The Explosive U.S. Awakening to the Need for Adaptation

Good Morning,

With Support from the 

California Energy Commission 

and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Coastal Services Center

America!

Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D.
Susanne Moser Research & Consulting

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

E‐mail: promundi@susannemoser.com

May 2009

Acknowledgments: This document was prepared in part with the support of the California Energy

Commission, and publication was made possible by Margaret Davidson through NOAA’s Coastal Services

Center. Josh Foster, Gregg Garfin, Terri Cruce, Vicki Arroyo, Peter LaFontaine, and Patty Glick provided

helpful comments on an earlier draft of this document. The findings and opinions expressed in this

report do not reflect the views of any of the sponsoring institutions or those of the reviewers, and any

remaining omissions, mistakes, and interpretations are mine alone.

California Energy Commission

1516 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

www.energy.ca.gov

NOAA Coastal Services Center

2234 S. Hobson Ave.

Charleston, South Carolina 29424

(843) 740‐1200

www.csc.noaa.gov

Regional Offices:

NOAA Pacific Services Center, NOAA Gulf Coast Services Center, and  

Offices in the Great Lakes, Mid‐Atlantic, Northeast, and West Coast

                                       
Table of Contents 

UExecutive SummaryU ................................................................................................................................................ 1 

UIntroductionU ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

UDefining the Terms: “Normal” Adaptation vs. Deliberate Adaptation to Climate ChangeU ............. 4 

U“In the Face of the Plainest Warnings”: Adaptation in the MediaU ............................................................ 5

UThe “Era of Baffling Expedients”: Adaptation in Public DebateU ............................................................... 8 

U“Owing to Past Neglect”: The State of Adaptation ResearchU .................................................................... 10 

UThe Close of the “Era of Half‐Measures”: Emerging Adaptation Efforts across the U.S.U ............... 12 

UFederal Policy Developments and Planning for Climate ImpactsU .................................................. 12 

UState Planning for Climate Change ImpactsU ............................................................................................ 15 

ULocal Adaptation EffortsU ................................................................................................................................. 19 

UNon‐State Actors and the Emerging Actor NetworkU ........................................................................... 23 

UConclusion: Entering into a “Period of Consequences”U .............................................................................. 25 

UReferencesU .................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

UAppendix 1U .................................................................................................................................................................... 34 

UAppendix 2U .................................................................................................................................................................... 36 

UAppendix 3U .................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Executive Summary

Focus of this report

Since the early years of the 21st century, and in particular since 2007, the U.S. has been awakening 

rapidly to the fact that climate change is underway and that even if stringent efforts are undertaken 

to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to the unavoidable impacts from the existing 

commitment to climate change is still needed and needs to be begun now.  

This report provides an historical overview of the public, political, and scientific concern with 

adaptation in the United States. It begins by briefly distinguishing ongoing, historical adaptation to 

environmental circumstances from deliberate adaptation to human‐induced climate change. It then 

describes the shift from the early concerns with climate change and adaptation to the more recent 

awakening to the need for a comprehensive approach to managing the risks from climate change. 

Ranging from the treatment of the topic in the news media to the drafting of bills in Congress, to 

state and local government activities with considerable engagement of NGOs, scientists and 

consultants, it is apparent that adaptation has finally, and explosively, emerged on the political 

agenda as a legitimate and needed subject for debate. At the same time, the current policy rush is 

not underlain by widespread public engagement and mobilization nor does it rest on a solid 

research foundation. Funding for vulnerability and adaptation research, establishing adequate 

decision support institutions, as well as the building of the necessary capacity in science, the 

consulting world, and in government agencies, lags far behind the need.  

Adaptation planning and barriers

The inevitability of climate change impacts now conveyed through the media and other scientific 

communication, and conspicuous events such as Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient

Truth have helped to “legitimize” adaptation as a necessary complement to mitigation. 

Nevertheless, realization of the magnitude of the challenge is still very limited. Not surprisingly, the 

adaptation initiatives evident to date consist of relatively conservative, win‐win, and low‐risk 

strategies.  

In addition to tracing this history, this report identifies a number of barriers to basic adaptation 

planning and more ambitious policy developments. At the federal level, such barriers include: lack 

of federal leadership until recently (by Congress, the president, and agencies); lack of funding for 

research and planning; political opposition; ignorance; lack of intra‐ and interagency coordination, 

communication, and collaboration; competing priorities; lack of adaptation mandates; and legal 

constraints. These barriers do not only affect what does or can happen at the federal level but 

influence lower levels of government as well. For example, federal failure to take on adaptation 

leaves states without federal guidance and financial support, adding to the budget constraints that 

states face already. In addition, states face their own hurdles, including lack of state‐level 

leadership, lack of state‐ and regionally specific scientific information, lack of expertise within state 

agencies, reliance on historical conditions, as well as lack of public awareness, engagement, and 

pressure to make adaptation a policy priority. At the local level, adaptation efforts by cities and 

counties can be hampered additionally by lack of a functional organizational structure, lack of 

collaboration with local universities and experts, isolation, and either real or perceived competition 

between mitigation and adaptation. Cross‐scale barriers arise from regulatory and cross‐

jurisdictional conflicts and missed policy opportunities. In particular, the mismatch between the 

lack of, and the need for, scientific capacity, technical expertise and widespread, scale‐relevant 

climate change and vulnerability information, America is now entering into an era of climate change 

consequences for which the country is ill‐equipped.  
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 2

These findings fly in the face of long‐standing, and all too simplistic, assumptions that 

developed nations like the U.S. face relatively low vulnerability and possess high adaptive capacity 

to address climate change. Rather, concerted effort will be needed to assess vulnerabilities, 

ascertain adaptation options, and determine relevant governance barriers at and across scales, and 

build the necessary capacity, skill, resource base, institutional mechanisms, and political will to help 

reduce and overcome them. 

Recommendations

A delicate balance must be struck at this time between initiating (and endorsing the establishment 

of) ongoing adaptation planning processes and making only common‐sense and relatively small if 

meaningful policy and programmatic commitments rather than over‐promise or commit large 

resources to ill‐advised actions. Governments and stakeholders should assume that changing 

scientific understanding and non‐stationary environmental and societal conditions will require 

considerable policy flexibility, debate over difficult challenges and painful trade‐offs. Meanwhile, a 

serious commitment at the highest levels is required to  

• rapidly and substantially expand vulnerability and adaptation research,  

• build technical capacity within the sciences and among decision‐makers,  

• expand the nation’s decision support capabilities,  

• identify ways to provide financial and technical resources to governing institutions, and  

• seriously engage the American public in the development and debate of a comprehensive 

climate risk management strategy.  

Without such a commitment, there is considerable danger that America will engage in  

countless expensive and damaging maladaptations, and/or that sectors and communities will 

prepare insufficiently for climate change, creating liabilities far more costly than the investment 

called for now. 
Good Morning, America! 

The Explosive U.S. Awakening to the 

Need for Adaptation 

Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D.F

1

“Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings,

we have now entered upon a time of great danger....

The era of procrastination, of half­measures, of soothing and

baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.

In its place we are entering a period of consequences...

We cannot avoid this period, we are in it now...”

Winston S. Churchill 

 November 12, 1936 

0BIntroduction

On December 19, 2008, an article in The San Francisco Chronicle called for “ideas on living in a 

warming world” and reported on a competition asking designers to 'climate‐proof" the Bay Area 

(King 2008). Twenty years earlier, almost to the day, a news article in The Boston Globe reported on 

an international conference which urged coastal populations to prepare for the impacts of climate 

change (Dumanoski 1988). Between these two geographic and temporal bookends of concern lies a 

country that has been largely untroubled by the question of adaptation to the impacts of 

anthropogenic climate change for most of the intervening 20 years.  

Until recently. Since the early years of the 21st century, and in particular since 2007, the U.S. has 

been awakening rapidly to the fact that climate change is underway and that even if stringent 

efforts are undertaken to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to the unavoidable 

impacts from the existing commitment to climate change is still needed and needs to be begun now. 

This sudden awakening has lead to a flurry of activities at the state and local government levels, in 

the non‐governmental community, and to some extent at the federal level. This can be expected to 

increase in coming years as the Obama administration has expressed willingness to address climate 

change, thus also fostering policy‐making in the U.S. Congress. Capturing all these policy‐related 

activities springing up across the country and in all sectors is a difficult undertaking, as it is not 

occurring in a centrally organized or guided manner. Equally challenging is to obtain a systematic 

overview of vulnerability and adaptation–focused scientific research. 

This report attempts to provide an historical overview of the public, political, and scientific 

concern with adaptation in the U.S. It begins by briefly distinguishing ongoing, historical adaptation 

to environmental circumstances from deliberate adaptation to human‐induced climate change. It 

then describes the shift from the early concerns with climate change and adaptation to the more 

                                                     

1 A shorter version of this report will appear as a chapter in Ford, J., and L.B. Ford, Climate Change

Adaptation in Developed Nations, Springer Verlag. Please contact the author for further information.  
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 4

recent explosive awakening to the need for a comprehensive approach to managing the risks from 

climate change. This trajectory of change is reflected quite well in media attention paid to 

adaptation over the past 20 years, which sets the stage for the review of current adaptation efforts 

across the country. If the media are understood as both mirror of ongoing activities around matters 

of global, national, and local concern, and as an important force in setting the public and political 

agendas, then tracking news coverage gives an important first indicator of what is happening 

where, and how related public debates have been changing over time. The report will place these 

trends in the context of changes in political leadership and the larger public debate over climate 

change that have taken place in the U.S. over this period.  

This political context has also shaped a national science policy that has tended to relegate 

vulnerability and adaptation‐related research to the “back burner” of federal research budget and 

agency support. The report will offer some telling insights and discuss the implications for a nation 

now urgently in need of scientific insights relevant to adaptation planning. 

Turning to the more recent history then, the report will capture in an exemplary and 

summative fashion some of the adaptation efforts initiated in the last three to five years at the 

federal, state, and local levels, by government and non‐governmental entities, and in different 

climate‐sensitive sectors such as public health, coastal areas, water management, winter tourism, 

natural resource management and habitat protection, urban and transportation infrastructure, and 

so on. This cursory survey is necessarily incomplete, in part because efforts are not easily tracked, 

and in part because the landscape of activities is rapidly changing. But the picture unfolding reflects 

a significant variation in concern, commitment, and sophistication in adaptation planning ranging 

from virtually absent to significant. It shows where and how efforts have been initiated and what 

impedes them. This review also reveals an emerging actor network, involving elected officials, 

career bureaucrats, advocacy and other civic groups, scientists, consultants, philanthropic 

foundations, and professional associations.  

The report will conclude with a discussion of some plausible implications for the state of U.S. 

preparedness to deal with climate change impacts, opportunities, and barriers to adaptation. It will 

suggest important future research directions, decision support needs, ways to overcome some of 

the barriers state and local governments are facing, and discuss the need to engage the American 

public in a broader dialogue on comprehensive climate risk management and resilience in the face 

of rapid change. 

1BDefining the Terms: “Normal” Adaptation vs. Deliberate

Adaptation to Climate Change

Scientists from a number of disciplines – foremost maybe geography and anthropology – and long 

before them philosophers, theologians, and the great storytellers of ancient human history, have 

concerned themselves with the relationship between humans and the environment. This mutual 

relationship has been viewed through the lens of human transformations of the environment (e.g., 

Marsh 1864; Thomas Jr. 1956; Turner et al. 1990) and through that of human adaptation to the 

environment (e.g., Burton, Kates, and White 1978; Kates, Ausubel, and Berberian 1985). Over the 

millennia, humans have learned with increasing sophistication to protect themselves from the 

elements and to conduct virtually every kind of business (from transportation and trade to 

agriculture, construction, energy production, and tourism) in the face of a variable weather and 

climate including extreme events (i.e., climatic conditions that deviate – sometimes significantly – 

from the local mean).  
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 5

In the U.S., for example, states have built reservoirs to protect themselves against winter floods 

and store water for dry summer periods. In agriculture, technology has improved irrigation 

efficiency. Building codes have been established for floodplains and coastal areas to make 

infrastructure and buildings stronger and able to weather storms, floods, and other hazards. 

Emergency warning and response systems along with insurance mechanisms have been established 

to better respond to and recover from weather‐related extremes such as wildfires, floods, and frost. 

Wildlife reserves, protected areas, sustainable yield rules, and other measures have been 

established with the intent to protect wildlife, biodiversity, natural resources and scenic 

landscapes, and to sustain ecosystems and resources in a condition that allows them to provide 

essential goods and services. Typically, each sector’s ability to cope through available structural, 

technological, monetary, institutional, land management and protection, and other mechanisms is 

confined to a certain range of climatic conditions. This range is referred to as a society’s, a 

community’s, or a sector’s “coping range” (e.g., Jones and Boer 2005; Smit and Pilifosova 2003).  

For the purposes of this report, the efforts a society (or a sub‐unit thereof) makes to live with 

the relatively stable, average climate of the recent past as well as with the naturally variable 

climatic conditions that affect its operations are considered “normal” background adaptation. 

Distinct from these historical adaptive efforts are those additional efforts that are now being 

contemplated, examined, planned, or implemented in response to already discernible or expected 

changes in climate due to anthropogenic forcing. Such societal adaptation has been formally defined 

as any “process, action or outcome in a system (household, community, group, sector, region, 

country) in order for the system to better cope with, manage or adjust to some changing condition, 

stress, hazard, risk or opportunity” (Smit and Wandel 2006, p.282). The Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) more specifically defines adaptation to climate change as any 

“adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli            

or their effects in order to minimize harm or take advantage of beneficial opportunities”             

(IPCC 2001, p.982).  

While important, in fact, essential lessons and insights can be gained from ongoing background 

adaptation, the focus of this report is on the additional, deliberate adaptation efforts geared toward 

dealing with the impacts of human‐induced climate change. It may be difficult at times to 

distinguish one from the other, especially at this early stage: many technological, behavioral, and 

even policy measures may be mere extensions of past practices; moreover, many may be taken not 

just in response to climate change, but also to address other stressors or opportunities. What may 

be different, however, is the intent and public debate surrounding any action being taken. This shift 

is being witnessed in the U.S. at this time. 

