# The Role of Non-Climate Data in Equitable Climate Adaptation Planning: Lessons from Small French and American Cities

Elena Lioubimtseva, Charlotte da Cunha

► To cite this version:

Elena Lioubimtseva, Charlotte da Cunha. The Role of Non-Climate Data in Equitable Climate Adaptation Planning: Lessons from Small French and American Cities. Sustainability, 2023, 15 (2), pp.1556. 10.3390/su15021556. hal-03946397

HAL Id: hal-03946397

https://hal.uvsq.fr/hal-03946397

Submitted on 6 Jun 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

# The Role of Non-Climate Data in Equitable Climate Adaptation Planning: Lessons from Small French and American Cities

Elena Lioubimtseva<fnref n="1" />,* and Charlotte da Cunha<fnref n="2" />

**Abstract:** There is a growing consensus that to effectively adapt to climate change, cities need user-friendly tools and reliable high-resolution biophysical and socio-economic data for analysis, mapping, modeling, and visualization. This study examines the availability of various types of information used in climate adaptation plans of 40 municipalities with a population of less than 300,000 people in the United States and France, probing into the choice and usage of relevant information by small municipalities. We argue that non-climatic spatial data, such as population demographic and socio-economic patterns, urban infrastructure, and environmental data must be integrated with climate tools and datasets to inform effective vulnerability assessment and equitable adaptation planning goals. Most climate adaptation plans examined in this study fail to address the existing structural inequalities and environmental injustices in urban infrastructure and land use. Their challenges include methodological and ideological barriers, data quality issues, and a lack of meaningful community connections. Adaptation methodological approaches should be reassessed in the context of much-needed societal transformation. Lessons learned from our studies offer valuable insights for the potential development of national and state-level climate adaptation information services for cities.

**Keywords:** climate change adaptation; adaptation plan; small municipality; France; United States; climate services; information

## 1. Introduction and Background

This study contributes to the growing international body of knowledge on climate services and data intended for climate change adaptation planning at a local scale. Climate services for adaptation have been defined as all public and private sector services supporting adaptation to climate change [1,2]. Based on [3] "the aim of climate services is to provide people and organizations with timely, tailored climate-related knowledge and information that they can use to reduce climate-related losses and enhance benefits, including the protection of lives, livelihoods, and property" (p. 588). The European Union further defines climate services as a process of "transforming climate-related data and other information into customized products such as projections, trends, economic analyses, advice on best practices, the development and evaluation of solutions, and any other climate-related services that may be of use for society" [4]. There has been significant progress toward improved climate change scenarios, downscaling, theoretical and methodological development, and production of applied tool-kits, and online clearinghouses intended to support climate adaptation planning at a city scale, produced collaboratively by national and international governmental entities and research institutions [5-8]. There is also a growing recognition that effective climate adaptation planning requires the analysis of multidisciplinary data, which is not limited to climate change trends and scenarios alone. The integration of climate and weather data with social, economic, cultural, and

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

**Citation:** Lioubimtseva, E.; da Cunha, C. The Role of Non-Climate Data in Equitable Climate Adaptation

**Planning:** Lessons from Small French and American Cities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1556. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021556

Academic Editors: Charles Herrick, Jason Vogel and Glen Douglass Anderson

Received: 9 November 2022

Revised: 31 December 2022

Accepted: 4 January 2023

Published: 13 January 2023

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Geography and Sustainable Planning, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² CEARC Laboratory, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines/Université Paris Saclay, 11 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: lioubime@gvsu.edu</footnote>
environmental data is paramount to evaluate the present and future human vulnerability to climate change, addressing disproportionate socioeconomic risk to climate impacts and engaging overburdened communities in the planning process [9–11]. A growing number of organizations have developed various services to assist local governments and communities with climate adaptation planning. Examples of international platforms include the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) of the World Meteorological Organization [12], Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3), the EUMETSAT (European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites), and Climate-ADAPT [6] of the European Union [13]. National and regional instruments, such as the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit [14], Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange (CAKEX) by Eco-Adapt [15], Adapt West [16], the Great Lakes Integrated Science and Assessment (GLISA) [17], the French National Observatory on the Effects of Global Warming (ONERC), the National Ecological Transition Agency (ADEME), and the platform ClimatHD by Meteo France offer more specific country-wide or region-wide data coverage. Some U.S. states, such as California, provide state-level open access peer-reviewed cross-disciplinary data and collaboration opportunities to stakeholders, including infrastructure managers, municipal planners, community-based organizations, state agencies, scientists and climate experts, educators, and the public via Cal Adapt [7]. These databases provide state-wide data on temperature, rainfall, wind, soil moisture, and ocean conditions, as well as maps, risk and vulnerability analyses, assessments, and long-term projections and scenarios. They can be combined with socio-economic variables and non-meteorological data such as agricultural production, health trends, human settlement in high-risk areas, and road and infrastructure maps for the delivery of goods, depending on user needs and other relevant information.

In France, since 2011, ten regional working groups of independent experts have been created to support regional climate change monitoring efforts. These include five existing groups—AcclimaTerra in Nouvelle-Aquitaine, GREC-SUD in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Ouranos-AuRA in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, RECO in Occitanie, GREC Guadeloupe and five more groups still being formed in Brittany, Normandy, Pays de La Loire, Ile-de-France, and Hauts-de-France. These multidisciplinary committees are modeled after IPCC Working Groups and are positioned at the interface of academic and non-academic spheres, constituting a catalyst for action in response to the impacts of climate change. The Nouvelle-Aquitaine region, which currently holds the most climate adaptation plans in the country, is home to AcclimaTerra [18], the precursor group that pioneered this initiative in 2018 [19]. Similar regionalization of metropolitan climate adaptation planning has been observed in the United States for many years with Regional Adaptation Planning (RAP) initiatives evolving around major cities and involving municipalities of various sizes. Metropolitan RAPs assume diverse organizational arrangements and operate in a variety of political and geographical contexts, including the development of their own climate services. Their spatial scale varies from parts of urban agglomerations to bioregional watersheds, but in the United States they most commonly reflect the boundaries of existing “metropolitan regional” entities, such as counties and regional planning organizations [20].

Since the purpose of climate adaptation is the reduction in vulnerability to adverse climate impacts, any climate adaptation plan should be based on a thorough assessment of human vulnerability and principles of climate justice. Therefore, climate services for climate adaptation planning are inherently multidisciplinary and must include demographic, social, economic, and environmental justice data and tools as well. Justice is a legal term closely related to the social concept of equity, offering a human rights perspective on the climate crisis, acknowledging that climate change has differing social, economic, public health, and other adverse impacts on underprivileged populations [21]. Developing transparent planning strategies that eliminate disparities would be impossible without reliable social and economic data about race, class, gender, and other dimensions of diversity. To address this need, several U.S. states, e.g., Michigan [22], are currently developing Environmental Justice Screens—online platforms providing environmental justice spatial data at a much higher resolution than the already existing U.S. EPA EJ Screen [23]. In France, the discourse
on environmental justice remains mostly confined to academia. While a focus on racial discrimination has been at the heart of the U.S. environmental justice movement [24,25], the concept of “race” as a major factor of environmental injustice is still barely acknowledged in France, mostly due to the effort of its republican ideology to erase any recognition of racial inequalities [26].

Despite progress in the development of climate services for adaptation planning, including some non-climatologic data, there is still a significant gap between the actual data needs and existing products and services offered by various organizations. This gap is particularly problematic for small municipalities, which have limited capacity to locate, access, and interpret adequate information, compared to large high-capacity cities. Cross-national peer-learning experience is rarely available to smaller communities [27] and very few scholarly studies have compared the provision of climate services for local climate adaptation planning between different countries [28,29]. One significant challenge is that climate services largely develop through interaction between the scientific and non-scientific communities, whereas scientific literature is built mostly through exchange within the academic sphere. As Vaughan et al. point out “While several outlets allow members of specific research communities to communicate with each other, there are far fewer mechanisms that allow operational climate service providers and consumers to engage in two-way dialog on the questions they would like addressed by the research community. This two-way communication is essential given the overwhelming evidence that climate services are most useful when they are developed as part of an iterative process of “co-discovery”, “co-development,” and “co-evaluation” involving the producers and users of climate information” [30]. Thus, an analysis driven by the users’ perspective is necessary to go beyond the academic discussions and incorporate knowledge and data generated by communities themselves.

The primary objective of our study is to examine climate adaptation data needs from the perspective of small municipalities (defined here as urban areas with populations less than 300,000). The U.S. and France provide an especially interesting case due to fundamental differences in their approaches to local climate adaptation planning and provision of climate services, with the French system being highly centralized and a variety of community-driven approaches across the United States. Our secondary objectives are to investigate what information, methods, and tools have been used in local vulnerability assessments and climate adaptation plans in both countries, to identify major gaps, and to synthesize insights from these two different national models of local climate adaptation planning. We do not aim here to compare different national approaches. Instead, our goal is to use this cross-national case study to provide some insights into common challenges faced by small municipalities and emerging solutions in both countries.

