Full text

Turn on search term navigation

Introduction and Background

Human-induced climate change has triggered widespread adverse impacts, losses, and damages to people and nature (IPCC AR6 WGII, 2022), and the design of appropriate responses is an urgent need. The United Nations has identified Climate Action, which includes initiatives that reduce the rate of global warming (e.g., Climate Mitigation) and that adjust to the climatic changes that have already taken place (e.g., Climate Adaptation), as the thirteenth of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Climate Resilience refers to the capacity of a social, economic, and/or natural system to cope with a climate hazard, trend, or disturbance, allowing it to maintain its essential functions through a variety of resistance, adaptation, learning, and/or transformation processes (IPCC AR6 WGII, 2022).

As the acute and long-term impacts of climate change become more pronounced, efforts to advance climate resilience are gaining momentum around the world at local, regional, and national scales. Research into the drivers, impacts, and responses to climate change can help advance climate resilience responses. However, because the impacts of climate change are not uniform, responses will vary from community to community. Frontline communities experience the worst impacts of climate change both because of their physical exposure to climate hazards and a suite of historical factors that have increased their background vulnerability (Sanders, 2021). Through their understanding of conditions on the ground, representatives of frontline communities are uniquely positioned to document the consequences of historical climate hazards, and to map out the vulnerabilities—both known and latent—to future conditions. Their local knowledge is also crucial in averting the possibility of maladaptation, for example, responses to climate change that lead to unintended tradeoffs or negative consequences.

Types of Climate Responses

Responses to climate change can take different forms, frequently classified using a taxonomy presented by Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011) and discussed in Rosenzweig et al. (2024). The Resistance approach seeks to “bounce back” to pre-hazard “normal” conditions (Abdulkareem & Elkadi, 2018; Liao, 2012). This approach emphasizes the desire to preserve the status quo in the exposed community and may involve various forms of protection applied at large spatial scales, for example, by building a levee to protect communities against fluvial or coastal floods (McClymont et al., 2019), implementing warning systems to protect people against extreme heat stress (Miller et al., 2021), or reconstructing roofs with fire-resistant materials to protect against wildfires (FEMA, 2023). The Resistance approach does not seek to fundamentally alter the form and function of existing communities.

By contrast, the Resilience approach seeks either to adapt to a new post-hazard “normal” state (the Adaptive Approach), or to fundamentally transform the social and ecological conditions that determine climate vulnerability (the Transformative Approach). Both forms of resilience can involve decentralized changes inside communities, but at different scales and for different purposes. The Adaptive approach recognizes the need for exposed communities to “live with the hazard” and thus incentivizes measures such as property retrofits or infrastructure upgrades that collectively prepare that community for a specific future condition. For example, the adaptive approach might require floodproofing of homes built in existing or future floodplains, creating fuel breaks and clearing vegetation in the Home Ignition Zone (NFPA, 2023); or distributing air conditioners as a means of adapting to rising global temperatures (Pavanello et al., 2021).

Recognizing the same need to “live with the hazard.” the Transformative approach does not strive to accommodate any fixed end point goal (e.g., either a historical or future normal condition). Rather, it accepts that climate change (and other social and ecological processes) is creating a dynamic, evolving context in which continuous change and transformation will be needed. Transformation is accomplished through a network of interconnected subsystems interacting nonlinearly that must evolve together to avoid decay (Shi et al., 2021). The transformation approach is implemented through deliberation among a broad and diverse set of stakeholders, with focus on the implications of where and how people live, how natural systems are integrated into developed landscapes, and what synergistic needs and goals of the community need to be addressed (in addition to addressing climate change). Like the Adaptive approach, these changes could be decentralized and small-scale. However, like the Resistance approach these changes could also drastically modify how entire communities look and feel.

All three approaches can include various combinations of structural and non-structural measures (Rosenzweig et al., 2024), but with highly variable end goals governing how, why, and where they are adopted. Frequently, the three approaches are integrated with one another, phased, or otherwise synchronized to best address the unique needs of a particular at-risk community. In all cases, the development of a customized local set of appropriate responses requires input from a broad and diverse set of local stakeholders. These solutions emerge from a blending of local and traditional scientific knowledge. They are integrated into larger community aspirations, planning processes, and demographic transitions. In short, climate action is most likely to succeed if it is developed collaboratively.

Co-Production Processes

Resilience strategies that seek to preserve the status quo may propagate historical inequalities, while strategies that promulgate transformational change can create shock and displacement. Climate risks, themselves, are geographically specific. Even considering a singular climate hazard (e.g., floods), one community may be more exposed to coastal surges, while another may be more exposed to intense rain. Such differences in hazard type and exposure modality require very different responses. For all these reasons, resilience strategies must be geographically and culturally specific, tailored to the nature of the local climate risks and the perceptions, knowledge, values, issues and needs of local stakeholders (Ensor et al., 2018).