2B“In the Face of the Plainest Warnings”: Adaptation in the Media

The review of current adaptation efforts across the U.S. begins here by exploring how concern and 

public debate have been changing over time through the lens of relevant media coverage. As a 

mirror of scientific findings and policy activities related to adaptation that are deemed newsworthy, 

it is therefore important to not only focus on the national prestige press, but also on local and 

regional papers. Most climate change impacts will be felt locally. Moreover, adaptation – while 

likely to require support from higher levels of governance – will be planned and implemented at the 

state and local levels. Thus, news coverage in local, regional, and national media markets can 

provide an interesting indicator of how the U.S. is shifting from “business as usual” in terms of living 

and coping with a variable climate to a more explicit concern with adaptation to climate change. 

Space here does not allow for an in‐depth analysis of media coverage on adaptation, which is 

reserved for another paper, but even just a cursory review is revealing (Figure 1). 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 6

The chart in Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration of what is described here as an “explosive” 

awakening to the need for adaptation (67% of all articles appeared between 2006 and 2008; a 

nearly four‐fold increase in the number of articles occurred from 2006 to 2007 alone).F

2F  

Yet, this simple compilation may underestimate the true news coverage on adaptation over 

time. A wider range of search terms (such as coping, climate‐proofing, adjusting to impacts, and so 

on) and more comprehensive analysis of media coverage (including television coverage, newswires, 

magazines, and other news sources) are likely to reveal an even more extensive coverage. For 

example, newswires allow the same article to be reprinted in newspapers around the state or 

country. With the consolidation of the U.S. newspaper industry over the last decade and more, such 

services are of increasing importance, even if local specificity and relevance may be diminished.      

                                                     

2 Additional confirmation for this adaptation‐specific trend comes from the finding that news coverage on 

climate change in general has increased substantially in recent years. For dynamically updated data on 

climate change news coverage, see: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/mediacoverage.php [last 

accessed January 8, 2009]. 

Figure 1: U.S. print media coverage of climate change adaptation from 1980­2008.

Data are based on a Lexis‐Nexis search of articles in all U.S. newspapers for all available dates (to the end of 

2008) for the following keywords: “adapting to OR adaptation to W/SEG global warming OR climate change 

AND impacts,” excluding any unrelated articles. The total number of relevant articles between 1981 and 

2008 was 462. Sixty seven percent of these articles appeared between 2006 and 2008. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 7

A similar rise in relative importance has occurred for web‐based information. There is no apparent 

reason to assume, however, that these additional news sources should follow a completely different 

pattern of frequency than the one shown in Figure 1. Rather, the technological opportunities that 

have been opening up rapidly in recent years via the internet, including the interrelated changes in 

reporting (with combined multi‐media print and online reporting, as well as interactive visual and 

video technology), and market trends in the media industry (e.g., increasing consolidation of 

newspaper industry, drop in specialized “beat” reporters, and thus greater reliance on online news 

services, as well as spread of cable network news,) suggest that they may magnify the “explosive” 

pattern even more (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2008; Croteau, and Hoynes. 

2006; Alexander et al., 2004; Compaine and Gomery, 2000; see also the Annual State of the News 

Media reports at http://www.journalism.org/). 

What is maybe more interesting than the absolute quantity and true level of increase in recent 

times, is the dearth of adaptation coverage for much of the time for which data exist. Particularly 

interesting are key periods over the past 20 years: The first U.S.‐wide climate change impacts 

assessment that discussed and thus could have raised public concern over adaptation needs was a 

1989 EPA‐led assessment (Smith and Tirpak 1989), yet news coverage was virtually absent. The 

following year (1990) presented the first scientific assessment by the IPCC – of course, with impacts 

and vulnerability/adaptation aspects at that time largely underdeveloped. That year was a year 

without one mention of adaptation to climate change in U.S. newspapers. The second assessment of 

the IPCC fared little better. The following years (1997‐2001) showed a modest increase in the 

coverage of adaptation. This reflects the regional and sectoral assessment activities and explicit 

interest in adaptation options in the First U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of

Climate Variability and Change conducted during the last years of the Clinton Administration. In 

2001, the IPCC also released its third assessment report, thus contributing to the steady increase in 

coverage in those years. Growing evidence of local, regional and more distant climate change 

impacts as well as a growing recognition of the need for a comprehensive approach to dealing with 

climate change risks has kept adaptation coverage in the early years of the 21st century at higher 

than historical levels. The devastating hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 may also have contributed to 

these elevated numbers as these extreme events, and the ability to cope with them, were frequently 

linked with climate change in the media. The release of the fourth IPCC assessment produced the 

spike in 2007.  

The extensive adaptation coverage in 2007 and beyond reflects several important 

developments. First, scientific insights on vulnerabilities, impacts, and adaptation have matured 

over the past decade as the thick IPCC volume indicates (Parry et al. 2007). This allows reporters to 

put a local spin or human face on an otherwise abstract global problem. Second, with the 

“unequivocal” evidence that climate change is occurring and that the warming observed over the 

last half of the 20th century is with >90% confidence human‐induced (Solomon et al. 2007), the 

political debate in the U.S. has palpably shifted. This is partly reflected in the shifts that reporters 

themselves have made in recent years: they changed their reporting style from one described (and 

widely criticized) as reflecting a misleading, non‐scientific balance (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004; 

Boykoff 2007b) to one reflecting more accurately the weight of scientific evidence (Boykoff 2007a). 

They also sought a fresh angle on climate change reporting – as this author frequently experienced 

in requests for interviews – through a greater focus on locally relevant aspects, impacts, and 

responses. Moreover, non‐governmental and media groups made deliberate efforts before and after 

the release of the IPCC report from Working Group II in April 2007 to educate reporters about 

impacts and adaptation issues and to connect them with scientists involved in the IPCC. Finally, as 

discussions below will show, there also has been an increase in policy activities related to 

adaptation, which are reflected in the news. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 8

In summary, putting the finger on the pulse of the news media, even just of a limited subset, 

suggests that public attention in the U.S. is being redirected increasingly from questions of whether 

or not climate change is occurring and human‐caused to ones about what this global problem 

means locally and how to deal with the impacts. This shift, while maybe not surprising, is 

nonetheless remarkable in light of the changing political context in which adaptation has been 

debated over the past two decades. 

3BThe “Era of Baffling Expedients”: Adaptation in Public Debate

In 2007, at the height of news coverage on adaptation, Roger Pielke Jr. and colleagues (Pielke Jr. et 

al. 2007) published a commentary in the journal Nature, which suggested that there had been a 

“taboo” on talking about adaptation to climate change until that time. Clearly directed to an 

international policy audience, the provocation may as well be put before U.S. audiences. 

Immediately following the publication of the Pielke et al. article, the conservative newspaper The

Washington Times published a commentary by Henry I. Miller, a fellow at Stanford University's 

Hoover Institution, who argued,  

“Mr. Pielke and his colleagues criticize the political obsession with the idea that 

climate risks can be reduced by cutting emissions, because it distracts attention 

from other, more cost‐effective approaches. However, for many activists, emissions 

reduction has become an article of faith: Al Gore dismissed adaptation as a kind of 

laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our skins” (Miller 

2007).  

Former Vice President Al Gore did in fact once reject adaptation as a distraction from the need 

to reduce the causes of climate change. In a 1989 interview, Gore stated,  

“The advice to adapt rather than prevent these [climate] changes is unwise counsel. 

The changes are occurring so rapidly that adaptation will not be possible without 

major disruptions in our civilization. The advice to adapt is an obstacle to the 

correct political response, which is prevention” (quoted in McMasters 1989). 

This brief caricature reflects a long‐standing framing of climate change solutions, one which has 

marked U.S. political debate for at least two decades. In this framing mitigation and adaptation are 

pitched against each other (along with doing more science, before any action is taken at all). In the 

absence of a solid scientific foundation on vulnerability and adaptation and faced with substantial 

political resistance to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions (across Democratic and Republican 

administrations), environmental non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) and other emission 

reduction advocates have avoided talking about adaptation, fearing that it would distract from the 

need for mitigation or be perceived as defeatist (e.g., Burton 1994). (Moser and Luers 2008), 

explain this reluctance among many of the key players in the U.S. climate policy debate with the 

inappropriate or uncritical promotion of adaptation as the cheaper and easier alternative to 

mitigation by those who opposed changes in energy policy. “Climate contrarians either deny the 

reality of climate change or promote a view that suggests Americans have the capacity to adapt 

should climate change materialize, and that therefore there is no need to take action now to 

prepare or to mitigate” (Moser and Luers, 2008, p.S310; see also Kates 1997). In fact, the recent 

paper by economist Robert Repetto (Yale University), perceived by many as a political provocation 

and challenge to common assumptions about America’s ability and actual efforts to adapt, argues 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 9

that America’s capacity to adapt is by no means a guarantee that the country actually will adapt (or 

will do so efficiently and effectively). It may be viewed as a corrective response to this misleading, 

divisive discourse (Repetto 2008).  

These entrenched positions on either side of the policy spectrum have begun to be loosened up 

in the early years of the 21st century. This change is occurring in part because of the findings 

summarized in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report, the shift in perception of the inevitability of 

some climate change impacts, but also in part because of concurrent events, such as Al Gore’s movie 

An Inconvenient Truth, the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005, and several other extreme “natural” 

disasters (such as the Midwestern and Northeast floods of 2008, extended droughts in various parts 

of the country), and international efforts that legitimized and emphasized the need for adaptation 

(J. Foster, pers. communication to author, 2009). Opinions continue to differ, however, on how 

“legitimate” or “politically expedient” it is to tackle adaptation. In a 2007 cover article in the city 

and state‐focused magazine Governing, reporting on the emerging local adaptation efforts, Global 

Warming Task Force coordinator of Homer, Alaska, Anne Marie Holen, was quoted as saying, “It’s 

kind of depressing... It’s hard not to see the need for adaptation as a sign of failure. If we’d begun 

serious mitigation measures when scientists first began warning government leaders about global 

warming and climate change, we wouldn’t be in such a pickle” (Swope 2007). By contrast, the need 

for a discussion about adaptation is increasingly recognized by others, as this commentary in the 

same year exemplifies: “Debating how to halt climate change is necessary. Figuring out how to live 

with it, unfortunately, is urgent” (Washington Post Writers Group 2007). In fact, there is an 

acceptance of the necessity for adaptation and rational economic arguments are advanced in favor 

of adapting now rather than delaying until disaster strikes. There is also growing concern whether 

communities and sectors really do have the capacity to adapt without significant suffering or 

economic losses or – even if the capacity is there – whether communities will be able to overcome a 

range of critical barriers that may impinge on, prevent, or at least delay an efficient adaptive 

response (e.g., Adger et al. 2009; Moser 2009; Moser et al. 2008; Rayner, Lach and Ingram 2005; 

Repetto 2008; Tribbia and Moser 2008). Commentators again admonish the lack in federal 

leadership on adaptation similar to that on mitigation. As one biting editorial in the Sacramento Bee

(adapted in other papers across the nation) in June 2002 put it,  

“Break out the sun block. Crank up the air conditioner. The globe is going to warm, 

and the president [G.W. Bush] has a three‐pronged plan: Adapt. Deal with it. Get 

used to it. That is, as long as any effort to adapt is economically painless. Assuming, 

of course, that there remains an economy to impact in places such as California, 

where we rely on a Sierra with snow and a downstream Delta with drinkable water 

instead of a saline soup from a rising sea.” (Sacramento Bee 2002) 

The most constructive of the emerging new frames replace the dualistic, mutually exclusive 

ones that saw mitigation and adaptation as either/or alternatives and instead emphasize 

complementarity, synergy, and careful attention to trade‐offs and mutual support, without one 

taking away from the necessity or urgency of the other.F

3

                                                     

3 These discursive developments in the U.S. parallel trends in Europe where adaptation has been equally 

marginalized until recently (e.g., O'Brien et al. 2006), but is now rising on the political agenda (see, e.g., 

Germany’s work toward an adaptation strategy (Schuchardt et al. 2008), and strategic thinking at the 

European level (European Commission 2007)). A global, not just U.S.‐focused, survey of the research 

literature on “adaptation” and “climate change” (by keyword search in the ISI Web of Knowledge) confirms 

the long dearth of such work in the 1980s and early 1990s, and a steady increase since, with a peak in recent 

years (Preston et al. 2009). A histogram of the number of scientific adaptation studies globally between 1980 

and 2008 (Preston et al.’s Figure 1) shows almost the same shape as Figure 1 in this report. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 10

4B“Owing to Past Neglect”: The State of Adaptation Research  

As U.S. states and local communities begin taking on the issue of adaptation as a serious and 

legitimate policy concern, the need for relevant science on climate change impacts, vulnerabilities, 

and adaptation options and constraints is growing rapidly. The supply of locally relevant, both 

spatially and temporally highly‐resolved climate change projections, however, is still constrained 

by the capabilities of currently available climate models (Bader et al. 2008, GAO 2009). In addition, 

there is an inevitable time lag between the supply of climate projections and the production of 

impacts studies. The studies that do exist have produced important information on the climatic 

hazards that some regions of the U.S. may face, yet probabilistic information that quantitatively 

assesses specific risks is not yet available at these smaller scales.  

An even greater lack of scientific information needed to adequately inform regional and local 

adaptation planning efforts lies in the ecological and human dimensions of global change. In most 

regions, little is known specifically about the on‐the‐ground degree of vulnerability of habitats, 

sectors, communities and subsections of the population to climatic hazards; and only spotty and 

preliminary research exists, if at all, that assesses the economic costs and benefits, feasibility, and 

collateral consequences of different adaptation options. This lack of attention paid to vulnerability 

and adaptation research is rooted deeply in federal science policy and a long‐standing imbalance in 

research funding for global change science. In one recent review of the available knowledge, 

Easterling, Hurd, and Smith (2004, p.32) concluded,  

“U.S. society can on the whole adapt with either net gains or some costs if warming 

occurs at the lower end of the projected range of magnitude, assuming no change in 

climate variability and generally making optimistic assumptions about adaptation.  

