UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
EVALUATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION TOOLS FOR
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANNING
By
Michelle Renee Oswald
An Analytical Paper Submitted to the Urban Affairs and Public Policy Faculty of the
School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban Affairs and Public Policy
Newark, Delaware
May 2011
EVALUATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION TOOLS FOR
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANNING
by
Michelle Renee Oswald
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Sue McNeil, Ph.D.
Professor, Chairperson of Analytical Paper Committee
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
David Ames, Ph.D.
Professor, Member of Analytical Paper Committee
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Danilo Yanich, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Director of Urban Affairs and Public Policy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... ii
Chapter 1- Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................. 2
1.3 Objectives .............................................................................................. 3
1.4 Scope ..................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Overview of Analytical Paper ................................................................. 4
Chapter 2- Climate Change Adaptation Efforts ........................................................ 5
2.1 Climate Change Adaptation .................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Adaptive Capacity....................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Adaptation Activities .................................................................. 8
2.1.3 Adaptive Management ................................................................ 9
2.1.4 Barriers to Adaptation .............................................................. 11
2.2 Existing Adaptation Efforts .................................................................. 12
2.2.1 International Efforts .................................................................. 12
2.2.2 National Efforts ........................................................................ 14
2.2.3 State Efforts ............................................................................. 15
2.2.4 Local Efforts............................................................................. 18
2.3 Inventory of Existing Adaptation Tools ................................................ 19
Chapter 3- Evaluation of Existing Climate Change Adaptation Tools ..................... 25
3.1 Review of Selected Existing Tools........................................................ 25
3.2 Adaptation Wizard ............................................................................... 29
3.2.1 Overview of Adaptation Wizard ................................................ 29
3.2.1 Evaluation of Adaptation Wizard .............................................. 32
3.3 SERVIR Climate Mapper ..................................................................... 35
3.3.1 Overview of Climate Mapper .................................................... 35
3.3.2 Evaluation of Climate Mapper................................................... 38
3.4 CRiSTAL ............................................................................................. 40
3.4.1 Overview of CRiSTAL ............................................................. 40
3.4.2 Evaluation of CRiSTAL ............................................................ 44
Chapter 4- Conclusion ........................................................................................... 46
4.1 Summary of Tools ................................................................................ 46
4.2 Recommendations ................................................................................ 48
4.3 Future Research ................................................................................... 50
Chapter 5- References............................................................................................ 51
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1-Comparison of Adaptation Tools, Databases, and Processes ...................... 24
Table 3.1-Comparison of Adaptation Tools .............................................................. 27
Table 3.2-Sample Table from Adaptation Wizard ...................................................... 32
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1-State Level Adaptation Planning .............................................................. 16
Figure 2.2-States with Climate Action Plans (GHG Mitigation Plans)........................ 17
Figure 3.1-Five steps in Adaptation Wizard............................................................... 31
Figure 3.2-Adaptation Wizard Notepad .................................................................... 31
Figure 3.3- Risk Framework ..................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.4-User Interface of the Climate Mapper for SERVIR Viz ............................ 35
Figure 3.5-Example of Change in Climate Moisture Index Output ............................. 37
Figure 3.6-Example of Change in Temperature Output ............................................. 37
Figure 3.7-Structure of CRiSTAL............................................................................. 41
Figure 3.8-CRiSTAL 4.0 Screen ............................................................................... 42
LIST OF ACRONYMS
APF-Adaptation Policy Framework
ARWG- Adaptation and Response Working Group
CAIT- Climate Analysis Indicators Tool
ClEAR- Climate Envelopes/Adaptation Risk Screening Platform
CRiSTAL- Community-based Risk Screening Tool-Adaptation and Livelihoods
GCM- Global Climate Model
GHG- Greenhouse Gas
ICLEI-International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
IDS- Institute of Development Studies
IISD- International Institute for Sustainable Development
IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCD- International Union for Conservation of Nature
LRTP- Long Range Transportation Plan
MPO- Metropolitan Planning Organizations
NAPA-National Adaptation Programme of Action
NCAR- National Center for Atmospheric Research
ORCHID- Opportunities and Risks of Climate Change and Disasters
PRECIS- Providing Regional Climates for Impact Studies
SDSM- Statistical DownScaling Model
SEI- Stockholm Environment Institute
TIP- Transportation Improvement Plan
UKCIP-United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme
UNDP-GEF- United Nations Development Programme-Global Environment Facility
UNFCC- United Nations Framework on Climate Change
UNITAR- United Nations Institute for Training and Research
USAID- United States Agency for International Development
ABSTRACT
Scientific evidence on climate change and the potential for serious
global impact is now stronger than ever (Stern, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) released a statement in the Fourth Assessment Report that
there is a ninety percent probability (very high confidence) that greenhouse gas
emissions produced by human activities have caused most of the observed global
warming since the mid-twentieth century (IPCC, 2007). As a result, a concern facing
the planning sector is the potential impact of climate change on the built and natural
environment.
While mitigation efforts of reducing greenhouse gas emission are essential
to slowing the threat of climate change, adaptation practices to build resilience and
protection from impacts should be accelerated (Stern, 2006). Mitigation efforts such as
setting limits on emissions will not be sufficient, or timely enough, to avoid all potential
impacts of climate change (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009). Therefore,
in order to prepare and protect societies, economies, and the environment, adaptation
efforts, which focus on reducing potential impacts, are required.
Transportation and land use practitioners need to be proactive in their
approaches to planning by incorporating adaptive practices. Evaluating transportation
and land use plans that are at-risk to potential impacts and brainstorming alternatives is
fundamental to preparing for climate change. There are few existing adaptation tools
that have been developed. Furthermore, their effectiveness and application to the
planning sector is unknown. Therefore, exploring the existing adaption tools in regards
to transportation planning provides the opportunity to determine additional adaptation
efforts and recommendations for improvements within the planning sector.
This research includes a review of existing climate change adaptation tools
and an evaluation on their applicability to the transportation planning sector. Three
tools are selected for a more in depth review (Adaptation Wizard, SERVIR Climate
Mapper, and CRiSTAL) based on their relevance to the field. These tools are critiqued
with the goal of providing explicit recommendations for future adaptation tool
development to address potential climate change impacts from a transportation
planning perspective.
A review of existing adaptation tools suggests that a more quantitative,
discipline-specific decision support tool is needed in order to encourage the
implementation of adaptation practice in planning agencies. Decision support tools for
adaptation should include a more direct reflection of the planning horizon, application
to the local scale, and inclusion of the uncertainties related to climate change. The
development of these more rigorous tools can increase the effectiveness of adaptation
planning and, in turn, improve the integration of climate change adaptation into
transportation planning. The integration will hopefully foster a more proactive
approach within planning agencies (such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations)
throughout the United States.
Chapter 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation
Scientific evidence on climate change and the potential for serious global
impact is now stronger than ever (Stern, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) released a statement in the Fourth Assessment Report that
there is a ninety percent probability (very high confidence) that greenhouse gas
emissions produced by human activities have caused most of the observed global
warming since the mid-twentieth century (IPCC, 2007).
A concern facing the planning sector is the potential impact of climate
change on the built and natural environment. As scientific evidence on climate change
continues to support the relationship between anthropogenic activities and global
warming, greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise at a rate of more than 2 parts
per million each year (Stern, 2006). This increasing rate suggests the need to evaluate
potential risks to adequately manage and protect society.
While mitigation efforts are essential to slowing the threat of climate
change, adaptation practices to build resilience and protection from impacts should be
accelerated (Stern, 2006). Mitigation efforts such as setting limits on emissions will
not be sufficient, or timely enough, to avoid all potential impacts of climate change
(Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009). Therefore, in order to prepare and
protect societies, economies, and the environment, adaptation efforts are required.
1
More specifically, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) are in
need of a model or a tool to begin to analyze the risks and potential impacts associated
with climate change within their jurisdiction. Currently, there are a few tools that are
general to adaptation planning and they are evaluated in detail in terms of their
application to transportation planning. The evaluation provides a basis for identifying
the gaps and understanding the need for further research to accelerate adaptation
planning within MPO’s.
1.2 Problem Statement
Climate change impacts on society are becoming more prominent as
scientific evidence suggests there is a high probability that anthropogenic activities have
led to global warming. There are numerous impacts associated with global warming
including increased temperatures, increased precipitation rates, rising sea level, and
increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. As mentioned previously,
mitigation efforts such as setting limits on emissions will not be sufficient, or timely
enough, to avoid all potential impacts of climate change (Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, 2009). Therefore, in order to prepare and protect societies,
economies, and the environment, adaptation planning practices are required.
Transportation and land use practitioners need to be proactive in their
approaches to planning by incorporating adaptive practices. Evaluating layouts that are
at-risk to potential impacts and brainstorming alternatives is fundamental to preparing
for climate change. There are few existing adaptation tools that have been developed.
Furthermore, their effectiveness and application to the planning sector is unknown.
Therefore, exploring the existing adaption tools in regards to transportation and land
2
use planning will provide the opportunity to determine adaptation efforts and
recommendations for improvements within the planning sector.
1.3 Objectives
The primary objective of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of
climate change adaptation planning tools and their application to transportation and
land use planning, specifically within Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s). In
order to complete this goal a number of secondary objectives are included:

Review background information on climate change, adaptation, and
existing efforts

Complete an inventory of existing adaptation tools

Select specific tools based on their relevance to planning for a more
in depth critique

Evaluate selected tools (Adaptation Wizard, SERVIR Climate
Mapper, and CRiSTAL)

Provide recommendations for improvements based on evaluation of
tools

Suggest future research
1.4 Scope
The scope of this research is to complete a qualitative literature review on
climate change adaptation, specifically climate change adaptation tools as applied to
transportation and land use planning. The existing adaptation tools are evaluated using
several criteria appropriate to their application in transportation and land use. More
specifically, the evaluation of the tools focuses on the needs of Metropolitan Planning
3
Organizations (MPO’s) and the ability to integrate climate change adaptation into
design with respect to the risk and impact of climate change.
1.5 Overview of Analytical Paper
This research synthesizes existing climate change adaptation literature and
evaluates existing tools through four major chapters:

Chapter 1-Introduction: description of the motivation, problem
statement, objectives, and scope of the research.

Chapter 2-Climate Change Adaptation Efforts: literature review of
the background information in support of this research.
o Climate Change Adaptation
o Existing Adaptation Efforts
o Inventory of Existing Adaptation Tools

Chapter 3- Evaluation of Existing Climate Change Adaptation
Tools: selection of three tools that are evaluated based on a number
of criteria in relation to its application in transportation and land
use planning.
o Adaptation Wizard
o SERVIR-Climate Mapper
o CRiSTAL

