Report to the Chairman, Select 

Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming, House of 

Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

ADAPTATION 

Strategic Federal 

Planning Could Help 

Government Officials 

Make More Informed 

Decisions 

October 2009 

GAO-10-113 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2009

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION 

Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions

Highlights of GAO-10-113, a report to the 

Chairman, Select Committee on Energy 

Independence and Global Warming, 

House of Representatives 

Changes in the climate attributable 

to increased concentrations of 

greenhouse gases may have 

significant impacts in the United 

States and the world. For example, 

climate change could threaten 

coastal areas with rising sea levels. 

Greenhouse gases already in the 

atmosphere will continue altering 

the climate system into the future, 

regardless of emissions control 

efforts. Therefore, adaptation—

defined as adjustments to natural 

or human systems in response to 

actual or expected climate 

change—is an important part of the 

response to climate change. 

GAO was asked to examine (1) 

what actions federal, state, local, 

and international authorities are 

taking to adapt to a changing 

climate; (2) the challenges that 

federal, state, and local officials 

face in their efforts to adapt; and 

(3) actions that Congress and 

federal agencies could take to help 

address these challenges. We also 

discuss our prior work on similarly 

complex, interdisciplinary issues. 

This report is based on analysis of 

studies, site visits to areas pursuing 

adaptation efforts, and responses 

to a Web-based questionnaire sent 

to federal, state, and local officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that within the 

Executive Office of the President 

the appropriate entities, such as the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), develop a national 

adaptation plan that includes 

setting priorities for federal, state, 

and local agencies. CEQ generally 

agreed with our recommendations. 

While available information indicates that many governments have not yet 

begun to adapt to climate change, some federal, state, local, and international 

authorities have started to act. For example, the U.S. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments 

program supports research to meet the adaptation-related information needs 

of local decision makers. In another example, the state of Maryland’s strategy 

for reducing vulnerability to climate change focuses on protecting habitat and 

infrastructure from future risks associated with sea level rise and coastal 

storms. Other GAO discussions with officials from New York City; King 

County, Washington; and the United Kingdom show how some governments 

have started to adapt to current and projected impacts in their jurisdictions.

The challenges faced by federal, state, and local officials in their efforts to 

adapt fell into three categories, based on GAO’s analysis of questionnaire 

results, site visits, and available studies. First, competing priorities make it 

difficult to pursue adaptation efforts when there may be more immediate 

needs for attention and resources. For example, about 71 percent (128 of 180) 

of the officials who responded to our questionnaire rated “non-adaptation 

activities are higher priorities” as very or extremely challenging. Second, a 

lack of site-specific data, such as local projections of expected changes, can 

reduce the ability of officials to manage the effects of climate change. For 

example, King County officials noted that they are not sure how to translate 

climate data into effects on salmon recovery. Third, adaptation efforts are 

constrained by a lack of clear roles and responsibilities among federal, state, 

and local agencies. Of particular note, about 70 percent (124 of 178) of the 

respondents rated the “lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing 

adaptation across all levels of government” as very or extremely challenging. 

GAO’s analysis also found that potential federal actions for addressing 

challenges to adaptation efforts fell into three areas. First, training and 

education efforts could increase awareness among government officials and 

the public about the impacts of climate change and available adaptation 

strategies. Second, actions to provide and interpret site-specific information 

would help officials understand the impacts of climate change at a scale that 

would enable them to respond. For instance, about 80 percent (147 of 183) of 

the respondents rated the “development of state and local climate change 

impact and vulnerability assessments” as very or extremely useful. Third, 

Congress and federal agencies could encourage adaptation by clarifying roles 

and responsibilities. About 71 percent (129 of 181) of the respondents rated 

the development of a national adaptation strategy as very or extremely useful. 

Climate change is a complex, interdisciplinary issue with the potential to 

affect every sector and level of government operations. Our past work on 

crosscutting issues suggests that governmentwide strategic planning—with 

the commitment of top leaders—can integrate activities that span a wide array 

of federal, state, and local entities. 

View GAO-10-113 or key components. To 

view the e-supplement online, click on GAO10-114SP. For more information, contact 

John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or 

stephensonj@gao.gov.
 Climate Change Adaptation

Contents 

Letter 1

Federal, State, Local, and International Efforts to Adapt to Climate 

Change 5

Federal, State, and Local Officials Face Numerous Challenges 

When Considering Climate Change Adaptation Efforts 31 

Federal Efforts to Increase Awareness, Provide Relevant 

Information, and Define Responsibilities Could Help 

Government Officials Make Decisions about Adaptation 45 

Governmentwide Planning and Collaboration Could Assist 

Adaptation Efforts 58 

Conclusions 59 

Recommendations for Executive Action 60 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 60 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 64 

Appendix II Information on Selected Federal Efforts to Adapt 

to a Changing Climate 69 

Appendix III Summary of Federal, State, and Local Officials’ 

Responses to Web-Based Questionnaire 71 

Appendix IV Comments from the Council on Environmental 

Quality 78 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 80 

Tables 

Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the 

United States 2 

Table 2: Percentage of Challenges Related to Awareness and 

Priorities Rated as Very or Extremely Challenging 32 

Page i GAO-10-113 
 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 3: Percentage of Challenges Related to Information Rated as 

Very or Extremely Challenging 35 

Table 4: Percentage of Challenges Related to the Structure and 

Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or 

Extremely Challenging 40 

Table 5: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions 

Related to Awareness and Priorities Rated as Very or 

Extremely Useful 46 

Table 6: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions 

Related to Information Rated as Very or Extremely Useful 50 

Table 7: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions 

Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal 

Government Rated as Very or Extremely Useful 54 

Table 8: All Officials’ Rating of Challenges Related to Awareness 

and Priorities 71 

Table 9: All Officials’ Rating of Challenges Related to Information 72 

Table 10: All Officials’ Rating of Challenges Related to the 

Structure and Operation of the Federal Government 74 

Table 11: All Officials’ Rating of Potential Federal Government 

Actions Related to Awareness and Priorities 75 

Table 12: All Officials’ Rating of Potential Federal Government 

Actions Related to Information 76 

Table 13: All Officials’ Rating of Potential Federal Government 

Actions Related to the Structure and Operation of the 

Federal Government 77 

Figures 

Figure 1: Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, Queens, 

New York City 16 

Figure 2: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation 

Green Roofs at Five Borough Technical Services Facility 17 

Figure 3: Rain Garden in King County, Washington 21 

Figure 4: A Living Shoreline, Annapolis, Maryland 24 

Figure 5: Salt Marsh in Somerset County, Maryland 26 

Figure 6: The Thames Barrier, London, United Kingdom 30 

Page ii GAO-10-113 
 Climate Change Adaptation

Abbreviations 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CIG Climate Impacts Group 

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

DEP Department of Environmental Protection 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

DNRP Department of Natural Resources and Parks 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GCM General Circulation Model 

Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 

NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPCC New York City Panel on Climate Change 

NRC National Research Council 

RISA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments 

UKCIP United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-10-113 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

October 7, 2009 

The Honorable Edward Markey 

Chairman 

Select Committee on Energy Independence 

 and Global Warming 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Changes in the earth’s climate attributable to increased concentrations of 

greenhouse gases may have significant environmental and economic 

impacts in the United States and internationally.1

 Among other potential 

impacts, climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, 

alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of 

floods and tropical storms. Federal, state, and local agencies are tasked 

with a wide array of responsibilities, such as managing natural resources, 

that will be affected by a changing climate. Furthermore, climate change 

has implications for the fiscal health of the federal government, affecting 

federal crop and flood insurance programs, and placing new stresses on 

infrastructure. The effects of increases in atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases and temperature on ecosystems are expected to vary 

across regions (see table 1). 

 Climate Change Adaptation

 

1

Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide 

(N2O); and synthetic gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), 

and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). 

Page 1 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the United States 

Category Current and projected impacts 

Temperature • U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years and is 

projected to rise more in the future—how much more depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping 

gases emitted globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions. 

Precipitation • Precipitation has increased an average of about 5 percent over the past 50 years. Projections of future 

precipitation generally indicate that northern areas will become wetter and southern areas, particularly in the 

West, will become drier. 

• The amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased approximately 20 percent on average in 

the past century, and this trend is very likely to continue, with the largest increases in the wettest places. 

Extreme weather 

events 

• Many types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become more 

frequent and intense during the past 40 to 50 years. 

Storms • The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased in recent decades. The intensity of these storms 

is likely to increase in this century. 

• In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes have become stronger since the 1980s, even while the total 

number of storms has decreased. 

• Cold season storm tracks are shifting northward, and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and 

more frequent. 

Sea levels • Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the last 50 years and will likely rise more in the future. 

• Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly and this decline is very likely to continue. 

Source: Adapted from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009. 

Proposed responses to climate change include reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions through regulation, promoting low-emissions technologies, and 

adapting to the possible impacts by planning and improving protective 

infrastructure. Thus far, federal government attention and resources have 

been focused on emissions reduction options, climate science research, 

and technology investment. In recent years, however, climate change 

adaptation—adjustments to natural or human systems in response to 

actual or expected climate change—has begun to receive more attention 

because the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere are expected to 

continue altering the climate system into the future, regardless of efforts 

to control emissions. 

Policymakers are increasingly viewing adaptation as a risk-management 

strategy to protect vulnerable sectors and communities that might be 

affected by changes in the climate. As the Director of the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President stated in a 

2009 testimony, we can invest in countless ways to reduce our 

vulnerability to the changes in climate that we do not succeed in avoiding, 

for example by breeding heat- and drought-resistant crop strains, 

bolstering our defenses against tropical diseases, improving the efficiency 

of our water use, and starting to manage our coastal zones with sea level 

Page 2 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

rise in mind.2 Furthermore, certain natural resource adaptation activities—

such as efforts to build large, connected landscapes—will become more 

important as native species attempt to migrate or otherwise adapt to 

climate change. While it may be costly to raise river or coastal dikes to 

protect communities and resources from sea level rise, build higher 

bridges, or improve storm water systems, there is a growing recognition, in 

the United States and elsewhere, that the cost of inaction could be greater. 

According to a recent report by the National Research Council (NRC), 

however, individuals and institutions whose futures will be affected by 

climate change are unprepared both conceptually and practically for 

meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many usual practices 

and decision rules (for building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using 

private motor vehicles, and so on) assume a stationary climate—a 

continuation of past climate conditions, including similar patterns of 

variation and the same probabilities of extreme events. According to NRC, 

that assumption, fundamental to the ways people and organizations make 

their choices, is no longer valid. 

Adapting to climate change requires making policy and management 

decisions that cut across traditional economic sectors, agencies, 

jurisdictional boundaries, and levels of government. The authorities and 

expertise necessary to facilitate adaptation activities are spread among 

many agencies. Recent proposed legislation considers governmentwide 

adaptation strategies, including the development of a National Climate 

Service to inform the public through the sustained production and delivery 

of authoritative, timely, and useful information about the impacts of 

climate change on local, state, regional, tribal, national, and global scales.3

For example, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which 

passed the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, contains provisions 

related to climate change adaptation, including the development of federal 

and state natural resource agency adaptation plans and the establishment 

of a natural resources climate change adaptation fund. 

 

2

Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology, Executive 

Office of the President before the Committee on Agriculture, United States Senate 

(Washington, D.C., July 22, 2009). 

3

See, e.g., National Climate Service Act of 2009, H.R. 2306, 111th Congress (2009); American 

Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454, 111th Congress (2009); National Climate 

Service Act of 2009, H.R. 2407, 111th Congress (2009). 

Page 3 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

In this context, our review (1) determines what actions, if any, federal, 

state, local, and international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing 

climate; (2) identifies the challenges, if any, that federal, state, and local 

officials reported facing in their efforts to adapt; and (3) identifies actions 

that Congress and federal agencies could take to help address these 

challenges. We also provide information about our prior work on similarly 

complex, interdisciplinary issues. 

To determine the actions federal, state, local, and international authorities 

are taking to adapt to a changing climate, we obtained summaries of 

adaptation-related efforts from a broad range of federal agencies and 

visited four sites where government officials are taking actions to adapt.4

We chose these sites because they were frequently mentioned in the 

background literature and scoping interviews as examples of locations 

that are implementing climate change adaptation and which may offer 

particularly useful insights into the types of actions governments can take 

to plan for climate change impacts. The four sites were New York City; 

King County, Washington; the state of Maryland; and the United Kingdom. 

Our selected sites are not representative of all adaptation efforts taking 

place; however, they include a variety of responses to climate change 

effects across different levels of government. We included an international 

site visit to examine how other countries are also starting to adapt. We 

gathered information during and after site visits through observation of 

adaptation efforts, interviews with officials and stakeholders, and a review 

of documents provided by these officials. 

To describe challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in their 

efforts to adapt and the actions that Congress and federal agencies could 

take to help address these challenges, we reviewed available studies and 

asked knowledgeable stakeholders about challenges that federal, state, 

and local officials may face in adaptation efforts. Using this information, 

we compiled lists of potential challenges and potential actions the federal 

government could take to address them and developed a Web-based 

questionnaire to gather officials’ views on these challenges and actions. 

We designed the questionnaire to collect aggregate information through a 

range of closed-ended questions, as well as illustrative examples through 

open-ended responses. Within the questionnaire, we organized questions 

about challenges and actions into groups related to the following: (1) 

 

4

Information on selected federal efforts to adapt to climate change is provided in a 

supplement to this report (see GAO-10-114SP). 

Page 4 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

awareness and priorities, (2) information, and (3) the structure and 

operation of the federal government. We worked with organizations that 

represent federal, state, and local officials to select a nonprobability 

sample of 274 officials knowledgeable about adaptation, of which 187 

completed the questionnaire, for a response rate of approximately 68 

percent.5

 The federal, state, and local officials who responded represent a 

diverse array of disciplines, including planners, scientists, and public 

health professionals. A more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology is available in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to October 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

While federal agencies are beginning to recognize the need to adapt to 

climate change, there is a general lack of strategic coordination across 

agencies, and most efforts to adapt to potential climate change impacts are 

preliminary. However, some states and localities have begun to make 

progress on adaptation independently and through partnerships with other 

entities, such as academic institutions. The subjects of our site visits in the 

United States—New York City; King County, Washington; and Maryland—

have all taken steps to plan for climate change and have begun to 

implement adaptive measures in sectors such as natural resource 

management and infrastructure. Their on-the-ground experiences can help 

inform the federal approach to adaptation, which is now primarily focused 

on assessing projected climate impacts and exploring adaptation options. 

In addition, certain nations have taken action to adapt to climate change. 

Our detailed examination of the United Kingdom provides an example of a 

country where central and local government entities are working together 

to address climate change impacts. 

Federal, State, Local, 

and International 

Efforts to Adapt to 

Climate Change 

 

5

Not all officials responded to every question. 

Page 5 GAO-10-113 
 

Although there is no coordinated national approach to adaptation, several 

federal agencies report that they have begun to take action with current 

and planned adaptation activities. These activities are largely ad hoc and 

fall into several categories, including (1) information for decision making, 

(2) federal land and natural resource management, (3) infrastructure 

design and operation, (4) public health research, (5) national security 

preparation, (6) international assistance to developing countries, and (7) 

governmentwide adaptation strategies. We provide information on 

selected federal efforts to adapt to climate change, submitted to us by 

federal agencies, in a supplement to this report (see GAO-10-114SP). 

Many Federal Agencies 

Are Beginning to Take 

Steps to Adapt to Climate 

Change 

Information for decision making: A range of preliminary adaptationrelated activities are reported to be under way at different agencies, 

including efforts to provide relevant climate information to help decision 

makers plan for future climate impacts. For example, two programs 

managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) help policymakers and managers obtain the information they 

need to adapt to a changing climate. NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences 

and Assessments (RISA) program supports climate change research to 

meet the needs of decision makers and policy planners at the national, 

regional, and local levels. Similarly, NOAA’s Sectoral Applications 

Research Program is designed to help decision makers in different sectors, 

such as coastal resource managers, use climate information to respond to 

and plan for climate variability and change, among other goals. 

Other agencies—including the National Science Foundation, the 

Department of the Interior (Interior), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), and the Department of Energy—also manage programs to provide 

climate information to decision makers. For example, the National Science 

Foundation supports the scientific research needed to help authorities and 

the public plan adaptation activities and address any challenges that arise. 

Similarly, Interior’s newly formed Energy and Climate Change Task Force 

is working to ensure that climate change impact data collection and 

analysis are better integrated and disseminated, that data gaps are 

identified and filled, and that the translation of science into adaptive 

management techniques is geared to the needs of land, water, and wildlife 

managers as they develop adaptation strategies in response to climate 

change-induced impacts on landscapes. Another example of information 

sharing is EPA’s Climate Ready Estuaries program, which provides a 

toolkit to coastal communities and participants in its National Estuary 

Program on how to monitor climate change and where to find data. In 

addition, NASA’s Applied Sciences Program is working in 31 states and 

Page 6 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

with a number of federal agencies to help officials use NASA’s climate data 

to make adaptation decisions. For example, NASA forecasts stream 

temperatures for NOAA managers responsible for managing chinook 

salmon populations in the Sacramento River and predicts water flow 

regimes and subsequent fire risk in Yosemite National Park. DOE’s 

Integrated Assessment Research Program supports research on models 

and tools for integrated analysis of both the drivers and consequences of 

climate change. DOE’s supercomputing resources provide the capability to 

assess impacts and vulnerabilities to temperature change, anticipate 

extreme events, and predict risk from climate change effects (e.g., water 

availability) on a regional and local basis to better inform decision makers. 