## 2. Methodology

### 2.1. *Climate Adaptation Plans*

This inquiry on the role of multidisciplinary data and tools available for municipal climate adaptation planning is informed by the analysis of climate adaptation plans and vulnerability assessment reports developed by urban and rural municipalities with populations less than 300,000 people in the U.S. and France. To investigate the content, sources, and scale of climatic and non-climatic tools, services, and data used by the local communities we examined 40 published climate adaptation plans (23 in the U.S. and 17 in France) of small cities, towns, and counties. The selection of planning documents for the U.S. part of the dataset is described in detail in [31], while the selection of both U.S. adaptation plans and French PCAETs (Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial) is the most recent update of our earlier dataset published in [27] and [32]. Climate adaptation planning in France has been fully integrated into local territorial climate-air-energy plans, which are now mandatory for all communities with more than 20,000 inhabitants [33]. On the contrary, climate adaptation efforts in the United States have been voluntary and mostly driven by state, local, and tribal initiatives [34]. The sample of municipalities is not meant to be exhaustive and aims
to reflect the geographic diversity of both countries. These cities, towns, and counties are listed in Table 1, with a summary of climate change impacts addressed in their climate adaptation plans.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** U.S. and French climate adaptation plans.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Municipality</th><th rowspan="2">Source</th><th colspan="8">Impacts of Climate Change Addressed</th></tr><tr><th>Coastal Changes</th><th>Severe Storms</th><th>Extreme Heat</th><th>Extreme Cold</th><th>Flooding</th><th>Drought</th><th>Wildfires</th><th>Seasonal Shifts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="10">U.S. climate adaptation plans</td></tr><tr><td>Albany, NY</td><td>[35]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Alger County, MI</td><td>[36]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Boulder County, CO</td><td>[37]</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Chula Vista, CA</td><td>[38]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corte Madera, CA</td><td>[39]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Flagstaff, AZ</td><td>[40,41]</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Georgetown, ME</td><td>[42]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Groton, CT</td><td>[43]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Iowa City, IA</td><td>[44,45]</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Keene, NH</td><td>[46,47]</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Laguna Woods, CA</td><td>[48]</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Marquette, MI</td><td>[49]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Marquette County, MI</td><td>[50]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Marshfield, MA</td><td>[51]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>North Kingston, RI</td><td>[52]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Punta Gorda, FL</td><td>[53,54]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Salem, MA</td><td>[55]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Santa Cruz, CA</td><td>[56,57]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sarasota, FL</td><td>[58,59]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Taos County, NM</td><td>[60]</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Tybee Island, GA</td><td>[61]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tompkins County, NY</td><td>[62]</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Watsonville, CA</td><td>[63]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="10">French climate adaptation plans</td></tr><tr><td>Brest métropole, Bretagne</td><td>[64,65]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Clermont Auvergne Métropole, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes</td><td>[66–69]</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cordais et Causse (4 C), Occitanie</td><td>[70–72]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Golfe du Morbihan, Bretagne</td><td>[73]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>La ivière du Levant, Guadeloupe</td><td>[74]</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Le Grand Chalon, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté</td><td>[75,76]</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Niortais, Nouvelle-Aquitaine</td><td>[77,78]</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pays de Barr, Grand Est</td><td>[79–81]</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Municipality</th><th rowspan="2">Source</th><th colspan="8">Impacts of Climate Change Addressed</th></tr><tr><th>Coastal Changes</th><th>Severe Storms</th><th>Extreme Heat</th><th>Extreme Cold</th><th>Flooding</th><th>Drought</th><th>Wildfires</th><th>Seasonal Shifts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pays Dieppois—Terroir de Caux (PDTC), Normandie</td><td>[82–85]</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pays Voironnais, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes</td><td>[86]</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Perpignan Méditerranée Métropole, Occitanie</td><td>[87]</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Saint Omer—CAPSO, Hauts-de-France</td><td>[88–90]</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>St-Quentin-en-Yvelines—CASQY, Ile de France</td><td>[91,92]</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sud-Estuaire, Pays de la Loire</td><td>[93–96]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sundgau, Grand Est</td><td>[97–99]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Vallée de Chamonix-Mont-Blanc, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes</td><td>[100,101]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Var Esterel Méditerranée, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur</td><td>[102,103]</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.2. Conceptualization of Vulnerability

An adaptation plan is a road map to reducing human vulnerability to the current and future impacts of climate change. Adaptations seek to adjust human-environmental systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli to minimize their harm or exploitation beneficial opportunities [104]. Therefore, adaptation planning always starts with an assessment of existing and projected vulnerabilities to climate impacts. The need to assess vulnerability to climate change is based on the acknowledgment that actual losses caused by hazard events such as storms, floods, or droughts are not solely a result of climate change but also determined by societal and economic preconditions that shape the way in which people are prepared for or respond to such events [105]. How vulnerability is defined and assessed largely shapes the agenda and priorities of adaptation planning and provides an essential baseline for measurable goals. It also determines the content of information and tools necessary to establish present and future climate adaptation goals. The discourse about vulnerability within climate change adaptation and climate risk scholarly literature encompasses various interpretations of the concept of vulnerability. Since the 2012 IPCC SREX report [106] and within the newer conceptualization of climate risks in the IPCC Assessment Reports Five [104] and Six [107], there is an emerging consensus that vulnerability is better framed as a starting point rather than an outcome. Approaches that conceptualize vulnerability as an outcome often include hazard information and therefore do not sufficiently differentiate between vulnerability and risk [105]. In the pre-SREX conceptual framework, vulnerability was considered as “a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” [108]; while under the newer framework, sensitivity and adaptive capacity are considered internal aspects of vulnerability, as opposed to exposure, conceptualized as an external factor [104,109]. This shift reflects the reconceptualization of vulnerability as a socioeconomic variable. In practice, both frameworks have been operationalized by scholars and agencies have continued to follow the IPCC AR4 definition of vulnerability [31,110]. In place-based community-scale assessments [111–113] vulnerability is most commonly conceptualized as a composite variable defined by both biophysical and socioeconomic factors of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity as a combination of geographical, demographic, and socioeconomic indicators [114].

In the absence of national or international climate adaptation and vulnerability assessment standards, it is inevitable for different municipalities to adopt diverse approaches to
their vulnerability assessments. These different conceptual frameworks are summarized in Table 2. In theory, vulnerability assessment is meant to be objective to provide a reliable baseline for adaptation planning. In practice, however, vulnerability assessments are highly subjective because they depend on the philosophies and value orientations of organizations and stakeholders who conduct them [31]. Therefore, we use here the term “perceived vulnerability”, commonly used in social and clinical psychology [115,116] as a measure of subjective perception of vulnerability by groups of the population. In health behavior theories, perceived vulnerability reflects a belief about the likelihood of a health threat’s occurrence or the likelihood of developing a health problem or being exposed to infections or natural disasters [116,117]. We find this concept highly relevant for describing the collective beliefs of communities about the likelihood of being vulnerable to climate change.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Information used in climate adaptation plans.</caption><thead><tr><th>Area of Interest</th><th>Information Used in Climate Adaptation Plans</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>(a) Conceptualization and assessment of vulnerability</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>As a synonym of exposure (omit sensitivity and adaptive capacity)</td><td>Climate change trends, climate change scenarios, risk analysis</td></tr><tr><td>As a combination of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (pre-IPCC-SREX)</td><td>Climate change trends, climate change scenarios, risk analysis, demographic, health, and socio-economic data</td></tr><tr><td>As a combination of sensitivity and adaptive capacity to projected climate risks (post-IPCC-SREX)</td><td>Demographic, socio-economic, health statistics and risk analysis based on climate change trends and scenarios</td></tr><tr><td>As a combination of exposure and sensitivity (omit adaptive capacity)</td><td>Climate change trends, climate change scenarios, risk analysis, demographic data</td></tr><tr><td>As a combination of exposure and adaptive capacity (omit sensitivity)</td><td>Climate change trends, climate change scenarios, risk analysis, socio-economic data</td></tr><tr><td><strong>(b) Consideration of climate justice in adaptation goals related to:</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Green and blue infrastructure</td><td>Climate, ecological and environmental data</td></tr><tr><td>Housing</td><td>Housing inventory and plans</td></tr><tr><td>Energy security</td><td>Energy access, cost, and future projections</td></tr><tr><td>Public transportation</td><td>Transportation networks and plans</td></tr><tr><td>Utilities</td><td>Utilities infrastructure and plans</td></tr><tr><td>Emergency services</td><td>Emergency infrastructure and plans</td></tr><tr><td>Food security</td><td>Food access, safety, and security data and projections</td></tr><tr><td>Water quality</td><td>Water quality data and scenarios</td></tr><tr><td>Air quality</td><td>Air quality data and scenarios</td></tr><tr><td>Community education</td><td>Information about education attainment and community education resources</td></tr><tr><td>Insurance</td><td>Insurance access data and scenarios</td></tr><tr><td>Community health</td><td>Health statistics trends, data about access to health care, and projections</td></tr><tr><td><strong>(c) Groups of stakeholders involved in data co-production and planning</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Local citizens</td><td>Stories, survey, and focus group input, art, traditional knowledge, citizen science</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental and climate advocacy groups</td><td>Environmental and climate data, case studies, stories, non-scientific articles, blogs</td></tr><tr><td>Social justice advocacy groups</td><td>Environmental and climate data, case studies, stories, non-scientific articles, blogs</td></tr><tr><td>Local government officials</td><td>Policy connection, litigation, public mobilization, public funding</td></tr><tr><td>City planners</td><td>Urban, land-use, environmental spatial data, case studies, ordinances, litigation</td></tr><tr><td>Members of state or federal/national agencies</td><td>Guidelines, toolkits, case studies, science/policy connection, public funding, training materials</td></tr><tr><td>Academic institutions</td><td>Guidelines, toolkits, scholarly literature, spatial data, scenarios, public lectures</td></tr><tr><td>Local businesses</td><td>Surveys and focus group input, private funding</td></tr><tr><td>External consulting firms</td><td>Climate, geoscience, and environmental data, risk analysis, impact scenarios</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.3. Conceptualization of Equity and Inclusion