However, with a much larger magnitude of warming, even making relatively 

optimistic assumptions about adaptation, many sectors would experience net losses 

and higher costs. The thresholds in terms of magnitudes or rates of change 

(including possible non‐linear responses) in climate that will pose difficulty for 

adaptation are uncertain. In addition, it is uncertain how much of an increase in 

frequency, intensity, or persistence of extreme weather events the United States can 

tolerate.”  

In light of this sobering conclusion, and other research findings suggesting that increases in 

extremes are likely (e.g., Karl et al. 2008), it is legitimate to ask how much federal funding has been 

put toward eliminating some of these critical unknowns about thresholds, tolerance, costs, or any 

hurdles that communities, industries, or entire sectors may face, as the report suggests (Easterling, 

Hurd, and Smith 2004, pp.32‐33).  

Annual budget allocations to the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), the smallest of all 

federal science and technology interagency programs, have varied over the past 15 years, and have 

been in decline in absolute terms since 2003.F

4F The largest portion of the CCSP budget every year 

has gone to NASA for development, operation, and support of satellite systems generating Earth 

                                                     

4 It is important to recognize that funding for climate change‐related research is by and large not 

additional to GCRP/CCSP agencies’ budgets, but a matter of accounting (by individual agencies) what portion 

of the Congressionally appropriated funds for climate change research would be counted as an activity under 

the umbrella of GCRP/CCSP versus under another agency program. This implies, first, that the notion of a 

tightly coordinated and integrated climate change science program is largely a “myth” and, second, that 

keeping track of all funding for climate change‐related research is far more difficult than just following CCSP 

budget allocations (see also Footnote 6). 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 11

system information and related research. Less than half of the total budget is spread among the 

twelve remaining CCSP agencies. While most conduct some climate impacts research, only NSF, 

NOAA, EPA, and to a lesser extent USDA and NIH have research programs explicitly focused on 

social, economic, or behavioral science relevant to climate change. Only a small subset of their 

respective budgets is focused on vulnerability and adaptation (American Association for the 

Advancement of Science 2008).F

5F  

According to Tom Wilbanks (pers. comm. to author, December 2008), Chair of the National 

Research Council’s (NRC) Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, probably no 

more than a fraction of 1% of annual federal climate‐related research funds is dedicated to 

increasing the scientific understanding of vulnerability and adaptation.F

6F  

Not surprisingly, the NRC’s Committee on Strategic Advice to the CCSP concluded in its 2007 

evaluation of the Program’s progress toward its strategic goals that,  

“Progress in human dimensions research has lagged progress in natural climate 

science, and the two fields have not yet been integrated in a way that would allow 

the potential societal impacts of climate change and management responses to be 

addressed” (NRC 2007, p.5). 

This NRC assessment is only one in a long string of NRC reports over the past two decades that 

have bemoaned the lack of federal support for human dimensions research, and specifically for 

vulnerability and adaptation science. These financial constraints have been exacerbated for decades 

by inadequate collection, management, integration and accessibility of relevant data; organizational 

barriers in the federal government hindering the integration of social science information and 

research capacity; as well as institutional, cultural and human resource/capacity hurdles 

undermining the effective collaboration of physical and social scientists on climate change 

problems (Stern and Wilbanks 2008). 

The significant neglect of federal funding for adaptation research notwithstanding, small 

research and decision support programs – such as NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and 

Assessment (RISA) program and Sectoral Applications and Research Program (SARP), as well as 

some regional or sector‐specific research sponsored by EPA, DOI, DOE, and NASA, while often 

initiated by interest in climate variability, is slowly advancing into climate change and adaptation 

planning support. As Tom Karl (National Climate Data Center Director and NOAA Climate Services 

lead) recently suggested, these efforts – while valuable and expanding – are funded at far too small 

a level to meet the rapidly growing demand (Karl 2009). 

However one may judge past choices around research priorities and capacity building, the 

situation that has arisen because of them is that U.S. states, communities, and industries are 

attempting to develop adaptation strategies at this time, yet lack the scientific foundation – 

particular regarding on‐the‐ground vulnerabilities, the costs, constraints, and feasibility of various 

adaptation options – on which rational, scientifically informed policy could be made.  

                                                     

5 Outside the CCSP, additional federal research funds exist, of course, which may produce knowledge 

relevant and valuable to issues of vulnerability and adaptation; these are not included here, not coordinated 

with CCSP strategic plans, and equally difficult to identify or track.  6 Exact figures are difficult to generate as agency budgets are not organized around these themes; a 

project by project review has not been undertaken to date (Tom Wilbanks, pers. comm. to author, December 

2008). 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 12

5BThe Close of the “Era of Half­Measures”: Emerging Adaptation

Efforts across the U.S.

In 2004, the Pew Center for Global Climate Change released a report on the role of adaptation in the 

United States (Easterling, Hurd, and Smith 2004). In it the authors asked whether the U.S. is already 

adapting to climate change. They pointed to changes in industry where business managers were 

investing in weather insurance and interest among farmers in seeds more resistant to damages 

from heat or moisture extremes. They also documented some proactive measures taken in long‐

term transportation and water infrastructure planning. Notably absent were any mentions of state‐

level adaptation planning efforts or changes at the federal level. Since then significant policy 

developments have occurred and examples of these are provided in the sections below. 

14BFederal Policy Developments and Planning for Climate Impacts  

The development of federal climate change policy has become an active area of Congressional 

activity since the Democratic Party gained control of the House of Representatives after the 2006 

elections. Democratic leadership in key committees has opened the door to hearings and discussion 

of a wide range of climate‐related bills. The 110th Congress (January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009) also 

produced a variety of bills in both the House and the Senate that address adaptation, sometimes 

generally, and sometimes sector‐specific. Appendix 1 lists a number of climate change bills that 

have a significant adaptation component. In March 2009, the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce (Subcommittee on Energy and Environment under the leadership of Rep. Ed Markey, D‐

MA) held its first hearing on adaptation, reflecting the Democratic leadership’s willingness to 

become informed on the issue and formulate comprehensive federal adaptation policy, but also 

revealing significant ignorance and skepticism among committee members about the challenges 

and the need to help America plan and prepare for, and successfully adapt to, the impacts of climate 

change (hearing and testimony online at http://energycommerce.house.gov/).  

One of the climate change bills already enacted into law at this time is that which authorized the 

America’s Climate Choices study, initiated in late 2008 by the NRC. It represents a Congressional 

request for scientific input into the development of mitigation and adaptation strategies, and a fresh 

look at research priorities, including how to rapidly build the country’s climate‐related decision 

support capability. This NRC effort builds on other recent studies and advisory activities and is 

expected to be highly influential over the coming year and beyond in helping to shape federal 

climate policy, including on adaptation (NRC 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009a, 2009b). 

Outside the legislative branch of federal government, federal agencies have sponsored limited 

adaptation‐specific research and assessments or made policy changes for their own operations. In 

2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted the lack of guidance on managing 

the effects of climate change in an influential and widely reported report, and noted the growing 

vulnerability of federal and private insurers to the impacts of weather‐related disasters (GAO, 

2007a, 2007b). In response, federal agencies have significantly increased their internal review and 

strategic planning efforts since (GAO 2009), though actual planning, management or rule changes 

affecting operations on the ground are still very limited.  

Agency‐specific adaptation‐relevant research in support of their own land, resource and habitat 

management efforts has been spotty, though more focused attention is beginning to be paid in 

recent years, For example, in a visioning exercise undertaken by NOAA (together with the Coastal 

States Organization), climate change related coastal hazards now are a principal strategic focus 

(see: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czma_vision.html). The agency is also making 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 13

progress toward including climate change in its stewardship responsibilities for living marine 

resources, and coastal ecosystems (Griffis et al. 2008). The EPA – through its Climate Ready 

Estuaries Program ‐ has prepared a summary of adaptation options for the management of the 

nation’s estuaries (US EPA 2009). Without formal federal policy or mandate, however, it is unlikely 

that these programs will receive the necessary budgetary support or be viewed as binding guidance 

by federal resource managers. 

Under the auspices of the CCSP – in accordance with the 2003 interagency Strategic Plan – 

several “Synthesis and Assessment Products” (SAPs) were produced that address questions 

concerning vulnerability, adaptive capacity, adaptation options and constraints (e.g., Anderson et al. 

2009; Fagre et al. 2008; Julius et al. 2008; Wilbanks et al. 2007; Gamble et al. 2008; Savonis, 

Burkett, and Potter 2008). Several others address issues that affect the U.S.’s ability to adapt, such 

as extreme and abrupt climate and environmental changes, and the ability to use climate change‐

related information in decision making (e.g., Karl et al. 2008; Clark et al. 2008; Backlund et al. 2008; 

CCSP 2008; Morgan et al. 2009; Beller‐Simms et al. 2008). These SAPs involved both agency experts 

and volunteer scientists from across the U.S., and were financially supported largely by sponsoring 

lead agencies.  

For years, researchers in a number of federal agencies (e.g., EPA, NOAA, USGS, U.S. Forest 

Service, and others) have conducted investigations – even in the absence of an official 

Congressional mandate or presidential directive, on how best to adapt to climate change impacts, 

such as sea‐level rise. Those charged with the implementation of laws, policies, and programs – 

after years of remaining rather disconnected from the findings of their colleagues in the research 

branches of their agencies – are beginning to assess possible response options (Anderson et al. 

2009).F

7F Some federal agencies with responsibility for land, coastal, marine, species and natural 

resource management have explored options and some have quietly adopted policies that require 

consideration of climate change in long‐term decisions. For example, the Department of Interior 

through a 2001 Secretarial Order has begun to require climate change impacts be considered in 

planning and decision making (Scarlett, 2007 cited in Anderson et al. 2009; see also DOI’s Climate 

Change Task Force website at: http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/doi_taskforce.asp). The National 

Park Service has been collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey to assess the physical exposure 

in many of its coastal parks to sea‐level rise (Pendleton, Williams, and Thieler 2004). The Fish and 

Wildlife Service is also incorporating climate change impacts in its Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans but the agency does not have a comprehensive strategy for addressing climate change 

impacts at this time. While both the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service are concerned about 

sea‐level rise, and generally prefer to let “nature take its course,” neither has an explicit policy on 

how to deal with it, has made any land purchase decisions or put in place easements to enable 

parks and refuges to migrate inland (Anderson et al. 2009). The USDA’s Forest Service in January 

2009 issued guidance to its staff for including climate change considerations in planning and 

project implementation (building on the Forest Service’s own researchers, see Joyce et al., 

forthcoming), although – according to Forest Service leadership – climate change risks and 

uncertainties have yet to rise in prominence in management decisions (GAO 2009, p.4).  

In other agencies, the threat of climate change impacts has been recognized, even included in 

official guidance documents, but has not led to an appreciative change in actual decision‐making 

(e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s consideration of sea‐level rise in coastal protection projects) 

(Knuuti 2002; Anderson et al. 2009). Some federal agencies also face statutory hurdles to 

integrating climate change, even if they understand how climate change increases certain risks. For 

example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency at present cannot require the use of data 

                                                     

7 International adaptation‐related activities carried out by federal agencies (e.g., USAID, State 

Department) are not discussed in this chapter. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 14

reflecting future conditions (e.g., based on planned land‐use changes, proposed development, or 

sea‐level rise) for purposes such as floodplain management or insurance ratings unless statutory 

and regulatory changes are made to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (Anderson et al. 

2009; Association of State Floodplain Managers 2007). In response to the GAO’s 2007 report of 

growing federal and private insurance vulnerability to weather‐related catastrophes, the NFIP 

(flood insurance) and Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) (drought insurance) are in the 

process of assessing how increasing frequency and severity of weather extremes are impacting the 

programs and expected to report back to Congress in late 2009 or 2010 (GAO 2009, pp.8‐9). 

Table 1: Some Observed and Documented Barriers to Federal Attention to Adaptation

1. Lack of Federal Leadership – Until recently, neither Congressional, presidential nor

agency leadership has focused on adaptation, which has resulted in lack of mandates,

lack of funding for research, lack of policy guidance, and lack of accountability.

2. Lack of Funding – Agency funding for adaptation research has been minimal compared

to funding for other climate change research. This is only slowly and recently changing.  

3. Political Opposition – Attention to adaptation has been stymied by the long­standing

federal­level resistance to climate change policy generally. This has begun to shift with

the 2006 shift in majority in Congress and the 2008 presidential election.

4. Ignorance – The lack of federal funding for adaptation research, failure to prepare

periodic, integrated nationwide climate impacts assessments, and general lack of

attention to adaptation to date has one costly political price: namely, the widespread

lack of appreciation and understanding of the needs, opportunities, and challenges

involved in adaptation. This fundamental lack of knowledge has undermined

Congressional leadership on the issue.

5. Lack of Intra­ and Inter­Agency Coordination – Despite the interagency Climate Change

Science Program, federal agencies – with few exceptions – have not undertaken joint

adaptation­focused or –relevant research. They have also not formally exchanged

insights and coordinated planning for climate change impacts. The spotty internal

research frequently has not informed land, resource, water, marine, or species

management within their own agencies.

6. Competing Priorities – Agencies are charged to manage multiple resources and public

interests (health, safety, environmental protection, commerce, national security, etc.).

Climate change has not yet been made a top priority in most agencies. Until agency

policy and guidance places it higher on the agenda, adaptation actions by agencies and

the legislature will be further delayed.

7. Lack of Adaptation Mandates – While agencies have the general authority to manage

resources under changing conditions, most do not currently have specific or redefined

Congressional mandates to plan and prepare for climate change. Agencies may find it

difficult to obtain sustained funding, or redirect/focus scarce financial and staff

resources to climate change adaptation research and implementation without such

specific mandates.

8. Legal Obstacles – A number of federal policies, rules and regulations are – by law –

based on historical conditions. Only legislative action would allow them to be changed,

e.g., to be forward looking, take non­stationarity into account, or be based on future

projections rather than historical averages.

Source: Adapted from GAO (2009), Stern and Wilbanks (2008), and author observations. 