Chapter 4- Conclusion: overview of the evaluation results and
future goals.
o Summary of Tools
o Recommendations
o Future Research
4
Chapter 2- CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION EFFORTS
This chapter defines climate change adaptation based on a literature
review. Existing global adaptation efforts are discussed along with an inventory of the
existing adaptation tools for planning.
2.1 Climate Change Adaptation
Science shows that climate change trends will continue to accelerate in
future years, and will have a significant impact on the built and natural environment
(Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009). With this knowledge, mitigation efforts
such as setting limits on emissions will not be sufficient, or timely enough to avoid all
potential impacts of climate change (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009).
Therefore, in order to prepare and protect societies, economies, and the environment,
adaptation efforts are necessary. These efforts require steps to improve planning,
develop more climate-resilient infrastructure, and overall, provide better information to
individuals on how they can respond (Stern, 2006).
Climate change adaptation is defined by the IPCC (2007) “as the
adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic
stimuli or their effects which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities”
(EPA, 2009). The Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2009) further supports this
definition with their own, stating adaption involves “actions by individuals or systems
to avoid, withstand, or take advantage of current and projected climate changes and
impacts…in order to decrease a system’s vulnerability, or increase its resilience to
5
impacts.” Both definitions stress the ability to moderate or avoid harm as a result of
climate change impact. The adaptation process requires significant preparation in
regards to risk assessment, prioritization of projects, funding and allocation of both
financial and human resources, solution development and implementation, information
sharing, decision-support tools, collaboration, and creativity (Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, 2008). Based on each geographic location, these aspects of the
adaptation process should be tailored to the needs of the locale/region.
Shore protection is an example of an adaptation strategy in response to
rising sea level. Construction of dikes, bulkheads, and beach nourishment can prevent
flooding, eroding beaches, and inundation of low-lying coastal properties, and other
impacts of sea level rise (EPA, 2009). The adaptation strategy should be selected based
on its associated costs and benefits, and alternative strategies should be considered as
necessary.
2.1.1 Adaptive Capacity
The potential for adaptation, similar to climate change phenomena, will not
be homogenous but will vary throughout various societies and systems. The
geography, economy, social and political structures, as well as many other factors can
inevitably influence the will to and the ability of regions to adapt. The inherent ability
of a system to adapt to climate change impacts is referred to as the adaptive capacity.
More specifically, it involves an evaluation of “What is feasible in terms of repair,
relocation, or restoration of the system?” and “Can the system be made less vulnerable
or more resilient?” (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009).
Adaptive capacity is uneven between societies as well as within one society
(EPA, 2009). Therefore, the potential for individuals and groups to have insufficient
6
capacity is present (EPA, 2009). Additionally, those that have a high adaptive capacity
do not always translate into a reduced vulnerability (EPA, 2009). This suggests that
although an agency may have all the resources and expertise needed to address
adaptation, the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to climate change impacts may still be
present. This is because adaptive capacity and resiliency of a system can be mutually
exclusive. As a result, high adaptive capacity does not directly correlate to increased
resilience or decreased vulnerability.
There are many key factors that drive adaptive capacity and lead to
inconsistency across or within regions. These key factors include economic resources,
technology, information and awareness, skills and human resources, infrastructure, and
institutional support and governance (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009).
These key factors limit the participation of developing countries, as well as some areas
of developed countries, in implementing adaptation practices, specifically due to a lack
of economic and technological resources.
Regardless of location, in general, the ability for natural systems to adapt is
more limited than for built systems (Pew Center for Global Climate Change, 2009).
Therefore, an effort to reduce the effects of urbanization, decrease barriers to migration
paths, and avoid habitat fragmentation, is necessary to encourage ecosystem adaptation
(EPA, 2009).
Similarly, efforts to allow the built environment to adapt are essential and
begin with encouraging a supportive governance, supportive social structures, and
creating information through continued research and data collection. Once a society
has gone through the effort of building their adaptive capacity, adaptation actions (or
activities) can then be implemented.
7
2.1.2 Adaptation Activities
A system’s adaptive capacity serves as a foundation for which adaptation
activities can be delivered. The United Nations Framework on Climate Change
(UNFCC) describes adaptation activities as being technological, managerial, behavioral,
or policy-based (McNeil, 2009). Based on individual sectors the activities will be
tailored to their needs. For example, the transportation sector which focuses primarily
on constructing new facilities and monitoring existing infrastructure, falls under a
technological activity (McNeil, 2009).
Along with the type of activity, the timeline for adaptation to occur is
influential. Activity response can be defined through reactive and proactive action
(Burton et al., 2006). Reactive adaptation response is typically after the fact, meaning
that once a problem has occurred, then adaptation takes place. In contrast, a proactive
response suggests adaptation prior to the problem, acting as a more preventative
approach.
Activities are also distinguished based on their potential impact if
implemented. The following categories describe an activity’s impact (University of
Washington and King County, 2007):
 No regret- benefits occur even if climate change does not occur
 Low regret- provide benefits at relatively little cost or risk
 Win-win- reduce impact of climate change while providing other social
or economic benefits
Therefore, adaptation activities are selected based on their type, response, and impact
on individual systems.
8
2.1.3 Adaptive Management
Effective implementation of adaptation activities should be applied under
the approach of adaptive management. Adaptive management involves managing
systems under the threat of abrupt change where policies are treated as experiments
that are tested against the experience of implementation (Dewar and Wachs, 2006).
This indicates that adaptation is an iterative process, following a cycle of six general
steps: assessment, design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment
(Dewar and Wachs, 2006). Similarly, the United Nations Development Programme
further defines the process as an Adaptation Policy Framework (APF) that includes five
steps (Burton et al., 2004):
1. Scoping and designing the adaptation project- ensuring that the project
is well-integrated into the national policy planning and development
process.
2. Assessing current vulnerability- responding to issues on what factors,
efforts and issues determine the society’s vulnerability including
exposure, sensitivity, and capacity to adapt.
3. Assessing future climate risks-development of future scenarios of what
trends may occur.
4. Formulating an adaptation strategy-identifying and selecting a set of
policy options and measures to create a strategy.
5. Continuing the adaptation process- implementing, monitoring,
evaluating, improving and sustaining the initiatives.
These processes emphasize the importance of scoping/assessment and
suggest that it is the “most vital stage throughout the Adaptation Policy Framework
process” (Burton et al., 2004). The first step, assessing the potential impacts through
9
defining the scope, is fundamental to the cycle and requires the definition of clear
objectives, identification of actions that balance risk and learning opportunities,
identification of metrics to assess achievement of objectives, identification of
uncertainties, and hypothesis of potential effects of alternatives (Dewar and Wachs,
2006). Defining the objectives of the adaptation process sets the scope for future
steps and creates the ability for integration into existing policy.
Another key step in the process is the identification and assessment of
current vulnerabilities. Determining vulnerabilities can help in prioritizing and
implementing action effectively and efficiently. The IPCC has defined a list of criteria
to aid in this step (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009):
 Magnitude of Impact -large, medium, or small scale
 Timing of Impact -short or long term
 Persistence/Reversibility -permanent, near-permanent, or irreversible
damage
 Likelihood/Certainty-high or low confidence and associated urgency
 Importance-value to society
 Equity- vulnerability associated with adaptive capacity
Throughout the process, key stakeholders should be included in order to
broaden participant perspectives in identifying problems and solutions related to
adaptation (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009). Adaptation planning
requires collaboration between and within local, state, and federal governments as well
as across academic, professional, and scientific communities. In addition, integration
between jurisdictional and geographic boundaries is required in order to share results of
10
completed assessments with similar sectors (Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
2009).
2.1.4 Barriers to Adaptation
In addition to the key factors of adaptive capacity and limitations within
adaptation management, the ability for a system to adapt can also be affected by real or
perceived barriers/constraints. Questions behind the need, as well as immediacy for
adaptation, may be brought into question as a result of some of the following barriers
(UK Climate Impacts Programme, 2009):
 Limited understanding of climate risks and vulnerabilities
 Lack of supportive policies, standards, regulations, and design guidance
 Existing legal or regulatory restrictions
 Lack of availability or restricted access to appropriate technologies
 Costs of identified adaptation options when budgets are limited
 Lack of availability of resources (in-house expertise)
 Cultural rigidity and conflict
 Short term nature of planning horizons
In addition to “real” barriers, there are perceived barriers related to the uncertainty
associated with climate change:
 Mismatch between planning horizons and climate change projections
 Perspective that climate change is not a “big problem yet” so a
proactive approach is not necessary
 Belief that uncertainty is too great to take action now
 Lack of useful precedents or evidence of adaptation actions (what are
others doing?)
11
 Lack of acceptance/understanding of risks associated with
implementation (what if the decision is wrong?)
Overcoming these barriers is a challenge, however, building a strong
adaptive capacity through improving the understanding of climate change, evaluating
associated risks and vulnerabilities, and updating legal and institutional frameworks is
essential to successful adaptation.
2.2 Existing Adaptation Efforts
The majority of climate change adaptation initiatives in the United States
are in their earliest stages (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009). In contrast,
other countries have taken a leading role in proactive adaptation efforts to decrease
system vulnerability and increase resilience to impacts (McNeil, 2009). Therefore,
these countries serve as examples of how adaptation actions can be implemented as
well as integrated into policy making.
2.2.1 International Efforts
Many countries are realizing the importance of climate change adaptation
within the scope of protecting and reducing vulnerabilities, in addition to supporting
mitigation. Therefore, initiatives, policies, decision support tools, and databases are
being developed and serve as examples for future adaptation practice. To illustrate the
diversity of actions taking place throughout the world, this section describes countries
actively engaged in climate change adaptation and includes a brief summary of their
contributions to climate change adaptation.
The United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme was formed in 1997 to
help coordinate research and assist organizations with adaptation to climate change.
12
They have primarily focused on assessing climate change impacts and identifying
potential adaptation strategies (West and Gawith, 2005). Through research on impacts
and adaptation, they have developed and assembled numerous tools, guides, databases,
and reports such as CRiSTAL and Adaptation Wizard (McNeil, 2009). These tools are
relevant to efforts within the United States and will be further discussed in detail as
they pertain to this research.
The Australian government has taken significant effort in climate change
adaptation through the development of the “National Climate Change Adaptation
Framework” which outlines a timeline for collaboration between governments to
address key climate change issues related to the community and institutions. The goal
of the framework is to aid decision-makers in integrating climate change into policy
regardless of scale and sector (Council of Australian Governments, 2007). This
framework falls under the Council of Australian Governments “Plan of Collaborative
Action on Climate Change” which has been one of the many efforts to meet Australia’s
international obligations under the UNFCC (Council of Australian Governments,
2007). More recently, the Australian government committed over ten million dollars