Consideration of climate justice is fundamental to reducing human vulnerability and providing adaptation benefits for all residents and neighborhoods. Climate justice can have distributive and procedural forms [118], where the former relates to the distribution of adverse impacts of climate change and the latter to how and by whom adaptation planning decisions should be made [21]. In climate adaptation planning, equity and justice imply planning strategies to eliminate disparities and create physical and social environments
that aim to ensure a fairer distribution of community resources along race, class, gender, and other dimensions of diversity [119]. Municipalities that examine their vulnerability beyond biophysical climate impacts and consider the demographic, social, and economic characteristics of their populations appear to be more likely to develop specific measures focusing on vulnerable groups [31,120]. To identify cities' information needs for equitable planning, we consider twelve (12) climate adaptation domains frequently addressed in climate adaptation plans: green and blue infrastructure, housing, energy security, public transportation, utilities, emergency services, food security, water quality, air quality, community education, insurance, and community health (Table 2).

There is also growing consensus that transparent, actionable, and equitable adaptation planning requires inclusivity [121], engagement of diverse stakeholders, especially vulnerable groups, and integration of scientific and community knowledge [122], including traditional and indigenous knowledge in the process of climate service co-production [123,124]. In this study, we examine the participation of nine (9) types of stakeholders, directly and indirectly, in the co-production of information used in vulnerability assessment and the co-development of local climate adaptation plans. These are local citizens, environmental and climate advocacy groups, social justice advocacy groups, elected officials, planners, members of state, federal/national agencies, academic institutions, local businesses, and external consulting firms (Table 2).

## 2.4. Data Analysis

Each climate adaptation plan, including its bibliographic sources and metadata, was screened for information about the content and sources of methodologies and data used in vulnerability assessment and formulation of adaptation goals. The qualitative assessment includes three components driven by the following questions:

* How is the concept of human vulnerability defined and what information is used to assess it?

* How climate justice is addressed in climate adaptation goals across various sectors, and what information is used to formulate the goals?

* What groups of stakeholders are involved in the co-production of information used in vulnerability assessment and the co-development of local climate adaptation plans?

## 3. Results and Discussion

Table 3 provides a summary of our findings about vulnerability assessment, used as a basis for adaptation planning, consideration of justice, and the participation of stakeholders and co-production of information and climate adaptation plans.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Areas of interest and information addressed in climate adaptation plans.</caption><thead><tr><th>Area of Interest</th><th>U.S. Plans</th><th>French Plans</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>1. Conceptualization and assessment of vulnerability</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>As a synonym of exposure (omit sensitivity and adaptive capacity)</td><td>5 (22%)</td><td>6 (35%)</td></tr><tr><td>As a combination of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity(pre-IPCC-SREX)</td><td>9 (38%)</td><td>3 (18%)</td></tr><tr><td>As a combination of sensitivity and adaptive capacity to projected climate risks (post-IPCC-SREX)</td><td>2 (9%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>As a combination of exposure and sensitivity (omit adaptive capacity)</td><td>2 (9%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>As a combination of exposure and adaptive capacity (omit sensitivity)</td><td>5 (22%)</td><td>8 (47%)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>2. Consideration of justice in climate adaptation goals related to:</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Green and blue infrastructure</td><td>11 (48%)</td><td>4 (24%)</td></tr><tr><td>Housing</td><td>8 (35%)</td><td>14 (82%)</td></tr><tr><td>Energy security</td><td>6 (20%)</td><td>10 (59%)</td></tr><tr><td>Public transportation</td><td>8 (35%)</td><td>6 (35%)</td></tr><tr><td>Utilities</td><td>5 (22%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td></tr><tr><td>Emergency services</td><td>12 (52%)</td><td>7 (41%)</td></tr><tr><td>Food security</td><td>4 (17%)</td><td>13 (76%)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 3. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th>Area of Interest</th><th>U.S. Plans</th><th>French Plans</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Water quality</td><td>4 (17%)</td><td>5 (29%)</td></tr><tr><td>Air quality</td><td>3 (13%)</td><td>1 (6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Community education</td><td>11 (48%)</td><td>9 (53%)</td></tr><tr><td>Insurance</td><td>2 (9%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Community health</td><td>7 (30%)</td><td>7 (41%)</td></tr><tr><td>3. Groups of stakeholders involved in data co-production and planning</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Local citizens</td><td>18 (78%)</td><td>9 (53%)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental and climate advocacy groups</td><td>16 (70%)</td><td>8 (47%)</td></tr><tr><td>Social justice advocacy groups</td><td>6 (26%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td></tr><tr><td>Local government officials</td><td>22 (96%)</td><td>16 (94%)</td></tr><tr><td>City planners</td><td>21 (91%)</td><td>17 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td>Members of state or federal/national agencies</td><td>12 (52%)</td><td>8 (47%)</td></tr><tr><td>Academic institutions</td><td>15 (65%)</td><td>3 (18%)</td></tr><tr><td>Local businesses</td><td>14 (61%)</td><td>13 (76%)</td></tr><tr><td>External consulting firms</td><td>13 (57%)</td><td>5 (29%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.1. Assessment of Human Vulnerability

All municipalities examined in this study conducted their vulnerability assessments, either prior to or as a part of their climate adaptation process. However, using different guidelines from various sources based on different schools of thought, they define and interpret vulnerability in a variety of ways.

Figure 1a,b illustrate how the definition of vulnerability chosen by municipalities can pre-determine their focus on different dimensions of vulnerability and, consequently, different types of information used as a basis for their adaptation strategies. Out of 23 U.S. municipalities (Figure 1a), only two recently revised plans (9% of the sample) followed the post-SREX IPCC framework differentiating between social vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptive capacity) and external hazard exposure. Nine plans (38%) adopted the pre-SREX IPCC definition combining metrics of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The older conceptual framework appears to be by far the most popular in climate adaptation guidelines and municipal plans. Likewise, in the scholarly literature on adaptation planning, the newer IPCC framework was not quite as well accepted, and a vast majority of research articles published after SREX and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report adopted the earlier conceptualization [110,125].

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. *Cont.*</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Interpretation of vulnerability in (a) U.S. climate adaptation plans, and (b) French climate adaptation plans.</figcaption></figure>

Interestingly, five more U.S. plans (22%) refer to the older IPCC framework in their methodologies, but in practice, address only exposure and adaptive capacity metrics and entirely omit sensitivity variables (such as age, gender, race, disability status, and wellness). In addition, two U.S. plans (9%), which refer to the same definition, address only exposure and sensitivity metrics and omit adaptive capacity. Finally, five remaining U.S. plans (22%) omit social and economic factors altogether, assessing vulnerability as *exposure* to various biophysical climate-change-related hazards. Four of these five were among the very first climate adaptation plans in the country, developed in the 2000s, reflecting the interpretation of this concept in the scholarly literature prior to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC [126], but one of these plans was published in 2017.

French climate adaptation plans follow more uniform national guidelines and adopt only three versions of vulnerability assessment frameworks (Figure 1b). Almost half of them (47%) interpret vulnerability as a combination of biophysical factors of exposure to climate impacts and economic factors of adaptive capacity. While IPCC reports are routinely cited in plans’ introductions, none of them follow the post-SREX IPCC framework and only three French plans (18%) adopted the pre-SREX IPCC framework. Six French plans (37%) equate vulnerability with exposure. Although the term *sensibilité* is frequently used in all plans, which can be literally translated into English as *sensitivity*, it is understood and assessed solely as biophysical exposure. For example, the “sensitivity” of a city’s population to flooding risk is discussed and assessed based on precipitation scenarios rather than a differentiated analysis of population demographics as might be expected in the English-language climate adaptation literature.