To co-produce a locally appropriate set of responses, the relevant social and environmental issues need to be approached through a structured and methodical approach (Estoque R. C. et al., 2022; Maskrey S. A. et al., 2021). Participation of a diverse cohort of stakeholders in decision-making promotes transparency and accountability, and ensures decisions are well-informed; it also increases the stakeholder support for the decisions and actions taken (Hedelin B. et al., 2021; Maskrey S. A. et al., 2021). In addition, co-production processes increase stakeholders' awareness and knowledge while building capacity (Pagano A. et al., 2019). By contrast, the exclusion of stakeholders from decision-making can lead to errors in judgment and hasty decisions, policy failures, conflicts, and instances of inequality and injustice (Gerkensmeier B. and Ratter B. M. W., 2018).

When co-production processes involve multiple stakeholders, differences of perception and/or conflicts among different stakeholder groups, including both governmental and non-governmental entities, are shared. The ideas that emerge from an open and deliberative process could be logistically complex or costly in terms of time and resources (Almoradie A. et al., 2015; Maskrey S. A. et al., 2021). Despite such challenges, open communication that allows for the exchange of differing views and opinions and engages a broad array of stakeholders early in the process is preferable (Ceccato L. et al., 2011; Sahin et al., 2013). These communication goals can be achieved by organizing regular meetings, training sessions, capacity building, and awareness-raising campaigns, aided by the use of remote conferencing tools and online collaboration platforms (Almoradie A. et al., 2015). Collaboration and communication can help to build a mutual understanding of the complex nature of the problem, and to build a shared set of goals and protocols for decision-making (Stoque R. C. et al., 2022; Maskrey S. A. et al., 2021; Pagano A. et al., 2019; Ceccato L. et al., 2011).

Although co-production as a process has been popular in many fields, especially social services and health care, there is a disconnect in collaboration and engagement with community in the climate resilience and planning sector (Golding et al., 2024). Scientific and technical research has been inaccessible or inadequate for the needs of decision-makers or local stakeholders, often conducted in a vacuum to maintain objectivity. As Kruk et al. (2017) write, “to encourage the scientific research community to break the chains of this practice thus requires a full paradigm shift away from the university setting and out toward the community, where different perspectives, knowledge, and disciplines exist.” The CRRA process aims to address this gap and co-produce a research agenda that centers on the needs and experiences of the local stakeholders from the Philadelphia region to better inform future endeavors by the scientific community.

The IPCC (2022) emphasizes that transformation toward climate resilient development is advanced most effectively when different types of actors work together in inclusive and enabling ways to reconcile divergent interests, values, and world views. The Fifth National Climate Assessment (Wasley et al., 2023) underscores the importance of collaborations between government, private sector, nongovernmental and civil society organizations in the design of effective adaptation efforts and calls out the need for researchers to intentionally collaborate with communities to set goals, assess vulnerability, build capacity and address historic injustices. Some cities have begun to implement research co-production into their climate planning processes. For example, the New York City Mayor's Office of Climate and Environmental Justice organized over 170 people from 27 non-governmental organizations and 21 city agencies to identify climate research needs for the city (MOCEJ, 2024).

A Philadelphia Regional Convening

This paper describes an initial effort to co-produce a Climate Resilience Research Agenda (CRRA) for the Philadelphia Region (Figure 1). To the authors' knowledge, no previous effort to co-produce a research agenda for Philadelphia had been undertaken previously. This effort grew out of a collaboration initially formed in 2019 between the City of Philadelphia, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), the Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS) of Drexel University, and Drexel University faculty and staff engaged in the Consortium for Climate Risks in the Urban Northeast (CCRUN). In that year, Drexel undergraduate students petitioned the University to take more institutional action on climate change. They organized a Climate Rally attended by students, faculty, and representatives of several NGOs, and obtained over 2,000 signatures in support of a student-led proposal to form a Sustainability Office on campus. Though the COVID-19 pandemic soon closed campus, Drexel's leadership responded by declaring 2021 “Climate Year,” and committing the University to acceleration of its climate-focused research, civic engagement, and collaboration throughout the city and region.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

In recognition of this institutional commitment, Drexel was invited to join the University Climate Change Coalition (UC3), an alliance of more than 20 leading research universities working to build resilience to climate change in their communities. One requirement of new UC3 members is that they convene local stakeholders to discuss the climate risks facing the region. This convening became the process described in this paper. Its goals were:

  • To fill knowledge gaps regarding the potential impacts of climate change throughout the region

  • To assemble and integrate relevant knowledge that is embedded in disparate sectors and knowledge areas

  • To identify climate responses that are synergistic among different sectors and communities

  • To advance understanding of climate hazards and risks facing the region

  • To debate potential tradeoffs of specific climate responses

  • To identify barriers to action

  • To co-produce the evidence base for regional climate action and policy

Developed through several months of collaboration by more than 100 individuals, the CRRA is a co-produced preliminary list of research activities that, if undertaken, could help to make the Philadelphia region more resilient to climate change. Rather than a traditional focus on climate mitigation or climate adaptation, the agenda focuses more broadly on recommendations for integrating climate action into decisions, policies, and strategies that could collectively make the region more resilient to climate change. The intended audience is much more than a group of traditional academic researchers. Rather, the hope is that the needs articulated herein will provide important context for decision-makers and policymakers, practitioners, philanthropic organizations, community-based organizations, and others as they incrementally work to make the region more climate resilient.