Federal land and natural resource management: Several federal agencies 

have reported beginning to consider measures that would strengthen the 

resilience of natural resources in the face of climate change. For example, 

on September 14, 2009, Interior issued an order designed to address the 

impacts of climate change on the nation’s water, land, and other natural 

and cultural resources.6

 The Interior order, among other things, designated 

eight regional Climate Change Response Centers. According to Interior, 

these centers will synthesize existing climate change impact data and 

management strategies, help resource managers put them into action on 

the ground, and engage the public through education initiatives. Similarly, 

several federal agencies recently released draft reports required by 

Presidential Executive Order that describe strategies for protecting and 

restoring the Chesapeake Bay, including addressing the impacts of climate 

change on the bay.7

 In addition, the U.S. Forest Service reported that it 

devotes about $9 million to adaptation research and has developed a 

strategic framework that recognizes the need to enhance the capacity of 

forests and grasslands to adapt. The Chief of the Forest Service recently 

testified that dealing with climate change risks and uncertainties will need 

 

6

Secretarial Order No. 3289 (Sep. 14, 2009). 

7

The Executive Order required the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of 

Defense, EPA, Interior, and the U.S. Department of Commerce to submit draft reports. 

Draft reports are available at http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/. 

Page 7 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

to be a more prominent part of the Forest Service’s management decision 

processes.8

Certain agencies have also identified specific adaptation strategies and 

tools for natural resource managers. For example, Interior provided a 

number of adaptation-related policy options for land managers in reports 

produced for its Climate Change Task Force, a past effort that has since 

been expanded upon to reflect new priorities.9

 Similarly, a recent U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program report provided a preliminary review of 

adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources on 

federally owned and managed lands.10 In addition, the Department of 

Defense’s Legacy Resource Management Program is working with other 

agencies to develop a guidance manual that will summarize available 

natural resource vulnerability assessment tools. 

In some instances, federal agencies have begun to help implement 

adaptation actions. A recent Congressional Research Service presentation 

highlighted two case studies on federal lands in which federal agencies 

assisted with adaptation efforts. The first is a habitat restoration project 

supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to adapt to sea level 

rise in the Albemarle Peninsula, North Carolina. The second focuses on 

increasing landscape diversity and managing biodiversity in Washington’s 

Olympic National Forest, the site of a Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. The project involved work with the Federal Highway 

Administration to protect watersheds and roads.11 In addition, the 

 

8

The Role of Federal Lands in Combating Climate Change: Hearing Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the House Committee on 

Natural Resources, 111th Cong. 7-12 (2009) (written statement of Abigail Kimbell, Chief, 

U.S. Forest Service). Also, on January 16, 2009, the Forest Service issued guidance for 

addressing climate change considerations in land management planning and project 

implementation. 

9

For more information about Interior’s Climate Change Task Force, see 

http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/doi_taskforce.asp. 

10The Climate Change Science Program is now referred to as the United States Global 

Change Research Program. For report citation, see S.H. Julius, 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, 

Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and 

Resources, Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4 (SAP 4.4), a report for the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

11M.L. Corn, R.W. Gorte, G. Siekaniec, M. Bryan, D. Cleaves, K. O’Halloran, Global Climate 

Change and Federal Lands: Two Cases, a presentation hosted by the Congressional 

Research Service, 2009. 

Page 8 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Department of Energy reported that it has assessed major water 

availability issues related to energy production and use, such as electrical 

generation and fuels production, and identified approaches that could 

reduce freshwater use in the energy sector, and opportunities for further 

research and development to address questions that decision makers will 

need to resolve to effectively manage the energy and water availability 

issues. 

Infrastructure design and operation: A number of federal agencies are 

beginning to recognize that they must account for climate change impacts 

when building and repairing man-made infrastructure, since such impacts 

have implications beyond the natural environment.12 Many adaptation 

efforts related to infrastructure are at the planning stages to date. For 

example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ adaptation initiatives include 

leading a team of water managers to evaluate how climate change 

considerations can be incorporated into activities related to water 

resources. These managers are also participating in an interagency group 

(Climate Change and Water Working Group) which held workshops in 

California in spring 2007. At these workshops, water managers from 

federal (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA), 

state, local, and private agencies and organizations recommended more 

flexible reservoir operations, better use of forecasts, and more monitoring 

of real-time conditions in the watersheds. A draft report of long-term 

needs identified by the team was undergoing agency review in August and 

September 2009. In addition, EPA recently issued a guide entitled Smart 

Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities to help communities 

address challenges such as potential sea level rise and other climaterelated hazards.13

Within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway 

Administration also formed a multidisciplinary internal working group to 

coordinate infrastructure policy and program activities, specifically to 

 

12In technical comments to this report, Interior pointed out that there are significant links 

between federal land and natural resource management and infrastructure design and 

operation. According to Interior, proper management of lands and natural resources can 

help protect human infrastructure and can be an adaptation strategy for human 

infrastructure in and of itself. For example, restoring coastal wetlands can help protect 

human infrastructure against storm surges, rising sea level, and erosion. 

13EPA developed this guide in conjunction with NOAA, Rhode Island Sea Grant, and the 

International City/County Management Association. See 

http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov/. 

Page 9 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

address climate change effects on transportation. Both the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and DOT are reviewing the impacts of sea level rise on 

infrastructure. DOT found that a 2-foot sea level rise would affect 64 

percent of the Gulf Coast’s port facilities, while a 4-foot rise would affect 

nearly three-quarters of port facilities.14 In addition, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, is currently conducting a study on the impact of 

climate change on the National Flood Insurance Program, as we 

recommended in a 2007 GAO report.15 The Department of Energy is also 

working to protect critical infrastructure—such as the national 

laboratories and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve—by using climate 

impact assessments and developing guidance for management decisions 

that account for climate change. 

Public health research: Federal agencies responsible for public health 

matters are starting to support modeling and research efforts to assess 

climate change impacts on their programs and issue areas. Currently, the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Climate Change 

program is engaged in a number of adaptation initiatives that address 

various populations’ vulnerability to the adverse health effects of heat 

waves. For example, CDC helped develop a Web-based modeling tool to 

assist local and regional governments to prepare for heat waves and an 

extreme heat media toolkit for cities. 

In addition, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed a working 

group on Climate Change and Health, which aims to identify research 

needs and priorities and involve the biomedical research community in 

discussions of the health effects of climate change. Recently, NIH 

developed an initiative called the NIH Challenge Grants in Health and 

Science Research, which supports research on predictive climate change 

models and facilitates public health planning. Of particular interest to NIH 

are studies that quantify the current impacts of climate on a variety of 

communicable or noncommunicable diseases or studies that project the 

impacts of different climate and socioeconomic scenarios on health. 

 

14M. J. Savonis, V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter (eds.), Impacts of Climate Change and 

Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I, 

Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7 (SAP 4.4), a report for the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

15GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming 

Decades Are Potentially Significant, GAO-07-285 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2007). 

Page 10 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

EPA is also taking steps to ensure that public health needs are met in the 

context of climate change. For example, EPA helped produce an analysis 

that examined potential impacts of climate change on human society, 

opportunities for adaptation, and associated recommendations for 

addressing data gaps and research goals.16 In addition, EPA is working 

with agencies such as CDC, NIH, and NOAA to support the public health 

communities’ efforts to develop strategies for adapting to climate change. 

National security preparation: Federal agencies are beginning to study 

the potential consequences of climate change on national security. For 

example, the Department of Defense’s ongoing Quadrennial Defense 

Review is examining the capabilities of the armed forces to respond to the 

consequences of climate change—in particular, preparedness for natural 

disasters from extreme weather events, as is required by Section 951 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.17 This act also 

requires the department to develop guidance for military planners to 

assess the risk of projected climate change, update defense plans based on 

these assessments, and develop the capabilities needed to reduce future 

impacts. In October 2008, the Air Force participated in a Colloquium on 

National Security Implications of Climate Change sponsored by the U.S. 

Joint Forces Command. In addition, the Navy recently sponsored a Naval 

Studies Board study on the National Security Implications of Climate 

Change on U.S. Naval forces (Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard), to be 

completed in late 2010. This study is intended to help the Navy develop 

future robust climate change adaptation strategies. 

International assistance to developing countries: Some federal agencies 

are supporting preliminary adaptation planning efforts internationally. For 

example, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds 

climate change activities related to agriculture, water, forest, and coastal 

zone management in partner developing countries. To inform such 

activities, USAID produced two documents, an adaptation guidance 

manual and a coastal zone adaptation manual, which provide climate 

 

16J.L. Gamble (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J. Wilbanks, Analyses of the Effects of Global 

Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems, Synthesis and Assessment 

Product 4.6 (SAP 4.6), a report for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C., 2008. 

17National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 951, 122 

Stat. 290 (2008). 

Page 11 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

change tools and other information to planners in the developing world.18

In addition, USAID works with NASA to provide developing countries with 

climate change data to help support adaptation activities. For example, the 

two agencies use SERVIR, a high-tech regional satellite visualization and 

monitoring system for Central America, to provide a climate change 

scenario database, climate change maps indicating impacts on Central 

America’s biodiversity, a fire and smoke mapping and warning system, red 

tide alerts, and weather alerts. The U.S. Department of State’s and NOAA’s 

climate efforts also sustain adaptation initiatives worldwide. NOAA is 

supporting USAID programs in Asia, Latin America, and Africa by using a 

science-based approach to enhance governments’ abilities to understand, 

anticipate, and manage climate risk. In addition, Interior’s International 

Technical Assistance Program, funded through interagency agreements 

with USAID and the U.S. Department of State, provides training and 

technical assistance to developing countries.19

Governmentwide adaptation strategies: Currently, no single entity is 

coordinating climate change adaptation efforts across the federal 

government and there is a general lack of strategic coordination. However, 

several federal entities are beginning to develop governmentwide 

strategies to adapt to climate change. For example, the President’s Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is leading a new initiative to coordinate 

the federal response to climate change in conjunction with the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, NOAA, and other agencies. Similarly, the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which coordinates and 

integrates federal research on climate change, has developed a series of 

“building blocks” that outline options for future climate change work, 

 

18USAID, Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A Guidance Manual for 

Development Planning (August 2007) and Adapting to Coastal Climate Change: A 

Guidebook for Development Planners (May 2009). 

19In technical comments to this report, Interior also cited other programs that can assist in 

international adaptation, including (1) the Famine Early Warning System, which uses 

remote sensing to monitor floods and droughts in Africa, the Americas, and Afghanistan 

(USGS); (2) wildland fire cooperation with Mexico, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand 

(Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, FWS, Bureau of Indian Affairs); (3) 

integrated water resource management, dam operations and safety, irrigation, flood 

control, water conservation in arid ecosystems, and hydrologic monitoring in Africa, Asia, 

and the Middle East (Bureau of Reclamation, USGS); (4) 30 sister park relationships with 

20 countries that facilitate technical exchange and joint monitoring of protected 

ecosystems; (5) ecosystem monitoring, conservation of migratory and shared species with 

Mexico and Canada (FWS, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, USGS); and 

(6) conservation grants for elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, great apes, marine turtles, 

neotropical migratory birds, and waterfowl habitat (FWS). 

Page 12 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

including science to inform adaptation. The adaptation building block 

includes support and guidance for federal, regional, and local efforts to 

prepare for and respond to climate change, including characterizing the 

need for adaptation and developing, implementing, and evaluating 

adaptation approaches. 

Certain State and Local 

Governments Are 

Developing and 

Implementing Climate 

Change Adaptation 

Measures 

Many government authorities at the state and local levels have not yet 

begun to adapt to climate change. According to a recent NRC report, the 

response of governments at all levels, businesses and industries, and civil 

society is only starting, and much is still to be learned about the 

institutional, technological, and economic shifts that have begun.20 Some 

states have not yet started to consider mitigation or adaptation; others 

have developed plans but have not yet begun to implement them. 

However, certain governments are beginning to plan for the effects of 

climate change and to implement climate change adaptation measures. For 

example, California recently issued a draft climate adaptation strategy, 

which directs the state government to prepare for rising sea levels, 

increased wildfires, and other expected changes.21 A general review of 

state and local government adaptation planning efforts is available in two 

recent reports issued by nongovernment research groups.22

We visited three U.S. sites—New York City; King County, Washington; and 

the state of Maryland—where government officials have begun to plan for 

and respond to climate change impacts. The three locations are all 

addressing climate change adaptation to various extents. New York City is 

in the planning phases for its citywide efforts, although individual 

 

20National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on Strategies and Methods 

for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global 

Change, Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate (Washington, D.C., 2009). 

21California Natural Resources Agency, 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, 

Discussion Draft. 

22See Terri L. Cruce, Adaptation Planning: What U.S. States and Localities are Doing, a 

special report prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, November 2007 

(updated August 2009), available at http://www.pewclimate.org/working-papers/adaptation

and The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, A Survey 

of Climate Change Adaptation Planning (Washington, D.C., 2007), available at 

http://www.heinzctr.org/publications/meeting_reports.shtml. In addition, see Susanne C. 

Moser, Good Morning, America! The Explosive U.S. Awakening to the Need for 

Adaptation, a special report prepared at the request of the NOAA Coastal Services Center 

and the California Energy Commission, May 2009, available at 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/publications/need-for-adaptation.pdf. 

Page 13 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

departments have begun to implement specific actions, such as purchasing 

land in New York City’s watershed to improve the quality of its water 

supply. King County, Washington has, among other things, completed and 

begun to implement a comprehensive climate change plan, which includes 

an adaptation component. Maryland has released the first phase of its 

adaptation strategy, which is focused on sea level rise and coastal storms, 

reflecting sectors of immediate concern. 

Our analysis of these sites suggests three major factors have led these 

governments to act. First, natural disasters such as floods, heat waves, 

droughts, or hurricanes raised public awareness of the costs of potential 

climate change impacts. Second, leaders in all three sites used legislation, 

executive orders, local ordinances, or action plans to focus attention and 

resources on climate change adaptation. Finally, each of the governments 

had access to relevant site-specific information to provide a basis for 

planning and management efforts. This site-specific information arose 

from partnerships that decision makers at all three sites formed with local 

universities and other government and nongovernment entities. 

The following summaries describe the key factors that motivated these 

governments to act, the policies and laws that guide adaptation activities 

at each location, the programs and initiatives that are in place to address 

climate effects, the sources of site-specific information, and any 

partnerships that have assisted with adaptation activities. 

New York City’s adaptation efforts stemmed from a growing recognition of 

the vulnerability of the city’s infrastructure to natural disasters, such as 

the severe flooding in 2007 that led to widespread subway closures. The 

development of PlaNYC—a plan to accommodate a projected population 

growth of 1 million people, reduce citywide carbon emissions by 30 

percent, and make New York City a greener, more sustainable city by 

2030—also pushed city officials to think about the future, including the 

need for climate change adaptation. New York City’s extensive coastline 

and dense urban infrastructure makes it vulnerable to sea level rise; 

flooding; and other extreme weather, including heatwaves, which could 

become more common as a result of climate change. 

New York City, New York 

City officials took several steps to formalize a response to climate change. 

In 2008, the Mayor convened the New York City Panel on Climate Change 

(NPCC) to provide localized climate change projections and decision 

tools. The Mayor also invited public agencies and private companies to be 

part of the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, a 

public-private group charged with assessing climate effects on critical 

Page 14 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

infrastructure and developing adaptation strategies to reduce these risks. 

The Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, established by a 

local law in 2008, provides oversight of the city’s adaptation efforts, which 

are part of PlaNYC.23 In addition to citywide efforts, a number of municipal 

and regional agencies have begun to address climate change adaptation in 

their operations. 

To date, New York City’s adaptation efforts typically have been 

implemented as facilities are upgraded or as funding becomes available. 

For example, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), 

which manages water and wastewater infrastructure, has begun to address 

flood risks to its wastewater treatment facilities. These and other efforts 

are described in DEP’s 2008 Climate Change Program Assessment and 

Action Plan.

24 Many of New York City’s wastewater treatment plants, such 

as Tallman Island (see fig. 1) are vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding 

from storm surges because they are located in the floodplain next to the 

waterbodies into which they discharge. In response to this threat, DEP is, 

in the course of scheduled renovations, raising sensitive electrical 

equipment, such as pumps and motors, to higher levels to protect them 

from flood damage. 

 

23Local Law No. 17 (2008) of City of New York, § 2. 