## 3.2. *Consideration of Justice in Climate Adaptation Goals*

Adaptation plans must be equitable and fairly protect all residents, especially the most vulnerable groups. However, it is apparent that many adaptation plans do not set justice-centered priorities (Figure 2). Equitable access to emergency services and community climate education come up as the top activities addressed in both countries, yet only about half of all plans set such goals. French plans are more frequently concerned with equity in housing (82%), food security (76%), and energy security (59%); whereas 48% of U.S. plans set objectives for more equitable access to green infrastructure and ecosystem services.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Justice-related goals in various domains of climate adaptation plans in the U.S. and French plans.</figcaption></figure>

To monitor the implementation of these and other climate adaptation objectives, planners need accurate local data and tools to assess patterns of existing vulnerabilities, develop plausible scenarios, and formulate equitable adaptation strategies. For example, goals for equitable access to emergency response services related to weather extremes and hazards appear in 52% of U.S. and 41% of French plans. Yet, in both countries, it is apparent that factors such as race and ethnicity matter when it comes to the provision of governmental assistance [25,127]. “Years after Katrina, it is clear that the slow and incompetent emergency response was a disaster that overshadowed the deadly storm itself, and while Katrina brought governmental racial injustice to the forefront, this disparity has been affecting African American communities long before the storm. For decades, African Americans and other people of color have borne disproportionate environmental burdens—from pollution and poorly maintained neighborhoods to unsafe drug testing and lead poisoning—and for decades government regulators have largely ignored these injustices” [24]. To address these injustices block-by-block and neighborhood-by-neighborhood, climate adaptation strategies must rely on accurate information and be driven by fair planning policies [128,129].

Although 52% and 48% of French and U.S. plans, respectively, formulate adaptation goals related to inclusive community education and access to climate change information, they rarely contain specific metrics which could help track their implementation. For example, such goals may include communication of climate data in more diverse and accessible formats, such as community workshops, flyers, and brochures translated into
Spanish and other languages of predominant immigrant communities (in the U.S.), climate festivals, informal education and citizens science projects, and other community education programs and events.

The majority (76%) of French plans address justice in their food security adaption goals, focusing on support of local agriculture, especially sustainably grown and organic, and local food sourcing for school cafeterias and pre-schools. Such an approach is multifaceted and pragmatic—to reduce carbon emissions from agriculture and food transportation, to support local agricultural markets, and provide children with nutritious, sustainably grown food.

Justice-centered adaptation strategies related to housing focus on energy efficiency and affordability of residential heating and cooling (in the U.S.) for low-income households and energy conservation with more efficient building materials, insulation, and sustainable design. Bridging climate change adaptation, community resilience, and GHG mitigation goals, 82% of French plans and 35% of American plans set specific goals for the housing sector aiming to reduce the share of energy expenditure in household budgets and improve energy conservation. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of French and 30% of U.S. plans also mention specific energy security measures, such as for example, the development of community solar projects and local microgrids. There is some inevitable overlap between equity-related objectives in utilities infrastructure and housing sectors, causing double counting of adaptation measures in these domains.

Institutional studies about social justice in the housing sector are also linked to the cost of public transportation, particularly in urban areas [130]. However, very few plans state objectives for free or otherwise subsidized transportation to improve mobility options for their less well-off populations. Adaptation objectives calling for equitable access to green and blue infrastructure and ecosystem benefits appear in 48% and 24% of U.S. and French plans, respectively. Examples of such strategies in the U.S. plans include urban afforestation and wildfire management measures, flood risk management through the river valley and coastal restoration; green infrastructure development, such as green roofs, green walls, rain gardens, and bioswales, collectively known as Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). In French climate plans, ecosystem-based adaptation strategies are mostly limited to the preservation of or creation of green spaces in urban areas. Nevertheless, the new National Strategy for Climate Adaptation Planning in France has prioritized nature-based climate solutions. As explored in detail by Pathak and others [131] (this issue), the implementation and monitoring of NBS require local-scale ecological data (such as soils, hydrology, microclimate, indigenous, endangered, and culturally significant species), integrated with climate services and tools.

Only 41% of French and 30% of American plans in our sample set goals related to climate adaptation measures supporting community health, such as extreme weather preparedness, extreme heat preparedness, and prevention of water-borne and vector-borne infections. Clearly, adequate planning tools, data integration, and collaboration between local health departments and planners are urgently needed to address the impacts of climate change on community health. Insufficient attention to public health in municipal climate adaptation planning has been reported in other studies. For example, the recent analysis of climate adaptation plans of 22 large cities in 14 countries, including 16 cities in high-income countries [132] indicated that even “highly health-adaptive large cities report fairly modest public health engagement in climate adaptation plans, and very few seem to have integrated a health perspective across thematic or sectoral climate adaptation priorities” (p.14).

Air quality is a key determinant of community health and is directly linked to temperature changes. Yet only 13% of U.S. and 6% of French plans set any justice-focused targets for air quality. Numerous studies indicate that racial and ethnic minorities and low-income people both in the United States [133] and France [127] are being disproportionately exposed to higher levels of air pollution. Ozone- and fine particle-related mortalities are expected to increase due to climate change, especially affecting vulnerable populations [134]. One of the key challenges for equitable planning is the lack of readily available
large-scale monitoring data raising public awareness about glaring spatial correlations between environmental pollution, health, income, and race. Climate services need to be designed to uncover these existing spatial relationships between climate vulnerability and institutional racism, which continue to be rooted in unfair practices in urban planning. However, government regulatory agencies, such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the European Environment Agency (EEA), and the French Central Laboratory for Air Quality Monitoring (LCSQA), operate air quality monitoring networks of fixed monitoring stations that focus on assessing background levels in relatively large regions, grossly neglecting variabilities at a higher spatial resolution. Air pollution can be as much as eight times higher at one end of a city block than the other, according to the Environmental Defense Fund [135]. Local action requires local-scale data, integrating micro-level community-operated air monitoring networks, such as, for instance, Just Air Solutions, who, in partnership with the University of Michigan, is working directly with low-income communities in Detroit and Grand Rapids, MI on neighborhood-scale mapping, monitoring, and data visualization using ground sensors and GIS [136]. Another example of monitoring spatial inequalities in air quality at a high spatial resolution includes mapping projects by Institut Ecocitoyen Pour La Connaissance de Pollution [137] based in Fos-sur-Mer in France, monitoring communities exposed to air, water, and ecosystem pollution associated with industrial zones [138].

Similarly, only a handful of plans in our sample adopt a justice-related lens in addressing the vulnerability of their water resources. Adaptation goals targeting water shortage and water quality are typically generalized for the entire municipality. Although water supply in both countries is generally considered well-managed and safe, it presents problems associated with inequality in the distribution of water resources across different regions and unhealthy drinking water quality, which are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Water quality problems are more likely in smaller, minority, and low-income communities that are socially, economically, and politically disempowered [139]. The recent drought episodes in France have prompted the government to develop guidelines for water prioritization [140], such as irrigation, swimming pools, and others, which raise many questions about equity, for example, irrigation of private golf courses at the expense of public green spaces in underprivileged communities [141]. Planning decisions based on transparent data would also require improved mapping and monitoring systems integrating water quality and allocation data.

As risks to hazards caused by the effects of climate change continue to increase, the current approaches to spreading financial responsibility need to be re-evaluated. Equitable access to home insurance appears to be the least represented sector in our sample of plans. Public-private insurance programs, however, could play an important role in managing the cost of adaptation and hazard mitigation measures. This would also require more sophisticated climate services for insurance companies to anticipate how their market will evolve in response to climate change, and specifically to provide risk modeling expertise, capital market solutions, actuarial services, and reinsurance design [142]. The U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) managed by FEMA and delivered to the public by a network of more than 50 insurance companies and the NFIP Direct [143] plays an important role in reducing climate-related losses. Some increasingly important strategies used by the NFIP include mandatory flood insurance, insurance rate subsidization, and public-private cooperation to prevent the withdrawal of private insurers from high-risk areas.

### 3.3. *Stakeholders' Role in Knowledge Development*

While professional city planners and government officials lead local climate adaptation planning in both countries, many other groups participate in various stages of climate adaptation planning and co-creation of relevant information, methodologies, and tools (Figure 3). Municipalities in the U.S. appear to involve broader coalitions of stakeholders with local citizens (78%), environmental and climate advocacy groups (70%), academic institutions (65%), local businesses (61%), and private consulting firms (57%) being the
most prominent participants. French plans more frequently involve local businesses (76%), followed by local citizens (53%), and environmental and climate advocacy groups (47%). The degree of stakeholder participation varies from attending community workshops and responding to local surveys to active engagement in data collection, community-based research, and other forms of direct and indirect contribution to adaptation plans and, increasingly, co-production and dissemination of information.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Categories of stakeholders involved in development of climate adaptation plans in the U.S. and France.</figcaption></figure>

Although most climate adaptation planning methodologies recommend that municipalities engage community members in their vulnerability assessments and climate adaptation planning, opportunities for meaningful engagement of local citizens and especially vulnerable groups are quite low. One possible reason for this may be the lack of inclusive user-friendly collaborative engines tailored to non-expert participants, connecting local communities with relevant climate services and tools. A promising example of such a platform outside of our study areas is the Climate Just platform in the UK [144], connecting users and producers through high-resolution mapping of community vulnerability to climate change. Involvement of broad coalitions of various groups of stakeholders including citizens, schools, universities, environmental organizations, and private firms in the co-creation and analysis of knowledge is possibly the only realistic way to bridge the gap
between the national and state-scale data providers and the city-scale and neighborhood-scale data needs. In this context, citizen science and collaborative crowdsourcing platforms have great potential for data collection, dissemination, and social participation [11,145]. By being involved in local citizen science projects, people value their role as being a part of the solution and become active contributors to climate services. Studies in the United States, France, and other countries suggest that data co-production not only can provide local-scale information for early warning and climate adaptation planning but also build community trust and support for climate policies [122,146].