Methods

General Description of the Greater Philadelphia Area

The urban heart of the region, Philadelphia is a large city in the Delaware River valley with a growing population of more than 1.5 million residents. It is a racially and ethnically diverse city, with more than 40% of the population identifying as Black or African American, 34% White, 15% Hispanic, and 7% Asian (Philadelphia Department of Public Health, 2020). Philadelphia, like much of the Delaware River valley, sits on what was once called Lenapehoking, the land of the Lenni-Lenape tribal nation. Many Lenape language names are still found throughout the region, such as Manayunk, Kingsessing, Wissahickon, Moyamensing and Shackamaxon (Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Tribal Nation, n.d.). Philadelphia is shaped by its vast network of rivers and creeks, including the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers that bound Center City. It is endowed with an extensive system of natural lands, including Fairmount Park, the nation's largest landscaped urban park. With 21.5% of its population below the poverty line as of 2022, Philadelphia has the highest poverty rate of all large cities in the US (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). Though the job growth rate is increasing, and the poverty and unemployment rates are declining, great disparities remain. The poverty rate for non-White Philadelphians is higher than for White Philadelphians (Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Tribal Nation, n.d.). Life expectancy rates can vary by up to 20 years in different neighborhoods (Virginia Commonwealth University, 2016). These inequities are rooted in legacies of systemic and institutional racism, such as redlining, urban renewal, and discriminatory policing.

Despite its high rates of poverty and inequity, Philadelphia is also known for its rich history and its many institutions, including dozens of colleges and universities in the city proper and over a hundred in the greater region, and many renowned arts, culture, and science institutions (Figure 2).

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Climate change poses a significant threat to Philadelphia's infrastructure, economy, and society, especially its frontline communities (Pearl, N. & Montalto, F. A., 2023). Philadelphia is expected to become both hotter and wetter in the future through increased precipitation, rising sea levels, and increased air temperatures (Tables 1–3). In addition to these changes, extreme weather in the region is projected to continue to increase in frequency and severity (Table 4), leading to increased riverine and stormwater flooding, among other impacts. Between 2020 and 2022, the region was significantly impacted by tidal flooding events, tropical cyclones (Ida, Henri, Ferd, Elsa, Isaias), tornadoes, quick-hitting winter storms, tidal flooding events, squalls, and other forms of severe weather. Going forward, mean annual precipitation is projected to increase 5 to 12% by the 2050s and 8 to 16% by the 2080s (Pearl, N. & Montalto, F. A., 2023). The frequency and intensity of precipitation events are also increasing, causing unprecedented flooding within the city. Further, sea level rise will impact the Delaware River with high-end estimates of around 45 inches by the 2080s (Pearl, N. & Montalto, F. A., 2023). Philadelphia is also facing hotter temperatures with annual average temperatures rising at a rate of 0.43°F per decade (Pearl, N. & Montalto, F. A., 2023). Along with average temperature increase, the rising frequency and intensity of heat waves due to climate change is also a threat to human and ecosystem health. Responding to this oncoming crisis with direct input from frontline communities is the first step to creating climate resilience in the city of Philadelphia.

Table 1 CCRUN Precipitation Projections for the Philadelphia Region Based on CMIP6

Decade Low estimate (10th percentile) Middle range (25th to 75th percentile) High estimate (90th percentile)
2030s 0% +2%–+8% +10%
2040s +1% +4%–+10% +13%
2050s +2% +5%–+12% +14%
2060s +2% +5%–+13% +17%
2070s +3% +7%–+14% +18%
2080s +3% +8%–+16% +21%
2100 −2% +6%–+22% +30%

Table 2 CCRUN Sea Level Rise Projections For the Philadelphia Region Based on CMIP6 Projections For Future Sea Level Rise are Derived From the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report

Decade 10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile
2030s 6 in. 7 in. 9 in. 11 in. 13 in.
2050s 12 in. 14 in. 16 in. 19 in. 23 in.
2080s 21 in. 24 in. 29 in. 38 in. 45 in.
2100 25 in. 29 in. 36 in. 50 in. 64 in.
2150 38 in. 47 in. 58 in. 88 in. 177 in.

Table 3 CCRUN Air Temperature Projections For the Philadelphia Regions are Based on CMIP6

Decade Low estimate (10th percentile) Middle range (25th to 75th percentile) High estimate (90th percentile)
2030s +1.9°F +2.7°F–+3.9°F +4.7°F
2040s +2.6°F +3.3°F–+4.9°F +5.9°F
2050s +3.0°F +4.1°F–+5.8°F +6.8°F
2060s +3.6°F +4.7°F–+6.9°F +8.5°F
2070s +4.0°F +5.3°F–+8.0°F +9.8°F
2080s +4.7°F +5.5°F–+9.4°F +11.1°F
2100 +4.9°F +6.0°F–+10.5°F +12.9°F

Table 4 CCRUN Climate Projections For the Philadelphia Regions are Based on CMIP6

