It is important for municipalities to be forward thinking in the face of the escalating climate crisis. Municipalities need to know what conditions they will be facing in the future and what they can do to prepare for these conditions. With this in mind, the Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute (CBRDI; 2020) prepared a report titled State of Climate Adaptation: Town of Golden. I live in the Town of Golden and was drawn to exploring this report to gain a better understanding of my community’s response to a changing climate. This blog post will seek to summarize and critically analyze the report.
The report was created as a tool to be used in local planning and decision-making efforts in Golden, BC. It zeroes in on climate projections for the community, current local impacts, and current and potential adaptation measures. The authors of the report used the State of Climate Adaptation and Resilience in the Basin (SoCARB) indicators as a basis for their analysis. The SoCARB program measures changes to climate as well as progress on climate adaptation and resilience at the community level using a set of indicators (Columbia Basin Trust, 2015). Within the report, five “thematic pathways” (CBRDI, 2020, p. 6) were explored: wildfire, water supply, agriculture, flooding, and extreme weather.
The authors used a number of approaches in writing the report. First, they used a top-down approach, which is characterized as being conducted by a small group of individuals internal to an organization and having limited engagement with outside stakeholders (CCME, 2021, p. 9). Further iterations could be strengthened by providing a means for public input. This would not necessarily indicate a wholesale change in method. The same top-down approach could still be used, but there could be a draft made available for public comment before completion. That way, the lived experiences of residents could either validate or perhaps question some of the analysis.
Secondly, the authors of the report used a mix of qualitative and quantitative data, but relied more heavily on a qualitative analysis. The climate projections used were quantitative in nature. The adaptation actions and impacts were described qualitatively; they were not assigned a number or ranking to highlight their importance relative to one and other. Because there was no ranking in terms of the relative importance for the impacts, especially, it is difficult to know what should be priority focus areas for the community in dealing with climate change. This is an aspect of the report that could be improved upon with future iterations.
Thirdly, the authors used a comprehensive approach in their analysis. While a tightly-scoped approach would see an evaluation of one sector or thematic pathway, a comprehensive approach sees an assessment done across a number of sectors or thematic pathways (CCME, 2021, p. 11). Because the report highlights and evaluates five thematic pathways, it falls firmly into the category of a comprehensive assessment. This makes sense in that the authors of the report were attempting to describe the state of climate adaptation (as well as climate projections and impacts) in Golden as a whole.
As noted at the start of this blog post, the report was written to aid in local decision-making and planning processes. I think the report has partially delivered on this objective. For example, the evaluation of adaptation actions shows both what is already in place and what can be implemented or strengthened in terms of adaptation. However, because there is no ranking of what impacts have the most vulnerability or risk associated with them, it would be hard for decision-makers to choose wisely in terms of further adaptation measures to focus on. As a next step, the Town of Golden could consider undertaking a full climate change risk assessment in order to prioritize areas for action in the face of changing climate conditions. Within that assessment, the Town could seek to include more voices from every demographic to ensure a holistic understanding of climate impacts in Golden.
As a resident of Golden, I am happy to know the Town has been thinking about climate change and its future impacts. I am hopeful, too, that the Town will consider conducting a full climate change risk assessment when resources allow.
References
Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute. (March 2020). State of Climate Adaptation: Town of Golden. http://www.cbrdi.ca/sites/default/files/Documents/PDF/Climate%20Adaptation/Report_Golden_StateOfClimateAdaptation_Final_June2020.pdf
Columbia Basin Trust. (February 2015). Indicators of Climate Adaptation in the Columbia Basin. http://datacat.cbrdi.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/ClimateAdaptation_FinalReport_15-03-15%5B1%5D.pdf
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (2021). Guidance on Good Practice in Climate Change Risk Assessment. https://ccme.ca/en/res/riskassessmentguidancesecured.pdf
Hi Hanna
Thanks for sharing your analysis of the State of Climate Adaptation: Town of Golden report. It was informative to read. I concur with your recommendation to include public voices in future updates. Top-down processes miss the skills and experiences that can be gained from a broader bottom-up process (CCME, 2021, p.10). Combining top-down processes with bottom-up participatory processes allow more diverse voices, expertise and lived experiences to be considered. The CCME (2021) report highlights a case study on North Vancouver where they used a mixed-method approach combining the ISO 31000 Risk Management Framework (top-down) with the Building Adaptive and Resilient Communities (BARC) framework. The latter offered a bottom-up approach to engage diverse stakeholders. You are astute in your observation on the absence of a prioritization ranking for adaptation actions leading to ambiguity of the priority of actions.
Joanne
CCME. (2021). Guidance on good practices in climate change risk assessment. https://ccme.ca/en/res/riskassessmentguidancesecured.pdf
Thanks for your post Hanna. It was very interesting and I appreciated how easy to read it was: your choice of language was clear and concise, and I found your blog very well-organized with each paragraph covering a different idea. I was drawn to read your report because it focuses on a small town – I also live in a small town and envy you that your community has undertaken this work. That said, how disappointing that they didn’t engage community members. I was surprised to read that, since I would have thought that a small community would be a natural place to do a bottom-up approach, having a smaller population to draw from. I’m curious if you have any intention of reaching out to them, to ask about next steps? You have so much to offer as student in this program, in terms of insights and suggestions for best practices.