Our analysis has several limitations. Although rigorous and formal, it is nevertheless based on a small sample of 40 cities and is meant to provide examples of information produced and used in climate adaptation planning. The results should not be extrapolated to generalize patterns and trends of climate adaptation planning. The list of municipalities used as case studies in our study is not exhaustive and is meant to provide insights from the two different national models. It should be noted that a priori French plans in our sample are more representative than their U.S. counterparts. Climate plans, including both climate change mitigation and adaptation components, are now required in France for all municipalities with populations of more than 20,000 people. There are now 307 urban and rural municipalities of various sizes in France that are following this national requirement, representing about one-quarter of French municipalities, with most of them being relatively large cities [33]. Even though many of the U.S. plans have been enabled and supported by federal policies [147], they are voluntary, driven by local and state circumstances and initiatives, and are less typical for the entire nation.

## 4. Conclusions

The planning, implementation, and monitoring of climate adaptation strategies rely on a broad range of constantly evolving multidisciplinary spatial data, generated at various scales. While traditional climate services provide useful background information for generalized long-term climate preparedness, they still offer minimal, if any, social, economic, and environmental data, typically being limited to climate data trends and scenarios.

Municipalities face numerous challenges in developing relevant methodologies, keeping up with scholarly literature, and obtaining adequate information for their climate adaptation planning efforts, which may result in the low quality of plans and mediocre implementation. Small municipalities have especially limited technological, human, and financial capacity. In France, municipalities receive significant support from the national agency overseeing local climate adaptation planning—ADEME, while in the U.S., many climate adaptation plans of small cities have been developed in partnership with local university partners through various grants. Despite these major differences, we have identified several major challenges hindering effective local climate adaptation planning in both countries and possibly worldwide.

**Methodological challenges.** Although numerous methodological resources for local governments have evolved during the past ten years, including brochures, toolkits, and clearinghouses featuring examples of existing adaptation plans, sorting through them in search of clear guidelines could be an insurmountable task of its own. In the absence of national and international standards for vulnerability assessment, municipalities adopt diverse methodological frameworks, definitions, and protocols, or skip the assessment altogether. Such conceptual fragmentation presents a major challenge for long-term monitoring, comparison, and data sharing among the cities. In many ways, such methodological ambiguity mirrors the continuous rift between adaptation planning and risk assessment communities in the scholarly literature [105,109,125]. The re-conceptualization of "vulnerability", introduced in the IPCC SREX and the Working Group Two Fifth Assessment Report has not been well received and provoked a split in the scientific community [109]. The most recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report [107] further uses the concept of risk of the potential adverse impacts of, and response options to, climate change, treating exposure as a precondition rather than a dimension of vulnerability. Many vulnerability researchers, however, argue that treating
exposure as a precondition of vulnerability or completely disassociating biophysical contexts from vulnerability limits the analysis of differential vulnerability caused by differences in biophysical components associated with geographic location, which can influence both the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of a system [125]. Most institutional guidelines including the ADEME methodologies used in France are based on the over twenty-year-old framework of the IPCC Third Assessment Report [126]. The simplicity and applicability of this framework made it popular with climate adaptation practitioners.

**Ideological challenges.** In the absence of methodological requirements to formulate adaptation objectives targeting climate justice, municipalities rarely do so. Many sectors of adaptation planning, such as community health, transportation, air quality, water quality, and many others are systematically overlooked in both countries. Even disaster emergency planning, where a focus on equity comes most frequently as a top priority, is absent in 48% of the U.S. and 69% of French plans. Equity in housing and food security adaptation is grossly overlooked in U.S. plans. Equitable access to green infrastructure and ecosystem services is mentioned in less than one-quarter of French plans and only 48% of U.S. plans. Even when such objectives are formulated, implementation strategies are often vague, lacking quantitative metrics for monitoring and evaluation. Further research is necessary to understand if these shortcomings are caused by local political ideologies, outdated methodologies, lack of adequate data, lack of involvement of vulnerable stakeholders, or all the above.

**Data quality challenges.** Adaptation planning and implementation monitoring require acquisition, analyses, and timely interpretation of high-quality multi-disciplinary data of relevant spatial and temporal resolutions, integrated into user-friendly formats, understandable for planners and the public. This includes not only macro-, meso-, and micro-climatological data but also agroecological, hydrological, demographic, cultural, economic, community health, zoning, land use, and other information. While many interesting high-quality products have been developed by academic and private data providers, they are not typically integrated with each other, are often hard to locate, and are rarely directly accessible to local planning departments, especially in small municipalities. Local air pollution, water quality, soil contamination, food security, community health, socio-economic, and demographic data, necessary to reveal their spatial correlations, are rarely available at the neighborhood and census-block scale.

**Community connection challenges.** Collection, analysis, and timely interpretation of relevant information require active community participation, especially at the scale of municipalities. National agencies and large for-profit data providers are unlikely to be able to fulfill these needs. Adaptation planning requires information, which is constantly evolving, relevant, local, transparent, open-access, and collected at the block or even household scale. We need active, truly diverse, and inclusive networks of local stakeholders engaging schools, universities, private and public organizations, community groups, and volunteers in the co-production of data, including local stories and indigenous knowledge, to inform collective co-construction of climate adaptation strategies.

We draw several recommendations for climate adaptation researchers and decision makers:

(a) Municipalities need flexible, user-friendly, and reliable tools for comprehensive vulnerability assessment, mapping, and monitoring, informed by the up-to-date body of knowledge and best practices around the world, and relevant to their geographical context. Many currently existing products are based on outdated literature and offer rigid step-by-step guidelines, rather than interactive analytical tools. Cities need the best common standards, which are currently lacking, but not necessarily common data sources or guidelines.

(b) Centralized approaches to data monitoring for climate adaptation planning often fail to provide information at relevant temporal and spatial scales. Produced by different agencies and groups of experts, these databases are often hard to integrate and downscale. Decentralized interdisciplinary monitoring networks equipped with
digital applications allowing local citizens to engage in knowledge production may
offer promising alternatives.

(c) Climate-adaptation design tools for local governments should prioritize climate justice in all adaptation contexts and sectors. GIS-based online mapping tools and mobile applications are very helpful in visualization and analysis of spatial correlations between income, race, environmental justice issues, and various dimensions of vulnerability to climate impacts, helping to inform difficult conversations about resource allocations in climate adaptation planning.

(d) Long-term funding programs are necessary to provide financial and other resources and incentives for stakeholders' collaboration and community engagement in local knowledge co-production. Funding agencies should prioritize active local and regional partnerships involving academic institutions, schools, advocacy groups, local businesses, and especially citizens and organizations representing the most vulnerable communities. Funding programs that prioritize mainstreaming climate adaptations into neighborhood revitalization, food-security, community wellness, environmental education, and citizen-science projects should be designed to support long-term partnerships among all local actors.

(e) Climate education networks, local working groups, and other boundary organizations connecting experts and non-experts would play an increasingly important role in merging community-based education, scientific research, climate action, and co-design of digital technologies, tools, and data for local climate adaptation planning.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization of this study has been developed by E.L.; methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, and draft writing by E.L. and C.d.C.; final review and editing and data visualization has been completed by E.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank the Guest Editors of this special issue and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments, thorough proofreading, and numerous edits that have allowed us to improve the quality of this final manuscript. We are also grateful to Grand Valley State University Open Access Publication Fund and the CEARC Center (Cultures, Environment, Arctic, Representations, Climate) for covering the open access publication fee for this article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

**References**

1. Cavelier, R.; Borel, C.; Charreyron, V.; Chaussade, M.; Le Cozannet, G.; Morin, D.; Ritti, D. Conditions for a market uptake of climate services for adaptation in France. *Clim. Serv.* **2017**, *363*, 4–40. [CrossRef]

2. Hewitt, C.; Mason, S.; Walland, D. The Global Framework for Climate Services. *Nat. Clim. Chang.* **2012**, *2*, 831–832. [CrossRef]

3. Vaughan, C.; Dessai, S. Climate services for society: Origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. *WIREs Clim. Chang.* **2014**, *5*, 587–603. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. Panenko, A.; George, E.; Lutoff, C. Towards the development of climate adaptation knowledge-action systems in the European Union: An institutional approach to climate service analysis. *Clim. Serv.* **2021**, *24*, 100265. [CrossRef]

5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Adaptation. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/climate-adaptation (accessed on 19 June 2022).