Extreme event Baseline 2030s 2050s 2080s
# of days/year with maximum temperature at or above:
90°F 27 37 (47–56) 67 43 (56–72) 84 63 (72–102) 117
95°F 6 11 (17–21) 27 17 (21–34) 51 27 (34–72) 88
# of heat waves/year 3 5 (6–7) 9 6 (6–7) 9 9 (9–9) 9
Average length of heat waves (in days) 5 5 (5–6) 6 5 (6–7) 8 6 (7–10) 12
# of days/year with minimum temperatures below 32°F 84 45 (57–70) 70 23 (45–63) 63 2 (10–50) 57
# of days per year with rainfall exceeding
1 inch 11 10 (11–12) 12 11 (11–13) 13 11 (12–14) 14
2 inches 2 2 (2–2) 3 2 (2–3) 3 2 (2–3) 4
4 inches 0.2 0.2 (0.2–0.2) 0.2 0.2 (0.2–0.3) 0.3 0.2 (0.2–0.3) 0.3

Planning of the Process

Starting in 2019, representatives from the Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia Office of Sustainability, the Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS) of Drexel University, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), and faculty and staff at Drexel University active in the Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast (CCRUN) began discussing how to convene stakeholders to plan for the impact of climate change in the Philadelphia region. The collaborating representatives created a planning team (PT) that identified four criteria of research co-production, derived from Norstrom et al. (2020), to guide the effort. From the beginning, the PT intended the CRRA process to be:

  • Context-based: Research that is context-based is situated in a particular geography. The CRRA process was made context-based by focusing on the Philadelphia region, and by seeking to engage a set of stakeholders whose needs, interests and values emerge from this particular context.

  • Pluralistic: Research that is pluralistic recognizes the multiple ways of knowing and doing and incorporates multiple kinds of knowledge. Pluralistic research integrates traditional academic methodologies and other methods to address the needs and goals identified by the intended beneficiaries of the research. Climate change requires an “all-in” approach, wherein academic and non-academic researchers, the communities experiencing the impacts of climate change, and practitioners working directly on these issues are equal partners in the research process. The PT sought to make the CRRA process pluralistic by attempting to recruit individuals from civic organizations, governmental agencies, and academia from throughout the region in the working groups.

  • Goal-oriented: Research that is goal-oriented addresses clearly defined, shared, timely and/or otherwise meaningful goals, with a clear end-product that links knowledge to action. The PT attempted to make the CRRA process goal-oriented by organizing the participants into four discrete Working Groups, as described below, and establishing a regular meeting schedule and set of deliverables for each meeting.

  • Interactive: Research that is interactive is developed collaboratively through extensive deliberation, and fosters co-learning, as participants share diverse experiences, perspectives, and types of knowledge. To make the CRRA process interactive, the PT provided the working group co-leads with a variety of tools to facilitate collaboration, brainstorming, discussion, prioritization.

To recruit participants, the PT developed a nomination form that was circulated widely throughout the region using email lists associated with Philly CUSP, CCRUN, LinkedIn, as well as DVRPC's Climate Adaptation Forums. The PT also conducted targeted outreach to climate scholars and environmental justice leaders in the region. The goal was to attract a wide range of individuals with climate change expertise garnered both through traditional research activities and/or professional or lived experiences to ensure the research is pluralistic and representative.

The form requested information regarding the nominee's lived and learned experience related to climate resilience, institutional and/or community affiliation, experience participating and/or facilitating group discussions, and optional demographic and accessibility questions, including if compensation was needed for participation. The PT evaluated nominations received based on their expertise, understanding of local context, and diversity in terms of research perspectives, experiences, gender, race and ethnicity. To encourage diverse participation, the PT offered economic compensation to individuals representing non-profit organizations or historically marginalized groups through a “Climate Solutions Acceleration” grant from Second Nature (Second Nature, 2021).

Ultimately, more than 100 participants representing over 60 organizations or entities participated consistently in the CRRA process. Approximately half of the participants were from academia, with the remainder from governmental, practitioner or non-profit sectors. Many governmental participants recused themselves from any voting and prioritization activities to avoid conflicts of interest with their official work positions. Gender diversity was appropriate. However, despite what the PT believed to be a wide distribution of the nomination form, and the financial compensation offered for participation, the racial and ethnic makeup of the WG was not representative of the overall racial and ethnic diversity of the Philadelphia region. A list of all individuals and organizations that participated in the CRRA process can be found in Appendix A.

Development of Working Groups

The nominees were organized by the PT into four working groups that were initially formulated to be distinct from one another, to generally represent the classical dimensions of social vulnerability to climate hazards (Cutter et al., 2009), and to contextually reflect the climate challenges faced by the Greater Philadelphia area (Table 5). Over time, the foci of the working groups evolved in ways that represented the expertise and interests of the participants.