24New York City Department of Environmental Protection Climate Change Program, with 

contributions by Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research and 

HydroQual Environmental Engineers & Scientists, P.C., Report 1: Assessment and Action 

Plan—A Report Based on the Ongoing Work of the DEP Climate Change Task Force (New 

York City, N.Y., 2008).

Page 15 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Figure 1: Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, Queens, New York City 

Source: GAO.

The Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant, located on the bank of the East River, is vulnerable

to flooding due to storm surges and sea level rise.

Other municipal departments are implementing climate change adaptation 

measures as well. For example, the Department of Parks and Recreation 

launched a pilot project in its Five Borough Technical Services Facility to 

experiment with different types of green roofs—vegetated plots on 

rooftops that absorb rainwater and moderate the effects of heatwaves (see 

fig. 2). According to an official at the Department of Parks and Recreation, 

the department plans to install green roofs in some of its recreation 

facilities in the next few years, since these facilities will be replacing their 

roofs. Green roofs are part of a suite of measures the city is exploring to 

control stormwater at the source (the location where the rain falls), rather 

than pipe it elsewhere. This can help reduce the need for more 

infrastructure investments in preparation for more intense rainstorms—

investments that can be very costly and that are not always feasible in the 

space available under the city streets. 

Page 16 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Figure 2: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Green Roofs at Five Borough Technical Services Facility 

Source: GAO.

Sedum (left) and native plants (right) are used in the green roof at the Five Borough Technical 

Services Facility.

New York City’s adaptation efforts have benefited from officials’ access to 

site-specific information, starting with the publication of a 2001 report for 

USGCRP, which provided a scientific assessment of climate change effects 

in the New York City metropolitan region.25 More recently, the city, 

through the financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation, created 

NPCC. According to its co-chairs, NPCC is charged with completing 

several decision-support documents, which will provide decision makers 

with information about local climate effects.26 In addition, the Mayor 

convened the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force to 

prepare a risk-based assessment of how climate change would affect the 

communication, energy, water and waste, transportation, and policy 

sectors, as well as the urban ecosystem and parks, and prioritize potential 

response strategies. Members of the task force, several of whom represent 

private industries, explained that they agreed to participate in the task 

 

25Columbia Earth Institute, Climate Change and a Global City: the Potential Consequences 

of Climate Variability and Change Metro East Coast, a special report prepared at the 

request of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, July 2001. 

26The first of these documents has been released. See NPCC, Climate Risk Information 

(New York City, N.Y., 2009). 

Page 17 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

force because the Mayor made this issue a priority. They noted that events 

such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005; the power outage in August 2003, which 

affected New York City as well as other locations in the United States and 

Canada; and the 2007 subway flooding raised their awareness about the 

effects of climate change on their operations. 

New York City partners with other state and local governments to share 

knowledge and implement climate change adaptation efforts. It is a 

charter member of the C40, a coalition of large cities around the world 

committed to addressing climate change. City agencies also share 

information with counterparts in other locations about specific concerns. 

For example, DEP shares information about addressing water-related 

climate change effects with the state of California and the Water Utility 

Climate Alliance, a national coalition of water and wastewater utilities. 

DEP coordinates with other state and local governments to address 

climate change effects on its watershed, which is located outside of city 

limits. Similarly, transportation agencies that serve New York City, such as 

the Metropolitan Transit Authority and New Jersey Transit, cross local and 

state boundaries and require coordination on a regional scale, which New 

York City addresses through its multijurisdictional task force. City officials 

and members of NPCC stated that a coherent federal response would 

further facilitate the development of common objectives across local and 

state jurisdictions. 

According to officials from the King County Department of Natural 

Resources and Parks (DNRP), the county took steps to adapt to climate 

change because its leadership was highly aware of climate impacts on the 

county and championed the need to take action. The county 

commissioned an internal study in 2005 that included each department’s 

projection of its operations in 2050, which focused attention on the need 

to prepare for future climate changes. The county also sponsored a 

conference in 2005 that brought together scientists, local and state 

officials, the private sector, and the public to discuss the impacts of 

climate change.27 This conference served to educate the public and 

officials and spur action. 

King County, Washington 

 

27Lia Ossiander and Kevin Rennert, “Impacts of Climate Change on Washington State: 

Summary of Plenary Sessions” (prepared for The Future Ain’t What it Used to Be: 

Planning for Climate Disruption conference in 2005, sponsored by King County, Seattle, 

Wash., October 2005). 

Page 18 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Officials from DNRP noted that recent weather events increased the 

urgency of certain adaptive actions. For example, in November 2006, the 

county experienced severe winter storms that caused a series of levees to 

crack. The levees had long needed repair, but the storm damage helped 

increase support for the establishment of a countywide flood control zone 

district, funded by a dedicated property tax.28 The flood control zone 

district will use the funds, in part, to upgrade flood protection facilities, 

which will increase the county’s resilience to future flooding. In addition 

to more severe winter storms, the county expects that climate change will 

lead to sea level rise; reduced snowpack; and summertime extreme 

weather such as heat waves and drought, which can lead to power 

shortages because hydropower is an important source of power in the 

region. 

The county’s first formal step toward adaptation was a climate change 

plan developed in 2007.29 The county executive also issued several 

executive orders that call for, among other things, the evaluation of 

climate impacts in the State Environmental Policy Act reviews conducted 

by county departments and the consideration of global warming 

adaptation in county operations, such as transportation, waste and 

wastewater infrastructure, and land use planning.30 For example, King 

County officials told us that during the construction of the Brightwater 

wastewater treatment plant, DNRP’s Wastewater Treatment Division 

added a pipeline that could convey approximately 7 million gallons per day 

of reclaimed water to industrial and agricultural users upon completion in 

2011. They also said that additional reclaimed water could be made 

available in the future as the need arises. The division is also addressing 

the effects of sea level rise by, for example, increasing the elevation of 

vulnerable facilities during design and installing flaps to prevent backflow 

into its pipelines. Additionally, in 2008, the county incorporated 

 

28King County Ordinance 15728 (Apr. 25, 2007). The district is funded by a countywide ad 

valorem property tax levy of 10 cents per $1,000 assessed value. 

29King County, 2007 Climate Plan (Seattle, Wash., 2007). 

30See King County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-8 (Mar. 22, 2006) (Executive Order on Land Use 

Strategies for Global Warming Preparedness); King County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-7 (Mar. 

22, 2006) (Executive Order on Environmental Management Strategies for Global Warming 

Preparedness); King County Exec. Order No. PUT 7-10-1 (Aug. 31, 2007) (Evaluation of 

Climate Change Impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act). 

Page 19 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

consideration of climate change into the revision of its Comprehensive 

Plan, which guides land use decisions throughout the county.31

King County officials told us that each county department convened 

internal teams that identify climate change initiatives and report to the 

King County Executive Action Group on Climate Change on their progress. 

For example, the county’s Department of Transportation Road Services 

Division started a Climate Change Team in 2008, which identified several 

initiatives in response to projections for more intense storms, including 

investigating new approaches to stormwater treatment. Specifically, the 

Road Services Division is piloting a roadside rain garden, which captures 

and filters rainwater using vegetation and certain types of soil, to 

determine whether more of such installations could improve the onsite 

management of stormwater runoff, as compared to a traditional 

engineering approach, which would pipe the water to a pond or holding 

vault and then discharge it to an offsite waterbody (see fig. 3). Alongside 

the rain garden, a permeable concrete sidewalk will absorb additional rain 

that would normally flow off a traditional impervious sidewalk into 

adjacent property. The rain garden and permeable sidewalk are 

considered examples of “low-impact development,” which are expected to 

help the county adapt to increased rainfall by reducing peak surface water 

flows from road surfaces by about 33 percent. The Road Services Division 

is also implementing other measures that could improve its response to 

storms, such as installing larger culverts, improving its ability to detect 

hazardous road conditions (for example, due to flooding), and 

communicating those conditions to maintenance staff and the general 

public. 

 

31King County, King County Comprehensive Plan 2008 (October 2008). 

Page 20 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Figure 3: Rain Garden in King County, Washington 

Source: King County Department of Transportation Road Services Division.

This rain garden, which is under construction, treats roadway runoff using natural vegetation and

certain types of soil.

County officials receive information on climate change effects from a 

number of sources. The University of Washington Climate Impacts Group 

(CIG), funded by NOAA’s RISA program, has had a long-standing 

relationship with county officials and works closely with them to provide 

regionally specific climate change data and modeling, such as a 2009 

assessment of climate impacts in Washington, as well as decision-making 

tools.32 For example, the CIG Web site provides a Climate Change 

Streamflow Scenario Tool, which allows water planners in the Columbia 

River basin to compare historical records with climate change scenarios. 

Similarly, according to its faculty, the Washington State University 

 

32University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate (Seattle, 

Wash., 2009). 

Page 21 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Extension Office works with the county and CIG to provide climate 

change information to the agricultural and forestry sectors, both of which 

will be increasingly affected by insect infestation due to increases in 

temperatures. The university’s Extension Office also provides direct 

technical assistance to landowners affected by these impacts. King County 

officials, according to the director of DNRP, also share information about 

climate change adaptation with other localities through several 

partnership efforts, including the Center for Clean Air Policy Urban 

Leaders Adaptation Initiative. 

The Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

told us that Maryland began to work on climate change adaptation 

because of the state’s vulnerability to coastal flooding due to sea level rise 

and severe storms. The Maryland coastline is particularly vulnerable due 

to a combination of global sea level rise and local land subsidence, or 

sinking, among other factors. It has already experienced a sea level rise of 

about 1 foot in the last 100 years, which led to the disappearance of 13 

Chesapeake Bay islands. According to a recent state report, a 2- to 3-foot 

sea level rise could submerge thousands of acres of tidal wetlands; lowlying lands; and Smith Island in the Chesapeake Bay.33 These ongoing 

concerns, along with widespread flooding caused by Hurricane Isabel in 

2003, have increased awareness of climate change effects in the state. 

Maryland 

Maryland officials have taken a number of steps to formalize their 

response to climate change effects. An executive order in 2007 established 

the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, which released the 

Maryland Climate Action Plan in 2008.34 As part of this effort, DNR chaired 

an Adaptation and Response Working Group, which issued a report on sea 

level rise and coastal storms.35 The 2008 Maryland Climate Action Plan 

calls for future adaptation strategy development to cover other sectors 

such as agriculture and human health. 

 

33Maryland Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Response Working Group, 

Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Climate Change 

Phase I: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storms (Annapolis, Md., 2008). 

34Maryland Commission on Climate Change, Climate Action Plan (Annapolis, Md., 2008). 

35Maryland Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Response Working Group, 

Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Climate Change 

Phase I: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storms. 

Page 22 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Maryland also enacted several legislative measures that address coastal 

concerns, including the Living Shoreline Protection Act of 2008, which 

generally requires the use of nonstructural shoreline stabilization 

measures instead of “hard” structures such as bulkheads and retaining 

walls (see fig. 4).36 According to a Maryland official, as sea level rises there 

will be a greater need for shore protection. Living shorelines provide such 

protection, while also maintaining coastal processes and providing aquatic 

habitat. The Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area 

Protection law was also amended to, among other things, require the state 

to update the maps used to determine the boundary of the critical areas at 

least once every 12 years.37 Previously, the critical areas were based on a 

map drawn in 1972 that did not reflect changes caused by sea level rise or 

other coastal erosion processes. 

 

362008 Md. Laws 304, codified at Md. Envir. § 16-201. 

372008 Md. Laws 119, codified at Md. Nat. Res. § 8-1807. Critical areas are determined by 

local jurisdictions and approved by the Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and 

Atlantic Coastal Bays, but the initial planning area included all waters and lands under the 

Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coastal Bays and their tributaries and all land and water 

areas within 1,000 feet beyond the landward boundaries of state or private wetlands and 

heads of tides. 

Page 23 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Figure 4: A Living Shoreline, Annapolis, Maryland 

Source: GAO.

This living shoreline uses marsh plants and other natural features to protect the shore from erosion.

According to officials from DNR, the department is modifying several 

existing programs to ensure that the state is taking the effects of climate 

change into account. For example, an official from DNR told us that it is 

incorporating climate change into its ranking criteria for state land 

conservation. Specifically, this official said that DNR plans to prioritize 

coastal habitat for potential acquisition according to its suitability for 

marsh migration, among other factors. Additionally, Maryland is providing 

guidance to coastal counties to assist them with incorporating the effects 

of climate change into their planning documents. For example, DNR 

funded guidance documents to three coastal counties, Dorchester, 

Somerset, and Worcester Counties, on how to address sea level rise and 

Page 24 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

other coastal hazards in their local ordinances and planning efforts.38

Furthermore, in spring 2009, DNR officials participated in a public 

Somerset County sea level rise workshop designed to raise the awareness 

of county residents. Officials discussed what sea level rise projections 

could mean to the county, including the inundation of some of its coastal 

infrastructure and salt marsh habitat (see fig. 5), and described some of 

the state initiatives to address these effects. Finally, officials with the DNR 

Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division told us they are 

considering expanding their monitoring of sentinel sites—pristine streams 

where changing conditions can help detect localized impacts of climate 

change. 

 

38Wanda Diane Cole, Maryland Eastern Shore Resource Conservation & Development 

Council, Sea Level Rise: Technical Guidance for Dorchester County, a special report 

prepared at the request of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, March 2008; 

URS and RCQuinn Consulting, Inc., Somerset County Maryland Rising Sea Level 

Guidance, a special report prepared at the request of Somerset County, Maryland, 

Annapolis, Md., 2008; and CSA International Inc., Sea Level Rise Response Strategy 

Worcester County, Maryland, a special report prepared at the request of Worcester 

County, Maryland Department of Comprehensive Planning, September 2008. 

Page 25 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Figure 5: Salt Marsh in Somerset County, Maryland 

Source: GAO.

Salt marshes in Somerset County provide important habitat to migrating waterfowl and other species;

they are at risk of inundation due to sea level rise.

Maryland draws on local universities, federal agencies, and others to 

access information relevant to climate change. For example, in 2008, 

scientists from the University of Maryland chaired and participated in the 

Scientific and Technical Working Group of the Maryland Commission on 

Climate Change. Faculty from the University of Maryland also provide 

technical information to the state government and legislature on an 

ongoing basis. Maryland receives grants and additional technical 

assistance from the federal government and collaborates with federal 

agencies and local universities to collect and disseminate data relevant to 

climate change adaptation. Specifically, Maryland used local, state, and 

federal resources to map its coastline using Light Detection and Ranging 

technology and has made this information, as well as a number of tools 

that can be used by the public and decision makers, readily available in the 

Page 26 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Maryland Shorelines Online Web site.39 For example, an interactive 

mapping application called Shoreline Changes Online allows users to 

access historic shoreline data to determine erosion trends.40

Some Countries Have 

Begun to Adapt to Climate 

Change 

Limited adaptation efforts are also taking root in other countries around 

the world. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 

Fourth Assessment Report found that some adaptation measures are being 

implemented in both developing and developed countries, but that many 

of these measures are in the preliminary stages.41 As in the case of the state 

and local efforts described earlier, some of these adaptation efforts have 

been triggered by the recognition that current weather extremes and 

seasonal changes will become more frequent in the future. For example, 

recognizing the hazards of rising temperatures, efforts are under way in 

Nepal to drain the expanding Tsho Rolpa glacial lake to reduce flood risk. 

Similarly, in response to reduced snow cover and glacial retreat, the 

winter tourism industry in the European Alpine region has implemented a 

number of measures, such as building reservoirs to support artificial 

snowmaking. 

A number of countries have begun to assess their vulnerability to climate 

change impacts and formulate national responses. For example, Canada 

issued a report in 2008 that discusses the current and future risks and 

opportunities that climate change presents, primarily from a regional 

perspective.42 Australia recently issued guidance to local governments 

about expected climate change projections, impacts, and potential 

responses.43 In addition, under the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change, least-developed countries can receive funding to 

develop National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA)—38 NAPAs 

 

39See http://shorelines.dnr.state.md.us. Maryland Shorelines Online is a coastal hazards 

Web portal, centralizing information and data on shoreline and coastal hazards 

management in Maryland. 

40See http://shorelines.dnr.state.md.us/sc_online.asp. 

41Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007). 

42Government of Canada, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 

2007 (Ottawa, Ontario, 2008). 

43Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Climate Change Adaptation 

Actions for Local Government (Canberra, Australia, 2009). 

Page 27 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

had been completed as of October 2008. The NAPAs communicate the 

country’s priority activities addressing the urgent and immediate needs 

and concerns relating to adaptation to the adverse effects of climate 

change. 

In order to provide an in-depth example of a climate change adaptation 

effort outside of the United States, we selected the United Kingdom as a 

case study to better understand some of the actions that government 

officials can take to adapt to climate change. We selected the United 

Kingdom because it has initiated a coordinated climate change adaptation 

response at the national, regional, and local levels. 