6. European Commission and the European Environment Agency. Climate-ADAPT. Available online: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/ (accessed on 19 June 2022).

7. California Energy Commission, State of California. Cal-Adapt. 2021. Available online: https://cal-adapt.org/ (accessed on 5 July 2022).

8. NOAA Climate Program Office. The Adaptation Science Program. 2020. Available online: https://cpo.noaa.gov/Divisions-Programs/Climate-and-Societal-Interactions/The-Adaptation-Sciences-Program (accessed on 19 June 2022).

9. Webber, S. Putting climate services in contexts: Advancing multi-disciplinary understandings: Introduction to the special issue. *Clim. Chang.* **2019**, *157*, 1–8. [CrossRef]
10. Steynor, A.; Lee, J.; Davison, A. Transdisciplinary co-production of climate services: A focus on process. *Soc. Dyn.* **2020**, *46*, 414–433.
[CrossRef]

11. Neset, T.-S.; Wilk, J.; Cruz, S.; Graca, M.; Rod, J.K.; Maarse, M.J.; Wallin, M.J.; Andersson, L. Co-designing a citizen science climate service. *Clim. Serv.* **2021**, *24*, 100273. [CrossRef]

12. WMO. What Are Climate Services. 2022. Available online: https://gfcs.wmo.int/what-are-climate-services (accessed on 5 July 2022).

13. Copernicus Earth Observation Programme. Copernicus Climate Change Services. 2022. Available online: https://climate.copernicus.eu/ (accessed on 15 December 2022).

14. U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. Meet the Challenges of a Changing Climate. 2021. Available online: https://toolkit.climate.gov/ (accessed on 5 July 2022).

15. Eco-Adapt. About the Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange. 2022. Available online: https://www.cakex.org/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).

16. Conservation Biology Institute. Adapt West—The Product: A Bi-National Database and Synthesis. 2022. Available online: https://adaptwest.databasin.org/ (accessed on 5 July 2022).

17. Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments. The Great Lakes Adaptation Data Suite (GLADS). Available online: https://glisa.umich.edu/ (accessed on 5 July 2022).

18. AcclimaTerra. AcclimaTerra. 2022. Available online: https://www.acclimaterra.fr/en/ (accessed on 9 September 2022).

19. AcclimaTerra. *Regional Scientific Committee, Anticipating Climate Change in Nouvelle-Aquitaine to Guide Policy at Locla Level. Edition AcclimaTerra*; Impremerie LaPlante: Bordeaux, France, 2020.

20. Shi, L. Promise and paradox of metropolitan regional climate adaptation. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **2019**, *92*, 262–274. [CrossRef]

21. Thomas, D.S.; Twyman, C. Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. *Glob. Environ. Chang.* **2005**, *15*, 115–124. [CrossRef]

22. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. MiEJscreen: Environmental Justice Screening Tool (DRAFT). Available online: https://www.michigan.gov/egle/maps-data/miejscreen (accessed on 5 July 2022).

23. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EJScreen: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. 2022. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen. (accessed on 5 July 2022).

24. Bullard, R.D.; Wright, B. *The Wrong Complexion for Protection. How the Government Response to Disaster Endangers African American Communities*; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; p. 304.

25. Bullard, R.D.; Johnson, G.S.; Torres, A.O. *Environmental Health and Racial Equity in the United States: Building Environmentally Just, Sustainable, and Livable Communities*; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.

26. Deldrève, V.; Lewis, N.; Moreau, S.; Reynolds, K. Les nouveaux chantiers de la justice environnementale. *Vertigo* **2019**, *19*, 1–13.
[CrossRef]

27. Lioubimtseva, E.; Da Cunha, C. Local climate change adaptation plans in the US and France: Comparison and lessons learned in 2007–2017. *Urban Clim.* **2020**, *31*, 100577. [CrossRef]

28. Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Forland, E.J.; Piniewski, M. Challenges for developing national climate services—Poland and Norway. *Clim. Serv.* **2017**, *8*, 17–25. [CrossRef]

29. Baklanov, A.; Cárdenas, B.; Lee, T.-C.; Leroyer, S.; Masson, V.; Molina, L.T.; Müller, T.; Ren, C.; Vogel, F.R.; Voogt, J.A. Integrated urban services: Experience from four cities on different continents. *Urban Clim.* **2020**, *32*, 100610. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

30. Vaughan, C.; Buja, L.; Kruczkiewicz, A.; Goddard, L. Identifying research priorities to advance climate services. *Clim. Serv.* **2016**, *4*, 65–74. [CrossRef]

31. Lioubimtseva, E. The role of inclusion in climate vulnerability assessment and equitable adaptation goals in small American municipalities. *Discov. Sustain.* **2022**, *3*, 3. [CrossRef]

32. da Cunha, C.; Lioubimtseva, E. Metadata for climate change adaptation plans of small and mid-size French and American cities. *Data Brief* **2021**, *36*, 106981. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

33. ADEME—Agence de la Transition Ecologique. Observatoire Territoires et Climat. 2022. Available online: https://www.territoires-climat.ademe.fr/observatoire (accessed on 1 December 2022).

34. Bierbaum, R.; Smith, J.; Lee, A.; Blair, M.; Carter, L.; Chapin, F.; Fleming, P.; Ruffo, S.; Stults, M.; McNeeley, S.; et al. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: More than before, but less than needed. *Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang.* **2013**, *18*, 361–406. [CrossRef]

35. New York State Department of State. *Albany Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan*; Mayor's Office of Energy and Sustainability: Albany, NY, USA, 2013.

36. Klipp, J.; Thaler, T.; Griffith, G.; Crossett, T. *Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Plan for Alger County, Michigan. Preparing Communities, Forests and Water Resources for a Changing Climate*; Model Forest Policy Program: Sagle, ID, USA, 2011.

37. Stratus Consulting. *Boulder County Climate Change*; Boulder County: Boulder, CO, USA, 2012.

38. City of Chula Vista. *Climate Adaptation Strategies Final Implementation Plans*; City of Chula Vista: Chula Vista, CA, USA, 2011.

39. Town of Corte Madera. *Town of Corte Madera Climate Adaptation Assessment: A Roadmap to Resilience*; Town of Corte Madera: Corte Madera, CA, USA, 2021.

40. City of Flagstaff. *City of Flagstaff Resiliency and Preparedness Study*; City of Flagstaff: Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 2012.

41. City of Flagstaff. *Flagstaff Climate Action and Adaptation Plan*; City of Flagstaff: Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 2018.
42. Georgetown Conservation Commission. *Climate Change Adaptation Report: Georgetown, Maine. A Special Publication by the Georgetown Conservation Commission*; Georgetown Conservation Commission: Georgetown, ME, USA, 2015.

43. Stults, M.; Pagach, J. *Preparing for Climate Change in Groton, Connecticut: A Model Process for Communities in the Northeast*; ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection: Groton, CT, USA, 2011.

44. City of Iowa City. *Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan*; City of Iowa City: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2018.

45. Chen, Z.; Delp, M.; Felber, O.; Ferrier, U.; Freund, H.; Grant, A.; Harris, J.; Loring, N.; Neel, H.; Ribikawskis, M.; et al. *Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Implementation Strategies*; The University of Iowa Office of Outreach and Engagement: Iowa, IA, USA, 2019.

46. City of Keene. *Adapting to Climate Change: Planning a Climate Resilient Community*; City of Keene & ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability: Keene, NH, USA, 2007.

47. City of Keene. *Keene, NH Climate Adaptation Action Plan Final Report*; City of Keene & ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability: Keene, NH, USA, 2010.

48. City of Laguna Woods City Council. *City of Laguna Woods Climate Adaptation Plan*; City of Laguna Woods: Laguna Woods, CA, USA, 2014.

49. Michigan State University. *Adapting to Climate Change and Variability. Marquette, Michigan*; Michigan State University, City of Marquette, Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Trust: Marquette, MI, USA, 2013.

50. King, H.; Thaler, T.; Griffith, G.; Crossett, T.; Rasker, R. *Forest and Water Climate Adaptation: A Plan for Marquette County, Michigan*; Model Forest Policy Program: Sagle, ID, USA, 2013.

51. Chase, J.H.; Cooper, J.G.; Fitzgerald, R.E.; Lima, F.A.; Miller, S.R.; Pignatelli, T.M. *Climate Change Adaptation Chapter: Marshfield, Massachusetts*; ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst: Amherst, MA, USA, 2012.

52. Rhode Island Sea Grant & University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center. *Adaptation to Natural Hazards and Climate Change in North Kingstown, Rhode Island*; Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program: Providence, RI, USA, 2015.

53. Beever, J., III; Gray, W.; Trescott, D.; Cobb, D.; Utley, J.; Hutchinson, D. *City of Punta Gorda Adaptation Plan*; Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program: Fort Myers, FL, USA, 2009.