Table 5 The Dimensions of Social Vulnerability to Climate Hazards (Cutter et al., 2009) as Organized Into Individual Working Groups for the CRRA Process

Vulnerability dimension Working group name
Hazard 1. Regional Climate Change and Cascading Hazards
Vulnerability 2. Health and Environmental Vulnerability
Exposure 3. Built Environment and Infrastructure System Resilience, and Decarbonization/Electrification of the Energy Sector (originally titled “Planning Low-Carbon Adaptation of the Built Environment”)
Response 4. Regional Climate Governance and Adaptive Management

Each working group was assigned two co-leads and approximately 20 members. An attempt was made to diversify the co-leads by gender, race, and sector. No more than one of the co-leads for each working group was from academia.

A level setting meeting for all working groups was conducted on 17 June 2021. Facilitated by the co-leads and supported by the PT members, each working group was encouraged to meet a minimum of three times throughout the summer to develop their research recommendations. The co-leads were advised to use Meeting #1 to brainstorm areas for research and action for their respective working group theme, Meeting #2 to prioritize the research topics identified in Meeting #1, and Meeting #3 to elaborate on the prioritized research topics (e.g., the who, what, why, and how) and how they relate to actions identified in Meeting 1. Because the CRRA process was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, the working group meetings were conducted virtually using Drexel University's Zoom account. The PT provided each working group with online file sharing and collaboration platforms, and also assisted in scheduling working group meetings.

Post-Process Evaluation

After the regular working group meetings concluded, the CRRA PT sent a follow-up survey to working group participants and co-leads to gather information and feedback about the process. The survey was administered online, was voluntary and was anonymous except for reporting of the working group the participant was a part of. The survey encompassed questions that aimed to form a comprehensive understanding of participants' perspectives, concerns, and priorities regarding the process to ensure inclusivity and reflect on the process for future development. The survey questions are included in Appendix B.

Results

Though the initial working group descriptions were drafted by the PT, flexibility and adaptability in the process were encouraged. The focus of each working group evolved differently based on the unique insights, experiences, and background of its participants, and the facilitation styles of its co-leads. Though they roughly followed the recommendations of the PT, the co-leads of each Working Group developed their own unique process based on their unique management styles and the personalities of the participants. Differences in the deliberations of each group are described generally below.

Each working group decided to differentiate their recommended research topics into more specific thematic areas. These thematic areas were not prescribed by the PT. Rather they emerged from the internal working group deliberations. It was interesting that despite the attempt to establish distinct working group foci, significant overlap in themes emerged in the final research topic recommendations. It is possible that this overlap signifies a certain degree of consensus regarding the challenges climate change pose for this particular region.

This section includes a high-level synthesis of each working groups' process followed by short summaries of the recommended topics of research that emerged from that process. Cross-cutting topics of research are also listed. The full list of research topics developed by the working groups is included in Appendix C.

Working Group 1: Regional Climate Change and Cascading Hazards

In the first meeting, Working Group 1 brainstormed climate concerns associated with changes in precipitation, temperature, sea level/flooding and storm surges. Next, the participants developed causal linkages between independent and dependent variables (e.g., if this independent event happens then that dependent event will happen). These variables were used to generate an initial set of research topics. During the second meeting, the group developed a broader set of framing questions, while “purging” any of the initial research topics that it saw as better suited to the other working groups, though the focus remained on identified causal impacts. During the third and final meeting, Working Group 1 developed a filtration process through which it integrated climate science into its impact-oriented topics, leading to its final set of recommended research topics.

Water

The first section focuses on understanding the impacts of climate change on the region's many waterways, and more broadly throughout the Delaware River Basin. It aims to investigate the effects of increased air and water temperature on pathogen proliferation and survival, relationships between extreme precipitation events and nutrient runoff and algae growth, and the cascading impacts of rising temperatures, extreme rainfall, drought, and sea level rise on water processes and drinking water availability in Philadelphia. These topics target ecological and public health consequences of climate change and find strategies for water management in the coming decades.

Health Impacts

The second section investigates relationships between climate change and health, with an emphasis on heat and air quality. The topics focus on the impact of frequency and duration of heat wave changes as well as tracking changes in vehicles and building electrification on human health over the next 50 years.

Ecosystems and Green Infrastructure

The ecosystems and green infrastructure section focuses on how the region's natural and nature-based systems will be affected by climate changes such as temperature increased, drought and flooding, water table changes, precipitation intensity, and wind and its ability to continue offsetting climate change. It also explores the impact of physical changes in imperviousness and albedo on residents' wellbeing and the physical environment. Lastly, it aims to investigate how changes in the temperature and water quality may interact with toxins and species migration as well as biodiversity.

Built Environment

This section examines geographical areas of Philadelphia that may be impacted by sea level rise and increases in temperature and considers how impervious and pervious surfaces determine how water moves through the region. It also identifies vulnerable infrastructure systems that might be considered for adaptive retrofits and/or considers whether these places are equipped for extreme weather events.

Working Group 2: Health and Environmental Vulnerability

During the first meeting and in two breakout rooms, Working Group 2 members developed a series of framing questions focusing on human and environmental vulnerability. The topics generated during Meeting #1 were re-organized around key themes: Land (including urban forestry, food systems, access to green space, built environment as it impacts health, housing and transportation), Water (including drinking water, water quality, flooding, aquatic habitat, sea level rise), and Air (including urban heat island, air quality, respiratory issues, air temperature, pests and vector-borne diseases). Knowledge gaps in each of these thematic areas were identified. During meetings #2 and #3, the themes were further refined to: (a) Identifying Vulnerabilities, (b) Assessing Impacts, (c) Identifying Data Needs, and (d) Prioritizing Solutions.