over a period of four years in order to establish research networks, focusing on the
effects of climate change and adaptation efforts.
New Zealand has focused on adaptation in the transportation sector with
the paper “Climate Change Impacts on the State Highway Network: Transit New
Zealand’s Position” (Kinsella and McGuire, 2005). Using a two-stage approach, they
first assessed whether action was necessary, and then they assessed the feasibility of
immediate action to protect transportation infrastructure (Kinsella and McGuire, 2005).
This iterative process helps to define the need for action in order to increase the
13
efficiency and effectiveness of climate change action. Based on the results, adaptation
activities were then evaluated focusing on state highways.
2.2.2 National Efforts
Proactive and comprehensive adaptation planning within the United States
is still in the early stages. Over the last five years, interest in mitigation and more
recently adaptation have risen dramatically (McNeil, 2009). As of November 2008,
over 75 bills addressing some aspect of adaptation were introduced to Congress (Pew
Center on Global Climate Change, 2009).
The bills recognize the necessity for an
approach to identify at-risk systems and to address the scope of funding and
responsibility that will be required at all levels (Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
2009). With the absence of federal legislation supporting adaptation, efforts at the
state and local level are vital to addressing the unavoidable impacts that will occur in
the near future.
United States research programs are being established and are beginning to
address national climate change concerns. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) carried out a study “Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment
Product: Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate Sensitive Ecosystems
and Resources” to review management options for adapting to climate variability, to
identify characteristics of successful adaptation implementation, and to meet resource
management needs (EPA, 2009).
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has produced numerous
reports related to adaptation in the United States. The “Climate Change 101:
Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change” report touches on the
14
specific impacts the country may face, factors for adaptive capacity, and existing efforts
throughout the country (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009).
The Heinz Center on Science, Economics, and the Environment in
Washington D.C. has completed a “Survey of Adaptation Planning” which reviews
adaptation planning guidebooks and frameworks as well as existing adaptation planning
efforts (The Heinz Center, 2007). It is designed to be used as a “road map” to
successful adaptation practice through sharing of best practices on adaptation (The
Heinz Center, 2007). In addition, they have published “Preparing for Climate Change:
A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments” with the intentions of
helping decision-makers at all jurisdictional levels to prepare for climate variability
through a detailed, “easy-to-understand” process for preparedness (University of
Washington and King County, 2007).
2.2.3 State Efforts
Comprehensive and proactive adaptation planning is still emerging in the
United States; however adaptation planning at the state and local level is gaining
greater attention and additional resources as they begin to complete their mitigation
plans (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2008). State efforts include adaptation
within the scope of state Climate Action Plans addressing mitigation as well as separate
commissions for comprehensive adaptation paralleling mitigation (Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, 2008). In addition, many state governments are supporting
local action through adaptation plans. Regardless of scale, these efforts allow for
collaboration and education where states can learn from each other.
State governments are starting to acknowledge the need for broad-scale
adaptation planning through Climate Action Plans as well as comprehensive state
15
adaptation plans. The following seven states have already taken steps toward this
goal: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Vermont
(Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009). An additional eight states have started
adaptation planning in parallel with mitigation activities: these include Alaska,
California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, and
Washington. Figure 2.1 displays a map of the states with either state adaptation plans
or adaptation plans recommended in Climate Action Plans.
Figure 2.1-State Level Adaptation Planning (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009)
As shown by the states in white, most states have focused on greenhouse
gas (GHG) mitigation plans to reduce or avoid impacts of climate change rather than
considering adaptation efforts (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2008). Thirtyfour states have created, or are in the process of developing Climate Action Plans
focusing mostly on state GHG emission inventory data and recommendations to avoid
or reduce impacts by sector (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2008). Figure 2.2
16
displays these states and their progress in addressing climate change mitigation through
Climate Action Plans.
One common trend is that the action plans emphasize the economic and
environmental value of GHG emission reductions rather than the need for proactive
adaptation planning. As stated, only seven out of these thirty-four states are addressing
adaptation in these plans. Perhaps this is due to the regional context of climate change
where specific states are less vulnerable than others to impending climate change
impacts.
Figure 2.2-States with Climate Action Plans (GHG Mitigation Plans) (Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, 2008)
Coastal regions both east and west are more proactive in their adaptation
efforts, specifically in response to the unique threat of sea level rise. The states that are
taking action, such as Maryland and California, are setting up strategies that help to
define federal and state roles in responding to climate impact as well as coordinating
17
planning and funding initiatives to reduce human, economic, and ecosystem impacts
(Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2008).
One state that is leading the way in the Mid-Atlantic region is Maryland.
The Maryland Commission on Climate Change supported the formation of the state’s
Adaptation and Response Working Group (ARWG) which recommends strategies for
reducing the vulnerability of the states’ coastal, natural, and cultural resources as well
as preventing impact to communities throughout the state (Maryland Commission on
Climate Change, 2009). In their Climate Action Plan they have a chapter titled
“Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Climate Change Vulnerability”
where they focus on sea level rise and coastal storm impacts (Maryland Commission on
Climate Change, 2008). This dedication to adaptation within their action plan allows
for proactive recommendations regarding reducing impacts as well as developing a
regional vision for the future.
2.2.4 Local Efforts
Local communities and cities throughout the country are witnessing the
impacts of climate change and, with support from federal and state governments, are
capable of implementing adaptive responses (Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
2008). Similar to state efforts, most municipal action is focused on mitigation
techniques to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, some cities are including
adaptive responses in their plan through efforts such as desalinating groundwater, flood
protection, erosion prevention, and preparing for water shortages (Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, 2008). Typically the efforts are privately funded or managed,
or are the responsibility of a municipal agency.
18
In addition to federal and state support, there is a global organization,
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)- Local Governments
for Sustainability, which has formed a national program called Climate Resilient
Communities, serving as a resource for local adaptation planning within the United
States (ICLEI USA, 2008). The goals of the program include increasing local
government vulnerability assessments, facilitating informed decision-making on climate
science, developing tools to assist prioritization of adaptation, fostering community
resiliency, and training local government leaders and staff on adaptation strategies
(ICLEI USA, 2008). Currently a handful of cities are involved in the program
including Homer, AK, Ft. Collins, CO, Miami-Dade County, FL, and Keene, NH.
These four cities will be the first to complete the program from which ICLEI hopes to
compile adaptation protocols and share information with other cities throughout the
nation (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2008).
Although individual cities are taking action, currently there is no formal
process for collaboration or cross-jurisdictional sharing of information regarding
adaptation activities (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009). Therefore, at this
point, each local action is independent and separate from other cities.
2.3 Inventory of Existing Adaptation Tools
Across the various scales of adaptation efforts, tools have been assembled
with the goal of encouraging organizations, institutions, communities, and individuals
to adapt to climate change. In 2007, a workshop, Sharing Climate Adaptation Tools:
Improving Decision Making for Development, was held in Geneva to discuss and share
adaptation tools that were developed throughout the world. The following is a list of
databases, tools, and processes presented at the workshop along with a general
19
description of their purpose (The World Bank et al., 2007). This list is organized into
three categories: Information generation, databases and platforms, Computer-based
Decision Tools, Adaptation/Risk Management Processes. These categories
differentiate the types and formats of tools evaluated at the Geneva conference. Each
tool is described based on the following information as applicable: name of tool,
owner/developer, and a description of the tool.
Information generation, databases and platforms
 PRECIS- Providing Regional Climates for Impact Studies (UK Met
Office Hadley Centre)- climate impact assessments in developing
countries using GCM (global climate model) to provide spatiotemporal hydro-climatic state variables, soil hydrology,
thermodynamics, and vegetation dynamic variables.
 Vulnerability Mapping and Impact Assessment-uses GCM outputs,
agriculture systems and land use data, GIS and vulnerability data to
provide information on vulnerable populations and options for
agricultural sector.
 SERVIR Climate Mapper- assists users of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) Climate Adaptation Guidance
Manual to access climate information.
 SDSM- Statistical DownScaling Model (UK)- computer-based
information to provide daily, transient, risk information for impact
assessment over the 1961-2100 time horizon primarily for water
resource management.
20
 Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) -World Resources Institutedatabase including information on historical impacts, specifically from
disaster events and the vulnerability and impacts component is part of a
wider tool-kit of country level data on greenhouse gas emissions.
 National Adaptation Programme of Action – United Nations Institute
for Training and Research (UNITAR)-international support to NAPA
country teams through technical assistance in synthesizing existing
vulnerability and adaptation information and formulation of relevant
projects and profiles.
 ClEAR (Climate envelopes/adaptation risk screening platform)Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)-collection of software tools,
databases, guidance, examples/prototypes and communications to
provide immediate links between climate episodes, trends, and impacts
affecting the environment, economics, and social welfare.
Computer-based Decision Tools
 CRiSTAL (Community-based Risk Screening Tool- Adaptation and
Livelihoods)-project-based tool piloted for Nicaragua, Mali,
Tanzania, and Sri Lanka in agriculture, water resource,
infrastructure, and natural resource management sectors. Delivers
vulnerability and livelihood profiles and integration of adaptation
concerns into project portfolios.
 ADAPT- World Bank- tested in South Asia and undertakes a sensitivity
analysis for projects and identifies those that are sensitive to climate
change and provides adaptation advice based on GCM data.
21
 Adaptation Wizard- UK Climate Impacts Programme- web-based tool
to integrate climate risks into decision making at the organizational
level and guides users through an economic analysis of adaptation
options and scenarios.
 Country Database – United Nations Development Programme-Global
Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF)- helps UNDP offices to develop
adaptation proposals and improve awareness on climate risks for
project designs through compiling a common set of information
from National Communications and other scientific studies.
Adaptation/Risk Management Processes
 Climate Quick Scans-Netherlands Climate Assistance Program- quick
and dirty process that draws on expert advice to screen
programs/projects in order to establish adaptation priorities and
increase awareness on climate risks with partner countries.
 Preparedness for Climate Change- Red Cross- assesses key climate
change related risks facing vulnerable citizens by drawing on Red
Cross project details and Red Cross vulnerability data.
 Climate Change Adaptation Guidance Manual-USAID-manual that
assists in mainstreaming of climate change adaptation in projects
throughout multiple sectors such as agriculture, coastal
development, water infrastructure, etc.
 ORCHID (Opportunities and Risks of Climate Change and Disasters)Institute of Development Studies (IDS)- process-based tool that
22
utilizes qualitative inputs on climate science and applies them to
risk assessment in terms of vulnerability and disaster risk.
In order to compare each tool, database, and process, Table 2.1 displays the following
criteria for comparison:

Audience- who uses the tool

Screening level-scope of what the tool evaluates

Spatial scale-geographic area

Training time- time to train users

Application time-time to implement

Main data type- qualitative or quantitative data

Economic analyses-whether economic analysis is included
As shown in the table, there are tools for multiple audience types, scales, purposes, and
resolutions.
This list provides a foundation for completing an evaluation of the
effectiveness of adaptation tools for transportation and land use planning applications.
As innovations in adaptation planning occur, tools developed since 2007 can be added
to this list as future research and included in evaluations similar to the process used at
the Geneva workshop.
23
Table 2.1-Comparison of Adaptation Tools, Databases, and Processes (The World Bank et al.,
2007)
24
Chapter 3- EVALUATION OF EXISTING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION TOOLS
This chapter evaluates existing climate change adaptation tools based on
criteria for application to the transportation planning sector which includes type of tool,
application time, planning horizon, data format, scale, and sector. A review of selected
existing tools is provided using a comparison table. Then, three tools (Adaptation
Wizard, SERVIR-Climate Mapper and CRiSTAL) are selected for an in depth,
qualitative analysis based on their relevance to transportation and land use planning.
For each of the three tools, an overview as well as a critique, based on its relevance to
transportation planning applications, is provided.
3.1 Review of Selected Existing Tools
Climate change adaptation is addressed through a limited number of
existing tools and programs throughout the world. As discussed in Chapter 2, the 2007
Geneva workshop was held to review the existing tools and studies that focus on
climate change adaptation. In order to further evaluate a select number of these tools
in regards to their transportation planning application, a tool comparison is used.
A number of criteria are used to compare the tools, some of which are
based on the evaluation used at the Geneva workshop, and others that were developed
specific for this research. The criteria used at the Geneva workshop that influenced the
selection include:

Type of tool-three categories evaluated at the workshop

Spatial scale-geographic area
25

Application time-time to implement

Main data type- qualitative or quantitative data

Economic analyses-Whether economic analysis is included for each
application
The criteria developed specific for this research include:

Sector or focus area- relation to a discipline

Application to the planning horizon- connection to present, short, and long
term time frame