54. Taylor Engineering, I. *City of Punta Gorda Adaptation Plan Update*; City of Punta Gorda: Punta Gorda, FL, USA, 2019.

55. City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development. *Ready for Tomorrow: The City of Salem Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan*; City of Salem: Salem, MA, USA, 2014.

56. City of Santa Cruz. *City of Santa Cruz Climate Adaptation Plan*; City of Santa Cruz: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2011.

57. City of Santa Cruz Climate Action Program. *City of Santa Cruz 2018 Climate Adaptation Plan Update*; City of Santa Cruz: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2018.

58. City of Sarasota. *City of Sarasota Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Plan*; Technical Memo; City of Sarasota: Sarasota, FL, USA, 2016.

59. City of Sarasota. *City of Sarasota Climate Adaptation Plan*; Final Report; City of Sarasota: Sarasota, FL, USA, 2017.

60. Foster, M.; Williams, R.; Thaler, T.; Griffith, G. *Forest and Water Climate Adaptation: A Plan for Taos County, New Mexico*; Model Forest Policy Program: Sagle, ID, USA, 2010.

61. Evans, J.; Gambill, J.; McDowell, R. *Tybee Island Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. Final Report*; National Sea Grant College Program: Tybee Island, GA, USA, 2013.

62. Tompkins County Planning Department. *Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. Planning for Our Future: Adaptation Chapter*; Tompkins County: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2015.

63. Harris & Associates. *City of Watsonville Climate Action and Adaptation Plan*; City of Watsonville Public Works & Utilities: Watsonville, CA, USA, 2021.

64. Brest Métropole. *Diagnostic de Vulnérabilité au Changement Climatique de Brest Métropole*; BMO: Brest, France, 2019.

65. Brest Métropole. *Brest Métropole—Plan climat 2019–2025—Programme D’actions*; BMO: Brest, France, 2020.

66. Clermont Auvergne Métropole, & Ville de Clermont-Ferrand. *Schéma de Transition Energétique et Ecologique de Clermont Auvergne Métropole et de la Ville de Clermont-Ferrand*. Diagnostic Air, Énergie, Climat, Écologie; Ville de Clermont-Ferrand: Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2017.

67. Clermont Auvergne Métropole, & Ville de Clermont-Ferrand. *Schéma de Transition Energétique et Ecologique de Clermont Auvergne Métropole et de la Ville de Clermont-Ferrand*. Bilan de la Concertation; Ville de Clermont-Ferrand: Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2018.

68. Clermont Auvergne Métropole; Ville de Clermont-Ferrand. *Schéma de Transition Energétique et Ecologique de Clermont Auvergne Métropole et de la Ville de Clermont-Ferrand*. Fiche Actions; Ville de Clermont-Ferrand: Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2019.

69. Clermont Auvergne Métropole, & Ville de Clermont-Ferrand. *Schéma de Transition Energétique et Ecologique de Clermont Auvergne Métropole et de la Ville de Clermont-Ferrand*. Plan d’Actions; Ville de Clermont-Ferrand: Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2019.

70. Pôle Territorial de l'Albigeois et des Bastides. *Concertation—Stratégie—Plans d'Actions*; Pôle Territorial de l'Albigeois et des Bastides: Albi, France, 2019.

71. Pôle Territorial de l'Albigeois et des Bastides. *Diagnostics Climat Air Energie*; Pôle Territorial de l'Albigeois et des Bastides: Albi, France, 2019.

72. Pôle Territorial de l'Albigeois et des Bastides. *Tableau de Bord des Actions PCAET de la Communauté de Communes du Cordais et du Causse*; Pôle Territorial de l'Albigeois et des Bastides: Albi, France, 2019; Available online: http://4c81.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/TDB ACTIONS PCAET 4C vf.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2022).
73. Golfe du Morbihan Vannes Agglomération. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial—Diagnostic, Stratégie et Plan D'actions*; Golfe du Morbihan Vannes Agglomération: Vannes, France, 2020.

74. Communaute d'Agglomeration la Riviera du Levant. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial (Pcaet) de la Communaute d'Agglomeration la Riviera du Levant*; Communaute d'Agglomeration la Riviera du Levant: Le Gosier, France, 2019.

75. Le Grand Chalon. *Diagnostic/Stratégie*; Le Grand Chalon: Chalon-sur-Saone, France, 2018.

76. Le Grand Chalon. *Programme d'Actions*; Le Grand Chalon: Chalon-sur-Saone, France, 2018.

77. Agglomération du Niortais. *Diagnostic Territorial Climat Air Energie*; Agglomération du Niortais: Niort, France, 2018.

78. Agglomération du Niortais. *Plan Climat Air Énergie Territorial (PCAET) 2018–2024*; Agglomération du Niortais: Niort, France, 2019.

79. Communauté de Communes du Pays de Barr. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Diagnostic Territorial—Cahier 1: Analyse de la Vulnérabilité Climatique*; Communauté de Communes du Pays de Barr: Barr, France, 2019.

80. Communauté de Communes du Pays de Barr. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Plan d'Actions*; Communauté de Communes du Pays de Barr: Barr, France, 2019.

81. Communauté de Communes du Pays de Barr. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Stratégie—Cahier 3: Articulation des Objectifs*; Communauté de Communes du Pays de Barr: Barr, France, 2019.

82. Dieppe Pays Normand. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial*; Dieppe Pays Normand: Dieppe, France, 2019.

83. Dieppe Pays Normand. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Plans d'Actions*; Dieppe Pays Normand: Dieppe, France, 2019.

84. Dieppe Pays Normand. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Stratégie Territorial*; Dieppe Pays Normand: Dieppe, France, 2019.

85. Dieppe Pays Normand. *Une Démarche Participative*; Dieppe Pays Normand: Dieppe, France, 2019.

86. Communauté du Pays Voironnais. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial 2019–2025*; Communauté du Pays Voironnais: Voiron, France, 2019.

87. Perpignan Méditerranée Métropole. *Programme ODD—Plan Climat-Air-Energie Territorial—2018–2024*; Perpignan Méditerranée Métropole: Perpignan, France, 2019.

88. CAPSO. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial (PCAET) de la Communauté d'Agglomération du Pays de Saint-Omer (CAPSO)—2020–2026*; Communauté d'Agglomération du Pays de Saint-Omer: Saint-Omer, France, 2020.

89. CAPSO. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial (PCAET)—2020–2026. Diagnostic Territorial*; Communauté d'Agglomération du Pays de Saint-Omer: Saint-Omer, France, 2020.

90. CAPSO. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial (PCAET)—2020–2026. Plan d'Actions. 98*; Communauté d'Agglomération du Pays de Saint-Omer: Saint-Omer, France, 2020.

91. CASQY. *Diagnostic du Plan Climat Air Energie de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines*; Communauté d'Aglomération de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines: Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France, 2018.

92. CASQY. *Elaboration du Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines*; Communauté d'Aglomération de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines: Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France, 2020.

93. CCSE. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Diagnostic, Communauté de Communes Sud Estuaire*; Communauté de Communes Sud Estuaire: Paimbœuf, France, 2019.

94. CCSE. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Programme d'actions adoptée par Sud Estuaire*; Communauté de Communes Sud Estuaire: Paimbœuf, France, 2019.

95. CCSE. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Stratégie adoptée par Sud Estuaire*; Communauté de Communes Sud Estuaire: Paimbœuf, France, 2019.

96. CCSE. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. Fiches Actions*; Communauté de Communes Sud Estuaire: Paimbœuf, France, 2020.

97. CCS. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. PARTIE II—Synthèse de la Démarche*; Communauté de Communes Sundgau: Altkirch, France, 2017.

98. CCS. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. PARTIE IV—Diagnostic Climat-Air-Energie*; Communauté de Communes Sundgau: Altkirch, France, 2017.

99. CCS. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial. PARTIE V—Stratégie et Programme d'Actions*; Communauté de Communes Sundgau: Altkirch, France, 2017.

100. Vallée de Chamonix-Mont-Blanc. *Plan Climat Energie Territorial de la Vallée de Chamonix-Mont-Blanc. Plan d'Action*; Vallée de Chamonix-Mont-Blanc: Serris, France, 2012.

101. Vallée de Chamonix-Mont-Blanc. *Plan Climat Haute Montagne*; Vallée de Chamonix-Mont-Blanc: Serris, France, 2019.

102. CAVEM. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial (PCAET)—Document 1. Diagnostic Territorial*; Communauté d'Agglomération Var Estérel Méditerranée: Saint-Raphaël, France, 2019.

103. CAVEM. *Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial (PCAET)—Document 2: Stratégie Territoriale*; Communauté d'Agglomération Var Estérel Méditerranée: Saint-Raphaël, France, 2019.

104. IPCC WGII. *Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.

105. Birkmann, J.; Jamshed, A.; McMillan, J.M.; Feldmeyer, D.; Totin, E.; Solecki, W.; Zaiton Ibrahim, Z.; Roberts, D.; Bezner Kerr, R.; Poertner, H.-O.; et al. Understanding human vulnerability to climate change: A global perspective on index validation for adaptation planning. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2022**, *803*, 150065. [CrossRef]

106. IPCC. *Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012.
107. IPCC. *Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability*. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.