In summary, important movement toward adaptation planning is now observable at the federal 

level, both in the legislative and executive branches (and the research arm thereof). While federal 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 15

efforts are still in the early stages, there is considerable more activity at this time than suggested in 

Repetto’s (2008) assessment. Long‐term observation, as well as the statements and findings in 

published documents cited here, suggest that a number of factors have delayed concerted attention 

to adaptation until recently. These barriers (Table 1) are only beginning to be overcome. 

In the future, changes at the federal level have to be carefully reviewed and coordinated with 

state‐level efforts (and vice versa) to ensure that federal adaptation approaches and compliance 

obligations will not counteract, hinder, or delay state adaptation planning attempts. 

15BState Planning for Climate Change Impacts

Ironically, some of the earliest evidence of U.S. states beginning to address and plan for the impacts 

of anthropogenic climate change comes from states which received federal financial and/or 

technical assistance to assess impacts and vulnerabilities (see, e.g., Moser 2005). In other instances 

states’ interest in adaptation has its roots in the federally sponsored First U.S. National Assessment 

of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (conducted between 1997 and 

2001 with a deliberate focus on sectors and regions) (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2000). 

In yet other instances, state and regional efforts evolved locally out of existing concerns with 

climate variability (as, e.g., in the Pacific Northwest, see Mote et al. 2003; Snover, Miles, and Hamlet 

2003) or in response to experiencing severe climate‐related disasters, in the larger context of the 

changing public discourse described above. Several states initiated their adaptation efforts while, or 

subsequent to, writing their climate action plans, typically with state agency staff, non‐

governmental advocacy groups, or scientists taking the lead in advocating for attention to 

adaptation. In all cases, however, the state and regional adaptation planning now evident and 

underway is not a federally guided or coordinated effort, and while states make every effort to 

creatively finance adaptation planning, including where possible with federal money through 

existing programs and allocationsF

8F, the bulk of the necessary resources, leadership, and staffing

comes from the state level.  

There is considerable regional variation in the level of effort and recognition of the need for 

adaptation as a complementary strategy to mitigation. As was the case with the development of 

climate action plans involving voluntary and mandatory emission reduction policies, adaptation 

planning over the last few years has tended to appear first on the political agendas in some of the 

Northeastern and western coastal states. By contrast, most Midwestern, central, and Gulf states 

(with few exceptions) have not yet officially announced efforts to begin adaptation planning. 

According to the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, seven states – Arizona, Colorado, Utah, 

Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont – currently recommend creating plans for 

adaptation in their climate action plans. Since the Pew Center’s review, Connecticut, Minnesota, and 

Illinois have joined this group of states or have begun more extensive adaptation planning (Dinse, 

Read and Scavia 2009; Don Wuebbles, pers. comm. to author April 2009; and 

http://www.ctclimatechange.com).    

Eight states have launched more comprehensive assessment and planning efforts parallel to 

their mitigation activities – Alaska, California, Maryland, Oregon, Florida, Washington, 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2008; see Appendix 2). 

                                                     

8 For example, President Obama’s first budget proposal increased funding for adaptation for federal and 

state land management. The budget allocation for the Department of the Interior, for example, recognizes the 

need for a better scientific understanding of climate change impacts on fish and wildlife, monitoring, and 

safeguarding land and habitat to allow species to migrate. The funds to be allocated are to be shared with the 

states to support wildlife adaptation (information provided by Peter LaFontaine, NWF, pers. comm. to author, 

April 2009). 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 16

More than a dozen states are currently revising their state climate action plans or are charged 

under various executive orders to develop such plans and can be expected to follow the lead of one 

or the other group of states (e.g., Virginia, Kansas, Michigan, and Wisconsin). Appendix 2 

summarizes the efforts of those with the most concerted efforts to date.  

In addition to state‐by‐state efforts, supra‐state organizations are also recognizing, supporting, 

and fostering attention on adaptation, though concrete action to date is very limited. For example, 

the Western Climate Initiative – a state‐coalition including Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, California, 

Utah, Washington, and Montana (as well as four Canadian provinces), with six more Western U.S. 

states, one Canadian province, and six Mexican states observing, not only focuses on regional 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but has also agreed to work jointly to identify measures to 

adapt to climate change impacts. Likewise, the U.S. National Governors’ Association (NGA) recently 

adopted a policy position (primarily focused on coastal and ocean management) that called on the 

NGA and individual states to advocate for the creation of a national strategy for climate change 

adaptation (NGA 2009).  

States with comprehensive efforts underway initiated those no more than two or three years 

ago, adding further weight to the central argument of this report that the U.S. is in a period of rather 

sudden awakening to the need for adaptation. This argument notwithstanding, it would be a 

mistake to overlook the many earlier, often sector‐specific policies which preceded the more 

comprehensive efforts or which exist outside official state climate action plans. Regionally, for 

example, one early published recognition of the need for adaptation appeared in the New England 

states, when the New England Governors’ and their counterparts across the Canadian border 

released their regional climate action plan in 2001. Action Item 7 in that plan called for the 

reduction and/or adaptation of negative social, economic and environmental impacts of climate 

change (New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers 2001). As a non‐binding document, 

this call to action led to a workshop on the topic in 2004 and may have inspired some of the 

adaptation planning efforts now underway in that region, but – given the unevenness across New 

England – did not have a consistent policy‐initiatory impact on state actions. 

Dispersed state efforts can be found across the U.S., though a systematic compilation does not 

currently exist.F

9F Some highlights thus must suffice. Maine, for example, does not currently have a 

statewide adaptation plan or policy (though has recognized the need), but the state was the first in 

the U.S. to revise its coastal law to include anthropogenically driven sea‐level rise. Its Sand Dune 

Rules were first changed in 1988 and revised in the years since, mostly not out of concern for 

climate change impacts, however, but as a way to limit coastal development in hazardous areas 

(Moser 2006, 2005). In 1995, with federal funding, Maine completed one of the earliest state‐

specific assessments of the potential impacts of sea‐level rise, which have not led to additional 

policy changes, but helped defend the Sand Dune Rules when challenged. Several other coastal 

                                                     

9 Several independent efforts have been made or are underway to remedy this situation: The U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Integrated Assessment Research Program is supporting the development of a web‐

based, searchable data base on climate change adaptation processes and practices to be compiled at Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory (Adaptation Network 2008). A second searchable data base of US state and local 

adaptation initiatives has been created by the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group 

(http://cses.washington.edu/cig/cases/home); most entries to date are impact assessments, but reveal 

additional activity not captured by the Pew Center’s compilation (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 

2008), nor in the survey compiled by the Heinz Center (Perkins, Ojima, and Corell 2007), and goes beyond the 

partners of ICLEI’s or the Center for Clean Air Policy’s programs (see section on local initiatives). A new 

clearinghouse focused on state and federal adaptation activities is currently being established at Georgetown 

University (The State­Federal Climate Resource Center at the University’s Law Center) under the leadership of 

former Pew Center Director of Policy Analysis, Vicki Arroyo (for more information see: 

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gcc/index.htm). It is highly probable that far more efforts have been 

initiated, even if they are relatively minor (still). 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 17

states have begun incorporating climate change impacts and sea‐level rise into their coastal 

management plans or have established Task Forces to develop policies and rules, even in the 

absence of a comprehensive state adaptation policy. North Carolina, for example, received a $5 

million grant from FEMA in early 2009 for a statewide risk assessment and demonstration of 

strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate change‐induced sea‐level rise; the results of the study 

are to be shared with other coastal states and will be used by the federal agency to assess the fiscal 

implications of sea‐level rise on emergency response and on the National Flood Insurance Program 

(FEMA 2009). Other state coastal planning efforts explicitly focused on accelerating sea‐level rise 

include New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, and several coastal authorities in California (Pew Center 

on Global Climate Change 2008; Coastal States Organization 2007, 2008; Rubinoff, Vinhateiro, and 

Piecuch 2008). For example, the California Coastal Conservancy incorporated 13 objectives in its 

2007 Strategic Plan which require the state agency to consider the best available science on climate 

change in the design, siting and management of infrastructure, and natural resource projects 

(California Climate Action Team 2009, pp.3.1‐3.2). Most of these early efforts, however, have not 

fundamentally changed coastal hazards management approaches.F

10

A similar picture emerges for the water sector. Many states faced with drought in recent years 

have established drought plans. New Mexico’s Drought Plan, revised in 2006, acknowledges climate 

change as an issue, but does not – like all other such plans – explicitly account for climate change in 

its drought planning, monitoring, or preparedness efforts (New Mexico Drought Task Force 2006). 

The state’s Drought Management Task Force is involved in assessing the state’s vulnerability to 

drought and its ability to manage supply shortages but climate change rarely enters the discussions 

(G. Garfin, pers. comm. to author, March 2009). In Arizona, water managers from local, state, tribal 

and federal institutions came together in 2008 to discuss adaptation strategies and, specifically, 

ways to improve manager’s access to useful decision support (Garfin et al. 2008). California’s 

Department of Water Resources (DWR) has been concerned with climate change for several years, 

included it already in its 2005 State Water Plan Update, and in 2006, released a report reflecting the 

agency’s progress in incorporating climate change into ongoing planning and management efforts 

(California DWR 2006, 2005). The Agency’s 2008 White Paper on adaptation proposes bold general 

strategies, illustrating DWR’s commitment, but the suggested changes are still in the planning 

stages and implementation has yet to pass challenging state budget hurdles and stakeholder 

concerns (California DWR 2008a). Moreover, DWR – like many other state agencies elsewhere in 

the U.S. – seems to perpetuate the view that “standard” water management strategies, maybe 

augmented by technological innovations or improvements (e.g., efficiency, desalination), will be 

sufficient for adaptation if only they were applied more broadly than at present (e.g., California 

DWR 2008b, see esp. pp.54‐56).  

Numerous other examples from other sectors could be cited, including North Carolina’s efforts 

in developing decision support tools for agriculture to help farmers with crop management in the 

face of a changing and variable climate; Maine’s efforts to understand the potential impacts of 

climate change on forests and explore the adaptation options to minimize the risk of forest fires; the 

California Department of Fish and Game’s 2005 Wildlife Action Plan, which identified climate 

change as one of four primary stressors affecting wildlife and which made recommendations on 

how to incorporate climate change in the state’s restoration efforts (California Department of Fish 

and Game 2005). Already in 2003, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

considered the effects of climate change in its Fire and Resource Assessment Report and will do so 

                                                     

10 See NOAA Coastal Services Center (2009) for several additional state examples. Many of those, 

however, while billed as local strategies for addressing climate change, are predominantly examples of using 

existing or novel programs to deal with ongoing climate variability and related hazards. While undoubtedly 

valuable for adapting to anthropogenic climate change, this report focuses mainly on deliberate and explicit 

efforts to plan for and manage impacts from anthropogenic climate change. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 18

again in its 2009 update (California Climate Action Team 2009, p.3.1). Massachusetts is also 

engaged in species preservation and habitat conservation planning that aims to take climate change 

into account (Galbraith 2008). In fact, most wildlife and ecosystem adaptation efforts to date are 

essentially habitat restoration efforts (Peter LaFontaine, Mike Dettinger, and Gregg Garfin, pers. 

comm. to author, March 2009). 

In some instances, states are collaborating on sector‐specific issues that concern them 

regionally. For example, in the American West, water managers are collaborating and sharing 

information regionally (e.g., in the 2008 workshop on adaptation in the water sector, co‐sponsored 

by the Governors' Association, Western States Water Council and the California Department of 

Water Resources). Similarly, in the Great Lakes region, Midwestern states and Canadian provinces 

have expressed concern over the impact of climate change on their joint water basin (though 

concrete adaptive management actions have not yet been specified) (Dinse, Read, and Scavia 2009). 

In the Northeast, coastal managers have come together under the auspices of the Northeast 

Regional Ocean Council to exchange information, learn from each other, and form coalitions to 

bolster and implement regional coastal management initiatives (NROC 2008). 

Many of these early state efforts share an initial focus on assessing – quantitatively where the 

science allows, but sometimes only qualitatively – the potential or most critical impacts of climate 

change on key resources and assets of each state. They typically also recognize that their territories, 

sectors, and communities will be affected differentially by climate change and that the ability to 

respond to climate change varies within and across entities. Only a small number of state efforts to 

date involve vulnerability assessments informed by social science (e.g., Maryland), clearly reflecting 

the common lack of scientific information on local or system‐wide vulnerabilities as well as the lack 

of expertise among staff and many consultants to assess them. Most state strategies recognize that 

adaptation involves costs and that these costs, while not trivial by any stretch of the imagination, 

are likely to be lower than “doing nothing” and confronting the impacts unprepared. Recognizing 

that the past is no longer an adequate guide to the future, existing state plans call for more 

monitoring, research to improve scientific understanding, new planning guidelines, and more 

flexible procedures. They also recommend improving the preparedness for already apparent 

climate risks while limiting future liabilities by preventing more people and assets being put at risk. 

In light of considerable uncertainties and lack of knowledge, most initial state adaptation strategies 

thus consist of best practices, efforts to avoid future harm, win‐win strategies that appear robust in 

the face of a range of climate futures, ways to improve preparedness, build adaptive capacity, and 

remove barriers to implementing adaptation strategies. There is also a growing recognition for the 

need to educate and engage the public on adaptation, a challenging task as hardly any opinion and 

communication studies exists to date regarding how the public thinks and feels about adaptation 

(exceptions are Oregon and Maine, where the opinions of selected coastal stakeholders were 

explored; see Cone et al. 2008; Center for Research and Evaluation 2008). 

Even in states and agencies where adaptation strategies are being developed, it is important to 

recognize that institutions consist of many individuals and agency staff’s willingness to consider 

climate change in strategic or operational decisions varies considerably. Political leadership, 

likewise, makes a decisive difference as to what agency staff perceive as “politically feasible”, even if 

they themselves are very interested and committed (Moser 2009). These internal dynamics should 

not be underestimated in their impact on the policy process and proposals ultimately put forward. 