Over the past decade, the issuance of prominent reports and the fallout 

from major weather events created awareness among government officials 

of the need for the United Kingdom to adapt to inevitable changes to the 

nation’s climate. For example, in 2002, the London Climate Change 

Partnership, a stakeholder-led group coordinated by the Greater London 

Authority, issued a report called London’s Warming, which detailed the 

expected impacts of climate change and the key challenges to addressing 

it.44 In addition, the 2006 Stern Review of the economics of climate change 

helped accelerate the national government’s efforts to adapt.45 These and 

other reports show that the United Kingdom could experience a variety of 

climate change effects in the future, including dry summers, wet winters, 

coastal erosion, and sea level rise. 

In fact, the United Kingdom is already experiencing severe weather events. 

For example, in 2006, a dry period brought about water restrictions in 

London. The following year, large-scale flooding in the United Kingdom 

highlighted the need to respond to climate change and led to the Pitt 

Review, which examined resilience to flooding in the United Kingdom.46 In 

addition, the nation’s insurance sector, which currently offers 

comprehensive flood insurance coverage, has raised concerns about the 

growing flood risk and asked for government action. 

 

44London Climate Change Partnership. London’s Warming: The Impacts of Climate 

Change on London (London, United Kingdom, November 2002). 

45Nicholas Stern, Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (October 2006). 

46Michael Pitt, Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods (June 2008). 

Page 28 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

In response to these concerns, the United Kingdom enacted national 

climate change legislation in 2008.47 The law requires the British Secretary 

of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to report periodically to 

Parliament with a risk assessment of the current and predicted impacts of 

climate change and to propose programs and policies for climate change 

adaptation. The law also authorizes the national government to require 

certain public authorities, such as water companies, to report on their 

assessment of the current and predicted impact of climate change in 

relation to the authority’s functions as well as their proposals and policies 

for adapting to climate change. According to Department for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) officials, the government department 

responsible for leading action on adaptation, an independent expert 

subcommittee of the Committee on Climate Change is to provide technical 

advice and oversee these efforts. The United Kingdom is also working with 

the European Union to incorporate climate change into its decisions and 

policies. 

In the United Kingdom, different levels of government report working 

together to ensure that climate change considerations are incorporated 

into decision making. For example, the Government Office for London 

chairs the national government’s Local and Regional Adaptation 

Partnership Board, which aims to facilitate climate change adaptation at 

local and regional levels by highlighting best practices and encouraging 

information sharing among local and regional officials. According to 

DEFRA officials, the primary role of the national government is to provide 

information, raise awareness, and encourage others to take action, not 

dictate how to adapt. In response to the United Kingdom’s 2008 Climate 

Change Act, DEFRA officials said they are preparing a national risk 

assessment and conducting economic analyses to quantify the costs and 

benefits of adaptive actions. DEFRA officials said that these steps are to 

assist adaptation efforts undertaken by the national government, local 

government officials, and the private sector. 

Adaptation activities are driven in part by the use of national performance 

measures, which affect local funding, and national government programs, 

according to DEFRA officials. The national government recently 

introduced a national adaptation indicator, which measures how well local 

governments are adapting to climate change risk. Performance measured 

by this and other indicators is the basis for national grants to local 

 

47Climate Change Act 2008, ch. 27 (Eng.). 

Page 29 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

governments. Individual government agencies are also developing and 

implementing their own plans to address climate change effects. For 

example, the Environment Agency, which is responsible for environmental 

protection in England and Wales, as well as flood defense and water 

resource management, has initiatives in place to reduce water use to 

increase resilience to drought. It is also addressing flood risk, most 

notably with the Thames Barrier, a series of flood gates that protect 

London from North Sea storms (see fig. 6). 

The Thames Barrier is a flood control system 

designed by the Greater London Council to 

respond to severe floods in 1953. The 

Thames Estuary 2100 plan, which was

released for public comment on March 31, 

2009, was undertaken to determine whether 

London’s flood control infrastructure, 

including the Thames Barrier, can continue to 

protect London given the projections for sea

level rise and expected development. The 

Environment Agency, which operates the 

barrier, relied on models of sea level rise to 

determine that continuation of current 

operations with some marginal improvements, such as using the barrier’s gates’ 

ability to “over-rotate,” combined with other 

measures throughout the floodplain, would be 

sufficient at this time. The plan includes a

monitoring component and a schedule to take 

further action later this century.

Figure 6: The Thames Barrier, London, United Kingdom 

Source: GAO.

Bottom: Thames Barrier piers (the gates are 

underwater between the piers); top: a Thames

Barrier gate rotated out of the water.

The United Kingdom’s climate change initiatives are built around locally 

relevant information generated centrally by two primary sources. The 

United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP), a primarily 

publicly funded program housed in Oxford University, generates 

stakeholder-centered climate change decision-making tools and facilitates 

responses to climate change. UKCIP works with national, regional, and 

local users of climate data to increase awareness and encourage actions. 

For example, Hampshire County, in southern England, used climate 

scenarios generated by UKCIP to complete a test of the county’s 

sensitivity to weather and other emergency scenarios. The Met Office 

Hadley Centre, a government-funded climate research center, generates 

climate science information and develops models. According to a United 

Page 30 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Kingdom official, the Met Office Hadley Centre generated the bulk of the 

science for the UK Climate Projections 2009, while UKCIP, among others, 

provided user guidance and training to facilitate the use of these data.48

Regional and international partnerships have also played a significant role 

in providing guidance to further climate change adaptation efforts in the 

United Kingdom. For example, Government Office for London officials 

told us that the Three Regions Climate Change Group (which includes the 

East of England, South East of England, and London) has set up a group to 

promote retrofitting of existing homes. The group produced a report, 

which provided a checklist for developers, case studies, a good practices 

guide, and a breakdown of the costs involved.49 On an international scale, 

Greater London Authority officials stated that they are working with cities 

such as Tokyo, Toronto, and New York City to share knowledge about 

climate change adaptation. In addition, a Hampshire County Council 

official told us about the county’s participation in the European Spatial 

Planning—Adapting to Climate Events project, which provided policy 

guidance and decision-making tools to governments from several 

countries on incorporating adaptation into planning decisions. 

The challenges faced by federal, state, and local officials in their efforts to 

adapt fell into three categories, based on our analysis of questionnaire 

results, site visits, and available studies. First, available attention and 

resources are focused on more immediate needs, making it difficult for 

adaptation efforts to compete for limited funds. Second, insufficient sitespecific data, such as local projections of expected changes, makes it hard 

to predict the impacts of climate change, and thus hard for officials to 

justify the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain 

future benefits. Third, adaptation efforts are constrained by a lack of clear 

roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies. 

Federal, State, and 

Local Officials Face 

Numerous Challenges 

When Considering 

Climate Change 

Adaptation Efforts 

 

48The UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) provide climate information for the United 

Kingdom up to the end of this century. See http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/. 

49Your Home in a Changing Climate: Retrofitting Existing Homes for Climate Change 

Impacts, a special report prepared at the request of the Three Regions Climate Change 

Group, February 2008. 

Page 31 GAO-10-113 
 

Competing Priorities Make 

It Difficult to Use Limited 

Funds on Adaptation 

Efforts 

Competing priorities limit the ability of officials to respond to the impacts 

of climate change, based on our analysis of Web-based questionnaire 

results, site visits, and available studies. We asked federal, state, and local 

officials to rate specific challenges related to awareness and priorities as 

part of our questionnaire. Table 2 presents the percentage of federal, state, 

and local respondents who rated these challenges as very or extremely 

challenging in our questionnaire. Appendix III includes a more detailed 

summary of federal, state, and local officials’ responses to the 

questionnaire. 

Table 2: Percentage of Challenges Related to Awareness and Priorities Rated as Very or Extremely Challenging 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when considering 

climate change adaptation efforts? 

Total 

responsesa

Percentage who rated as 

very or extremely 

challengingb

Lack of funding for adaptation efforts 179 83.8

Non-adaptation activities are higher priorities 180 71.1

Lack of clear priorities for allocating resources for adaptation activities 181 70.2

Lack of public awareness or knowledge of adaptation 184 61.4

Lack of a specific mandate to address climate change adaptation 182 57.7

Lack of awareness or knowledge of adaptation among government officials 182 57.7

Lack of clarity about what activities are considered adaptation 181 55.2

Difficult to define adaptation goals and performance metrics 181 55.8

Lack of qualified staff to work on adaptation efforts 181 50.3

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question using numerical 

ratings, ranging from (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The percentage column represents the number of officials rating each challenge as (4) very 

challenging or (5) extremely challenging divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by 

officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

The highest rated challenge identified by respondents was an overall lack 

of funding for adaptation efforts. This problem is coupled with the 

competing priorities of more immediate concerns. 

Lack of funding: The government officials who responded to our 

questionnaire identified the lack of funding for adaptation efforts as both 

the top challenge related to awareness and priorities and the top overall 

challenge explored in our questionnaire. Several respondents wrote that 

lack of funding limited their ability to identify and respond to the impacts 

of climate change, with one noting, for example, that “we have the tools, 

but we just need the funding and leadership to act.” A state official 

Page 32 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

similarly said that “we need a large and dedicated funding source for 

adaptation. It’s going to take 5 to 10 years of funding to get a body of 

information that will help planning in the long run. We need to start doing 

that planning and research now.” Several studies also suggested that it will 

be difficult, if not impossible, for any agency to approach the tasks 

associated with adaptation without permanent, dedicated funding. For 

example, a recent federal report on adaptation options for climatesensitive ecosystems and resources stated that a lack of sufficient 

resources may pose a significant barrier to adaptation efforts.50

Officials also cited lack of funding as a challenge during our site visits. For 

example, King County officials said that they do not have resources 

budgeted directly for addressing climate change. Instead, the county tries 

to meet its adaptation goals by shifting staff and reprioritizing goals. The 

county officials said it was difficult to take action without dedicated 

funding because some adaptation options are perceived to be very 

expensive, and that if available funding cannot support the consideration 

of adaptation options then the old ways of doing business would remain 

the norm. 

Competing priorities: Respondents’ concerns over an overall lack of 

funding for adaptation efforts was further substantiated, and perhaps 

explained, by their ratings of challenges related to the priority of 

adaptation relative to other concerns. Specifically, about 71 percent (128 

of 180) of the respondents rated the challenge “non-adaptation activities 

are higher priorities” as very or extremely challenging. The responses of 

federal, state, and local respondents differed for this challenge. 

Specifically, about 79 percent (37 of 47) of state officials and nearly 76 

percent (44 of 58) of local officials who responded to the question rated 

“non-adaptation activities are higher priorities” as very or extremely 

challenging, compared with about 61 percent (44 of 72) of the responding 

federal officials.51

 

50S.H. Julius, 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, Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options 

for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, SAP 4.4. 

51Differences by level of government (federal, state, and local) that are reported are for 

illustrative purposes and may not be statistically different. We present selected examples 

where the difference between federal, state, or local responses is greater than 15 percent 

and the difference presents useful context for the overall results. There were other 

differences by level of government that are not presented in this report. 

Page 33 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Several federal, state, and local officials noted in their narrative comments 

in our questionnaire how difficult it is to convince managers of the need to 

plan for long-term adaptation when they are responsible for more urgent 

concerns that have short-term decision-making time frames. One federal 

official explained that “it all comes down to resource prioritization. 

Election and budget cycles complicate long-term planning such as 

adaptation will require. Without clear top-down leadership setting this as a 

priority, projects with benefits beyond the budget cycle tend to get raided 

to pay current-year bills to deliver results in this political cycle.” Several 

other officials who responded to our questionnaire expressed similar 

sentiments. A recent NRC report similarly concluded that, in some cases, 

decision makers do not prioritize adaptation because they do not 

recognize the link to climate change in the day-to-day decisions that they 

make.52

Our August 2007 report on climate change on federal lands shows how 

climate change impacts compete for the attention of decision makers with 

more immediate priorities.53 This report found that resource management 

agencies did not, at that time, make climate change a priority, nor did their 

agencies’ strategic plans specifically address climate change. Resource 

managers explained that they had a wide range of responsibilities and that 

without their management designating climate change as a priority, they 

focused first on near-term priorities. 

Our questionnaire results and site visits demonstrate that public 

awareness can play an important role in the prioritization of adaptation 

efforts. About 61 percent (113 of 184) of the officials who responded to 

our questionnaire rated “lack of public awareness or knowledge of 

adaptation” as either very or extremely challenging. The need to adapt to 

climate change is a complicated issue to communicate with the public 

because the impacts vary by location and may occur well into the future. 

For example, officials in Maryland told us that, while the public may be 

aware that climate change will affect the polar ice cap, people do not 

realize that it will also affect Maryland. New York City officials said that it 

is easier to engage the public once climate change effects are translated 

 

52National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on Strategies and Methods 

for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global 

Change, Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. 

53GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on 

Federal Land and Water Resources, GAO-07-863 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 7, 2007). 

Page 34 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

into specific concerns, such as subway flooding. They said the term 

climate change adaptation can seem too abstract to the public. 

Lack of Site-Specific 

Information Limits 

Adaptation Efforts 

As summarized in table 3 and corroborated by our site visits and available 

studies, a lack of site-specific information—including information about 

the future benefits of adaptation activities—limits the ability of officials to 

respond to the impacts of climate change. See appendix III for a more 

detailed summary of federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our 

Web-based questionnaire. 

Table 3: Percentage of Challenges Related to Information Rated as Very or Extremely Challenging 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when considering climate change 

adaptation efforts? 

Total 

responsesa

Percentage who 

rated as very or 

extremely 

challengingb

Justifying the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future benefits 179 79.3

Size and complexity of future climate change impacts 180 76.7

Translating available climate information (e.g., projected temperature, precipitation) into impacts 

at the local level (e.g., increased stream flow) 

182 74.7

Availability of climate information at relevant scale (i.e., downscaled regional and local 

information) 

179 74.3

Understanding the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts 180 70

Lack of information about thresholds (i.e., limits beyond which recovery is impossible or difficult) 175 64.6

Making management and policy decisions with uncertainty about future effects of climate change 184 64.1

Lack of baseline monitoring data to enable evaluation of adaptation actions (i.e., inability to 

detect change) 

181 62.4

Lack of certainty about the timing of climate change impacts 180 57.2

Accessibility and usability of available information on climate impacts and adaptation 182 53.3

Size and complexity of current climate change impacts 179 48.6

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question using numerical 

ratings, ranging from (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The percentage column represents the number of officials rating each challenge as (4) very 

challenging or (5) extremely challenging divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by 

officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

These challenges generally fit into two main categories: (1) the difficulty in 

justifying the current costs of adaptation with limited information about 

future benefits and (2) translating climate data—such as projected 

temperature and precipitation changes—into information that officials 

need to make decisions. 

Page 35 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Justifying current costs with limited information about future benefits:

Respondents rated “justifying the current costs of adaptation efforts for 

potentially less certain future benefits” as the greatest challenge related to 

information and as the second greatest of all the challenges we asked 

about. They rated the “size and complexity of future climate change 

impacts” as the second greatest challenge related to information.54 These 

concerns are not new. In fact, a 1993 report on climate change adaptation 

by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment posed the 

following question within its overall discussion of the issue: “why adopt a 

policy today to adapt to a climate change effect that may not occur, for 

which there is significant uncertainty about impacts, and for which 

benefits of the anticipatory measure may not be seen for decades?”55

Several officials shared similar reactions in written responses to our 

questionnaire. For example, one local official asked, “How do we justify 

added expenses in a period of limited resources when the benefits are not 

clear?” 

While the costs of policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change may be 

considerable, it is difficult to estimate the costs of inaction—costs which 

could be much greater, according to a recent NRC report.56 This report 

cites the long time horizon associated with climate change, coupled with 

deep uncertainties associated with forecasts and projections, among other 

issues, as aspects of climate change that are challenging for decision 

making. Several officials who responded to our questionnaire noted 

similar concerns. For example, one federal official stated that decision 

makers needed to confront “the reality that the future will not echo the 

past and that we will forever be managing under future uncertainty.” 

 

54About 77 percent of the officials who responded to our questionnaire rated the “size and 

complexity of future climate change impacts” as very or extremely challenging, whereas 

only about 49 percent of the officials rated the “size and complexity of current climate 

change impacts” similarly. 

55While noting that it may be appealing to delay adaptation actions given uncertainty 

associated with where, when, and how much change will occur, the report also states that 

delay may leave the nation poorly prepared to deal with the changes that do occur and may 

increase the possibility of impacts that are irreversible or otherwise very costly. See U.S. 

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing for an Uncertain Climate—

Volume I, OTA-O-567 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1993). 

56National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on Strategies and Methods 

for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global 

Change, Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. 

Page 36 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Of particular importance in adaptation are planning decisions involving 

physical infrastructure projects, which require large capital investments 

and which, by virtue of their anticipated lifespan, will have to be resilient 

to changes in climate for many decades.57 The long lead time and long life 

of large infrastructure investments require such decisions to be made well 

before climate change effects are discernable. For example, the United 

Kingdom Environment Agency’s Thames 2100 Plan, which was released 

for consultation in April 2009, maps out necessary maintenance and 

operations needs for the Thames Barrier until 2070, at which point major 

changes will be required. Since constructing flood gates is a long-term 

process (the current barrier was finished 30 years after officials first 

identified a need for it), officials said they need the information now, even 

if the threat will not materialize until later. 