Identifying Vulnerability

This section includes topics that can improve vulnerability analyses through broad stakeholder participation. The section also includes strategies for exploring how access to resources will be impacted by climate change, and specific strategies that can make access and distribution of resources more equitable.

Assessing Impacts

This section considers the environmental and human health impacts of climate change. Research topics in this section focus on ecosystem health and indicators for monitoring and protecting ecosystems from the various physical impacts of climate change. It also investigates how climate change, and its consequences, will affect human physical, mental, and emotional health and the best strategies to inform people about these potential impacts and what to do about them.

Identifying Data Needs

This section focuses on the need for proxy data sets, collaborative data collection frameworks, and data management systems to study the long-term impacts on health, infrastructure, and the built environment. Healthcare providers and insurance companies, for example, could provide proxy data sets that could be used to evaluate the impacts of extreme weather events and other environmental variables on human health. The section listed data needed to make informed health decisions and to design responses to environmental stressors and climate events. The need to coordinate monitoring of the effectiveness of adaptation best practices throughout the region was cited.

Prioritizing Solutions

This last section attempts to prioritize solutions based on available funding, general accessibility, and equity. It also questions best practices for education and communication of climate change with students, community members, and political leadership. Lastly, it suggests piloting and monitoring climate responses, to create a baseline from which to design larger scale climate responses.

Working Group 3: Built Environment and Infrastructure System Resilience, and Decarbonization/Electrification of the Energy Sector

During Meeting #1 and in small breakout rooms, Working Group 3 participants developed scenarios, needs and gaps. They initially grouped their ideas broadly into four categories: temperature, water, energy, and natural hazards, discussing both the resilience of infrastructure systems as well as decarbonization of the energy sector and electrification. Next, participants developed more detailed descriptions of the scenarios, needs, gaps, and research activities in each topical area. They also identified cross cutting themes. During Meeting #2, the research activities were compiled into a shared document, which was further elaborated in breakout rooms during Meeting #3. The recommended research activities were finally re-constituted into three overarching categories: (a) Energy Infrastructure Resilience, and (b) Temperature and Water Resilience, and (c) Decarbonization and Electrification of the Energy Sector.

Energy Infrastructure Resilience

The goal of this section is to improve the resilience of electrical/power systems in the region, considering projected flood and storm conditions. It also aims to understand how increased temperatures will impact electricity systems and shape travel and communication patterns. The research explores best practices for building a climate resilient smart grid that connects new and existing electrical capacity and testing transferable models from other regions of the world. Additionally, it investigates energy storage, EV/transit infrastructure, the Philadelphia Tune Up Building Energy Performance Program, air source heat pumps, and the repurposing of gas distribution lines for fiberoptic broadband and smart grid infrastructure.

Temperature and Water Resilience

This section investigates frameworks for understanding how climate change will affect local neighborhoods and develops tools and strategies for adaptation and mitigation. It considers the design of financial programs for remediation, conducts vulnerability assessments for multiple hazards, and explores heat risk and methods to reduce impact of extreme weather events. Lastly, it aims to create a set of best practices for the region at various scales of implementation.

Decarbonization and Electrification of the Energy Sector

This section is further divided into 1. Future Energy Mix and Sources and 2. Decarbonization and Electrification. It tasks researchers with predicting future energy scenarios and the path to 100% clean energy by 2035. It explores natural gas alternatives, hydropower, geothermal, and district energy and energy recovery. This section also explores the cost and benefits of electrification at scale, electric vehicles, and potential opportunities for solar charging stations and parking lots.

Working Group 4: Regional Climate Governance and Adaptive Management

During its deliberations, Working Group 4 identified several topics that must be answered to create the change necessary to make Philadelphia more climate resilient. Working Group 4 focused on the need for centering inclusion, action, improved understanding of risks and policy responses, and the various ways that existing governance structures prevent real climate/social/racial justice action. Working Group 4 asked how to identify and understand the challenges faced by vulnerable communities or populations who tend to be overlooked, ignored, or even silenced. Themes identified included racial justice and inclusion, governance and policy, and knowledge to action, for example, through Participatory Action Research (PAR), which advocates for the inclusion of community members impacted by the research in the specific research activities.

Racial Justice and Inclusion

The focus of research in this section is on prioritizing the lived experiences of local, marginalized, and vulnerable communities in research, decision-making, and planning processes. The aim is to co-create knowledge with these communities from the beginning to ensure a deeper understanding and ownership of the knowledge generated. The proposed research also examines social science and environmental justice perspectives on communities' adaptation preferences, risk perception, and interactions with the city government. Additionally, it explores how climate change impacts individual homes, neighborhoods, and regions, and how regional land use changes affect downstream communities in decision-making processes. Finally, the proposed research topics explore the use of place-based environmental neighborhood improvement strategies to foster immediate climate resilience in stressed communities, involving climate resilience advocates, organizations, media, and policymakers.