It is not surprising therefore, at this early stage, that most state adaptation strategies to date do   

not fundamentally stray from previous policies and recommendations. Rather, adaptation plans 

most commonly use climate change as justification to do (or pursue) no‐regrets (or at most low‐

regrets) policies that officials believe should be implemented independent of whether or not the 

climate is changing.  
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 19

States face many of the same barriers encountered at the federal levels, and face some because

of the lack of federal action (see Table 1 above). For example, lack of federal leadership and lack     

of funding has lead to states lacking federal guidance, and the monetary assistance to begin 

adaptation planning. Table 2 lists some additional observed and documented barriers to state 

adaptation planning.  

Table 2: Selected Observed and Documented Barriers to State Adaptation Planning

1. Lack of federal guidance – States have not yet received federal guidance or other

broad and varied support (e.g., in the form of policy guidelines, financial support,

technical assistance, standard climate change scenarios, climate services, or planning

requirements.

2. Lack of state­level leadership – State­level leadership (either from the governor, the

state legislature or among agency heads) has varied considerably, and in the majority

of states has been missing to date.

3. Lack of state­ and regionally specific scientific information – Even those states that

have begun state­specific impacts/climate risk assessments and adaptation planning

have bemoaned the lack of state­specific climate projections, much less probabilistic

information, or socio­economic information. Support is needed for decision­scale

relevant climate change projections, vulnerability and adaptation options and

feasibility assessments, observations of current conditions, policy tools and action

inventories; and continuing monitoring capabilities, in addition to fundamental

adaptation research.

4. Budget constraints – States have been severely constrained, especially during the

economic crisis of 2008­2009, to fund additional climate change and adaptationrelevant research, much less provide additional funds for state agencies to conduct

assessments, develop adaptation strategies or implement actions above and beyond

existing state programs.

5. Reliance on historical conditions – States continue to base most of their decisions on

historical data, averages, and observations. Uncertainties about future conditions

have more often than not led to conservative adherence to known procedures than to

a shift toward risk management.

6. Lack of public awareness, engagement, pressure – States that have begun planning for

adaptation have done so largely without grassroots pressure. The public, while

superficially aware of potential impacts, is not yet concerned about local impacts, and

has yet to be engaged more fully on the needs and challenges of adaptation.

Sources: GAO (2009), Moser (2009), Tribbia and Moser (2008), Pew Center on Global Climate 

Change (2008), and additional author observations (barriers are additional to and interacting with 

those mentioned in Table 1). 

16BLocal Adaptation Efforts

Local adaptation initiatives much resemble those at the state level and for some of the bigger 

metropolitan areas, such as New York City or Chicago, they are hardly less complex or challenging. 

These efforts can be grouped into three categories (Appendix 3): (1) those initiated and supported 

by the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) with funding, since 2008, through the Rockefeller 

Foundation’s Climate Change Resilience Initiative; (2) those initiated and facilitated by ICLEI‐Local 

Governments for Sustainability; and, finally, (3) independent efforts, several of which are closely 

related (through scientific support, staffing, and the underlying political mobilization process) to 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 20

regional assessments previously conducted as part of the National Assessment (e.g., New York 

City); regionally based, NOAA‐sponsored Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment (RISA) 

centers (e.g., King County, WA); or other regional assessments (e.g., Chicago). Emerging efforts not 

tied to any of these mechanisms remain the most difficult to track. 

As Appendix 3 suggests, communities of all sizes – from tiny villages at the Arctic shores of 

Alaska to metropolitan Boston, New York, and Miami – have begun assessing their physical 

vulnerabilities and develop an initial set of strategies to reduce them. If this list of two dozen 

localities is indicative of the larger universe of U.S. cities concerned with adaptation at this time, 

they appear to be among the pioneers because of their perceived or already experienced 

vulnerability to climate variability and change, their previous engagement (and often leadership) in 

climate mitigation policy, and the presence of the above‐mentioned supportive or facilitative 

organizations and experts.  

Typically done in collaboration with locally‐based university researchers and consulting teams, 

most of these cities’ adaptation plans initially focus only on a few high‐risk areas. Coastal New York 

City, not surprisingly, focuses primarily on protecting its critical infrastructure from sea‐level rise 

and storm surges (e.g., sewer and wastewater treatment systems, subways, airports and power 

plants), but also on establishing an ongoing adaptation process that involves neighborhood and 

environmental justice groups (Rosenzweig et al. 2007; City of New York 2007). Boston, San 

Francisco and Seattle share similar infrastructure concerns. Chicago’s adaptation plan focuses 

primarily on reducing vulnerability to extreme heat events, stormwater management, reducing the 

impacts from extreme events on buildings, infrastructure and equipment, and on protecting urban 

ecology (Parzen 2008). None of these large metropolitan areas is seriously considering relocation. 

By contrast, several of the Alaska communities listed are actively in the process of relocating their 

villages further inland as coastal erosion threatens to completely destroy their homes.  

Some cities have only begun to set an adaptation process in motion (e.g., Los Angeles, CA; San 

Francisco, CA; Guilford, CT), while others have only commissioned comprehensive impacts 

assessment to date, but have not yet changed local policies (e.g., San Diego, CA, Aspen, CO). A small 

number of cities astonish, by contrast, by the level of detail and by how long they have been 

thinking about adaptation issues (e.g., King County, WA; Keene, NH; Miami‐Dade County, FL). The 

South Florida Regional Planning Council – which includes representatives from the climate‐

progressive Miami‐Dade County – offers, for example, an extensive “Climate Change Community 

Toolbox” with basic factsheets, numerous adaptation‐related resources, and coastal “vulnerability” 

(exposure) maps under different amounts of sea‐level rise (see:

http://www.sfrpc.com/climatechange.htm). Boston, MA, for example, while only recently engaging 

in a comprehensive adaptation planning effort, built its Deer Island sewage treatment plant back in 

1993 already taking climate change‐driven sea‐level rise into account. San Francisco Bay’s coastal 

management agency – the Bay Conservation and Development Commission – has been assessing 

sea‐level rise risks for two decades, but because of its very limited regulatory power has focused 

most of its efforts on generating scientific understanding, and raising awareness to the inevitable 

challenges associated with sea‐level rise. Besides recently producing detailed inundation maps, it 

has been a driver in educating local governments around the Bay about risk and vulnerability 

assessments, providing discussion for a, and engaging in international partnerships with Dutch 

research centers to explore creative and effective adaptation strategies 

(http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/climate_change.shtml; see also: 

http://risingtidescompetition.com/). The multi‐agency regional management agency CALFED and a 

Governor‐appointed Blue Ribbon Task Force has begun exploring the implication of climate change 

for the San Francisco Bay–San Joaquin Delta region and in its vision and strategic plan recognizes 

the need for climate‐cognizant adaptive management (Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force 2007, 

2008). Dettinger and Culberson (2008) have proposed a number of strategies to integrate climate 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 21

change and sea‐level rise projections into regional ecosystem and resource management decisions 

but all these proposals remain – to date – in the planning stages.  

In the rebuilding efforts along the Gulf of Mexico after hurricanes Rita and Katrina, extreme 

weather events, climate variability and climate change have risen in people’s awareness. According 

to Savonis, Burkett and Potter (2008, p. 5‐9), the metropolitan transportation plan for the New 

Orleans region has be refined post‐Katrina to provide a framework in which projected climate 

change impacts can be assessed and addressed. Important bridges and highways damaged in 

Katrina are being rebuilt at significantly higher elevations (though whether climate change and 

accelerated sea‐level rise or the hurricane was the primary driver behind that decision is unclear). 

The Houston‐Galveston Area Council has begun considering climate change in a regional visioning 

exercise, at least in public discussions. At the same time, planners, transportation officials, 

engineers and employees of regional port authorities interviewed for that study varied in their 

assessment of how important climate change had become in local and regional planning and 

decision‐making (Savonis, Burkett and Potter 2008, pp. 5‐10 to 5‐13).  

In addition to these locally focused and based adaptation initiatives, several organizations 

representing local interests – parallel to the state level – beginning to become increasingly 

interested in adaptation. For example, the Conference of Mayors established its “Climate Protection 

Center” in 2007 (see: http://usmayors.org/climateprotection/about.htm) – a resource center 

primarily to provide support and guidance to mayors across the U.S. on greenhouse gas emissions, 

but increasingly interested in adaptation as well (J. Foster, pers. comm. to author, March 2009). The 

National Association of City and County Health Officials (NACCHO) is particularly outspoken on 

urging governments at all levels to prepare for the public health impacts of climate change (see: 

http://www.naccho.org/topics/environmental/climatechange/).  

Based on personal observation and reflections shared by participating scientists and staff in 

several of these local initiatives, the initial emphasis in local adaptation planning typically is on 

operations of the local jurisdiction, public lands, or municipality or county‐controlled processes, 

bringing staff and political leaders on board with adaptation while engagement of citizens is at least 

initially relatively limited. In an ongoing, iterative process, where all involved still have to learn 

about adaptation, this may be appropriate at the outset, and communities, local (and state) 

managers are aware of the need for, but not necessarily certain about the ways of, effective citizen 

involvement. It remains to be seen how governments proceed to fully and meaningfully engage 

their communities in shaping future adaptation strategies. 

Additional reflections on these local initiatives indicate a range of benefits of being part of a 

learning network that allows lessons, approaches, tools, and expertise to be exchanged. In addition, 

an external organizational sponsor can help maintain motivation and provide a central focal point 

that facilitates the sharing of information (Lowe, Foster and Winkelman 2009). Table 3 lists some of 

the early lessons learned from community efforts. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 22

Table 3: Early Lessons from the “Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiative”

1. The importance of leadership – The presence of an adaptation champion at the top levels

of local government has proven essential to stimulate public interest, increase buy­in,

support funding commitments, and maintain momentum.

2. A functional organizational structure – Administrative subdivisions of local government

can be useful to focus adaptation efforts, but cross­departmental working groups are

needed to address cross­cutting impacts, leverage resources and expertise, and ensure

integration.

3. The need from federal agencies for actionable science – Regional to local scale specific

climate change information as well as other kinds of data that can be integrated at the

local scale (e.g., in common platforms such as GIS) increases usefulness, accessibility, and

relevance.

4. The need for downscaled climate change information to relevant scales – Some, but not all,

local communities have been able to obtain downscaled climate change data. Additional

locally relevant information is needed from the social, economic and ecological sciences.

5. Collaborating with local universities – Access to the relevant and needed knowledge base

is best achieved through collaboration with local universities. Independent, credible and

relevant information is best developed in partnership of scientists and decision­makers.

6. The value of networking for exchange of knowledge and experiences – Evidence from the

interaction among Urban Leaders suggests that formal and informal sharing of ideas,

tools, knowledge, experience, and approaches is useful and a highly valued opportunity.

7. Financial support for regional and local adaptation – Limited funding is one of the

greatest challenges communities face in developing and implementing adaptation

strategies. Federal and state sources can and should support local efforts through

reliable funding.

8. Addressing the perceived and real competition between mitigation and adaptation – Even

if mitigation and adaptation are complementary and equally necessary, perceptions of

competition persist, and staff resources and funding are limited. Emphasis on synergies

help.

9. Higher level governments can enable local adaptation action – Funding and regulatory

mechanisms at the federal and state level can and should be used to enable local

governments to plan for adaptation and build climate change into ongoing decisions.

10. A call for urban climate services and extension services – Urban Leaders support the

creation of a national initiative on providing climate services, and build networks of

decision support providers, connecting the extension model with community

development and education.

11. Avoiding regulatory and cross­jurisdictional conflicts – As much as higher­level

governance mechanisms can enable local action, they can also be at cross­purposes,

delay or hinder local adaptation efforts. These constraints and barriers must be assessed

and removed.

12. Exploring policy and regulatory opportunities – Opportunities exist and should be used to

end perverse subsidies, cease incentives that place people/assets at risk, invest in

climate­related business opportunities, (re)train professionals, and mainstream climate

into existing laws.

Source: Adapted from Lowe, Foster and Winkelman (2009), GAO (2009), and author observations 

Those local efforts undertaken independently may lack some of the benefits of being part of a 

learning network of communities beginning to adapt. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 23

17BNon­State Actors and the Emerging Actor Network

The general lack of widespread citizen‐involvement in U.S. adaptation planning to date 

notwithstanding, one of the remarkable characteristics of the rapid awakening in the U.S. to the 

need for adaptation is the strong role that non‐state actors have and continue to play in bringing 

about this mobilization and in assisting communities and states. The major categories of such 

actors are non‐governmental organizations, scientists, and consultants, with professional 

organizations (such as coastal, floodplain, water and conservation managers, or insurance 

commissioners) also playing an important networking and information disseminating role.  

The active engagement, if not initiative, from some of the advocacy groups in the last few years 

is surprising at first given the stance many of them held historically toward adaptation as a form of 

capitulation (see discussion above). It is less surprising, however, considering that several of these 

groups have either strong conservation interests – such as the World Wildlife Fund or The Nature 

Conservancy – and as such are themselves already confronted with managing climate change 

impacts on their land holdings or, as in the case of the National Wildlife Federation, see opportunity 

in engaging their membership on climate change by way of their direct exposure to noticeable 

changes in the environment. TNC, as one of the largest private holders of conservation land in the 

US, is not only addressing adaptation needs on its own land, but its scientific staff are working 

closely with local communities in developing strategies for ecosystem management. In New Mexico, 

for example, the organization has been able to hire a research fellow through dedicated donor 

funding, produced several reports, convened a stakeholder workshop, and embarked upon a new 

project to implement specific climate change adaptation measures for ecosystems in the Four 

Corners region since 2006 (http://nmconservation.org/projects/new_mexico_climate_change/; see 

also McCarthy et al. 2007, 2008).F

11

Another conservation group – the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) – has also been very 

active on climate change impacts at the regional level and – more recently ‐ specifically on 

adaptation (see the regional impacts reports and related work toward adaptation options at: 

http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/globalwarmingresources.cfm). In February 2009, together with 

the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE)’s Wildlife Habitat Policy Research 

Program, NWF organized a conference entitled “Adaptation 2009: Safeguarding Fish, Wildlife and 

Natural Systems in the Face of Climate Change.” Conservation professionals discussed research 

findings, programmatic experiences, and science, policy and funding needs for adaptation 

management of wildlife and natural habitat (see: 

http://ncseonline.org/WHPRP/NWF/Adaptation2009/). In advance, NWF had prepared a review of 

the literature on adaptation in the conservation area and interviewed dozens of conservation 

managers on challenges and experiences – a helpful overview and entry for others, and useful guide 

to federal policy needs (Glick, Staudt and Stein 2009; Theoharides et al 2009; NCSE 2009).  