Translating climate data into site-specific information: The process of 

providing useful information to officials making decisions about 

adaptation can be summarized in several steps. 

First, data from global-scale models must be “downscaled” to provide 

climate information at a geographic scale relevant to decision makers. 

About 74 percent (133 of 179) of the officials who responded to our 

questionnaire rated “availability of climate information at relevant scale 

(i.e., downscaled regional and local information)” as very or extremely 

challenging. In addition, according to one federal respondent, “until we 

better understand what the impacts of climate change will be at spatial 

(and temporal) scales below what the General Circulation Models predict 

for the global scale, it will be difficult to identify specific adaptation 

strategies that respond to specific impacts.”58

Our August 2007 report on climate change on federal lands demonstrated 

that resource managers did not have sufficient site-specific information to 

plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the federal resources 

 

57Government of Canada, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 

2007 (Ottawa, Ontario, 2008). 

58A General Circulation Model (GCM) is a global, three-dimensional computer model of the 

climate system which can be used to simulate human-induced climate change. GCMs are 

highly complex and they represent the effects of such factors as reflective and absorptive 

properties of atmospheric water vapor, greenhouse gas concentrations, clouds, annual and 

daily solar heating, ocean temperatures, and ice boundaries. The most recent GCMs include 

global representations of the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface. 

Page 37 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

they oversee.59 In particular, the managers lacked computational models 

for local projections of expected changes. For example, at that time, 

officials at the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary said that they 

lacked adequate modeling and scientific information to enable managers 

to predict change on a small scale, such as that occurring within the 

sanctuary. Without such models, the managers’ options were limited to 

reacting to already-observed effects. 

Second, climate information must be translated into impacts at the local 

level, such as increased stream flow. About 75 percent (136 of 182) of the 

respondents rated “translating available climate information (e.g., 

projected temperature, precipitation) into impacts at the local level (e.g., 

increased stream flow)” as very or extremely challenging. Some 

respondents and officials interviewed during our site visits said that it is 

challenging to link predicted temperature and precipitation changes to 

specific impacts. For example, one federal respondent said that “we often 

lack fundamental information on how ecological systems/species respond 

to non-climate change related anthropogenic stresses, let alone how they 

will respond to climate change.” Such predictions may not easily or 

directly match the information needs that could inform management 

decisions. For example, Maryland officials told us they do not have 

information linking climate model information, such as temperature and 

precipitation changes, to biological impacts, such as changes to tidal 

marshes. Similarly, King County officials said they are not sure how to 

translate climate change information into effects on salmon recovery 

efforts. Specifically, they said that there is incomplete information about 

how climate change may affect stream temperatures, stream flows, and 

other factors important to salmon recovery. 

However, multiple respondents said that it was not necessary to have 

specific, detailed, downscaled modeling to manage for adaptation in the 

short term. For example, one federal respondent said that although 

modeling projections will get better over time, there will always be 

elements of uncertainty in how systems and species will react to climate 

change. Interestingly, federal, state, and local respondents perceived the 

challenges posed by site-specific information needs differently. About 85 

percent (60 of 71) of the federal officials that responded to the question 

rated “translating available climate information into impacts at the local 

level” as very or extremely challenging, compared to around 75 percent 

 

59GAO-07-863. 

Page 38 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

(35 of 47) of the state officials and around 66 percent (40 of 59) of the local 

officials who responded. 

Third, local impacts must be translated into costs and benefits, since this 

information is required for many decision-making processes. Almost 70 

percent (126 of 180) of the respondents to our questionnaire rated 

“understanding the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts” as very or 

extremely challenging. As noted by one local government respondent, it is 

important to understand the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts so 

they can be evaluated relative to other priorities. In addition, a federal 

respondent said that tradeoffs between costs and benefits are an 

important component to making decisions under uncertainty. 

Fourth, decision makers need baseline monitoring data to evaluate 

adaptation actions over time. Nearly 62 percent (113 of 181) of the 

respondents to our questionnaire rated the “lack of baseline monitoring 

data to enable evaluation of adaptation actions (i.e., inability to detect 

change)” as very or extremely challenging, one of the lower ratings for this 

category of challenges. As summarized by a recent NRC report, officials 

will need site-specific and relevant baselines of environmental, social, and 

economic information against which past and current decisions can be 

monitored, assessed, and changed.60 Future decision-making success will 

be judged on how quickly and effectively numerous ongoing decisions can 

be adjusted to changing circumstances. For example, according to 

Maryland officials, the state lacks baseline data on certain key Chesapeake 

Bay species such as blue crab and striped bass, so it will be difficult to 

determine how climate change will affect them or if proposed adaptation 

measures were successful. Similarly, our August 2007 report on climate 

change on federal lands showed that resource managers generally lacked 

detailed inventories and monitoring systems to provide them with an 

adequate baseline understanding of the plant and animal species that 

existed on the resources they manage.61 Without such information, it was 

difficult for managers to determine whether observed changes were within 

the normal range of variability. 

 

60National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on Strategies and Methods 

for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global 

Change, Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. 

61GAO-07-863. 

Page 39 GAO-10-113 
 

Adaptation Efforts Are 

Constrained by a Lack of 

Clear Roles and 

Responsibilities 

A lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing adaptation across 

all levels of government limits adaptation efforts, based on our analysis of 

federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our Web-based 

questionnaire, site visits, and relevant studies. Table 4 presents 

respondents’ views on how challenging different aspects of the structure 

and operation of the federal government are to adaptation efforts. See 

appendix III for a more detailed summary of federal, state, and local 

officials’ responses to our Web-based questionnaire. 

Table 4: Percentage of Challenges Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government Rated as Very or 

Extremely Challenging 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when considering climate 

change adaptation efforts? 

Total 

responsesa

Percentage who rated 

as very or extremely 

challengingb

Lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing adaptation across all levels of 

government (i.e., adaptation is everyone’s problem but nobody’s direct responsibility) 

178 69.7

The authority and capability to adapt is spread among many federal agencies (i.e., 

institutional fragmentation) 

176 58

Lack of federal guidance or policies on how to make decisions related to adaptation 176 52.3

Existing federal policies, programs, or practices that hinder adaptation efforts 150 42.7

Federal statutory, regulatory, or other legal constraints on adaptation efforts 152 36.2

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question using numerical 

ratings, ranging from (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging, out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The percentage column represents the number of officials rating each challenge as (4) very 

challenging or (5) extremely challenging divided by the total number of numerical ratings submitted by 

officials for (1) not at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

These challenges are summarized in two general categories: (1) lack of 

clear roles and responsibilities and (2) federal activities that constrain 

adaptation efforts. 

Lack of clear roles and responsibilities: “A lack of clear roles and 

responsibilities for addressing adaptation across all levels of government 

(i.e., adaptation is everyone’s problem but nobody’s direct responsibility)” 

was identified by respondents as the greatest challenge related to the 

structure and operation of the federal government. Several respondents 

elaborated on their rating. For example, according to one state official, 

“there is a power struggle between agencies and levels of government 

rather than a lack of clear roles. Everyone wants to take the lead rather 

than working together in a collaborative and cohesive way.” One local 

official said he “can’t emphasize enough how the lack of coordination 

Page 40 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

between agencies at the federal (and state) level severely complicates our 

abilities at the local level.” Several respondents also noted that there is no 

element within the federal government charged with facilitating a 

collaborative response. Our questionnaire results show that local and state 

respondents consider the lack of clear roles and responsibilities to be a 

greater challenge than do federal respondents. Specifically, about 80 

percent (48 of 60) of local officials and about 67 percent (31 of 46) of state 

officials who responded to the question rated the lack of clear roles and 

responsibilities as either very or extremely challenging, compared with 

about 61 percent (42 of 69) of the responding federal officials. 

This lack of coordination and “institutional fragmentation” are serious 

challenges to adaptation efforts because clear roles are necessary for a 

large-scale response to climate change. As stated by one local government 

respondent, agencies “have numerous, overlapping jurisdictions and 

authorities, many of which have different (sometimes competing) 

mandates. If left to plan independently, they’ll either do no adaptation 

planning or, if they do, likely come up with very different (and potentially 

conflicting) adaptation priorities.” A recent NRC report comes to similar 

conclusions, noting that collaboration among agencies can be impeded by 

different enabling laws, opposing missions, or incompatible budgetary 

rules.62 Such barriers—whether formalized or implicit—can lead to 

disconnects, conflicts, and turf battles rather than productive cooperation, 

according to this report. 

About 52 percent (92 of 176) of the respondents to our questionnaire rated 

the “lack of federal guidance or policies on how to make decisions related 

to adaptation” as very or extremely challenging. Their views echo our 

August 2007 report, which noted that federal resource managers were 

constrained by limited guidance about whether or how to address climate 

change and, therefore, were uncertain about what actions, if any, they 

should take.63 In general, resource managers from all of the agencies we 

reviewed for that report said that they needed specific guidance to 

incorporate climate change into their management actions and planning 

efforts. For example, officials from several federal land and water 

resource management agencies said that guidance would help resolve 

 

62National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on Strategies and Methods 

for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global 

Change, Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. 

63GAO-07-863. 

Page 41 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

differences in their agencies about how to interpret broad resource 

management authorities with respect to climate change and give them an 

imperative to take action. 

A recent federal report on adaptation options for climate-sensitive 

ecosystems and resources reinforced these points.64 It noted that, as 

resource managers become aware of climate change and the challenges it 

poses, a major limitation is lack of guidance on what steps to take, 

especially guidance that is commensurate with agency cultures and the 

practical experiences that managers have accumulated from years of 

dealing with other stresses, such as droughts and fires. 

Our questionnaire results indicate that local government respondents 

consider the lack of federal guidance to be a greater challenge than state 

or federal respondents. Specifically, about 65 percent (39 of 60) of local 

officials who responded to the question rated the “lack of federal guidance 

or policies on how to make decisions related to adaptation” as either very 

or extremely challenging, compared to about 41 percent (19 of 46) of state 

officials and nearly 49 percent (33 of 67) of the federal officials that 

responded. 

Federal activities that constrain adaptation efforts: Another challenge 

related to the structure and operation of the federal government is the 

existence of federal policies, programs, or practices that hinder adaptation 

efforts. While not the top challenge in the category, “existing federal 

policies, programs, or practices that hinder adaptation efforts”—which 

was rated as very or extremely challenging by about 43 percent (64 of 150) 

of the officials who responded to our questionnaire—is an important issue, 

as indicated by a wealth of related written comments submitted by 

respondents, comments from officials at our site visits, and a number of 

related studies. 

Our work shows how, at least in some instances, federal programs may 

limit adaptation efforts. Our 2007 climate change-related report on FEMA’s 

National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which insures 

crops against drought or other weather disasters, contrasted the 

 

64Julius, 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, Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options 

for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, SAP 4.4. 

Page 42 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

experience of public and private insurers.65 We found that many major 

private insurers were incorporating some near-term elements of climate 

change into their risk management practices. In addition, we found that 

some private insurers were approaching climate change at a strategic level 

by publishing reports outlining the potential industrywide impacts and 

strategies to proactively address the issue. In contrast, our report noted 

that the agencies responsible for the nation’s key federal insurance 

programs had done little to develop the kind of information needed to 

understand their programs’ long-term exposure to climate change for a 

variety of reasons. As a FEMA official explained in that report, the 

National Flood Insurance Program is designed to assess and insure against 

current—not future—risks. Unlike the private sector, neither this program 

nor the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation had analyzed the potential 

impacts of an increase in the frequency or severity of weather-related 

events on their operations. At our site visit, Maryland officials told us that 

FEMA’s outdated delineation of floodplains, as well as its failure to 

consider changes in floodplain boundaries due to sea level rise, is allowing 

development in areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise in Maryland 

because local governments rely on its maps for planning purposes. Both 

FEMA and USDA have taken recent steps to address these concerns and 

have committed to study these issues further and report to Congress, with 

USDA estimating completion by December 31, 2009.66

Officials who responded to our questionnaire also identified several 

federal laws that hinder climate change efforts. A state official noted that 

many federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water 

Act, and the Clean Air Act were passed before recognition of the effects of 

climate change. A federal official stated that federal environmental laws 

may need to be amended to provide greater authority for agencies to 

 

65GAO-07-285. 

66As mentioned, FEMA is currently conducting a study on the impact of climate change on 

the National Flood Insurance Program, which will be completed in March 2010. According 

to FEMA, this study will provide policy options and recommendations regarding the effects 

of climate change on the National Flood Insurance Program. At USDA, the Risk 

Management Agency has contracted with a research group to provide a technical report on 

climate change impacts on the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and develop a program 

impact model. The contractor has submitted preliminary results and the final report is due 

by December of this year. Using information contained in the report and other information, 

the Risk Management Agency will evaluate how it can adapt the crop insurance program to 

accommodate potential climate change scenarios. 

Page 43 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

practice adaptive management.67 The official noted that federal laws 

promoting development may also warrant re-examination to the extent 

they provide incentives that run counter to prudent land and resource 

planning in the climate change context. 

One federal respondent stated that federal laws, regulations, and policies 

assume that long-term climate is stable and that species, ecosystems, and 

water resources can be managed to maintain the status quo or to restore 

them to prior conditions. This official observed that these objectives may 

no longer be achievable as climate change intensifies in the coming 

decades. A state official similarly noted that because of the effects of 

climate change, maintenance of the resource management status quo in 

any given area may no longer be possible. Part of the problem may lie in 

the inherent tension between the order of legal frameworks and the 

relative chaos of natural systems, which one legal commentator explained 

as follows: “Lawyers like rules. We like enforceable rules. We want our 

rules to be optimal, tidy, and timeless.... Collaborative ecosystem 

management, by contrast, is often messy, elaborate, cumbersome, ad hoc, 

and defiantly unconventional.”68 Several officials who responded to our 

questionnaire expressed similar concerns related to climate change 

adaptation. For example, one federal official stated that existing laws 

“were built for the status quo, but we now must re-engineer the entire legal 

framework to deal with the ongoing, perpetual, and rapid change. A 

systems view is essential in order to manage change optimally.” 

 

67In 2004, NRC defined adaptive management as a process that promotes flexible decision 

making in the face of uncertainties, as outcomes from management actions and other 

events become better understood. See GAO, Yellowstone Bison: Interagency Plan and 

Agencies’ Management Need Improvement to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis 

Controversy, GAO-08-291 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2008). Adaptive management can be 

used to reduce the adverse effects of climate change on ecosystems. See C. Parmesan and 

H. Galbraith, Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S. (2004). However, 

significant challenges confront those wishing to apply the technique to complex problems, 

such as addressing the effects of climate change on land use designations in land 

management plans prepared under the National Forest Management Act or the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. See R. Gregory et. al., “Deconstructing Adaptive 

Management: Criteria for Applications to Environmental Management,” Ecological 

Applications, vol. 16, no. 6 (December 2006). Indeed, adaptive management “may be most 

difficult to implement in precisely those circumstances in which it is most needed.” Id. 

68Karkkainen, “Collaborative Ecosystem Governance: Scale, Complexity, and Dynamism,” 

21 Va. Envtl. L.J. 189, (2008): 243-35. Karkkainen’s advice to lawyers who are unsettled by 

this apparent conflict is “let’s get over it.” Id. at 235. 

Page 44 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Potential federal actions for addressing challenges to adaptation efforts 

fall into three areas, based on our analysis of questionnaire results, site 

visits, and available studies: (1) federal training and education initiatives 

that could increase awareness among government officials and the public 

about the impacts of climate change and available adaptation strategies; 

(2) actions to provide and interpret site-specific information that could 

help officials understand the impacts of climate change at a scale that 

would enable them to respond; and (3) steps Congress and federal 

agencies could take to encourage adaptation by setting priorities and reevaluating programs that hinder adaptation efforts. 

Federal training and education initiatives would assist adaptation efforts, 

based on our analysis of our Web-based questionnaire, site visits, and 

relevant studies. Table 5 presents potential federal government actions 

related to awareness and priorities as rated by federal, state, and local 

officials who responded to our questionnaire. See appendix III for a more 

detailed summary of federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our 

Web-based questionnaire. 

Federal Efforts to 

Increase Awareness, 

Provide Relevant 

Information, and 

Define 

Responsibilities Could 

Help Government 

Officials Make 

Decisions about 

Adaptation 

Federal Training and 

Education Initiatives 

Would Assist Adaptation 

Efforts 

Page 45 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 5: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to Awareness and Priorities Rated as Very or Extremely 

Useful 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government actions be for 

officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate? 