Governance and Policy

The governance and policy section includes research focusing on regional climate governance, advancing equitable regional resilience through policymaking and planning, climate emergency decision making, preparedness and risk, affording adaptation versus climate impacts, and responsible contracting and purchasing. The research topics explore formal structures and partnerships at different levels of government, policy influences on Philadelphia's climate readiness, and the need for coordination and expertise-sharing among organizations working on climate resilience. It considers Philadelphia's involvement in various initiatives and ensuring equity in distribution of policy and affordability in adaptation and reducing climate impacts.

Knowledge to Action

This section recognizes that knowledge to action can only be accomplished through effective and inclusive communication strategies and education. It aims to understand the most powerful agents and communication styles in raising awareness about climate change and determining how to employ them in Philadelphia. It explores the leverage that locals and community members could have in effective knowledge distribution. It also investigates how formal and informal climate education can be included and improved in schools and the role of educators and civic/citizen science in curriculum development.

Cross-Cutting, General, and Complementary Findings

As described above, in some cases the deliberations of the Working Groups yielded research topics and other insights that were deemed valuable but did not fit within the initial or revised scopes of the working groups. These cross-cutting research topics were relayed to the PT and are included in this section.

Cross-Cutting Research Recommendations

These recommendations for research involve themes from all four working groups and tackle topics such as best practices for policy making, zoning ordinance potential, GIS planning, implementing long-term monitoring, and measuring benefits of climate adaptation projects.

Real-Time Climate Crisis Management of the Built Environment

This section recommends research into climate crisis management scenarios and critical infrastructure that is needed for the least impact. It investigates the response plans for extreme weather events and how to approach conversations with vulnerable people that have reservations about getting government help.

Concurrent Impacts on Human Health and the Built Environment

Here the working groups formulated topics regarding climate change's impact in Philadelphia concurrently on human health and the built environment, mostly revolving around the topic mold growth and urban greening.

Regional Planning and Land Use

The two topics in this section revolve around transit and energy and water footprint of the city of Philadelphia and ways to make it more efficient and less greenhouse gas intensive.

Missing Subject Matter

This last section includes miscellaneous topics from various themes that were otherwise missing from the sections above and require more research.

Reflections and Future Directions

Research Topic Analysis

The results call out a wide range of topics across all four working groups and attempt to inspire investigation into specific research tailored to the Philadelphia area. Although all four working groups worked independently of each other, similar themes were observed in the research topics they produced. Similar categories emerged across sections, highlighting the significance of certain topics such as environmental and human health, resilience, and community involvement. Integrated throughout the results of all working groups were the topics of economy, equity, and policy. Ensuring any future research considers the impact of climate change on the most vulnerable and that all economic and political solutions are targeted to uplift the communities at the forefront was a key theme throughout the process.

Figure 3 shows how the various research topics that emerged from the working group deliberations relate to one another. The topics were broadly categorized into “Impacts of Climate Change” and “Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies.” The first category mainly focuses on the topics that are investigating how the changing climate will affect various earth systems including air, water, resources, and ecosystem and human health. The second category includes research about possible methods of adapting to these impacts and delves into the effectiveness and feasibility of various strategies. The two categories overlap in the analysis of equity and justice, economy, and governance and policy. Environmental injustice and socio-economic disparities in who is affected is an unfortunate symptom of climate change but targeting the communities at the forefront of climate change is key to ensuring a just transition and therefore must be a key part of adaptation strategies. The current economic and legal policies and the lack of action thus far has led to the exacerbation of the climate crisis, but they are the tools through which adaptation and mitigation solutions can be most effectively implemented.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

The PT sorted the research topics emerging from the working group deliberations into meta categories and enumerated them to determine if any particular topics figured more prevalently into the working group deliberations than others. Figure 4 illustrates the results of this process. The top three meta categories were “Changing Weather,” “Sustainable Planning and Infrastructure,” and “Governance and Policy.” At 29 citations, Changing Weather, which includes impacts to air and water quality and temperature, extreme weather events, sea level rise, and heat island effect was the most common, perhaps suggesting an understanding and concern of CRRA participants regarding the climate hazards faced by the region. The next two meta categories perhaps unsurprisingly demonstrate an interest in solutions. Sustainable Planning and Infrastructure focuses on changes that can be made to the built environment, green spaces, and transportation systems. Governance and Policy focuses on how climate resilience decisions are made and implemented throughout the region.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

The organization of the research topics developed by the working groups illustrates the needs of the stakeholders in the research gaps that will best aid them in furthering climate resilience in Philadelphia. It also informs researchers on how to tailor their work to what is lacking for the community they hope to serve and conduct useful and necessary work in their fields. Investigating the baseline impacts of climate change on the environment in Philadelphia is an important research opportunity according to the working group members with over 25 research topics in that field (Figure 3). Since Equity and Justice, Governance and Policy, and the Economy are topics that were observed to be connected to all the research questions, it is important for future studies to integrate them into their interdisciplinary investigations to avoid silos.