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), while once hesitant to focus on adaptation because of 

the potential distraction from mitigation, has changed its stance over the years due to its 

commitment to representing the state of the science (e.g., IPCC views on the dual need for 

mitigation and adaptation) and through its leadership over more than a decade on several regional 

impacts assessments across the U.S. which increasingly brought attention to impacts and the need 

to address them with adaptation. UCS’s assessments have played initiatory and facilitative roles in 

                                                     

11 This work has been undertaken in cooperation with CLIMAS – the RISA center of the Southwest,        

and the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth (both based at the University of Arizona, underlining the  

notion proposed in this section of emerging networks of diverse actors initiating and engaging in     

adaptation planning. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 24

several local and state adaptation efforts (e.g., in California, the Great Lakes region (Chicago), the 

Gulf of Mexico and across the Northeast).  

Aside from their traditional roles, some NGOs serve important clearinghouse roles regarding 

adaptation (e.g., the Pew Center for Global Climate Change or the virtual Adaptation Network 

[http://adaptationnetwork.org]). Others have emerged as active partners in adaptation, such as the 

Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) and ICLEI‐Local Governments for Sustainability. As described 

above in the section on local initiatives, CCAP is working with nine U.S. cities (and one Canadian 

city, Toronto) in its “Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiative” to help operationalize key steps in the 

adaptation process and ensure that one or more policies or programs get implemented locally. Its 

role, however, is broader in that CCAP educates and advocates for the development of national 

adaptation policy and programs and helps disseminate lessons learned and success stories to other 

local communities (see the report by Lowe, Foster, and Winkelman [2009], which captures early 

lessons learned from participating cities). Similarly, ICLEI began assisting local governments on 

adaptation questions after years of experience with helping cities commit to mitigation. By working 

with several pilot communities, the organization developed its Climate Resilient CommunitiesTM 

Program, which now appears to have expanded its efforts. Maybe most notable is ICLEI’s 

collaboration with King County, WA and the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group to 

develop a procedural guidebook for local, regional, and state governments on how to begin 

preparing for the impacts of climate change (Snover et al. 2007). NOAA funded the preparation of 

this freely available handbook and was actively involved in creating and supporting ICLEI’s Climate 

Resilient Communities project from which this book emerged.  

In addition to environmental groups, some business alliances are also emerging as important 

non‐state actors in the adaptation arena. For example, in 2007, the eight largest US water utilities 

launched the Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA) – a coalition advocating for more research on 

climate change impacts on the water sector and commenting on federal climate and water policy 

and research proposals (see: http://www.wucaonline.org/html/). The Association of Metropolitan 

Water Agencies (see: http://www.amwa.net/cs/climatechange) and the American Water Works 

Association (see: http://www.awwa.org/awwa/community/links.cfm) are also increasingly 

interested. In March 2009, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners also adopted a 

mandatory “climate change risk disclosure” requirement, demanding that insurance companies 

across the United States report on the financial risks they face from climate change and what 

actions companies are taking to protect themselves against them. Observers of the industry expect 

this much‐debated motion to strongly affect all climate‐sensitive construction, development, and 

economic activity (see: http://www.ceres.org; Mills 2009). 

Only regionally or locally active NGOs occasionally play prominent roles as well, such as Clean 

Air – Cool Planet in the Northeast, or the Public Policy Institute of California (see its recent 

adaptation‐focused report on California, (Bedsworth and Hanak 2008) in collaboration with 

Next10, who also sponsored an economic assessment of climate impacts and adaptation options 

(Kahrl and Roland‐Holst 2008) – all have become active on adaptation only in the last few years. In 

Texas, the Texas Climate Initiative, a project of the Houston Advanced Research Center (see 

http://www.texasclimate.org), has also begun discussing adaptation as a needed “climate solution,” 

thus helping to open up and frame the discourse there. 

In most cases, the NGOs are either themselves very science‐focused or work closely with local 

scientists in assisting governments in their initial adaptation plans. The acknowledgement section 

of any existing adaptation plan reflects this large collaborative effort between engaged scientists, 

career staff, political leaders, NGO representatives, and other technical experts. Some of these 

collaborative efforts spawn valuable new information sources on adaptation (see, e.g., 

http://www.climateandfarming.org/index.php, meant to assist adaptation in the agricultural sector 

of the Northeast). A cadre of consultants plays a significant role in providing some of the needed 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 25

technical assistance and in facilitating adaptation planning processes. For example The Center for 

Climate Strategies has informed and facilitated adaptation processes in Maryland, Alaska, and other 

states (http://www.climatestrategies.us); many other consulting firms have quickly recognized 

adaptation as a “growth industry,” but expertise is quite variable across these companies. Most 

desperately missing is in‐depth knowledge of the (social science) adaptation literature, reflecting 

again, the general lack of this type of expertise as communities and states begin to manage the 

unavoidable impacts of climate change.  

The emerging actor network described here is rapidly growing and nodes of interaction are 

multiplying with every new initiative launched. In this time of mushrooming interest in adaptation, 

it appears that one (and maybe the most) significant “bottleneck” to increasing U.S. preparedness 

still lies in adaptation‐specific expertise. This bottleneck stems from the limited U.S.‐specific 

literature on vulnerability and adaptation, the lack of research funding and data gathering, the 

general dearth of social science expertise in government agencies, a comparatively small number of 

university scientists working in this area and/or willing to engage in policy‐relevant work, and the 

limited capacity in this area of specialization in consulting firms. As a consequence, the burgeoning 

U.S. adaptation efforts are at once a welcome development and at risk of being under‐informed, 

done hastily, or simply done without the benefit of all the appropriate expertise at the table. 

6BConclusion: Entering into a “Period of Consequences”

This report has taken a cursory survey of adaptation‐related activity currently underway in the 

United States. Ranging from the treatment of the topic in the news media to the drafting of bills in 

Congress, to state and local government activities with considerable engagement of NGOs, scientists 

and consultants, it has become apparent that adaptation has finally, and explosively, emerged on 

the political agenda as a legitimate and needed subject for debate. At the same time, the current 

policy rush is not underlain by widespread public engagement and mobilization nor does it rest on 

a solid research foundation. Funding for vulnerability and adaptation research, establishing 

adequate decision support institutions, as well as the building of the necessary capacity in science, 

the consulting world, and in government agencies, lags far behind the need.  

The inevitability of climate change impacts now conveyed through the media and other 

scientific communication, and conspicuous events such as Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore’s An

Inconvenient Truth have helped to “legitimize” adaptation as a necessary complement to   

mitigation. Nevertheless, realization of the magnitude of the challenge is still very limited. Not 

surprisingly, the adaptation initiatives evident to date consist of relatively conservative, win‐win, 

and low‐risk strategies.  

In addition to tracing this history, this report identifies a number of barriers to basic adaptation 

planning and more ambitious policy developments. At the federal level, such barriers include: lack 

of federal leadership until recently (by Congress, the president, and agencies); lack of funding for 

research and planning; political opposition; ignorance; lack of intra‐ and interagency coordination, 

communication, and collaboration; competing priorities; lack of adaptation mandates; and legal 

constraints. These barriers do not only affect what does or can happen at the federal level but 

influence lower levels of government as well. For example, federal failure to take on adaptation 

leaves states without federal guidance and financial support, adding to the budget constraints that 

states face already. In addition, states face their own hurdles, including lack of state‐level 

leadership, lack of state‐ and regionally specific scientific information, lack of expertise within state 

agencies, reliance on historical conditions, as well as lack of public awareness, engagement, and 

pressure to make adaptation a policy priority. At the local level, adaptation efforts by cities and 

counties can be hampered additionally by lack of a functional organizational structure, lack of 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 26

collaboration with local universities and experts, isolation, and either real or perceived competition 

between mitigation and adaptation. Cross‐scale barriers arise from regulatory and cross‐

jurisdictional conflicts and missed policy opportunities. In particular, the mismatch between the 

lack of, and the need for, scientific capacity, technical expertise and widespread, scale‐relevant 

climate change and vulnerability information, America is now entering into an era of climate change 

consequences for which the country is ill‐equipped.  

These findings fly in the face of long‐standing, and all too simplistic, assumptions that 

developed nations like the U.S. face relatively low vulnerability and possess high adaptive capacity 

to address climate change. Rather, concerted effort will be needed to assess vulnerabilities, 

ascertain adaptation options, and determine relevant governance barriers at and across scales, and 

build the necessary capacity, skill, resource base, institutional mechanisms, and political will to help 

reduce and overcome them. 

A delicate balance must be struck at this time between initiating (and endorsing the 

establishment of) ongoing adaptation planning processes and making only common‐sense and 

relatively small if meaningful policy and programmatic commitments rather than over‐promise or 

commit large resources to ill‐advised actions. Governments and stakeholders should assume that 

changing scientific understanding and non‐stationary environmental and societal conditions will 

require considerable policy flexibility, debate over difficult challenges and painful trade‐offs. 

Meanwhile, a serious commitment at the highest levels is required to  

• rapidly and substantially expand vulnerability and adaptation research,  

• build technical capacity within the sciences and among decision‐makers,  

• expand the nation’s decision support capabilities,  

• identify ways to provide financial and technical resources to governing institutions, and  

• seriously engage the American public in the development and debate of a comprehensive 

climate risk management strategy.  

Without such a commitment, there is considerable danger that America will engage in  

countless expensive and damaging maladaptations, and/or that sectors and communities will 

prepare insufficiently for climate change, creating liabilities far more costly than the investment 

called for now.  
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 27

7BReferences

Adaptation Network. 2009. Building Resilience in a Changing Climate. Available at: 

http://www.adaptationnetwork.org/index.html. 

Adger, W.N. et al. 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation? Climatic Change 93 (3‐4): 335‐354.  

Alexander, A., J. Owers, R. Carveth, C. A. Hollifield, and A. N. Greco eds. 2004. Media Economics:

Theory and Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2009. Climate Change Research Flat in 2008

Budget. Available from http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ccsp08p.htm. 

Anderson, K. E., D. R. Cahoon, S. K. Gill, B. T. Gutierrez, E. R. Thieler, J. G. Titus, and S. J. Williams. 

2009. Coastal Elevations and Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise. A Report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.1, Washington, DC: Climate Change Science Program. 

Association of State Floodplain Managers. 2007. National Flood Programs and Policies in Review

2007. Madison, WI: ASFPM. Available at: 

http://www.floods.org/Publications/NFPPR_2007.asp. 

Backlund, P., A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B. A. Kimball, 

T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M. G. Ryan, S. R. Archer, R. 

Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, 

W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B. P. Kelly, 

L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, and R. Shaw. 2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture,

Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 

Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3, Washington, DC: Climate Change Science Program. 

Bader, D. C., C. Covey, W. J. G. Jr., I. M. Held, K. E. Kunkel, R. L. Miller, R. T. Tokmakian, and M. H. 

Zhang. 2008. Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations. A Report by the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 

Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1, Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of 

Biological and Environmental Research. 

Bedsworth, L., and E. Hanak. 2008. Preparing California for a Changing Climate. San Francisco, CA: 

PPIC. 

Beller‐Simms, N., H. Ingram, D. Feldman, N. Mantua, K. L. Jacobs, and A. M. Waple. 2008. DecisionSupport Experiments and Evaluations Using Seasonal­to­Interannual Forecasts and

Observational Data: A Focus on Water Resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 5.3, Asheville, NC: NOAA National Climatic Data Center. 

Boykoff, M. T. 2007a. Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change 

in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area 39 (4):470‐481. 

———. 2007b. From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of 

anthropogenic climate change science. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 32 (4):477‐489. 

Boykoff, M. T., and J. M. Boykoff. 2004. Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. 

Global Environmental Change 14 (2):125‐136. 

Burton, I. 1994. Deconstructing adaptation... and reconstructing. Delta 5 (1):14‐15.  

Burton, I., R. W. Kates, and G. F. White. 1978. The Environment as Hazard. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges. 

Sacramento, CA: Department of Fish and Game. Available at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/wap/report.htmlU. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 28

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2005. California Water Plan Update 2005: A

Framework for Action. Sacramento, CA: DWR.  

———. 2006. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water

Resources. Technical Memorandum Report. Sacramento, CA: DWR. 

———. 2008a. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California's

Water. Sacramento, CA: DWR. 

———. 2008b. Water and Border Area Climate Change: An Introduction. Special Report for the XXVI

Border Governors Conference. Sacramento, CA: DWR.  

California Climate Action Team. 2009. Draft 2009 Climate Action Team Biennial Report to the

Governor and Legislature. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency. 

CCSP. 2008. Uses and Limitations of Observations, Data, Forecasts, and Other Projections in Decision

Support for Selected Sectors and Regions. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and Assessment 

Product 5.1, Washington, DC: NASA. 

Center for Clean Air Policy. 2009. Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiative: Building Resiliency to Climate

Change Impacts through Community Action. Available at: 

http://www.ccap.org/index.php?component=programs&id=6. 

Center for Research and Evaluation, University of Maine. 2008. Climate Variability and Coastal

Community Resilience: Results of Coastal Property Owner and Public Officials Survey, 51 pp. 

Orono, ME: University of Maine. 

Churchill, W. S. 1936. The Locust Years. Speech before The House of Commons on November 12, 

1936. London, UK: The Churchill Society. Available at: http://www.churchill­societylondon.org.uk/Locusts.htmlU. 

City of New York. 2007. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. New York: City of New York. 

Clark, P. U., A. J. Weaver, E. Brook, E. R. Cook, T. L. Delworth, and K. Steffen. 2008. Abrupt Climate

Change. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on 

Global Change Research. Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4, Washington, DC: Climate 

Change Science Program. 

Coastal States Organization. 2007. The Role of Coastal Zone Management Programs in Adaptation to 

Climate Change. Final Report of the CSO Climate Change Work Group. Washington, DC: CSO. 

———. 2008. The Role of Coastal Zone Management Programs in Adaptation to Climate Change. 