Total 

responsesa

Percentage who 

rated as very or 

extremely usefulb

Development of regional or local educational workshops for relevant officials that are tailored 

to their responsibilities 182 74.7

Development of lists of “no regrets” actions (i.e., actions in which the benefits exceed the costs 

under all future climate scenarios) 181 73.5

Development of a list of potential climate change adaptation policy options 181 71.3

Creation of a campaign to educate the public about climate change adaptation 184 70.1

Training of relevant officials on adaptation issues 182 69.8

Creation of a recurring stakeholder forum to explore the interaction of climate science and 

adaptation practice 184 64.7

Prioritization of potential climate change adaptation options 183 61.7

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question using numerical 

ratings, ranging from (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that 

completed the questionnaire. 

b

The percentage column represents the number of officials rating each potential action as (4) very 

useful or (5) extremely useful divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not at 

all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

We present these potential federal actions in three general categories: 

(1) training programs that could help government officials to develop 

more effective and better coordinated adaptation programs; (2) 

development of specific policy options for government officials; and 

(3) public education efforts to increase the public’s understanding of 

climate change issues and the need to begin investing in preparatory 

measures. 

Training for government officials: Training efforts could help officials 

collaborate and share insights for developing and implementing adaptation 

initiatives. Respondents rated the “development of regional or local 

educational workshops for relevant officials that are tailored to their 

responsibilities” as the most useful potential federal government action 

related to awareness and priorities. According to one federal official, “it is 

clear that training and communication may be the two biggest hurdles we 

face. We have the capabilities to adapt and to forecast scenarios of change 

and potential impacts of alternative adaptation options. We lack the will to 

exercise this capacity. The lack of that will is traceable to ignorance, 

sometimes willfully maintained.” This respondent calls for “a massive 

educational process...designed and implemented all the way from the topPage 46 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

end strategic thinkers down to the ranks of tactical implementers of 

change and adaptation options.” Training on how to make decisions with 

uncertainty would be particularly useful for frontline actors, such as city 

and county governments. For example, Maryland held an interactive 

summit on building “coast-smart communities,” which brought together 

federal, state, and local officials involved with planning decisions in 

coastal areas. The summit employed role-playing to introduce participants 

to critical issues faced by coastal communities as a result of climate 

change. In addition, New York City DEP officials noted that their 

membership in the Water Utility Climate Alliance provided them with an 

important way to exchange information with water managers from across 

the nation. 

Several respondents said that the federal government could play an 

important role in training officials at all levels of government. For 

example, one state official said that “because so many of us are only in the 

early stages of becoming aware of this issue, I think that a well organized 

training where many people would be learning the same thing and in the 

same way is important.” However, a different state official questioned 

whether federal training would be effective for state and local officials, 

explaining that federal officials may not have enough knowledge about 

specific state and local challenges. The official thought that a better option 

may be to hold regional conferences with diverse groups of federal, state, 

and local officials so that those who are not up to speed can observe and 

learn from those who are. Interestingly, about 84 percent (38 of 45) of the 

state officials and nearly 75 percent (53 of 71) of the federal officials who 

responded to the question rated the “development of regional or local 

educational workshops for relevant officials that are tailored to their 

responsibilities” as very or extremely useful, compared to about 67 

percent (42 of 63) of the local officials that responded. 

Development of lists of policy options for government officials: The 

development of lists of “no regrets” actions—actions in which the benefits 

exceed the costs under all future climate scenarios—and other potential 

adaptation policy options could inform officials about efforts that make 

sense to pursue today and are “worth doing anyway.” The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines a “no regrets” policy 

as one that would generate net social and economic benefits irrespective 

of whether or not anthropogenic climate change occurs. Such policies 

could include energy conservation and efficiency programs or the 

construction of green roofs in urban areas to absorb rainwater and 

moderate the effects of heat waves. 

Page 47 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

About 73 percent (133 of 181) of the officials who responded to our 

questionnaire rated the “development of lists of ‘no regrets’ actions (i.e., 

actions in which the benefits exceed the costs under all future climate 

scenarios)” as either very or extremely useful. The costs of no regrets 

strategies may be easier to defend, and proposing such strategies could be 

a way to initiate discussions of additional adaptation efforts. Likewise, 

about 71 percent (129 of 181) of respondents rated the “development of a 

list of potential climate change adaptation policy options” as either very or 

extremely useful. 

However, several respondents questioned whether national lists of 

adaptation options would be useful, noting that adaptation is inherently 

local or regional in nature. For example, one federal official said that “it is 

unclear that it would be possible to develop a list of actions that truly is no 

regrets for all scenarios, all places, and all interested parties.” This view 

suggests that adaptation options—“no regrets” or otherwise—may vary 

based on the climate impacts observed or projected for different 

geographic areas. As stated by one local official, “a national list would 

need to collect options from all regions across many sectors to be useful.” 

Regarding the prioritization of potential adaptation policy options, about 

62 percent (113 of 183) of the respondents rated the “prioritization of 

potential climate change adaptation options” as very or extremely useful, 

the lowest-rated potential action related to awareness and priorities. 

Several respondents were adamant that prioritization should occur at the 

local level because of the variability of local impacts, and others said that 

federal agencies should assist such efforts, but not direct them. According 

to one state official respondent, federal efforts “should recognize and meet 

the needs of states and local governments. They should not...dictate 

policy.” Interestingly, local officials who responded to our questionnaire 

rated prioritization of policy options as more useful than federal or state 

officials. Specifically, about 75 percent (47 of 63) of the local officials who 

responded to the question said that federal prioritization of potential 

climate change adaptation options would be very or extremely useful, 

compared to nearly 57 percent (40 of 70) and about 51 percent (24 of 47) 

of federal and state officials, respectively. 

Public education: About 70 percent (129 of 184) of the respondents rated 

the “creation of a campaign to educate the public about climate change 

adaptation” as very or extremely useful. A variety of federal, state, and 

local programs are trying to fill this void, at least in areas of the country 

that are actively addressing adaptation issues. For example, the 

Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (partially funded by 

Page 48 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

NOAA) provides education and training on climate change to the public 

and local officials in Maryland. Maryland state officials recently provided 

local officials and the public in Somerset County information on the 

effects of sea level rise during a workshop. The workshop highlighted the 

need to incorporate information about sea level rise in the county’s land 

use plans, given that it is expected to inundate a significant part of the 

county. In addition, the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group 

(CIG)—a program funded under NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and 

Assessment program—has been interacting with the public about climate 

change issues, including adaptation, for over 10 years, according to 

officials we interviewed as part of our site visit to King County, 

Washington. Considerable local media coverage of environmental issues 

has also assisted with public awareness in King County. 

Federal Actions to Provide 

and Interpret Site-Specific 

Information Would Help 

Officials Implement 

Adaptation Efforts 

Federal actions to provide and interpret site-specific information would 

help address challenges associated with adaptation efforts, based on our 

analysis of our Web-based questionnaire, site visits, and relevant studies. 

Table 6 presents potential federal government actions related to 

information as rated by federal, state, and local officials who responded to 

our questionnaire. See appendix III for a more detailed summary of 

federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our Web-based 

questionnaire. 

Page 49 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 6: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to Information Rated as Very or Extremely Useful 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government actions be for 

officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate? 

Total 

responsesa

Percentage who 

rated as very or 

extremely usefulb

Development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability assessments 183 80.3

Identification and sharing of best practices 157c80.3

Development of processes and tools to help officials access, interpret, and apply available 

climate information 185 80.0

Development of regional climate change impact and vulnerability assessments 182 77.5

Creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate information to decision makers 

to inform adaptation efforts 176 60.8

Development of an interactive stakeholder forum for information sharing 184 56.5

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question using numerical 

ratings, ranging from (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that 

completed the questionnaire. 

b

The percentage column represents the number of officials rating each potential action as (4) very 

useful or (5) extremely useful divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not at 

all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

c

As previously noted, 187 respondents completed our questionnaire overall. While the number of 

responses for each individual question generally ranged from 183 to 186, only 159 respondents 

answered this question. See appendix III for more details. 

We discuss these potential federal actions below in three general 

categories: (1) the development of regional, state, and local climate change 

impact and vulnerability assessments; (2) the development of processes 

and tools to access, interpret, and apply climate information; and (3) the 

creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate information 

to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts. 

Developing impact and vulnerability assessments: Respondents rated the 

“development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability 

assessments” as the most useful action the federal government could take 

related to information. The development of regional assessments was also 

rated as similarly useful by respondents. Such assessments allow officials 

to build adaptation strategies based on the best available knowledge about 

regional or local changes and how those changes may affect natural and 

human systems. Nearly 94 percent (43 of 46) of the state officials and 

about 83 percent (52 of 63) of the local officials who responded to the 

question rated the development of state and local climate change impact 

and vulnerability assessments as either very or extremely useful, 

compared to about 69 percent (49 of 71) of federal officials. 

Page 50 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Officials at all of the sites we visited reported relying on impact and 

vulnerability assessments to drive policy development and focus on the 

most urgent adaptation needs. For example, King County officials told us 

that regional climate modeling information provided by CIG was used to 

conduct a vulnerability assessment of wastewater treatment facilities in 

the county. In addition, Maryland officials said that the state’s coastal 

adaptation initiative relied on localized impact and vulnerability 

information provided by the Maryland Commission on Climate Change’s 

Scientific and Technical Working Group, a stakeholder working group 

consisting of scientists and other relevant stakeholders. 

Development of processes and tools to help officials use information:

About 80 percent (148 of 185) of respondents rated the “development of 

processes and tools to help access, interpret, and apply available climate 

information” as very or extremely useful. Even with available regional and 

local climate data, officials will need tools to interpret what the data mean 

for decision making. For example, CIG told us of the strong need for Webbased decision-making tools to translate climate impacts into information 

relevant for decision makers. King County’s Department of Natural 

Resources and Parks has developed a tool that uses data generated by CIG 

to help wastewater facilities model flooding due to sea level rise and 

storms. United Kingdom officials noted that the Climate Impacts 

Programme provides similar tools to assist decision makers in the United 

Kingdom. 

The identification and sharing of best practices from other jurisdictions 

could also help meet the information needs of decision makers. Around 80 

percent (126 of 157) of respondents rated the “identification and sharing of 

best practices” as very or extremely important. Best practices refer to the 

processes, practices, and systems identified in organizations that 

performed exceptionally well and are widely recognized as improving 

performance and efficiency in specific areas. Based on a range of our prior 

work, we have found that successfully identifying and applying best 

practices can reduce expenses and improve organizational efficiency. 

Several officials who responded to our questionnaire said that learning the 

best practices of others could be useful in efforts to develop adaptation 

programs. 

Federal climate service: About 61 percent (107 of 176) of respondents 

rated the “creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate 

information to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts” as very or 

extremely useful. According to two pending bills in Congress that would 

establish a National Climate Service within NOAA, its purpose would be to 

Page 51 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

advance understanding of climate variability and change at the global, 

national, and regional levels and support the development of adaptation 

and response plans by federal agencies and state, local, and tribal 

governments. 

Respondents offered a range of potential strengths and weaknesses for 

such a service. Several said that a National Climate Service would help 

consolidate information and provide a single-information resource for 

local officials, and others said that it would be an improvement over the 

current ad hoc system. A climate service would avoid duplication and 

establish an agreed set of climate information with uniform 

methodologies, benchmarks, and metrics for decision making, according 

to some officials. According to one federal official, consolidating 

scientific, modeling, and analytical expertise and capacity could increase 

efficiency. Some officials similarly noted that with such consolidation of 

information, individual agencies, states, and local governments would not 

have to spend money obtaining climate data for their adaptation efforts. 

Others said that it would be advantageous to work from one source of 

information instead of different sources of varying quality. Importantly, 

some officials said that a National Climate Service would demonstrate a 

federal commitment to adaptation and provide a credible voice and 

guidance to decision makers. 

Other respondents, however, were less enthusiastic. Some voiced 

skepticism about whether it was feasible to consolidate climate 

information, and others said that such a system would be too rigid and 

may get bogged down in lengthy review processes. Furthermore, certain 

officials said building such capacity may not be the most effective place to 

focus federal efforts because the information needs of decision makers 

vary so much by jurisdiction. Several officials noted that climate change is 

an issue that requires a multidisciplinary response and a single federal 

service may not be able to supply all of the necessary expertise. For 

example, one federal official stated that the information needs of Bureau 

of Reclamation water managers are quite different from the needs of 

Bureau of Land Management rangeland managers, which are different 

from the needs of all other resource management agencies and programs. 

The official said that it seems highly unlikely that a single federal service 

could effectively identify and address the diverse needs of multiple 

agencies. Several respondents also said that having one preeminent source 

for climate change information and modeling could stifle contrary ideas 

and alternative viewpoints. Finally, several officials who responded to our 

questionnaire were concerned that a National Climate Service could divert 

Page 52 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

attention and resources from current adaptation efforts by reinventing 

duplicative processes without making use of existing structures. 

A recent NRC report recommends that the federal government’s 

adaptation efforts should be undertaken through a new integrated 

interagency initiative with both service and research elements, but that 

such an initiative should not be centralized in a single agency.69 Doing so, 

according to this report, would disrupt existing relationships between 

agencies and their constituencies and formalize a separation between the 

emerging science of climate response and fundamental research on 

climate and the associated biological, social, and economic phenomena. 

Furthermore, the report states that a National Climate Service located in a 

single agency and modeled on the weather service would by itself be less 

than fully effective for meeting the national needs for climate-related 

decision support. The NRC report also notes that such a climate service 

would not be user-driven and so would likely fall short in providing 

needed information, identifying and meeting critical needs for research for 

and on decision support, and adapting adequately to changing information 

needs. 

Congress and Federal 

Agencies Could Encourage 

Adaptation Efforts by 

Clarifying Roles and 

Responsibilities 

Federal actions to clarify the roles and responsibilities for government 

agencies could encourage adaptation efforts, based on our analysis of 

questionnaire results, site visits, and available studies. Table 7 presents 

potential federal actions related to the structure and operation of the 

federal government, as rated by the federal, state, and local officials who 

responded to our Web-based questionnaire. See appendix III for a more 

detailed summary of federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our 

Web-based questionnaire. 

 

69National Research Council of the National Academies, Panel on Strategies and Methods 

for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global 

Change, Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. 

Page 53 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 7: Percentage of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal 

Government Rated as Very or Extremely Useful 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government actions be for 

officials in efforts to adapt to a changing climate? 

Total 

responsesa

Percentage who 

rated as very or 

extremely usefulb

Development of a national adaptation fund to provide a consistent funding stream for 

adaptation activities 

179 84.4

Development of a national adaptation strategy that defines federal government priorities and 

responsibilities 

181 71.3

Review of existing programs to identify and modify policies and practices that hinder 

adaptation efforts 

180 67.8

Issuance of guidance, policies, or procedures on how to incorporate adaptation into existing 

policy and management processes 

180 65.6

Development of a climate change extension service to help share and explain available 

information 

181 59.1

Creation of a centralized government structure to coordinate adaptation funding 166 53.6

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question using numerical 

ratings, ranging from (1) not at all useful through (5) extremely useful, out of the 187 respondents that 

completed the questionnaire. 

b

The percentage column represents the number of officials rating each potential action as (4) very 

useful or (5) extremely useful divided by the total numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not at 

all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

As discussed below, these potential federal actions can be grouped into 

three areas: (1) new national adaptation initiatives, (2) review of programs 

that hinder adaptation efforts, and (3) guidance for how to incorporate 

adaptation into existing decision-making processes. 

New national adaptation initiatives: Our questionnaire results identified 

the “development of a national adaptation fund to provide a consistent 

funding stream for adaptation activities” as the most useful federal action 

related to the structure and operation of the federal government. This 

result is not surprising, given that lack of funding was identified as the 

greatest challenge to adaptation efforts. One local official said that 

“funding for local governments is absolutely required. Local budgets are 

tight and require external stimulus for any hope of adaptation strategies to 

be implemented.” Several state respondents noted that none of the other 

potential policy options are maximally useful unless there is also 

consistent funding available to implement them. Overall, about 98 percent 

(45 of 46) of state officials and nearly 88 percent (56 of 64) of the local 

officials who responded to the question rated the development of a 

national adaptation fund to provide a consistent funding stream for 

Page 54 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

adaptation activities as very or extremely useful, compared to about 71 

percent (47 of 66) of federal officials. 

About 71 percent (129 of 181) of the officials who responded to our 

questionnaire rated the “development of a national adaptation strategy 

that defines federal government priorities and responsibilities” as very or 

extremely useful. As noted by a federal official who responded to our 

questionnaire, the cost of responding to a changing climate will be paid 

one way or another—either through ad hoc responses to emergencies or 

through a coordinated effort at the federal level guided by the best 

foresight and planning afforded by the current science. According to this 

official, a strategic approach may cost less than reactive policies in the 

long term and could be more effective. Officials we spoke with at our site 

visits and officials who responded to our questionnaire said that a 

coordinated federal response would also demonstrate a federal 

commitment to adaptation. 