108. IPCC. *Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability*. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007.

109. Sharma, J.; Ravindranath, N. Applying IPCC 2014 framework for hazard-specific vulnerability assessment under climate change. *Environ. Res. Commun.* **2019**, *1*, 051004. [CrossRef]

110. Zuniga-Teran, A.A.; Mussetta, P.C.; Lutz Ley, A.N.; Díaz-Caravantes, R.E.; Gerlak, A.K. Analyzing water policy impacts on vulnerability: Cases across the rural-urban continuum in the arid Americas. *Environ. Dev.* **2021**, *38*, 100552. [CrossRef]

111. Inostroza, L.; Palme, M.; de la Barrera, F. A Heat Vulnerability Index: Spatial Patterns of Exposure, Sensitivity, and Adaptive Capacity of Santiago de Chile. *PLoS ONE* **2016**, *11*, e0162464. [CrossRef]

112. Weis, S.W.M.; Agostini, V.N.; Roth, L.M. Assessing vulnerability: An integrated approach for mapping adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and exposure. *Clim. Chang.* **2016**, *136*, 615–629. [CrossRef]

113. Swami, D.; Parthasarathy, D. Dynamics of exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity and agricultural vulnerability at district scale for Maharashtra, India. *Ecol. Indic.* **2021**, *121*, 107206. [CrossRef]

114. Howe, P.D.; Yarnal, B.; Coletti, A.; Wood, N.J. The participatory vulnerability scoping diagram—Deliberative risk ranking for community water systems. *Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.* **2013**, *2*, 343–352. [CrossRef]

115. Duncan, L.A.; Schaller, M.; Park, J.H. Perceived vulnerability to disease: Development and validation. *Personal. Individ. Differ.* **2009**, *47*, 541–546. [CrossRef]

116. Weinstein, N.D.; Lyon, J.E.; Rothman, A.J.; Cuite, C.L. Changes in perceived vulnerability following natural disaster. *J. Soc. Clin. Psychol.* **2000**, *19*, 372–395. [CrossRef]

117. Gerard, M.; Gibbons, F.X.; Bushman, B.J. Relation Between Perceived Vulnerability to HIV and Precautionary Sexual Behavior. *Psychol. Bull.* **1996**, *119*, 390–409. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

118. Bulkeley, H.; Carmin, J.; Castan Broto, V.; Edwards, G.A.; Fuller, S. Climate justice and global cities: Mapping the emerging discourses. *Glob. Environ. Chang.* **2013**, *23*, 914–925. [CrossRef]

119. Northridge, M.; Freeman, L. Urban planning and health equity. *J. Urban Health* **2011**, *88*, 582–597. [CrossRef]

120. Lioubimtseva, E.; da Cunha, C. Community Engagement and Equity in Climate Adaptation Planning: Experience of Small-and Mid-Sized Cities in the United States and in France. In *Justice in Climate Action Planning. Strategies for Sustainability*; Petersen, D.H.B., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 257–276.

121. Uittenbroek, C.; Mees, H.; Hegger, D.; Driesses, P. The design of public participation: Who participates, when and how? Insights in climate adaptation planning from the Netherlands. *J. Environ. Plan. Manag.* **2019**, *62*, 2529–2547. [CrossRef]

122. Baztan, J.; Vanderlinden, J.-P.; Jaffrès, L.; Jorgensen, B.; Zhu, Z. Facing climate injustices: Community trust-building for climate services through arts and sciences narrative co-production. *Clim. Risk Manag.* **2020**, *30*, 100253. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

123. Petzold, J.; Andrews, N.; Ford, J.D.; Hedemann, C.; Postigo, J.C. Indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation: A global evidence map of academic literature. *Environ. Res. Lett.* **2020**, *15*, 113007. [CrossRef]

124. da Cunha, C.; Nikulkina, I.; Vanderlinden, J.-P.; Shadrin, V.; Doloisio, N.; Salakhova, D. Adaptive capacity for climate change: Local initiatives and federal planning. The case of Tiksi, Sakha Republic, Russia. *Polar Sci.* **2022**, *31*, 100761. [CrossRef]

125. Ishtique, A.; Estoque, R.; Eakin, H.; Parajuli, J.; Rabby, Y.W. IPCC's current conceptualization of 'vulnerability' needs more clarification for climate change vulnerability assessments. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2022**, *303*, 114246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

126. IPCC. *Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability*. Contribution of Working Group Two to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.

127. Charles, L.; Emelianoff, C.; Ghorra, C. Les multiples facettes des inégalités écologique. *Développement Durable Territ.* **2020**, *11*, 1–16. [CrossRef]

128. Lambert, M.-L.; Arnaud, A.; Claeys, C. Justice climatique et démocratie environnementale—Les inégalités d'accès au droit des populations vulnérables aux risques littoraux—Quelques éléments de comparaison. *Ertigo—La Rev. Electron. En Sci. De L'environnement* **2022**, *19*, 1–31. [CrossRef]

129. Larson, P.S.; Gronlund, C.; Thompson, L.; Sampson, L.; Washington, R.; Steis Thorsby, J.; Lyon, N.; Miller, C. Recurrent Home Flooding in Detroit, MI 2012–2020: Results of a Household Survey. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* **2021**, *18*, 7659. [CrossRef]

130. Institut d'aménagement et d'urbanisme de la région d'Île-de-France. *Vulnérabilité Energétique: Les Pavillonnaires Modestes sous Tension*; Institut D'aménagement et D'urbanisme de la Région d'Île-de-France: Paris, France, 2015.

131. Pathak, A.; Hilberg, L.E.; Hansen, L.J.; Stein, B.A. Key Considerations for the Use of Nature-Based Solutions in Climate Services and Adaptation. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 16817. [CrossRef]

132. Sheehan, M.C.; Khudairi, F.; Swaich, G.S.; Hines, W.; Mehta, S. Urban climate-health governance: Charting the role of public health in large global city adaptation plans. *PLoS Clim. 2022*, *1*, e0000012. [CrossRef]

133. Jbaily, A.; Zhou, X.; Liu, J.; Lee, T.-H.; Kamareddine, L.; Verguet, S.; Dominici, F. Air pollution exposure disparities across US population and income groups. *Nature* **2022**, *601*, 228–233. [CrossRef]

134. Orru, H.; Ebi, K.; Forsberg, B. The Interplay of Climate Change and Air Pollution on Health. *Curr. Environ. Health Rep.* **2017**, *4*, 504–513. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

135. Environmental Defense Fund. *Impact Through Innovation. Annual Report 2018*; EDF: New York, NY, USA, 2018.

136. JustAir. The Data We Need to Craft the Future We Deserve. Available online: https://www.justair.co/ (accessed on 10 December 2022).
137. Institut Ecocitoyen. Institut Ecocitoyen pour la Connaissance des Pollutions. Available online: http://www.institut-ecocitoyen.fr/ (accessed on 3 November 2022).

138. Dron, J.; Chamaret, P.; Marchand, N.; Temime-Roussel, B.; Ravier, S.; Sylvestre, A.; Wortham, H. Variabilité physico-chimique des épisodes de pollution atmosphérique à proximité de la zone industrialo-portuaire de Fos-sur-Mer. *Pollut. Atmosphérique 2017*, 2268–3798. [CrossRef]

139. Bae, J.; Lynch, M.J. Ethnicity, Poverty, Race, and the Unequal Distribution of US Safe Drinking Water Act Violations, 2016–2018. *Sociol. Quaterly* **2022**. [CrossRef]

140. Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et de la Cohésion des Territoires. Origine et Gestion de la Sécheresse. Available online: https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/secheresse (accessed on 10 December 2022).

141. d'Allens, G. Arrosage des Golfs: Malgré la Sécheresse, Les Dérogations Pleuvent. *Reporterre*. 8 August 2022. Available online: https://reporterre.net/Arrosage-des-golfs-malgre-la-secheresse-les-derogations-pleuvent (accessed on 19 June 2022).

142. Brasseur, G.B.; Gallardo, L. Climate services: Lessons learned and future prospects. *Earth's Future* **2016**, *4*, 79–89. [CrossRef]

143. The Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA. 2022. Available online: https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance (accessed on 1 December 2022).

144. The University of Manchester. Map Tool. Available online: https://www.climatejust.org.uk/map (accessed on 3 November 2022).

145. Albagli, S.; Iwama, A.Y. Citizen science and the right to research: Building local knowledge of climate change impacts. *Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun.* **2022**, *9*, 39. [CrossRef]

146. See, L. A Review of Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing in Applications of Pluvial Flooding. *Front. Earth Sci.* **2019**, *7*, 44. [CrossRef]

147. Herrick, C.; Vogel, J. Climate Adaptation at the Local Scale: Using Federal Climate Adaptation Policy Regimes to Enhance Climate Services. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 8135. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.