Second Annual Report of the CSO Climate Change Work Group. Washington, DC: CSO. 

Compaine, B. M., and D. Gomery. 2000. Who Owns the Media? Competition and Concentration in the

Mass Media Industry. 3rd. ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Cone, J., L. Jodice, J. Borberg, M. Harte, and P. Corcoran. 2008. SARP Survey Analysis: Climate Change 

Survey of Oregon Coast Decision‐Makers 2008 (Draft of 12/30/08). Corvallis OR: Oregon 

Sea Grant, Oregon State University. 

Croteau, D., and W. Hoynes. 2006. The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest. 

2nd. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. 

Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. 2007. Delta Vision: Our Vision for the California Delta. 

Sacramento, CA: Resources Agency. 

———. 2008. Delta Vision Strategic Plan. Sacramento, CA: Resources Agency. 

Dinse, K., J. Read, and D. Scavia. 2009. Preparing for Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region. Ann 

Arbor, MI: Michigan Sea Grant. 

Dettinger, M. D., and S. Culberson. 2008. Internalizing Climate Change‐Scientific Resource 

Management and the Climate Change Challenges. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed

Science 6 (2): Article 5 [http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol6/iss2/art5]. 

Dumanoski, D. 1988. Coastal regions urged to prepare for rising sea level: Planners decry apathy 

toward greenhouse effect's threat. The Boston Globe, December 13:A1. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 29

Easterling, W. E., B. H. Hurd, and J. B. Smith. 2004. Coping with Climate Change: The Role of

Adaptation in the United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Centre on Global Climate Change. 

European Commission. 2007. Adapting to Climate Change in Europe ‐ Options for EU Action. Green 

Paper from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European 

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Bruxelles: European 

Commission. 

Fagre, D. B., C. W. Charles, C. D. Allen, C. Birkeland, F. S. C. III, P. M. Groffman, G. R. Guntenspergen, A. 

K. Knapp, A. D. McGuire, P. J. Mulholland, D. P. C. Peters, D. D. Roby, and G. Sugihara. 2008. 

Thresholds of Climate Change in Ecosystems. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and Assessment 

Product 4.2, Washington, DC: Climate Change Science Program. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. FEMA grants $5 million for sea level rise study in 

North Carolina. www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=47583, February 24, 2009. 

Galbraith, H. 2008. Confronting Climate Change ‐ The Challenge of Adaptation: Presentation to the 

California Climate Adaptation Working Groups on October 23, 2008. Sacramento, CA. 

Climate Change Initiative, Manomet Center for Conservation Science. 

Gamble, J. L., K. L. Ebi, F. G. Sussman, and T. J. Wilbanks. 2008. Analyses of the Effects of Global

Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems. A Report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.6, Washington, DC: Climate Change Science Program. 

Garfin, G., K. Jacobs, and J. Buizer. 2008. Beyond brainstorming: Exploring climate change 

adaptation strategies. EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89 (25):227. 

Glick, P., A. Staudt, and B. Stein. 2009. A New Era for Conservation: Review of Climate Change

Adaptation Literature. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007a. Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop 

Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources. Washington, DC: 

GAO.  

———. 2007b. Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming Decades 

Are Potentially Significant. Washington, DC: GAO. 

———. 2009. Climate Change: Observations on Federal Efforts to Adapt to a Changing Climate. 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, House of Representatives on March 25, 2009. Washington, DC: GAO. 

Griffis, R. B., R. L. Feldman, N. K. Beller‐Simms, K. E. Osgood, and N. Cyr (eds.). 2008. Incorporating 

Climate Change into NOAA's Stewardship Responsibilities for Living Marine Resources and 

Coastal Ecosystems: A Strategy for Progress. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS­F/SPO­95, 

Silver Spring, MD: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. 2009. Climate Adaptation: Introducing ICLEI's Climate

Resilient Communities Program. Available at: 

http://www.icleiusa.org/programs/climate/Climate_Adaptation/adaptation. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Appendix B: Glossary of Terms. In 

Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group

II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J. J. 

McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken and K. S. White, 981‐996. New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Jones, R., and R. Boer. 2005. Assessing current climate risks. In Adaptation Policy Frameworks for

Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, eds. B. Lim, E. Spanger‐

Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S. Huq, 91‐117. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 

Press. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 30

Joyce, L. et al. (forthcoming). Managing for multiple resources under climate change: National 

forests. Environmental Management, revised manuscript submitted. 

Julius, S. H., J.M. West (eds.), J. S. Baron, B. Griffith, L. A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B. D. Keller, M. A. Palmer, C. 

H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (authors). 2008. Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for

Climate­Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and Assessment 

Product 4.4, 873 pp. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Kahrl, F., and D. Roland‐Holst. 2008. California Climate Risk and Response. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California‐Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 

Karl, T. R. 2009. Written testimony for the hearing on "Preparing for Climate Change: Adaptation 

Programs and Policies" before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcomittee 

on Energy and Environment, March 25, 2009. Asheville, NC: NOAA, NCDC. 

Karl, T. R., G. A. Meehl, C. D. Miller, S. J. Hassol, A. M. Waple, and W. L. Murray. 2008. Weather and

Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean,

and U.S. Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3, 

Washington, DC: NOAA, National Climatic Data Center. 

Kates, R. W. 1997. Climate change 1995: Impacts, adaptations, and mitigation. Environment 39 

(9):29‐33. 

Kates, R. W., J. H. Ausubel, and M. Berberian eds. 1985. Climate Impact Assessment. New York: Wiley. 

King, J. S. 2008. Call for ideas on living in a warming world: Competition asks designers to 'climate‐

proof" Bay Area. The San Francisco Chronicle, December 19:B1. 

Knuuti, K. 2002. Planning for sea level rise: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy. In Solutions to

Coastal Disasters '02, eds. L. Ewing, L. and L. Wallendorf, 549‐560, American Society of Civil 

Engineers. 

Lowe, A., J. Foster, and S. Winkelman. 2009. Asking the Climate Question: Lessons Learned in Effective

Adaptation from Urban Leaders Partners. Washington, DC: Center for Clean Air Policy. 

Marsh, G. P. 1864. Man and Nature: or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. New York: 

Charles Scribner. 

McCarthy, P., C. Enquist, D. Gori, G. Garfin, T. Sullivan, and D. Bachelet. 2007. New Mexico Climate

Change Ecology and Adaptation Workshop – REPORT. Albuquerque, NM: The Nature 

Conservancy. 

McCarthy, P. D., C. A. F. Enquist, and G. Garfin. 2008. Mitigating climate change in the American 

Southwest. EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89 (1):3. 

McMasters, P. 1989. Topic: The Ozone Shield: Nations must join hands against a global threat. USA

TODAY, January 4, 1989:11A. 

Miller, H. I. 2007. Global warming resilience required. The Washington Times, March 16, 2007:A18. 

Mills, E. 2009. From Risk to Opportunity 2008: Insurer Responses to Climate Change. Berkeley: 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. 

Morgan, G., H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrion, D. Keith, R. Lempert, S. McBrid, M. Small, and T. Wilbanks 

2009. Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating

Scientific Uncertainty in Decisionmaking. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and Assessment 

Product 5.2, Washington, DC: NOAA. 

Moser, S. C. 2005. Impact assessments and policy responses to sea‐level rise in three US states: An 

exploration of human‐dimension uncertainties. Global Environmental Change Part A 15 

(4):353‐369. 

———. 2006. Climate Change and Sea‐Level Rise in Maine and Hawai'i: The Changing Tides of an 

Issue Domain. In Global Environmental Assessments: Information, Institutions, and Influence, 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 31

eds. R. B. Mitchell, W. C. Clark, D. W. Cash and N. Dickson, 201‐239. Cambridge, MA: MIT 

Press. 

Moser, S.C. 2009. Whether Our Levers Are Long Enough and the Fulcrum Strong? ‐‐ Exploring the 

Soft Underbelly of Adaptation Decisions and Actions. In: Adapting to Climate Change:

Thresholds, Values, Governance, eds. W. N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K. O’Brien, 313‐334, 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Moser, S. C., and A. L. Luers. 2008. Managing climate risks in California: The need to engage resource 

managers for successful adaptation to change. Climatic Change 87 (Suppl 1):S309‐S322. 

Moser, S. C., and J. Tribbia. 2006/2007. Vulnerability to inundation and climate change impacts in 

California: Coastal managers' attitudes and perceptions. Marine Technology Society Journal

40 (4):35‐44. 

Moser, S.C. et al. 2008. Adaptation to climate change in the Northeast United States: Opportunities, 

processes, constraints. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 13 (5‐6): 643‐

659.  

Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, W. S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E. L. Miles, D. W. 

Peterson, D. L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A. K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for climatic change: 

The water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61:45‐88. 

National Assessment Synthesis Team. 2000. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The

Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Foundation. New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press. 

National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). 2009. Adaptation 2009: Safeguarding 

Fish, Wildlife and Natural Systems in the Face of Climate Change: Conference Summary 

Report Washington, DC: NCSE. 

National Governors' Association. 2009. Policy Position: NR‐10. Ocean and Coastal Zone 

Management, ed. N. R. Committee. Washington, D.C.: NGA. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Planning Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of

the Draft U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. 

———. 2004. Implementing Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of the Final U.S. Climate

Change Science Program Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

———. 2007. Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods and

Preliminary Results. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

———. 2009a. Restructuring Federal Climate Change Science. Washington, DC: National Academies 

Press. 

———. 2009b. Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. Washington, DC: National Academies 

Press. 

New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers. 2001. Climate Change Action Plan 2001. 

Halifax, NS 

Boston, MA: Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. 

New Mexico Drought Task Force. 2006. New Mexico Drought Plan. Albuquerque, NM: NM Office of 

the State Engineer. 

NOAA Coastal Services Center. 2009. Local Strategies for Addressing Climate Change. Charleston, SC: 

NOAA CSC. 

Northeast Regional Ocean Council. 2008. Northeast Region Coastal Hazards Resiliency Workshop

Report. Charleston, SC: NOAA Coastal Services Center. 

O'Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L. Sygna, and L. O. Naess. 2006. Questioning complacency: Climate change 

impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in Norway. Ambio 35 (2):50. 

Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. v. d. Linden, and C. E. Hanson eds. 2007. Climate

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 32

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Parzen, J. ed. 2008. Chicago Area Climate Change Quick Guide for Municipalities and Other

Organizations: Adapting to the Physical Impacts of Climate Change. Chicago, IL: City of 

Chicago. 

Pendleton, E. A., S. J. Williams, and E. R. Thieler. 2004. Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of 

Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS) to Sea‐level Rise. Open­File Report. Reston, VA: 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Perkins, B., D. Ojima, and R. J. Corell. 2007. A Survey of Climate Change Adaptation Planning. 

Washington, DC: The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008. Adaptation Planning ­ What U.S. States and Localities

are Doing (2008 Update). Arlington, VA: Pew Center for Global Climate Change. 

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. 2008. Internet Overtakes Newspapers as News 

Outlet. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press; available at: 

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1066/internet­overtakes­newspapers­as­news­outlet.  

Pielke Jr., R. A., G. Prins, S. Rayner, and D. Sarewitz. 2007. Lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature

445: 597‐598. 

Preston, B. L., R. Westaway, S. Dessai, and T. F. Smith. 2009. Are We Adapting to Climate Change? 

Research and Methods for Evaluating Progress. Paper presented at the Greenhouse2009

conference, Boston, MA, March 22‐26, 2009. 

Rayner, S., D. Lach and H. Ingram. 2005. Weather forecasts are for wimps: Why water resource 

managers do not use climate forecasts. Climatic Change 69: 197‐227. 

Repetto, R. 2008. The Climate Crisis and the Adaptation Myth. New Haven, CT: Yale School of 

Forestry & Environmental Studies. 

Rosenzweig, C., D. C. Major, K. Demong, C. Stanton, R. Horton, and M. Stults. 2007. Managing climate 

change risks in New York City's water system: Assessment and adaptation planning. 

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12 (8): 1391‐1409. 

Rubinoff, P., N. D. Vinhateiro, and C. Piecuch. 2008. Summary of Coastal Program Initiatives that

address Sea Level Rise as a result of Global Climate Change. Narragansett, RI Rhode Island Sea 

Grant/Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. 

Sacramento Bee. 2002. Chilling fatalism? Sacramento Bee, June 5, 2002:B6. 

Savonis, M. J., V. R. Burkett, and J. R. Potter. 2008. Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on

Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A Report by the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 

Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7, Washington, DC: Climate Change Science Program. 

Schuchardt, B. et al. 2008. Adaptation is necessary: Germany in the midst of climate change. Dessau‐

Roßla Umweltbundesamt, Kompass Kompetenzzentrum für Klimafolgen und Anpassung 

(Federal Environment Agency Division I 2.1 “Climate Change“ Competence Centre on 

Climate Impacts and Adaptation (KomPass).  

Smit, B., and O. Pilifosova. 2003. From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. 

In Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development, Smith, J.B., Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S. (eds.), 

9‐28, London: Imperial College Press.  

Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental

Change 16 (3): 282‐292. 

Smith, J. B., and D. Tirpak eds. 1989. The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United

States: Report to Congress. Washington, DC: US EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and 

Evaluation, Office of Research and Development. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 33

Snover, A. K., L. W. Binder, J. Lopez, E. Willmott, J. Kay, D. Howell, and J. Simmonds. 2007. Preparing

for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments. Oakland, CA: 

ICLEI‐ Local Governments for Sustainability. 

Snover, A. K., E. L. Miles, and A. F. Hamlet. 2003. Learning from and adapting to climate variability in 

the Pacific Northwest. Paper presented at "Insights and Tools for Adaptation: Learning from 

Climate Variability" Workshop, November 18‐20, 2003, in Washington, D.C. 

Solomon, S. et al. eds. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of

Working Group I to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment

Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Stern, P. C., and T. J. Wilbanks. 2008. Fundamental Research Priorities to Improve the 

Understanding of Human Dimensions of Global Change. A discussion paper prepared for the 

National Research Council's Committee on Strategic Advice to the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 

Swope, C. 2007. Local warming: It's too late to stop global warming. What we can do is plan for it. 

