{"id":14993,"date":"2024-02-27T11:19:22","date_gmt":"2024-02-27T16:19:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/growingreturns\/?p=14993"},"modified":"2025-12-04T13:25:46","modified_gmt":"2025-12-04T18:25:46","slug":"developing-effective-ways-to-measure-a-communitys-climate-resilience","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/growingreturns\/2024\/02\/27\/developing-effective-ways-to-measure-a-communitys-climate-resilience\/","title":{"rendered":"Developing effective ways to measure a community\u2019s climate resilience"},"content":{"rendered":"

Co-authored by: Anushi Garg and Ravena Pernanand<\/em><\/p>\n

Anushi is the senior analyst for Environmental Defense Fund\u2019s Climate Resilient Coasts & Watersheds program in New York-New Jersey. Ravena is a research analyst at Regional Plan Association.<\/em><\/p>\n

Across the globe, we are experiencing detrimental impacts from climate change, with low-wealth communities and communities of color hit the hardest. And while there are several ways we can measure climate impacts \u2014 such as determining sea level rise or increasing temperatures \u2014 we still lack ways to easily answer the question \u201chow resilient are we?\u201d Or \u201chow does one community\u2019s resilience compare to another?\u201d The right tools are needed to understand how well our communities, ecosystems and infrastructure bounce back from or avoid climate impacts in order for government officials, advocates and community members to effectively assess, track and implement future solutions. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To address this gap, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Regional Plan Association (RPA)<\/a> collaborated on a pilot project alongside partners and stakeholders in New York City. We characterized stakeholders\u2019 resilience priorities, such as having access to affordable and climate-safe shelter, and identified indicators that could measure the progress of these priorities. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This project lays the groundwork for developing resilience report cards that are useful to different regions, evidence-based and community informed, as well as identify specific targets <\/span><\/i>that can be easily updated and support advocacy and management decision-making. Take a look at the three key findings from our project\u2019s report:<\/a><\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

1. We have many excellent tools to measure vulnerability and climate hazards but lack ways to measure resilience <\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There are many indicators and mapping tools that local, state and federal officials and the nonprofit sector have developed to measure social vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards like flooding. In addition, some tools look at environmental justice, such as FEMA\u2019s<\/span> new Community Disaster Resilience Zones platform<\/a> or EDF\u2019s Climate Vulnerability Index,<\/a><\/span>\u00a0in addition to tools that address this on a local scale.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While demographic and climate hazards are important to inform resource targeting, they cannot tell us if the systems, meaning the interacting group of components that make up the core attributes of resilience, are functioning and at what level. Using these tools in combination with resilience indicators can provide greater insight into management decision making and in tracking progress. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Resilience indicators can be combined with social vulnerability and hazard data across geographies to inform us about how functional or present different attributes of resilience are in areas of varying risk. \/ Source: Ellis Calvin, RPA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

2. Indicators should be aligned with stakeholder priorities<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Following Hurricane Sandy, communities throughout New York City developed local resilience plans to ensure residents were better prepared for worsening climate impacts. For this project, EDF and RPA collected and analyzed 41 community-based plans<\/a> to see if priorities were consistently articulated at the community level. Then through a series of community stakeholder workshops, we consolidated more than 500 goals and identified indicators<\/span> t<\/span>hat could be used to measure progress toward those goals. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We also reviewed an array of existing academic and gray literature and analyzed commonalities and differences in the way the communities and scientists evaluate resilience. Science typically focuses on systems, while communities overwhelmingly focus on outcomes. We used this as an opportunity to integrate science with the community\u2019s experiential knowledge to develop indicators that can improve both existing conditions and systems.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

3. We need user-friendly ways to evaluate success and shortcomings in resilience planning and management <\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Through the project, we identified three primary users for resilience indicators and metrics. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
This map demonstrates how a single indicator, in this case hazardous and chemical bulk storage sites, can be mapped along with social vulnerability and hazard exposure to inform more targeted management action. See also New York City Environmental Justice Alliance\u2019s Waterfront Justice Project, which first identified the importance of mapping these sites in the context of the floodplain in the New York City area. \/ Source: Ravena Pernanand, RPA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n