About 59 percent (107 of 181) of respondents rated the “development of a 

climate change extension service to help share and explain available 

information” as very or extremely useful. A climate change extension 

service could operate in the same way as USDA’s Cooperative State 

Research, Education, and Extension Service, with land grant universities 

and networks of local or regional offices staffed by experts providing 

useful, practical, and research-based information to agricultural 

producers, among others.70 Such a service could be responsible for 

educating private citizens, city planners, and others at the local level 

whose responsibilities are climate sensitive. For example, Maryland Forest 

Service officials noted that the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service 

provides training and information on the significance of climate change. 

Several respondents cautioned that whatever is done at the federal level 

should be consistently and adequately funded. 

About 54 percent (89 of 166) of respondents rated as very or extremely 

useful the “creation of a centralized government structure to coordinate 

adaptation funding.” While some cautioned that such a structure could 

limit the flexibility of existing federal, state, and local programs, others 

said that there was a need for more coordinated funding. Support for the 

idea, however, varied by level of government. Specifically, about 73 

 

70See http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/ for more information about USDA’s extension 

service. 

Page 55 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

percent of the local (41 of 56) and almost 55 percent of the state (23 of 42) 

officials that responded to this question rated the “creation of a centralized 

federal government structure to coordinate adaptation funding” as either 

very or extremely useful, compared to only about 35 percent of the federal 

(23 of 65) respondents. 

Reviewing programs that hinder adaptation: About 68 percent (122 of 

180) of the respondents said it would be very or extremely useful to 

systematically review the kind of programs, policies, and practices 

discussed earlier in this report that may hinder adaptation efforts. Nearly 

75 percent (46 of 61) of the local officials and about 70 percent (32 of 46) 

of the state officials who responded to the question rated the “review of 

existing programs to identify and modify policies and practices that hinder 

adaptation efforts” as very or extremely useful, compared to about 59 

percent (41 of 70) of federal officials. One state official urged a review of 

both programs and laws, stating that “entrenched practices must be 

adapted to new realities.” Our May 2008 report on the economics of 

climate change also identified actions that could assist officials in their 

efforts to adapt to climate change.71 Some of the economists surveyed for 

that report suggested reforming insurance subsidy programs in areas 

vulnerable to natural disasters like hurricanes or flooding. Several noted 

that a clear federal role exists for certain sectors, such as water resource 

management, which could require additional resources for infrastructure 

development, research, and managing federal lands. 

Federal, state, and local respondents also pointed to a number of federal 

laws as assisting adaptation efforts. For example, multiple officials cited 

the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which established a federal 

interagency research program to assist the United States and the world to 

understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural 

processes of global change. Officials from the New York City Panel on 

Climate Change credited the 2001 Metro East Coast report issued for 

USGCRP with increasing awareness of regional climate change effects, 

which led to local government response.72 Multiple officials also said that 

the National Environmental Policy Act could assist adaptation efforts by 

 

71GAO, Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options to Address 

Climate Change, GAO-08-605 (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008). 

72Columbia Earth Institute, Climate Change and a Global City: The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Metro East Coast, a special report 

prepared at the request of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, July 2001. 

Page 56 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

incorporating climate change adaptation into the assessment process. 

According to CEQ officials, the federal government could provide 

adaptation information under the National Environmental Policy Act 

provision that directs all federal agencies to make available to states, 

counties, municipalities, and others advice and information useful in 

restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment. 

According to certain officials, the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is 

administered by NOAA, could encourage adaptation to climate change at 

the state and local levels by allowing states and territories to develop 

specific coastal climate change plans or strategies. The state of Maryland 

is already using Coastal Zone Management Act programs to assess and 

respond to the risk of sea level rise and coastal hazards. 

Guidance on how to consider adaptation in existing processes: Nearly 66 

percent (118 of 180) of respondents rated the “issuance of guidance, 

policies, or procedures on how to incorporate adaptation into existing 

policy and management processes” as very or extremely useful. A federal 

respondent added that adapting to climate change means integrating 

adaptation strategies into the programs that are already ongoing and will 

rely upon the networks and institutions that already exist. These 

sentiments were echoed in a recent report, which suggested that the 

experience of deliberately incorporating climate adaptation into projects 

can be very helpful in developing a more systematic approach to 

adaptation planning and can serve as a kind of project-based policy 

development.73 Furthermore, this report notes that leading programs 

integrate climate change adaptation into overarching policy documents 

such as official plans or policies. In the same vein, King County officials 

told us they work to “routinize” climate change into planning decisions 

and have incorporated climate change into the county’s comprehensive 

plan. This plan, among other things, states that “King County should 

consider projected impacts of climate change, including more severe 

winter flooding, when updating disaster preparedness, levee investment, 

and land use plans, as well as development regulations.”74 Several 

respondents cautioned that federal guidance related to adaptation should 

be flexible enough to allow state and local governments to adapt their own 

approaches. 

 

73The Clean Air Partnership, Cities Preparing for Climate Change: A Study of Six Urban 

Regions (May 2007). 

74King County, King County Comprehensive Plan 2008. 

Page 57 GAO-10-113 
 

Climate change is a complex, interdisciplinary issue with the potential to 

affect every sector and level of government operations. Strategic planning 

is a way to respond to this governmentwide problem on a governmentwide 

scale. Our past work on crosscutting issues suggests that governmentwide 

strategic planning can integrate activities that span a wide array of federal, 

state, and local entities.75 Strategic planning can also provide a 

comprehensive framework for considering organizational changes, making 

resource decisions, and holding officials accountable for achieving real 

and sustainable results. 

Governmentwide 

Planning and 

Collaboration Could 

Assist Adaptation 

Efforts 

As this report and others demonstrate, some communities and federal 

lands are already seeing the effects of climate change, and governments 

are beginning to respond.76 However, as this report also illustrates, the 

federal government’s emerging adaptation activities are carried out in an 

ad hoc manner and are not well coordinated across federal agencies, let 

alone state and local governments. Officials who responded to our 

questionnaire at all levels of government said that they face a range of 

challenges when considering adaptation efforts, including competing 

priorities, lack of site-specific data, and lack of clear roles and 

responsibilities. These officials also identified a number of potential 

federal actions that they thought could help address these challenges. 

Multiple federal agencies, as well as state and local governments, will have 

to work together to address these challenges and implement new 

initiatives. Yet, our past work on collaboration among federal agencies 

suggests that they will face a range of barriers in doing so.77 Agency 

missions may not be mutually reinforcing or may even conflict with each 

other, making consensus on strategies and priorities difficult. 

Incompatible procedures, processes, data, and computer systems also 

hinder collaboration. The resulting patchwork of programs and actions 

can waste scarce funds and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal 

 

75GAO, A Call For Stewardship: Enhancing the Federal Government’s Ability to Address 

Key Fiscal and Other 21st Century Challenges, GAO-08-93SP (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 

2007). 

76GAO, Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages 

Threatened by Flooding and Erosion, GAO-09-551 (Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2009), and 

GAO-07-863. 

77GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005), and 

Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000). 

Page 58 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

effort. In addition, many federal programs were designed decades ago to 

address earlier challenges, informed by the conditions, technologies, 

management models, and organizational structures of past eras.78 Based on 

our prior work, key practices that can help agencies enhance and sustain 

their collaborative efforts include79

• defining and articulating a common outcome; 

• agreeing on roles and responsibilities; 

• establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate 

across agency boundaries; 

• identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; and 

• developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results. 

As we have previously reported, perhaps the single most important 

element of successful management improvement initiatives is the 

demonstrated commitment of top leaders to change.80 Top leadership 

involvement and clear lines of accountability are critical to overcoming 

natural resistance to change, marshalling needed resources, and building 

and maintaining the commitment to new ways of doing business. 

A key question for decision makers in both Congress and the 

administration is whether to start adapting now or to wait until the effects 

of climate change are more obvious and widespread. Given the complexity 

and potential magnitude of climate change and the lead time needed to 

adapt, preparing for these impacts now may reduce the need for far more 

costly steps in the decades to come. 

Adaptation, however, will require making policy and management 

decisions that cut across traditional sectors, issues, and jurisdictional 

boundaries. It will mean developing new approaches to match new 

Conclusions 

 

78GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, 

GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2005). 

79GAO-06-15. 

80GAO, Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement Initiatives, 

GAO/T-GGD-00-26 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 1999). 

Page 59 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

realities. Old ways of doing business—such as making decisions based on 

the assumed continuation of past climate conditions—will not work in a 

world affected by climate change. 

Certain state and local authorities on the “front lines” of early adaptation 

efforts understand this new reality and are beginning to take action. Our 

analysis of these efforts, responses to our questionnaire, and available 

studies revealed that federal, state, and local officials face numerous 

challenges when considering adaptation efforts. To be effective, federal 

efforts to address these challenges must be coordinated and directed 

toward a common goal. 

We recommend that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of 

the President, such as the Council on Environmental Quality and the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with relevant 

federal agencies, state and local governments, and key congressional 

committees of jurisdiction, develop a national strategic plan that will guide 

the nation’s efforts to adapt to a changing climate. The plan should, among 

other things, (1) define federal priorities related to adaptation; (2) clarify 

roles, responsibilities, and working relationships among federal, state, and 

local governments; (3) identify mechanisms to increase the capacity of 

federal, state, and local agencies to incorporate information about current 

and potential climate change impacts into government decision making; 

(4) address how resources will be made available to implement the plan; 

and (5) build on and integrate ongoing federal planning efforts related to 

adaptation. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), within the Executive Office of the President, for review and 

comment. CEQ circulated the report to the climate change adaptation 

interagency committee—including representatives from more than 12 

agencies—for review and comment. In written comments, CEQ’s Deputy 

Associate Director for Climate Change Adaptation generally agreed with 

the recommendations of the report, noting that leadership and 

coordination is necessary within the federal government to ensure an 

effective and appropriate adaptation response and that such coordination 

would help to catalyze regional, state, and local activities. These 

comments are reproduced in appendix IV. CEQ also provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 60 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

With regard to the report’s findings, the Deputy Associate Director stated 

that CEQ had three main areas of concern. First, CEQ expressed concern 

that the relative inexperience of the federal government on adaptation 

combined with the methodology used in this report may produce 

misleading results. Specifically, the Deputy Associate Director stated that 

the report documents the relatively low level of activity within the federal 

government on adaptation, suggesting that most federal government 

respondents must be relatively inexperienced with adaptation issues. The 

Deputy Associate Director further stated that this relative federal 

inexperience may call some of our findings into question, citing as an 

example that the variability and local nature of adaptation makes a 

federally produced list of “no regrets” actions very difficult and possibly of 

limited utility. CEQ noted that, while the questionnaire results are an 

accurate reflection of the respondents’ thinking, they do not necessarily 

paint the best roadmap for federal government action. 

We do not agree with the characterization of federal officials as less 

experienced with adaptation issues than their state and local counterparts. 

As noted in the report scope and methodology (see app. I), we 

administered a Web-based questionnaire to a nonprobability sample of 274 

federal, state, and local officials who were identified by their organizations 

to be knowledgeable about climate change adaptation. The officials who 

responded represent a diverse array of disciplines, including planners, 

scientists, and public health professionals. In general, the information we 

collected with the questionnaire suggests that the federal, state, and local 

officials who responded spend similar amounts of time on adaptationrelated issues. We found that, in several instances, the state and local 

officials who were knowledgeable about adaptation worked very closely 

with their federal counterparts. Furthermore, regarding CEQ’s specific 

example of federally produced “no regrets” lists, as we point out in this 

report, we agree that adaptation actions need to reflect local realities. 

However, questionnaire results were never intended to provide a roadmap 

specifically for federal activities but instead to describe the views of 

federal, state, and local officials on the potential federal actions 

(previously cited in available literature) that would be most useful to 

them. This information could be helpful when developing a strategy, but 

was not intended to be the strategy. We acknowledge that efforts to 

pursue these actions would often be collaborative, involving state and 

local entities. 

Second, CEQ expressed concern that the report confuses the issue of costbenefit analysis and scientific uncertainty, noting that the report identifies 

“justifying current costs with limited information about future benefits” as 

Page 61 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

a challenge to adaptation policy, although the discussion of this challenge 

focuses on the scientific uncertainty inherent in climate projections as the 

main stumbling block for cost-benefit analysis. The Deputy Associate 

Director also noted that this section of the report did not include other 

challenges identified in the questionnaire, such as “understanding costs 

and benefits” of adaptive actions, or the challenge of prioritizing 

adaptation against other near-term actions and that cost-benefit analysis is 

a separate concern to scientific uncertainty. 

Although we recognize CEQ’s concern about this section of the report, we 

note that the report describes the link between scientific uncertainty and 

cost-benefit analysis and that the report describes many challenges other 

than scientific uncertainty. Uncertainty, scientific or otherwise, is 

generally incorporated into cost-benefit analysis as a best practice. We 

also note that the challenges and potential federal actions described in this 

report are closely related. As described in the subsequent section, for 

example, local impacts must be translated into costs and benefits, since 

this information is required for many decision-making processes. Almost 

70 percent (126 of 180) of the respondents to our questionnaire rated 

“understanding the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts” as very or 

extremely challenging. 

Finally, CEQ expressed concern that the report does not focus enough on 

implementation challenges, stating that the report does not analyze the 

primary barriers or challenges to implementation, or make any 

recommendations on implementing adaptation. The Deputy Associate 

Director acknowledged that planning is critical, but that it does not 

guarantee implementation and that implementation challenges are neither 

discussed nor developed in the report. 

We agree that planning does not guarantee implementation and note that 

many of the challenges explored in this report relate to implementation. 

However, wide-scale implementation of adaptive actions before deriving a 

reasoned plan strikes us as “putting the cart before the horse.” Without 

adequate planning at the federal level to chart a roadmap that, among 

other things, defines a common outcome and sets roles and 

responsibilities, it will be more difficult for multiple federal agencies, as 

well as state and local governments to work together to devise, much less 

execute, an implementation strategy. 

Page 62 GAO-10-113 
 

 Climate Change Adaptation

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chair of the Council 

on Environmental Quality and other interested parties. The report also will 

be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

on 

Director 

d Environment 

John B. Stephens

Natural Resources an

Page 63 GAO-10-113 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Our review (1) determines what actions, if any, federal, state, local, and 

international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing climate; (2) 

identifies the challenges, if any, that federal, state, and local officials 

reported facing in their efforts to adapt; and (3) identifies actions that 

Congress and federal agencies could take to help address these challenges. 

We also provide information about our prior work on responding to 

similarly complex, interdisciplinary issues. 

To determine the actions federal authorities are taking to adapt to climate 

change, we obtained summaries of current and planned adaptation-related 

efforts from a broad range of federal agencies. Full summaries from 

federal agencies are provided in a supplement to this report (see 

GAO-10-114SP). We obtained these summaries from the federal agencies 

with assistance from the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP), formerly the United States Climate Change Science Program. 

USGCRP coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the 

global environment and their implications for society. USGCRP collected 

submissions from 12 of the 13 departments and agencies that participate in 

its program (see app. II for more details).1

We also obtained a summary of adaptation-related efforts from the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, as a follow up to prior GAO work on climate change and the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance 

Program. Because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is not part of 

USGCRP, we solicited its submission directly. 

Because we wanted to include current federal activities that the agencies 

themselves consider to be related to adaptation, we did not modify the 

content of these summaries, except to remove references to specific 

individuals. We also did not independently confirm the information in the 

summaries. In addition, because the request for summaries was made to a 

select group of federal agencies, the activities compiled in this report 

should not be considered a comprehensive list of all recent and ongoing 

climate change adaptation efforts across the federal government. 

In addition to gathering summaries, we also conducted an Internet search 

to identify other federal, state, or local organizations that are taking action 

to adapt to a changing climate. This search also helped to identify 

 

1

We did not receive a submission from the Smithsonian Institution. 

Page 64 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

 Climate Change Adaptation

challenges agencies face in their efforts to adapt, as well as actions the 

federal government could take, which are relevant to our second and third 

objectives. We searched the Web sites of relevant organizations and 

agencies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the Coastal States Organization, 

and federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We also conducted 

Internet searches using relevant key words, such as “climate change” and 

“climate change adaptation.” We reviewed publicly available Englishlanguage documents related to adaptation efforts in the United States and 

other countries that we identified through our search. 

To address our three objectives, we also conducted 13 open-ended 

interviews with a select group of organizations and agencies that are 

engaged in climate change adaptation activities. We selected them based 

on their level of involvement in the issue of climate change adaptation, as 

determined by (1) previous GAO work; (2) scoping interviews (a 

“snowball” technique); and (3) our search of the background literature. We 

attempted to speak with organizations that are working on climate change 

adaptation, as well as those that represent sectors affected by it. We 

generally focused on organizations and sectors that are working on this 

issue on a national level (rather than just in one city or region) and that 

have also worked closely with state and local officials. The organizations 

included the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the H. John 

Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, ICLEI—

Local Governments for Sustainability, and the Nature Conservancy, among 

others. In addition, we spoke with two academics who had a long-standing 

involvement with climate change issues at the national and international 

levels to gather additional background information on the issue. Because 

we spoke with a select group of organizations and individuals, we cannot 

generalize our results to those we did not interview. 