Governing. Available at: http://www.governing.com/articles/0712warm.htm. 

Theoharides, K., G. Barnhart, P. Glick, with contributions from Noah Matson, A. Choudhury, and A. 

Staudt. 2009. Climate Change Adaptation across the Landscape: A survey of federal and 

state agencies, conservation organizations and academic institutions in the United States, 61 

pp. Washington, DC: The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Defenders of Wildlife, 

The Nature Conservancy, and The National Wildlife Federation. 

Thomas Jr., W. L. ed. 1956. Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. Chicago: The University of 

Chicago Press. 

Tribbia, J. and S.C. Moser. 2008. More than information: What coastal managers need to prepare for 

climate change. Environmental Science & Policy 11: 315‐328. 

Turner, B. L. I., W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. F. Richards, J. T. Mathews, and W. Meyer eds. 1990. The

Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere Over

the Past 300 Years. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 

Washington Post Writers Group. 2007. A really 'inconvenient truth'. Chattanooga Times Free Press: 

B6. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Ready Estuaries Program. 

Wilbanks, T. J., V. Bhatt, D. E. Bilello, S. R. Bull, J. Ekmann, W. C. Horak, Y. J. Huang, M. D. Levine, M. J. 

Sale, D. K.Schmalzer, and M. J. Scott. 2007. Effects of Climate Change on Energy Production

and Use in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.5, 

Washington, DC: Climate Change Science Program. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 34

8BAppendix 1:  

9BFederal Legislative Activity in the 110th Congress Regarding

Adaptation

During the 110th Congress, approximately 75 bills were introduced that contained adaptation provisions. 

Of these, five became law: HR 6 (Omnibus Energy Bill), HR 2764 (2008 Appropriations) and HR 4986 

(National Security), SJ RES 17 (Fishery Mgmt), SJ RES 45 (Water Resources). The majority of bills focused on 

individual sectors (coastal/ocean management – 22; fish and wildlife – 21; water resources – 11; national 

security – 8; infrastructure/transportation – 5; forestry and land management – 3; etc.). These generally had 

braoder sponsorship and bipartisan support. A smaller number held provisions called for federal, state and 

local adaptation planning (6), cross‐scale coordination (6), vulnerability assessments and other types of 

adaptation‐relevant research (~17), or other topics (T. Cruce, pers. comm. to author, March 2009). 

Bills listed below are either mentioned in the report, include some that have become law, or exemplify 

the types of bills introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives. A full list of bills can be obtained 

from http://thomas.loc.gov/. Bills introduced in the 111th Congress are not included and legislative action 

continues. 

  

Law or Bill Title and Contents Status

Public Law 

101‐606 

(prior to 

110th

Congress) 

US Global Change Research Act of 1990 (as amended) 

– requires national assessments of climate change 

impacts and response options every four years  

Underlies research activities of the 

CCSP; only one comprehensive 

national assessment completed; 

21 Science and Assessment 

Products completed and are 

currently being integrated into a 

Unified Synthesis Product 

Public Law 

110‐140 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 –

Section 712 Requires among other things, the 

development of adaptation and mitigation strategies  

Became law in December 2007

Public Law 

110‐161 

Department of Commerce Appropriations Act of 2008 

– authorizes the National Academy of Sciences’ 

America’s Climate Choices (ACC) study 

ACC study initiated in late 2008; 

one panel exclusively focused on 

adaptation; one on science needs, 

one on mitigation, and one on 

climate change‐related decision 

support needs 

S 280 

(Lieberman) 

Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 –

would, among other things, authorize research funds 

for NOAA on abrupt climate change 

Hearings held in July 2007 in the 

Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

S 2156 

(Bingaman) 

Science and Engineering to Comprehensively 

Understand and Responsively Enhance Water Act – 

would direct DOI to establish a US Bureau of 

Reclamation climate change adaptation program, with 

special attention to impacts and adaptation options for 

water resource management 

Several hearings held, amended 

and placed on senate legislative 

calendar in September 2008 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 35

S 2204 

(Sheldon) 

Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act – would require 

DOI and DOC to establish national strategies for 

maintaining wildlife populations, listed species, and 

marine ecosystems under climate change  

Measure referred to the Senate 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works in October 2007 

S 2307 

(Kerry) 

Global Change Research Improvement Act of 2007 –

would amend the Global Change Research Act to 

establish a National Climate Service within NOAA 

Placed on Senate Legislative 

Calendar in May 2008 

S 2355 

(Cantwell) 

Climate Change Adaptation Act – among other things, 

would establish a National Climate Service within 

NOAA, require DOC to conduct regional assessments of 

coastal and ocean vulnerability to climate change, and 

allow DOC to provide grants to states to develop 

adaptation plans 

Measured referred to several 

Committees and placed on Senate 

Legislative Calendar in June 2008 

S2970 (Reid) 

/HR 6297 

(DeGette) 

Climate Change Drinking Water Adaptation Research 

Act – would require EPA, together with DOC, DOI, and 

DOE, to fund an applied research program focused on 

adaptation for drinking water utilities 

Placed on Senate Legislative 

Calendar in September 2008 

S3515 

(Whitehouse) 

A bill to establish four regional institutes as centers of 

excellence for research, planning, and related efforts 

to assess and prepare for the impacts of climate 

change on ocean and coastal areas 

Referred to the Senate Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation in September 

2008 

HR 135 

(Linder) 

Establishes the Twenty‐First Century Water 

Commission; requires that Commission to develop 

adaptation strategies (and conduct related research) 

for the water sector 

Placed on Union Calendar in June 

2008 

HR 906 

(Udall, M.) 

 Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 

2007 – would reauthorize the US Global Change 

Research Program and focus it more on decision 

support needs; would also require national 

vulnerability assessments every 5 years  

Discussed in several Committees, 

hearings held, placed on the Union 

Calendar in April 2008 

HR 2338 

(Dicks) 

Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act – would require 

DOI to develop a national strategy for protecting 

wildlife under climate change, establish a research 

program within USGS focused on wildlife impacts, and 

provide additional research support 

Measure referred to several House 

Committees in June 2007 

HR 4174 

(Allen) 

Federal Ocean Acidification Research And Monitoring 

Act of 2008 – establishes an interagency committee to 

develop an ocean acidification research plan, including 

adaptation options. 

Placed on Senate Legislative 

Calendar in July 2008; became law 

as part of a large omnibus bill in 

January 2009 (S.22) as the 

“Federal Ocean Acidification 

Research And Monitoring Act of 

2009”  

HR 5453 

(Capps) 

Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act – would 

amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 by 

establishing a DOC coastal climate change adaptation 

planning and response program, and to authorize 

assistance to coastal states to develop coastal climate 

change adaptation plans pursuant to approved 

management programs approved under section 306 

Hearings held in the House 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife, and Oceans in February 

2008 

Source: Library of Congress Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/), Status January 2009. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 36

10BAppendix 2:

1BStates with Comprehensive Adaptation Planning Efforts (in

alphabetical order)

State Steps taken Lead organization Initial focus

Alaska  Alaska Climate Impacts 

Assessment (2006‐08) 

Climate Change Strategy 

developed, with 

recommendations (2007), 

IAW report (2008) 

Facilitated work groups 

developing adaptation 

strategies (since 2007) 

Alaska Climate Impacts 

Assessment Commission 

Sub‐Cabinet for Climate Change, 

Immediate Action Workgroup 

(IAW) 

Alaska Climate Change 

Adaptation Advisory Group  

CC impacts on people, 

resources, economy and 

assets 

Coastal erosion, fires, 

permafrost, flooding 

• Public infrastructure 

• Health & Culture 

• Natural systems 

• Economic activities 

California  State‐sponsored climate 

impacts research, biannual 

synthesis reports and 

updates on state actions 

(mitigation and adaptation) 

Development of a 

comprehensive Climate 

Adaptation Strategy (CAS) 

in 7 working Groups 

(CAWGs), initiated in 2008 

(builds on various existing 

agency efforts); Executive 

Order S‐13‐08 (Nov 2008) 

demands CAS (among other 

things) by June 2009 

California Energy Commission’s 

PIER Program is lead on science 

CalEPA and other agencies form 

the Climate Action Team, 

prepare biannual summary 

reports (2006, 2008) 

Natural Resources Agency 

(lead), in collaboration with 

numerous other state agencies 

Impacts on all climate‐

sensitive sectors, climate 

science 

• Agriculture 

• Biodiversity & Habitats 

• Forestry 

• Infrastructure 

(transportation, energy) 

• Oceans & Coastal 

Resources 

• Public Health 

• Water 

Florida  Florida’s Resilient Coast: 

State Policy Framework for 

Adaptation to Climate 

Change (2007) 

Executive Order 07‐128 

requests (among other 

Center for Urban and 

Environmental Solutions 

Action Team on Energy and 

Climate Change  

• Land use planning and 

building regulation 

• Water supply & delivery 

• Transportation and 

infrastructure 

• Conservation of natural 

lands and marine life 

• Beaches and beach mgmt 

• Extreme events 

All climate‐sensitive sectors 

of state and state operations 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 37

things) adaptation plan 

Facilitated work groups 

developed Final Energy and 

Climate Change Action Plan 

(2008); contains a “baseline 

adaptation plan” 

One technical working group of 

the Action Team is focused on 

adaptation 

Maryland  Executive Order 

01.01.2007.07 established 

the MD Climate Change 

Commission, charged with 

developing plans for 

mitigation and adaptation 

Facilitated working group 

meetings to develop 

adaptation plan 

Action plan released in 

2008 

Maryland Climate Change 

Commission 

Maryland’s Adaptation and 

Response Working Group is 

chaired by the Department of 

Natural Resources, co‐chaired 

by Department of Planning 

Reducing vulnerability of 

coastal, natural, and cultural 

resources and communities 

• Existing built environment 

and infrastructure 

• Future built environment 

and infrastructure 

• Resources and resource‐

based industries 

• Human health, safety & 

welfare 

Massachu‐

setts 

2004 Massachusetts 

Climate Protection Plan 

contained minor language 

on adaptation 

Global Warming Solutions 

Act signed in 2008; GHG 

reduction mandates and 

call to convene an advisory 

committee to analyze 

adaptation strategies 

(report expected at end of 

2009, progress uncertain) 

Secretary of Energy and 

Environmental Affairs 

• Transportation and built 

infrastructure 

• Commercial, industrial and 

manufacturing activities 

• Low‐income consumers 

• Energy generation and 

distribution 

• Land conservation 

• Water supply and quality 

• Recreation 

• Ecosystem dynamics 

• Coastal zone and oceans 

• Rivers and wetlands 

• Local government 

New 

Hampshire 

Executive Order 2007‐3 

created Climate Change 

Policy Task Force 

Climate Change Action Plan 

with draft Adaptation 

Action Report submitted to 

Governor in July 2008 

Climate Change Policy Task 

Force 

(one working group focused on 

adaptation) 

Climate Change Advisory 

Council 

• Development and 

distribution of critical 

information 

• Help for most at risk 

populations 

• Public health 

• Natural systems 

• Resilience to extreme 

events 

• State economy 

Oregon  Oregon legislature enacted 

HB 3543 (2007), creating a 

permanent Global Warming 

Global Warming Commission Dual responsibility for 

mitigation and 

adaptation/preparation 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 38

Commission and the 

Oregon Climate Change 

Institute 

Formed the Climate Change 

Integration Group (2006), 

produced “A Framework 

for Addressing Rapid 

Climate Change” (2008) 

Completed report 

“Preparing the Pacific 

Northwest for Climate 

Change: A Framework for 

Integrative Preparation 

Planning for Natural, 

Human, Built, and 

Economic Systems” (2008) 

Climate Change Integration 

Group  

Climate Leadership Initiative 

(CLI), University of Oregon 

• Preparation and adaptation 

• Mitigation 

• Education and outreach 

• Research  

(integrating ideas from CLI) 

Washing‐

ton 

Preparation/Adaptation 

Working Groups (PAWGs) 

formed in 2007 to develop 

recommendations for 

governor on how to 

prepare for and adapt to 

climate change 

Leading the Way on Climate 

Change: The Challenge of 

Our Time” (2008); Section 

C “Preparing for the 

Impacts of Climate Change 

In Washington” 

Comprehensive Climate 

Change Impacts 

Assessment for the state 

currently underway 

Climate Action Team with

PAWGs (lead agency WA 

Department of Ecology) 

Climate Action Team; Section C 

by PAWGs 

University of Washington, 

Climate Impacts Group 

• Agriculture 

• Forestry resources 

• Human health 

• Water resources & quality 

• Coastal infrastructure 

All climate‐sensitive sectors 

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2008), status early January 2009; summarized and updated by 

the author. 
Moser, S.C. Adaptation in the U.S. 39

12BAppendix 3:  

13BExamples of Local Adaptation Initiatives

Local Government Entity Partners of the CCAP’s

Urban Leader

Adaptation Initiative

Partners of ICLEI’s

Community Resilient

Communities Program

Independent

Effort

Chicago, IL  X X

King County, WA  X collaboration  X

City of Los Angeles, CA  X

Miami‐Dade County, FL  X X (pilot and ongoing) 

City of Milwaukee, WI  X

Nassau County, NY  X

Phoenix, AZ  X

San Francisco, CA  X

New York City, NY  X *X

Ft. Collins, CO X (pilot)

Homer, AK  X (pilot)

Keene, NH  X (pilot)

Santa Cruz, CA *

San Francisco, CA (BCDC) * X

Newtok, AK * X

Shismaref, AK * X

Kivalina, AK * X

Shaktoolik, AK * X

San Diego, CA  X

Berkeley, CA  X

Sonoma County, CA  X

Chino, CA (Inland Emp. Utilities)  X

Aspen, CO  X 

Guilford, CT  X

Boston, MA  X

Sandwich, MA  X

Sources: Perkins, Ojima, and Corell (2007); Center for Clean Air Policy (2008); ICLEI Local Governments 

for Sustainability (2008); Adaptation Network (2008); Moser and Tribbia (2006/2007); updated by author; 

Status January 2009. The (*) notates cases where communities are listed at the ICLEI website, but their status 

as partners in the program is unclear.