Application to MPO’s- ability for transportation planner to use the tool
Table 3.1 compares each of the tools listed from the Geneva workshop
specific to their integration in Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s). This list
is not meant to be exhaustive but rather serves as a basis for evaluating existing tools
and selecting those that are most useful for planning agencies such as Metropolitan
Planning Organizations.
Based on the tool comparison, a select number of tools are identified for
further evaluation in their effectiveness and application to planning organizations.
In addition to the previously defined criteria, the availability and accessibility of the tool
was taken into account in order to provide a sufficient evaluation. The tools that fall
into the acceptable and applicable category for this research are highlighted in grey
(Adaptation Wizard, SERVIR Climate Mapping Tool, ClEAR, CRiSTAL, Climate
Quick Scans, and ORCHID). From this list, three of the tools are highly accessible and
are selected for further evaluation (Adaptation Wizard, the SERVIR Climate Mapping
Tool, and CRiSTAL).
26
Table 3.1-Comparison of Adaptation Tools
Potential Tool
PRECIS
Vulnerability
Mapping and
Impact
Assessment
Type of Tool
Info generation,
databases and
platforms
ClEAR
Info generation,
databases and
platforms
Info generation,
databases and
platforms
Info generation,
databases and
platforms
Info generation,
databases and
platforms
Info generation,
databases and
platforms
Info generation,
databases and
platforms
CRiSTAL
Computer-based
Decision Tools
SERVIR Climate
Mapper
SDSM
CAIT
National
Programme of
Action
Application
Time
Planning
horizon
Regional
Context
Economic
Analysis
Data Type
Sector/Focus
Application
to MPO's
Variable
Variable
Multi-scale
No
Quantitative
soil, hydrology,
vegetation
No
National
No
Quantitative
agricultural
sector
No
Local,
Regional
No
Quantitative
general climate
information
Yes
Multi-scale
No
Quantitative
National
No
Quantitative
less than 1
month
Present,
Short
Term
Short
and Long
Term
Present,
Short
Term
Present,
Short
Term
N/A
N/A
Multi-scale
No
N/A
Variable
Variable
Multi-scale
Yes
Quantitative
less than 1
month
Present,
Short
Term
Local,
Regional
No
Qualitative
2-6 months
less than 1
month
less than 1
month
27
water resource
management
disaster and
historical
impact
general
adaptation
information
economics,
environment,
and social
agriculture,
water/natural
resource,
infrastructure
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potential Tool
ADAPT
Adaptation
Wizard
Country
Database
UNDP-GEF
Climate Quick
Scans
Preparedness
for Climate
Change
Climate
Change
Adaptation
Manual
ORCHID
Type of Tool
Application
Time
Computer-based
Decision Tools
less than 1
month
Computer-based
Decision Tools
less than 1
month
Computer-based
Decision Tools
less than 1
month
Adaptation/Risk
Management
Processes
Adaptation/Risk
Management
Processes
Adaptation/Risk
Management
Processes
Adaptation/Risk
Management
Processes
less than 1
month
less than 6
months
2-6 months
2-6 months
Planning
horizon
Present,
Short
Term
Present,
Short
Term
Present,
Short
Term
Present,
Short
Term
Present,
Short
Term
Present,
Short
Term
Present,
Short
Term
Regional
Context
Economic
Analysis
Local,
Regional
No
Multi-scale
Yes
National
No
Qualitative
Qualitative
and
Quantitative
Qualitative
and
Quantitative
Multi-scale
No
Qualitative
National
No
Qualitative
Local,
Regional
No
Qualitative
and
Quantitative
vulnerable
citizens
agriculture,
coastal and
water
management
Regional,
National
Yes
Qualitative
Disaster and
vulnerability
28
Data Type
Sector/Focus
sensitivity and
general climate
information
decision making
with economic
analysis
general climate
information
climate
information
with partner
countries
Application
to MPO's
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the tools and their application to
planning, each of the three selected tools is assessed in terms of a variety of factors.
The factors used in the more detailed, qualitative review include the following:
 Overall goal and mission
 Implementation process
 Resources provided
 Application to the planning sector
 Audience
 Inclusion of climate change data
 Format of output
In addition, a critique of each tool is provided in regards to its strengths and
weaknesses, prior to an overall evaluation of adaptation tools in response to climate
change.
3.2 Adaptation Wizard
3.2.1 Overview of Adaptation Wizard
The Adaptation Wizard is a web-based tool developed by the United
Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) that was launched in 2004 to aid
decision makers in the process of understanding climate change and integrating
adaptation into decision-making (West and Gawith, 2005). The tool is based on a fivestep process:
1. Getting Started
2. Am I vulnerable to the current climate?
3. How will I be affected by climate change?
29
4. What should I do? Do I know enough to act?
a. Identify, assess and implement your adaptation options, or
b. Find out more
5. Keep it relevant
The five step process (Figure 3.1) is iterative; meaning that it has numerous feedback
loops throughout and cyclic rather than a linear process. For each step, the Wizard
assists the user with three aspects (West and Gawith, 2005):
 Explains if a decision-maker is ready to do the next step and what it will
help to achieve.
 Provides some key questions, and indicates which principles of good
climate adaptation and resources should be drawn upon.
 Provides a checklist of the principles and resources and explains the next
steps.
The Wizard includes a notepad that can be downloaded to display all the questions that
the web-based form poses in a more user-friendly format. Figure 3.2 displays a portion
of the notepad. In addition, Table 3.2 displays a sample table that addresses the
potential impacts of climate variables versus the risks that the organization may face.
These resources, the notepad and the tables, are developed to assist the user as they go
through the five-step process.
30
Figure 3.1-Five steps in Adaptation Wizard (UKCIP, 2009)
Figure 3.2-Adaptation Wizard Notepad (UKCIP, 2009)
31
Table 3.2-Sample Table from Adaptation Wizard (UKCIP, 2009)
The user is encouraged to complete each question under each step using the notepad
and tables in order to successfully develop an adaptation strategy. The Wizard
suggests that once the strategy is developed, an iterative process of reviewing and
updating the strategy is necessary.
3.2.1 Evaluation of Adaptation Wizard
The Adaptation Wizard is a highly accessible, user-friendly tool that allows
organizations, regardless of sector to begin brainstorming about how to adapt to
climate change. The simplicity of the qualitative questions allows users of varied
expertise to complete the process. Therefore, the strengths of this tool are that it is
widely applicable and useful for a variety of sectors.
In contrast, one of the weaknesses of the Adaptation Wizard is that it does
not provide an individualized adaptation strategy for the user. Rather, it helps the user
gather and generate information needed to prepare an adaptation plan. Therefore, the
tool provides a general brainstorming approach of how to start thinking about climate
change adaptation without formalizing a plan of action.
Another weakness of the tool is that it only provides “light treatment” of
climate change risk assessment which may not be sufficient for projects that are longterm (UKCIP, 2009). Therefore, the UKCIP recommends that users who have to
32
make decisions over a long-term time horizon or based on a major investment should
supplement the adaptation process with the “Risk Framework.” The risk framework is
another iterative process that enables decision makers “to manage their climate risks in
the face of uncertainty” (UKCIP, 2009). The risk framework (Figure 3.3) includes the
following eight step process:
Stage 1: Identify the problem and objectives
Stage 2: Establish your risk tolerance level and decision-making criteria
Stage 3: Identify and assess your risks
Stage 4: Identify a range of adaptation options
Stage 5: Appraise your adaptation options
Stage 6: Make a decision
Stage 7: Implement the decision
Stage 8: Monitor the decision and for new information
33
Figure 3.3- Risk Framework (UKCIP, 2009)
In order to assess whether the Adaptation Wizard is sufficient for the user’s purpose,
Step 4 (What should I do?), addresses the issue of whether the scope or time frame
requires additional support through frameworks such as the “Risk Framework.”
The Adaptation Wizard is an approach that encourages adaptation
throughout a vast array of audiences. Therefore, the process and questions asked are
general so that they are applicable to a variety of users. However, from a disciplinespecific standpoint, the general format is too broad, causing a lack of direction and
detail. For instance, within the transportation sector, there are specific needs and
impacts that may differ from the needs of the agricultural sector. Therefore, users are
forced to identify these differences and unique characteristics on their own. Having a
tool such as an Adaptation Wizard that is more narrowly focused for individual sectors
can improve detail and applicability in terms of discipline-specific management.
34
3.3 SERVIR Climate Mapper
3.3.1 Overview of Climate Mapper
The SERVIR Climate Mapper-The Regional Visualization and Monitoring
System, which is named after the Spanish word “to serve,” is an information database
tool that allows for the accessibility of climate models to the community at large. The
tool was developed out of the USAID’s (United States Agency for International
Development) efforts with the Climate Change Adaptation Guidance Manual
(SERVIR.net, 2009). Users can map projections for 2030 and 2050 to enhance their
vulnerability assessments and adaptation plans (SERVIR.net, 2009). Currently the
Climate Mapper is only available for Africa; however the intention is to develop it for
the entire world. Figure 3.4 displays the program’s user interface.
Figure 3.4-User Interface of the Climate Mapper for SERVIR Viz (SERVIR.net, 2009)
In terms of the data, there are three sources used as inputs into the model:
the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report: the National Center for Atmospheric Research
35
Community Climate System Model (NCAR CCSM); the European Centre/Hamburg
Model (ECHAM); and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Coupled Model
(GFDL-CM21) (SERVIR.net, 2009). These three sources were selected specific to
Africa since they represent the high, middle, and low projections for changes in the
Climate Moisture Index (measure of relative balance of precipitation and temperature)
(SERVIR.net, 2009). The model is run based on the conservative business-as-usual
economic and carbon emission scenario. The business-as-usual scenario is one where
human activity continues at the existing rate without introducing change, such as
climate change mitigation. Therefore, these models take a conservative approach since
they account for the possibility of not taking action against climate change.
The resulting outputs of the model are maps and graphs of climate
projections including change in precipitation, runoff, temperature, soil moisture, crop
yields, climate moisture index, and potential evapotranspiration (PET). They are
reported as averages over the decades 2031-2040 and 2051-2060 using a 3D
visualization of the landscape. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 are example outputs of the
application to Africa.
36
Figure 3.5-Example of Change in Climate Moisture Index Output (SERVIR.net, 2009)
Figure 3.6-Example of Change in Temperature Output (SERVIR.net, 2009)
37
Previously, climate and weather data has been hard to access, even from
a planner’s perspective. If planners do not have up-to-date information regarding
future projections in temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, etc. then design decisions
will be made without the inclusion of future costs and impacts associated with climate
change. “Information on past weather and projected climate should inform
practitioners as they design projects to be more resilient to climate variability and
change” (SERVIR.net, 2009). Therefore, the SERVIR Climate Mapper does provide
insight into climate data that planners may not have access to when formulating future
adaptation designs.
3.3.2 Evaluation of Climate Mapper
The strength of the Climate Mapper is that it provides detailed climaterelated information on a localized scale. By providing results on a ½ by ½ degree grid
cell, specific localities can benefit from the results, rather than having to use global or
national data. This localized data is extremely applicable to a Metropolitan Planning
Organization jurisdiction. Also, the information that can be retrieved is sector-specific,
meaning it goes beyond just projecting change in temperature or sea level rise. Rather,
it provides information on soil moisture, runoff, crop yields, etc.
In terms of challenges, the first obstacle is to expand the Climate Mapper
to be applicable to all regions throughout the globe. Currently, Africa is used as a case
study for how to develop, model, and communicate climate data to a broad community
of users. Therefore, the results of the application to Africa can help to improve the
performance, processes, and results associated with the program.
Currently, SERVIR Climate Mapper provides information for the two time
periods of 2031-2040 and 2051-2060. In terms of applicability to planning, this would
38
fall under the “long-term planning horizon” using a base year of 2010. Therefore,
although this provides insight into future changes, the data reported represents an
average over a ten year span. More specificity is needed from a planner’s perspective
to align the data results with the typical short term planning horizon of about five years.
Updates in Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP), community plans,
Transportation Improvement Plans (TIP), public participation plans, and regional
progress reports are revisited and revised on a more short-term basis based on existing
changes. Therefore, there is a lack of connectivity between future climate data and the
current and short-term planning horizon. The challenge is finding how to address the
long-term problems of climate change within a reasonable and appropriate planning
perspective.
The existing model is based on the business-as-usual scenario which
assumes that human activity will continue at its current rate. This means that there is
no account for the ability for humans to take action and mitigate climate change.
Although this scenario produces conservative values, it is valuable to assess the
possible scenarios of different types of action as well as the severity and intensity that
they are implemented. Therefore, a tool that takes into account the four major courses
of action: mitigation, adaptation, mitigation and adaptation, and “do nothing” can
provide more direct information for future designs.
It is important to address the argument that the output of the model is
simply data and not information that planners can apply. Data is the raw material used
to construct information while information contributes to answering questions (Babbie,
2007). The model does not provide a connection or process for taking the data and
converting it to necessary information. Therefore, it is up to the planner to take the
39
data and then convert it into the information needed to address his/her own adaptation
decisions. Ideally, a tool that provides this connection or includes steps on how to use
the data is more applicable for planners.
3.4 CRiSTAL
3.4.1 Overview of CRiSTAL
CRiSTAL (Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and
Livelihoods) is a tool designed to aid planners and project managers with integrating
climate change adaptation into their designs, specifically community level projects
(IISD, n/d). It was developed by IISD, (International Institute for Sustainable
Development), IUCD (International Union for Conservation of Nature), SEI-US
(Stockholm Environment Institute), and Intercooperation, with an overarching goal of
promoting the integration of risk reduction and climate change adaptation information
into community-level projects (IISD et al., 2008). In order to achieve the goal, three
broad objectives are developed with the intention of being flexible and applicable to a
variety of users IISD, n/d):
1. Understand the links between livelihoods and climate in their project
areas;
2. Assess a project's impact on community-level adaptive capacity; and
3. Make project adjustments to improve its impact on adaptive capacity
and reduce the vulnerability of communities to climate change.
The structure of the tool is broken down into two modules (synthesizing
information on climate and livelihoods, and planning and managing projects for
40
adaptation) with a total of four framing questions. Figure 3.7 displays the overall
structure of the tool.
Figure 3.7-Structure of CRiSTAL (IISD et al., 2008)
In terms of the format of the tool, it is a Microsoft Excel ™-based program
that is publicly available online. It consists of a step-by-step form that requires the user
to fill in the blanks for each question. The following major steps are included in the
tool (IISD, 2009):