In addition to asking our interviewees about the actions they are taking to 

address adaptation, we also asked them to identify other relevant reports 

or studies we should include in our work and other agencies or 

organizations that are engaged in adaptation activities (part of our 

“snowball” technique). We also asked what actions they thought the 

federal government and Congress could take to help in their efforts. 

To determine the actions federal, state, local, and international authorities 

are taking to adapt to a changing climate, we also visited four sites where 

government officials are taking actions to adapt. We chose these sites 

because they were frequently mentioned in the background literature and 

Page 65 GAO-10-113 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

 Climate Change Adaptation

scoping interviews as examples of locations that are implementing climate 

change adaptation and which may offer particularly useful insights into 

the types of actions governments can take to plan for climate change 

impacts. These sites are neither comprehensive nor representative of all 

state and local climate change adaptation efforts. They include New York 

City; King County, Washington; the state of Maryland; and the United 

Kingdom, focusing on the London region. We included an international site 

visit to examine how other countries are starting to adapt, and we 

specifically selected the United Kingdom because its climate change 

adaptation efforts were mentioned frequently in the background literature 

and scoping interviews and because it had already begun to implement 

these efforts at the national, regional, and local levels. During our site 

visits, we gathered information through interviews with officials and 

stakeholders, observation of adaptation efforts, and reviewed related 

documents. We also followed up with officials after our visits to gather 

additional information. 

To describe the challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in 

their efforts to adapt and the potential actions that Congress and federal 

agencies could take to help address these challenges, we administered a 

Web-based questionnaire to a nonprobability sample of 274 federal, state, 

and local officials who were identified by their organizations to be 

knowledgeable about adaptation. To identify relevant potential 

respondents, we worked with organizations that represent federal, state, 

and local officials. Specifically, we worked with organizations such as 

USGCRP (federal), National Association of Clean Air Agencies (state), and 

Conference of Mayors (local), among others, and asked them to identify 

officials who are knowledgeable about climate change adaptation. These 

officials were generally identified through their involvement in climate 

change working groups within these organizations, which indicated a level 

of interest and knowledge of the issue. The officials were then contacted 

by their organization to describe the purpose of our questionnaire and to 

ask if they would participate. The names and e-mail addresses of those 

who agreed were then provided to GAO. The federal, state, and local 

officials who responded represent a diverse array of disciplines, including 

planners, scientists, and public health professionals; however, their 

responses cannot be generalized to officials who did not complete our 

questionnaire. 

To develop the questionnaire, information was compiled from background 

literature and interviews we conducted with relevant organizations and 

officials. Using this information, we developed lists of challenges and 

potential actions the federal government could take to address them. 

Page 66 GAO-10-113 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Using closed-ended questions, respondents were asked to rate several 

challenges and actions on 5 point Likert scales (the closed-ended 

questions are reproduced in app. III). We also included open-ended 

questions to give respondents an opportunity to tell us about challenges 

and potential federal actions that we did not ask about. Lastly, we 

included additional open-ended questions to gather opinions on a small 

number of related topics. 

Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However, 

the practical difficulties of conducting any questionnaire may introduce 

errors, commonly known as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties 

in interpreting a particular question, sources of information available to 

respondents, or analyzing data can introduce unwanted variability in the 

results. We took steps to minimize such nonsampling errors. 

For example, social science survey specialists designed the questionnaire 

in collaboration with GAO staff who had subject matter expertise. Then, 

we sent a draft of the questionnaire to several federal, state, and local 

organizations for comment. In addition, we pretested it with local, state, 

and federal officials to check that (1) the questions were clear and 

unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the questionnaire 

did not place an undue burden on agency officials, and (4) the 

questionnaire was comprehensive and unbiased. Based on these steps, we 

made necessary corrections and edits before it was administered. When 

we analyzed the data, an independent analyst checked all computer 

programs. Since this was a Web-based instrument, respondents entered 

their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating the 

need to key data into a database, minimizing error. 

We developed and administered a Web-based questionnaire accessible 

through a secure server. When we completed the final questionnaire, 

including content and form, we sent an e-mail announcement of the 

questionnaire to our nonprobability sample of 274 federal, state, and local 

officials on May 13, 2009. They were notified that the questionnaire was 

available online and were given unique passwords and usernames on May 

28, 2009. We sent follow-up e-mail messages on June 4, June 8, and June 

12, 2009, to those who had not yet responded. Then we contacted the 

remaining nonrespondents by telephone to encourage them to complete 

the questionnaire online, starting on June 24, 2009. The questionnaire was 

available online until July 10, 2009. Questionnaires were completed by 187 

Page 67 GAO-10-113 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

 Climate Change Adaptation

officials, for a response rate of about 68 percent.2 The response rate by 

level of government is about 82 percent for federal officials (72 out of 88), 

about 90 percent for state officials (47 out of 52), and about 50 percent (65 

out of 131) for local officials.3

We presented our questionnaire results in six tables in our report, which 

show the relative rankings of the challenges and potential actions listed in 

our questionnaire based on the percentage of respondents that rated them 

very or extremely challenging (for challenges) or very or extremely useful 

(for potential actions). Both the challenges and potential actions are 

organized into groups related to the following: (1) awareness and 

priorities, (2) information, and (3) the structure and operation of the 

federal government. Tables showing more detailed summaries of federal, 

state, and local officials’ responses to the questionnaire are included in 

appendix III. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to October 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

 

2

Not all officials responded to every question. 

3

Three officials from levels of government other than federal, state, or local—such as a 

regional level—also responded to the questionnaire. 

Page 68 GAO-10-113 
Appendix II: Information on Selected Federal Appendix II: Information on Selected Federal Efforts to Adapt to a Changing Climate 

Efforts to Adapt to a Changing Climate 

We obtained information from 13 selected federal departments and 

agencies on their current and planned climate change adaptation efforts. 

We present this information in a supplement to this report to provide a 

more complete picture of the activities that federal agencies consider to be 

related to climate change adaptation than has been available publicly (see 

GAO-10-114SP). We obtained this information directly from the agencies 

participating in the U.S. Global Change Research Program.1

Importantly, we did not modify the content of the agency submissions 

(except to remove references to named individuals) or assess its validity. 

In addition, because this information represents the efforts of a selected 

group of federal agencies, the agency activities compiled in the 

supplement should not be considered a comprehensive list of all recent 

and ongoing climate change adaptation efforts across the federal 

government. Any questions about the information presented in the 

supplement should be directed to the agencies themselves. 

See the following list for the departments and agencies included in the 

supplement to this report: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

• Agricultural Marketing Service 

• Agricultural Research Service 

• Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

• Economic Research Service 

• Farm Service Agency 

• Forest Service 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 

1

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and integrates federal 

research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. We did 

not receive a submission from the Smithsonian Institution. In addition to the agencies that 

participate in USGCRP, we also obtained a summary of current and planned adaptationrelated efforts from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, part of the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, because of prior GAO adaptation-related work on its 

National Flood Insurance Program. 

Page 69 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
Appendix II: Information on Selected Federal 

Efforts to Adapt to a Changing Climate 

 Climate Change Adaptation

U.S. Department of Defense 

• Office of the Secretary of Defense 

• Army 

• Navy 

• Air Force 

• Marine Corps 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

• National Institutes of Health 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

• Federal Emergency Management Agency 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International 

Development 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

• Office of Transportation Policy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

National Science Foundation 

Page 70 GAO-10-113 
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and 

Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and Questionnaire 

Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based 

Questionnaire 

Table 8: All Officials’ Rating of Challenges Related to Awareness and Priorities 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when considering climate change adaptation efforts? 

(1) 

Not at all 

(2) 

Slightly 

(3) 

Moderately

(4) 

Very 

(5) 

Extremely 

Not 

applicable

Don’t 

know/no 

response 

Total 

responsesa Averageb

Lack of funding for 

adaptation efforts 0 4 25 43 107 1 3 183 4.41

Non-adaptation 

activities are higher 

priorities 4 15 33 62 66 5 1 186 3.95

Lack of clear priorities 

for allocating resources 

for adaptation activities 3 12 39 71 56 2 3 186 3.91

Lack of public 

awareness or 

knowledge of adaptation 0 20 51 83 30 0 2 186 3.67

Lack of awareness or 

knowledge of adaptation 

among government 

officials 2 17 58 74 31 0 2 184 3.63

Difficult to define 

adaptation goals and 

performance metrics 1 21 58 66 35 0 5 186 3.62

Lack of qualified staff to 

work on adaptation 

efforts 5 25 60 44 47 0 5 186 3.57

Lack of a specific 

mandate to address 

climate change 

adaptation 18 24 35 50 55 2 2 186 3.55

Lack of clarity about 

what activities are 

considered adaptation 3 19 59 79 21 2 2 185 3.53

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not 

at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

Page 71 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and 

Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based 

Questionnaire 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 9: All Officials’ Rating of Challenges Related to Information 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when considering climate change adaptation efforts? 

(1) 

 Not at all 

(2) 

Slightly 

(3) 

Moderately 

(4) 

Very 

(5) 

Extremely 

Not 

applicable

Don’t 

know/no 

response 

Total 

responsesa Averageb

Size and complexity of 

future climate change 

impacts 1 8 33 65 73 1 4 185 4.12

Justifying the current 

costs of adaptation 

efforts for potentially 

less certain future 

benefits 1 7 29 76 66 2 4 185 4.11

Translating available 

climate information 

(e.g., projected 

temperature, 

precipitation) into 

impacts at the local level 

(e.g., increased stream 

flow) 3 13 30 62 74 1 2 185 4.05

Availability of climate 

information at relevant 

scale (i.e., downscaled 

regional and local 

information) 4 15 27 66 67 0 4 183 3.99

Understanding the costs 

and benefits of 

adaptation efforts 0 5 49 78 48 2 3 185 3.94

Making management 

and policy decisions 

with uncertainty about 

future effects of climate 

change 2 14 50 68 50 0 1 185 3.82

Lack of information 

about thresholds (i.e., 

limits beyond which 

recovery is impossible 

or difficult) 7 17 38 66 47 3 7 185 3.74

Lack of baseline 

monitoring data to 

enable evaluation of 

adaptation actions (i.e., 

inability to detect 

change) 7 17 44 78 35 1 2 184 3.65

Lack of certainty about 

the timing of climate 

change impacts 3 16 58 68 35 0 3 183 3.64

Page 72 GAO-10-113 
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and 

Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based 

Questionnaire 

 Climate Change Adaptation

How challenging are each of the following for officials when considering climate change adaptation efforts? 

(1) 

 Not at all 

(2) 

Slightly 

(3) 

Moderately 

(4) 

Very 

(5) 

Extremely 

Not 

applicable

Don’t 

know/no 

response 

Total 

responsesaAverageb

Accessibility and 

usability of available 

information on climate 

impacts and adaptation 6 25 54 64 33 0 2 184 3.51

Size and complexity of 

current climate change 

impacts 6 22 64 56 31 1 4 184 3.47

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not 

at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

Page 73 GAO-10-113 
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and 

Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based 

Questionnaire 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 10: All Officials’ Rating of Challenges Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal Government 

How challenging are each of the following for officials when considering climate change adaptation efforts? 

(1) 

 Not at all 

(2) 

Slightly 

(3) 

Moderately 

(4) 

Very 

(5) 

Extremely 

Not 

applicable

Don’t 

know/no 

response 

Total 

responsesa Averageb

Lack of clear roles and 

responsibilities for 

addressing adaptation 

across all levels of 

government (i.e., 

adaptation is everyone’s 

problem but nobody’s 

direct responsibility) 4 16 34 54 70 2 5 185 3.96

The authority and 

capability to adapt is 

spread among many 

federal agencies (i.e., 

institutional 

fragmentation) 4 23 47 66 36 2 7 185 3.61

Lack of federal guidance 

or policies on how to 

make decisions related to 

adaptation 11 22 51 53 39 3 6 185 3.49

Existing federal policies, 

programs, or practices 

that hinder adaptation 

efforts 8 31 47 30 34 3 31 184 3.34

Federal statutory, 

regulatory, or other legal 

constraints on adaptation 

efforts 14 33 50 29 26 4 29 185 3.13

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not 

at all challenging through (5) extremely challenging. 

Page 74 GAO-10-113 
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and 

Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based 

Questionnaire 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 11: All Officials’ Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to Awareness and Priorities 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing 

climate? 

(1) 

Not at all 

(2) 

Slightly 

(3) 

Moderately 

(4) 

Very

(5) 

Extremely 

Don’t 

know/no 

response 

Total 

responsesaAverageb

Development of regional or local 

educational workshops for 

relevant officials that are tailored 

to their responsibilities 3 7 36 64 72 2 184 4.07

Development of lists of “no 

regrets” actions (i.e., actions in 

which the benefits exceed the 

costs under all future climate 

scenarios) 4 13 31 60 73 5 186 4.02

Creation of a campaign to 

educate the public about climate 

change adaptation 1 19 35 60 69 0 184 3.96

Development of a list of potential 

climate change adaptation policy 

options 2 12 38 73 56 4 185 3.93

Training of relevant officials on 

adaptation issues 3 14 38 69 58 2 184 3.91

Creation of a recurring 

stakeholder forum to explore the 

interaction of climate science and 

adaptation practice 3 21 41 70 49 2 186 3.77

Prioritization of potential climate 

change adaptation options 9 19 42 70 43 3 186 3.65

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not 

at all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

Page 75 GAO-10-113 
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and 

Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based 

Questionnaire 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 12: All Officials’ Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to Information 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing 

climate? 

(1) 

Not at all 

(2) 

Slightly 

(3) 

Moderately 

(4) 

Very 

(5) 

Extremely 

Don’t 

know/no 

response 

Total 

responsesaAverageb

Development of state and local

climate change impact and 

vulnerability assessments 2 9 25 56 91 1 184 4.23

Development of regional climate 

change impact and vulnerability 

assessments 0 5 36 60 81 3 185 4.19

Development of processes and 

tools to help officials access, 

interpret, and apply available 

climate information 0 7 30 72 76 0 185 4.17

Identification and sharing of best 

practices 0 7 24 65 61 2 159c4.15

Creation of a federal service to 

consolidate and deliver climate 

information to decision makers to 

inform adaptation efforts 11 20 38 41 66 9 185 3.74

Development of an interactive 

stakeholder forum for information 

sharing 1 23 56 58 46 1 185 3.68

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not 

at all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

c

As previously noted, 187 respondents completed our questionnaire overall. While the number of 

responses for each individual question generally ranged from 183 to 186, only 159 respondents 

answered this question. 

Page 76 GAO-10-113 
Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and 

Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based 

Questionnaire 

 Climate Change Adaptation

Table 13: All Officials’ Rating of Potential Federal Government Actions Related to the Structure and Operation of the Federal 

Government 

How useful, if at all, would each of the following federal government actions be for officials in efforts to adapt to a changing 

climate? 

(1) 

Not at all 

(2) 

Slightly 

(3) 

Moderately 

(4) 

Very 

(5) 

Extremely 

Don’t 

know/no 

response 

Total 

responsesa Averageb

Development of a national 

adaptation fund to provide a 

consistent funding stream for 

adaptation activities 7 8 13 38 113 5 184 4.35

Development of a national 

adaptation strategy that 

defines federal government 

priorities and responsibilities 4 12 36 65 64 4 185 3.96

Review of existing programs to 

identify and modify policies and 

practices that hinder 

adaptation efforts 1 19 38 65 57 5 185 3.88

Issuance of guidance, policies, 

or procedures on how to 

incorporate adaptation into 

existing policy and 

management processes 2 15 45 78 40 4 184 3.77

Development of a climate 

change extension service to 

help share and explain 

available information 8 20 46 54 53 3 184 3.69

Creation of a centralized 

government structure to 

coordinate adaptation funding 24 20 33 44 45 19 185 3.40

Source: GAO. 

a

The total column represents the number of officials who answered each question out of the 187 

respondents that completed the questionnaire. 

b

The average column represents the average of the numerical ratings submitted by officials for (1) not 

at all useful through (5) extremely useful. 

Page 77 GAO-10-113 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Council on Appendix IV: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality 

Environmental Quality 

Page 78 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
Appendix IV: Comments from the Council on 

Environmental Quality 

Page 79 GAO-10-113 Climate Change Adaptation
Ap

Ac

pendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

knowledgments

Page 80 GAO-10-113 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Steve Elstein (Assistant Director), 

Charles Bausell, Keya Chateauneuf, Cindy Gilbert, William Jenkins, 

Richard Johnson, Kirsten Lauber, Ty Mitchell, Benjamin Shouse, Jeanette 

Soares, Ruth Solomon, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Joseph Thompson made 

key contributions to this report. Camille Adebayo, Holly Dye, Anne 

Johnson, Carol Kolarik, Jessica Lemke, Micah McMillan, Leah Probst, Jena 

Sinkfield, and Cynthia Taylor also made important contributions. 

 Climate Change Adaptation

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361007) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper