 survey data: Natural resource planning Does your organization have any natural resources plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
None of the above Parks and park facilities Invasive species Open / green space (excluding parks) Urban and community forestry/tree canopy Forest management Wildlife management This type of plan is not relevant to my organization % compare Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 200 45 39 31 18 15 14 29 % 58% 13% 11% 9% 5% 4% 4% 8% # 13 15 9 7 % %% 38% 44% 26% 21% 16 47% 9 2 2 26% 6% 6% Does your organization have any natural resources plans or planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.

None of the above Parks and park facilities Invasive species Open / green space (excluding parks) Urban and community forestry/tree canopy Forest management Wildlife management This type of plan is not relevant to my organization Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 200 45 39 31 18 15 14 29 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 58% 13% 11% 9% 5% 4% 4% 8% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 13 15 9 7 16 9 2 2 MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 38% 44% 26% 21% 47% 26% 6% 6% 109 Figure 63.
2022 survey data: Additional planning Has your organization engaged in any additional planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # % MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # % %% % compare None of the above Land use Strategic planning Energy Economic development Capital budget Solid waste Transportation (e.g., roads, multimodal) Facilities and grounds (excluding parks and water systems) Construction and demolition waste Workforce planning and development Hazardous waste Social equity / human rights These types of plans are not relevant to my organization Has your organization engaged in any additional planning efforts with content that specifically addresses climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.
None of the above Land use Strategic planning Energy Economic development Capital budget Solid waste Transportation (e.g., roads, multimodal) Facilities and grounds (excluding parks and water systems) Construction and demolition waste Workforce planning and development Hazardous waste Social equity / human rights These types of plans are not relevant to my organization Actions taken Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 221 35 24 14 20 17 19 13 13 12 9 10 4 26 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 64% 10% 7% 4% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 8% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 17 11 12 15 6 8 6 11 8 3 5 2 7 0 MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 50% 32% 35% 44% 18% 24% 18% 32% 24% 9% 15% 6% 21% 0% The figure on the following page shows the types of actions taken to increase resiliency.
In general, Minnesota GreenCorps hosts were more likely to have taken an action than organizations that did not host a member.

The largest differences were “Improved community connectedness (e.g., walkability, bikability, public gathering spaces, pedestrian safety)” and “Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species”; all or almost all responding Minnesota GreenCorps hosts had taken these actions, compared with less than one- quarter of organizations that did not host.
Minnesota GreenCorps hosts, on average, took more actions to increase resilience than survey respondents as a whole.

As noted in Appendix J, those organizations who had used one or both of the resources or partnerships took an average of 5.7 actions, and those who had not took an average of 1.7 actions.

By comparison, Minnesota GreenCorps hosts took an average of 6.4 actions.

110 Figure 64.
110 Figure 64.

2022 survey data: Actions taken In the past three (3) years, what actions has your organization taken to adapt / increase the resiliency of the community or environment to our changing climate?

Please select all that apply.
Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species None that I am aware of Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation Improved community connectedness (e.g., walkability, bikability, public gathering spaces, pedestrian safety) Implemented other watershed management best practices (e.g., habitat and stream connectivity, septic system improvements) Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation (e.g., frequently flooded roadway, sewer capacity) Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual- purpose green space Installed or invested in renewable energy (e.g., wind or solar installation, solar garden participation) Reduced impervious surfaces (e.g., installing permeable pavers, pervious concrete or porous asphalt, conversion to green space) Installed electric vehicle charging stations Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate- vulnerable populations in the community Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat (e.g., white roofs) Other Installed new green roof(s) Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # % MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # % %% % compare MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 94% 0% 44% 100% 44% 50% 38% 47% 65% 41% 59% 21% 29% 24% 21% 24% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 111 Installed electric energy storage In the past three years, what actions that you are aware of has your organization taken to increase the resiliency of the community or environment?
Select all that apply.
Planted more community trees and/or more resilient tree species None that I am aware of Took new measures to reduce erosion trouble spots caused by high flows / extreme precipitation Improved community connectedness (e.g., walkability, bikability, public gathering spaces, pedestrian safety) Implemented other watershed management best practices (e.g., habitat and stream connectivity, septic system improvements) Upgraded existing or constructed new built infrastructure to better address heavy/intense precipitation (e.g., frequently flooded roadway, sewer capacity) Implemented shoreline restoration Added green (nature-based) stormwater infrastructure or dual-purpose green space Installed or invested in renewable energy (e.g., wind or solar installation, solar garden participation) Reduced impervious surfaces (e.g., installing permeable pavers, pervious concrete or porous asphalt, conversion to green space) Installed electric vehicle charging stations Amended / implemented new ordinance(s) or policies for improved resilience Provided outdoor structures for shading / added publicly-accessible water features for cooling Budgeted more funds for adaptive measures Took action specifically to reduce risk(s) faced by the most climate-vulnerable populations in the community Powered electric vehicle charging stations with renewable energy Increased reflectivity of surfaces to reduce urban heat (e.g., white roofs) Other Installed new green roof(s) Designated new community/public cooling center(s) / created resilience hub(s) Installed electric energy storage Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 80 105 88 63 81 74 71 39 33 23 12 19 12 9 7 3 2 4 3 2 1 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 23% 30% 25% 18% 23% 21% 21% 11% 10% 7% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 32 0 15 34 15 17 13 16 22 14 20 7 10 8 7 8 4 2 2 2 1 Desired assistance The figure below shows the types of resources organizations identified as most helpful to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience.
Compared with organizations that did not host Minnesota GreenCorps members, Minnesota GreenCorps hosts more frequently selected all of the listed options except “None of these.” Figure 65.

2022 survey data: Desired assistance What kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to your organization to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience?

Please select all that apply.
Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience Financial assistance for resiliency planning Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) None of these Climate resilient design standards New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience Climate resilience indicators / metrics Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections Other What kind of resources or assistance would be most helpful to your organization to make progress on climate adaptation and resilience?
Please select all that apply.
Financial assistance for construction of resilient infrastructure Best practices for climate adaptation and resilience Financial assistance for resiliency planning Educational materials for community outreach and engagement on adaptation and resilience Adaptation and resilience planning toolkit and guides Model climate adaptation and resilience plans, policies, or ordinances Local climate change projection data (downscaled for locations throughout Minnesota) None of these Climate resilient design standards New providers of low/no cost direct technical assistance on climate adaptation and resilience Climate resilience indicators / metrics Updated Atlas 14 based on both historical data and future projections Other Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # % MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # % %% % compare Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) # 129 132 127 107 95 88 89 88 61 59 43 51 4 Not MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=346) % 37% 38% 37% 31% 27% 25% 26% 25% 18% 17% 12% 15% 1% MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) # 32 27 31 28 24 25 22 1 22 16 19 9 2 MN GreenCorps Hosts (n=34) % 94% 79% 91% 82% 71% 74% 65% 3% 65% 47% 56% 26% 6% 112 Appendix L: Action as a result of planning This appendix explores organizations that said one of the actions was a direct result of a written plan that addressed climate adaptation and resilience.
Overall, 14 percent of respondents answered that one of their actions taken was a direct result of a written plan.

Figure 66.

2022 survey data: Were any of the actions you took a direct result of a written plan that addressed climate adaptation and resilience?

Choice Yes No I’m not sure Percent 14% 69% 13% The figures below explore the characteristics of the 14 percent of respondents that answered yes.
The percent shown represents the percentage of responding organizations of that characteristic that answered the question (e.g., 60 percent of RDCs that answered the question said one of their actions was a direct result of a written plan).

Figure 67.

2022 survey data: Organizations that took action as a result of a written plan by type (n = 36) RDC Org.

type Tribal government SWCD Watershed district County City Township Number 3 1 14 7 3 8 0 Percent 60% 33% 33% 26% 19% 6% 0% 113 Figure 68.
2022 survey data: Organizations that took action as a result of a written plan by region (n = 36) Region Southwest Twin Cities Metro Northeast North Central Southeast Northwest Number 8 13 4 3 6 2 Percent 20% 19% 16% 13% 11% 5% Figure 69.

2022 survey data: Organizations that took action as a result of a written plan by number of employees (n = 36) Org.
employees 0-10 11-50 51-200 201-500 501-1,000 over 1,000 Number 22 3 2 3 1 5 Percent 16% 6% 6% 21% 25% 63% 114 Appendix M: Governmental collaboration This appendix explores organizations that have coordinated with any other local/regional/tribal governmental organization(s) on climate adaptation and resilience planning or implementation.

Overall, 21 percent of respondents answered that they had coordinated with others.

Figure 70.
Figure 70.

2022 survey data: Has your organization coordinated with any other local/regional/tribal governmental organization(s) within Minnesota on climate adaptation and resilience planning or implementation?

Choice Yes No I don't know Percent 21% 65% 12% The figures below explore the characteristics of the 14 percent of respondents that answered yes.
The percent shown represents the percentage of responding organizations of that characteristic (e.g., 10 percent of responding cities have coordinated with another governmental entity on this topic).

Figure 71.

2022 survey data: Organizations that coordinated on planning or implementation by type (n = 78) Org.

type RDC Watershed district SWCD County City Tribal government Township Figure 72.
2022 survey data: Organizations that coordinated on planning or implementation by region (n = 78) Percent 100% 83% 57% 42% 35% 10% 3% Region Twin Cities Metro Southeast Northeast Southwest North Central Northwest Percent 35% 21% 17% 16% 16% 11% 115 Figure 73.

2022 survey data: Organizations that coordinated on planning or implementation by number of employees (n = 78) Org.

employees 0-10 11-50 51-200 201-500 501-1,000 over 1,000 Percent 19% 17% 16% 32% 50% 78% 116