Identify project information

Identifying anticipated impacts of climate change on the project
area

Identify climate-related hazards, impacts and coping strategies

Identify resources that are important to people’s livelihood in
project area
41

Identify how livelihood resources are affected by hazards

Identify how livelihood resources are important to coping strategies

Identify impacts of project activities on key livelihood resources

Identify if modified project activities are sustainable in face of
climate change

Identify synergies or barriers to implementing revised project
activities
Each step has an individual tab in Excel ™ that allows the user to walk through the
process of evaluating current climate impacts. Figure 3.8 displays an example screen of
one of the steps (identifying the climate-related hazards, impacts and coping strategies
in the project area).
Figure 3.8-CRiSTAL 4.0 Screen (IISD, 2009)
As shown in the figure, the tool is meant to help the user brainstorm and document
progress regarding strategies for climate change adaptation. The tool is primarily
qualitative and simply requires text input from the user.
42
In addition to walking the user through the many steps, the tool includes
final reports that help to summarize the major findings determined throughout the
evaluation. The tool includes the following reports:
 Climate Context Report- hazard, impact, and associated coping strategy
 Livelihood Context Report-influence of hazard on livelihood resources
 Project Screening Report-activities, resources affected by hazard, and
impacts on resources by hazard, resources important to coping, impacts
most important to coping strategies
 Screening Process Summary Report- project context and
synergies/barriers
The information included in the report is linked to the information entered throughout
the major steps. Therefore, as the user is working through the tool, the reports are
simultaneously being updated to keep up-to-date information on what has already been
entered.
Once the user has finished using CRiSTAL, the intended results of the
program include an understanding of (IISD et al., 2008):
 How current climate hazards and climate change affect a project area
and local livelihoods.
 How people cope, looking specifically at the resources needed to cope
with climate stress.
 How project activities affect livelihood resources that are vulnerable to
climate risk and/or important to local coping strategies.
 How project activities can be adjusted so that they enhance adaptive
capacity.
43
The IISD, IUCN, SEI-US and Intercooperation suggest it is these major questions that
have to be answered in order to address local adaptive capacity.
This bottom-up approach to climate change adaptation using CRiSTAL has
been field tested on natural resource management projects in Mali, Bangladesh,
Tanzania, Sri Lanka, and Nicaragua (IISD et al., 2008). Project team members from
IISD, IUCN, SEI-US, and Intercooperation traveled to the field sites and collaborated
with the local project managers to help gather information, apply the tool, and develop
recommendations and adjustments for local adaptive capacity (IISD et al., 2008).
The benefit of completing the field tests is twofold. First, the results of the
field tests served as constructive feedback regarding the design and application of the
tool. Second, the process of testing the site raised awareness of climate change issues
for vulnerable communities (IISD et al., 2008). The use of the tool initiated
discussions on climate variability and the need for a participatory approach where the
community can interact and enhance their own adaptive capacity.
3.4.2 Evaluation of CRiSTAL
CRiSTAL is a comprehensive decision-support tool that serves as a
foundation for evaluating adaptive capacity within a local community. The support for
a bottom-up approach to climate change adaptation has recently increased and has
proven to be effective throughout many parts of the world. This tool can encourage
local project managers and planners to evaluate their own designs critically with a stepby-step process. The Excel ™ -based format is user-friendly and applicable to a variety
of sectors.
Since the tool is widely applicable to a variety of sectors, the scope of the
tool is kept at a broad dimension. The tool lacks detail regarding the needs of specific
44
sectors such as transportation. For example, a transportation planning agency has
different needs than a water management agency. Therefore, more specificity is
required for discipline-specific agencies such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Another disadvantage is that the tool serves as a general guide for
documenting progress in a qualitative format. Decisions are made based on qualitative
assumptions and do not include any quantitative evaluations such as a benefit-cost
analysis. Therefore, when decisions are made for the future, they are strictly based on
generalizations rather than quantitative data.
In addition, the tool focuses mostly on current impacts throughout the
decision-making process. Since there is no account for the probability of impact in the
future, capturing the “fuzzy” aspects of the future are addressed in the tool (IISD, n/d).
If the user has a general idea of future impacts, the tool simply helps to keep the
predictions in mind when making decisions for today (IISD, n/d). However, if the user
is unaware of the potential future impacts, then they are excluded from the analysis.
Therefore, a tool that addresses uncertainties related to climate change such as the
severity, time frame, and impact of action taken, in addition to the current impact, is
essential from a planning perspective.
45
Chapter 4- CONCLUSION
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) are in need of a model or
tool to begin to analyze the risks and potential impacts associated with climate change
within their jurisdiction. Currently, there are a few tools that address adaptation
planning with the detail and rigor required for application to transportation planning.
The evaluation completed in this research provides a basis for understanding where
there are gaps and what further research is needed in the future to accelerate adaptation
planning within MPO’s.
This section summarizes the three adaptation tools selected for analysis
(Adaptation Wizard, SERVIR-Climate Mapper, and CRiSTAL). Recommendations
for an adaptation tool for planning are provided based on the evaluation of the existing
tools. In addition, suggestions for future research are included.
4.1 Summary of Tools
In order to evaluate existing adaptation tools and their application to
planning, three previously developed tools (Adaptation Wizard, SERVIR-Climate
Mapper, and CRiSTAL) were selected for further analysis. Each tool holds strengths
and weaknesses in terms of its effectiveness and applicability to the planning sector.
Refer to Section 3.1 for the process used to select these three tools.
Adaptation Wizard is a web-based tool that includes a list of questions
prompting the user to brainstorm and assess their ability to adapt. Since it is applicable
46
to a variety of organizations and agencies, the tool lacks specificity and direction in
terms of how to determine adaptation practices that are appropriate for individual
agencies. In addition, the questions serve only as a guide to generate ideas and
promote evaluation of their own program. There is no direct guidance of how to
address the issues related to climate change impact once there are revealed.
SERVIR- Climate Mapper is an information database tool that is currently
only applicable in Africa. Therefore, the first step is to build on the case study from
Africa and generalize it to be applicable to the world. In doing so, the localized scale
of the output results should remain since this detail is essential for transportation
planning agencies. The current output of the model includes changes in precipitation,
runoff, temperature, soil moisture, crop yields, climate moisture index, and potential
evapotranspiration. However, the results are reported for two decades (2031-2040 and
2051-2060) which do not directly correlate with the typical planning horizon of
present, short, and long term time frames. In addition, the model runs on the
“business-as-usual” scenario which means that it does not include the uncertainty or
impact associated with taking action, whether it is mitigation, adaptation, or both.
Lastly, the output of the model is in data form, which requires the user to convert the
data to information appropriate for that agency.
CRiSTAL (Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and
Livelihoods) is one of the more rigorous, user-friendly tools that encourage climate
change adaptation at the local level. Similar to the Adaptation Wizard, it is applicable
to a variety of users, and therefore, can be applied only at a general scale, excluding
discipline-specific information. The tool is qualitative, meaning that numerical
calculations are not included in the assessment of adaptive capacity. The tool requires
47
text-based inputs and does not include a benefit-cost analysis of the appropriate
adaptation practices needed. In addition, the tool is primarily based on current climate
change impacts and does not include the uncertainties associated with climate change in
the future.
4.2
Recommendations
The planning sector has influenced, and will be affected by, the implications
of climate change including variations in sea level, temperature, precipitation, and wind.
Therefore, design techniques that minimize the effects of climate change are needed in
order to further integrate them into practice. As the risk of climate change becomes
more imminent, pressure within planning agencies, such as Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, to promote sustainable adaptation practices and alter behavior,
continues to rise. It is fundamental that agencies bridge the connection between
climate change-induced design factors and adaptation practices within transportation
and land use planning.
Currently, climate change uncertainties and the potential impacts on
transportation systems throughout the United States have caused many agencies to
disregard the importance of integrating climate change adaptation into their plans.
Lack of information regarding precisely what impacts agencies can expect, as well as
where and when they can expect them, is causing many not to act or to wait for further
guidance on the topic (ICF International, 2008). Existing tools such as those evaluated
in this research, serve as a foundation for a tool specific to Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. It is recommended that a decision-support tool be developed that is
similar in format (Excel ™ -based) to CRiSTAL but addresses the following additional
components:
48
 Analysis of potential future scenarios based on climate change
uncertainty
o Severity- low, moderate, severe
o Time Frame- present, short, and long term
o Type of action taken- do nothing, mitigate, adapt, or both
 Evaluation of the agency’s adaptive capacity in addition to the
community
 Inventory of existing infrastructure and facilities within jurisdiction
 Analysis of future projects in addition to existing projects
 Discipline-specific processes and information (i.e. Transportation)
 Quantitative benefit-cost analysis
 List of potential adaptation activities
 Applicability to planning horizon
 Focus on local scale specific to planning agency jurisdiction
This list is not meant to be exhaustive but serves a foundation for ways to improve the
existing adaptation tools. Each of these suggestions could improve the effectiveness
and applicability of the tool to planning agencies and hopefully will encourage planners
to begin to assess their own adaptive capacity.
Once a more quantitative, discipline-specific tool is developed, a field test,
or pilot phase should be implemented (similar to the field test performed using
CRiSTAL). By implementing a field test, constructive feedback can be used to revise
the tool and make adjustments if necessary prior to final implementation. The field test
serves as a “check” to ensure that the tool is appropriately measuring, evaluating, and
assessing the user’s needs in order to adapt to climate change.
49
4.3 Future Research
In addition to the recommendation that a more quantitative, disciplinebased decision-support tool for transportation planning agencies is needed, additional
future research is suggested. In order to more fully understand how to encourage
climate change adaptation practices within MPO’s and other planning agencies, the
following future research steps are recommended:
 Case study of Adaptation Wizard and CRiSTAL to a local MPO agency
 Evaluation of the remaining 12 adaptation tools listed in Table 3.1 not
assessed in depth
 Investigation of additional adaptation tools not included in the Geneva
Workshop
 Assessment of adaptation needs of existing MPO agencies through
survey or questionnaire
 Assessment of existing adaptation efforts within MPO agencies through
survey or questionnaire
 Complete “program evaluation” of agencies that have used at least one
of the 15 tools listed in Table 3.1 to assess the effectiveness of the tools
As stated in regards to many of the existing adaptation tools, the process of
climate change adaptation is iterative. Therefore, an iterative evaluation process is
necessary in order to enhance and improve the integration of climate change adaptation
in transportation and land use planning.
50
Chapter 5- REFERENCES
Babbie, E. (2007). The Practice of Social Research. Eleventh Edition. Belmont, Ca:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Inc.
Burton, I. Dringer, E., and Smith, J. (2006). Adaptation to Climate Change:
International Policy Options. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. Retrieved on June 10, 2009 from
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/PEW_Adaptation.pdf.
Burton, I., Malone, E., and Huq, S. (2004). Adaptation Policy Frameworks for
Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies, and Measures. United
Nations Development Programme. Retrieved on June 11, 2009 from
http://www.undp.org/gef/kmanagement/pub_practitioner.html.
Council of Australian Governments. (2007). National Climate Change Adaptation
Framework. Retrieved on June 12, 2009 from
http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2007-0413/docs/national_climate_change_adaption_framework.pdf.
Dewar, J., and Wachs, M. (2006). Transportation Planning, Climate Change and
Decisionmaking Under Uncertainty. Report for the National Academy of
Sciences. RAND Corporation. Retrieved on June 11, 2009 from
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290DewarWachs.pdf.
EPA. (2009). Climate Change- Health and Environmental Effects: Adaptation.
Retrieved on June 10, 2009 from epa.gov/climatechange/effects/adaptation.html
ICF International. (2008). Integrating Climate Change into the Transportation
Planning Process. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved on June 18,
2009 from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climatechange/climatechange.pdf.
ICLEI USA. (2008). Climate Resilient Communities Program: Program Structure and
Goals. Retrieved on June 15, 2009 from
http://www.icleiusa.org/programs/climate/Climate_Adaptation/structure-andgoals.
51
IISD. (2009). CRiSTAL 4.0. Retrieved on December 14, 2009 from
http://www.cristaltool.org/content/download.aspx.
IISD. (n/d). FAQs-CRiSTAL Tool. Retrieved on December 14, 2009 from
http://www.cristaltool.org/content/faqs.aspx.
IISD, IUCN, Intercooperation, SEI-US. (2008). Summary of CRiSTAL. Retrieved on
December 15, 2009 from www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/brochure_cristal.pdf.
IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (Summary for Policymakers). [Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY.
Kinsella, Y., and McGuire, F. (2005). Climate Change Uncertainty and the State
Highway Network: A Moving Target. Christchurch: Transit New Zealand
Institute Highway Technology Conference.
Maryland Commission on Climate Change. (2008). Comprehensive Strategy for
Reducing Maryland’s Climate Change Vulnerability. Adaptation and Response
Working Group. Retrieved on June 15, 2009 from
http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/Air/ClimateChange/Chapter5.pdf
Maryland Commission on Climate Change. (2009). Climate Action Plan. Retrieved on
June 15, 2009 from http://www.mdclimatechange.us/.
McNeil, S. (2009). Adaptation Research Programs and Funding. Paper for
Transportation Research Board Executive Committee- Climate Change and
Energy Task Force . Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (2009). Climate Change 101: Adaptation.
Article from series Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to
Global Climate Change. Retrieved on June 10, 2009 from
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Adaptation_0.pdf.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (2008). Adaptation Planning-What U.S.
States and Localities are Doing. Retrieved on June 10, 2009 from
http://climate.dot.gov/impacts-adaptations/planning.html.
SERVIR.net. (2009). The Climate Mapper and SERVIR.Viz. Retrieved on December
4, 2009 from
http://www.servir.net/en/The_Climate_Mapper_and_SERVIR_Viz.
52
Stern, N. (2006). The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Retrieved on
December 11, 2008 from
www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf.
The Heinz Center. (2007). A Survey of Climate Change Adaptation Planning.
Washington D.C.: The Heinz Center.
The World Bank, International Institute for Sustainable Development, and Institute of
Development Studies. (2007). Sharing Climate Adaptation Tools: Improving
Decision Making for Development. Geneva Workshop. Retrieved on June 16,
2009 from http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/sharing_climate_adaptation_tools.pdf.
UK Climate Impacts Programme. (2009). Adaptation: Barriers to Adaptation.
Retrieved on June 10, 2009 from,
http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&I
temid=9.
UKCIP. (2009). Risk Framework. Retrieved on November 15, 2009 from,
http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&I
temid=184.
University of Washington and King County. (2007). Preparing for Climate Change: A
Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments. Retrieved on June 10,
2009 from http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/snoveretalgb574.pdf.
West, C., and Gawith, M. (2005) Measuring Progress. Oxford: UKCIP. Retrieved on
June 16, 2009 from
www.ukcip.org.uk/images/stories/Pub_pdfs/MeasuringProgress.pdf.
53