CRRA Reflection and Reception

The CRRA working group members were asked to respond to a post-process survey (as described in Section 2.3) to provide feedback and reflections on the process and outcomes. Of the 129 members involved in the CRRA process, 42 responded to the survey. Most participants had a positive reflection of the process and praised the exchange of information and expertise. The response to the question “On a scale of 1–5, how much do you feel that your group was able to identify critical areas of research and concerns?” received an average rating of 3.6 and a median of 4.

Most participants had mixed feedback for the project team regarding the working group proceedings. Many respondents commended the PT for allowing them to network and collaborate with new colleagues; many participants valued both large and small group discussions, the convening of different groups of people, and the opportunity to learn from each other. However, some respondents reported that the process felt rushed and lacking in direction. Respondents also reported a tension in the working group deliberations between those expressing a need for research and those who were more focused on the need for action: “learning for learning's sake” versus the desire for useable information.

Many participants expressed interest in staying involved with the process, based on the responses to multiple-choice questions on the survey:

  • 79% of participants were in favor of participating in an annual summit to discuss progress

  • 71% were in favor of participating in ongoing meetings to keep refining the research agenda

  • 71% were in favor of providing feedback and comments on the draft final deliverable

  • 67% were in favor of joining an email networking group (e.g., a Google group) to circulate research opportunities or other relevant opportunities/resources

  • 50% were in favor of providing relevant research and expertise to this group on an as needed basis

Most of the critiques for the CRRA PT were centered around the composition of the participants. The geographic focus of the CRRA was intended to be regional, but participants from the City of Philadelphia were over-represented and some survey respondents felt that the deliberations focused less on the region and more on the “city.” The most severe feedback received by the PT was an inadequate degree of racial diversity and community perspectives in the CRRA process. Although the PT sought participation from a wide range of constituents, about half of the participants were ultimately from academia, and not the region's frontline communities. Perhaps due to its reliance on communication channels more familiar to academic and practitioner groups, the recruitment strategy was not successful in creating the diversity initially sought by the PT. Future recruitment efforts might emphasize other channels of communication and/or set aside more lead time to better diversify future participation.

Locally, the CRRA report has been well received and was discussed in the media through the regional public radio affiliate station, WHYY (Read, 2023), and the Philadelphia Inquirer (Kummer, 2023). Future steps for CRRA include prioritizing and cross-referencing research topics with the needs of the region's frontline communities, who were underrepresented in this preliminary effort, and the goals, visions, and values of local governmental decision makers.

Future Work and Recommendations

Given the PT's initial expressed interest in research co-production, some participants recommended that future phases of the CRRA process pay more attention to best practices for inclusive, action-oriented research including:

  • Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a framework for engaging in research and organizing for social justice that is rooted in a community's own knowledge, wisdom, and experience. PAR recognizes that those most impacted by systemic injustice are in the best position to understand and analyze their needs and challenges and to organize for social change (PARCEO, n.d.).

  • Civic Science is the practice of public participation and collaboration in the research process. It often entails engaging community members or the public (voluntary or paid) in data collection, and sometimes in the interpretation of the results. This practice can also be called citizen science, but civic science is the preferred term to deter concern about citizenship.

  • Problem-based learning (PBL) is a method of teaching that is student-centered, where the students are presented with a real-world problem and use reasoning and critical thinking to solve the problem.

  • Applied research is the practice conducting studies and garnering knowledge for the purpose of solving practical problems, rather than theoretical problems or acquiring knowledge for knowledge's sake.

In the next phases, prioritizing the integration of these best practices throughout the planning and implementation process would significantly improve engagement. For example, actively seeking local knowledge and expertise through PAR-based community workshops aimed at individuals who might not typically engage in scientific research would expand the project's reach and inclusivity. Additionally, investing in educational initiatives or skill-building programs of public participants through PBL and applied research would help augment engagement and contribute to the advancement of civic science. These practices can be incorporated into the CRRA process' next phases to enhance community-centered climate change research through broader and collaborative engagement, expanding community ownership, and developing more effective research topics.

For future directions, the working group directions provided several reflections:

  • Where do we see ourselves 10 years from now, given the challenges we know we face? Where do we want to be?

  • How can we create a “Collaborative Center for Climate Action” so we can keep up to date with everyone's work and find bridges and connection points as needed?

  • What is the short-term strategy (1–2 years)? What is the near-term strategy (3–5 years)? What is the long-term strategy (10–20 years)?

  • How can we prioritize research activities to engage policymakers to ensure that this effort translates into actual governance and action?

Conclusion

The CRRA emerged from a perceived need for pluralistic deliberation about responses to climate changes facing the Philadelphia region and a recognition that knowledge gaps may inhibit resilience planning. The process involved over 100 individuals from over 60 organizations or entities collaborating to create a preliminary list of research activities to help make Philadelphia more resilient. The process focused on a context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented, and interactive approach to the agenda-making process. The current lack of co-production in climate change and resilience research causes a disconnect between the scientific community and the needs of stakeholders and decision-makers, leading to gaps in necessary research. CRRA aimed to fill this gap by developing a research agenda created by and with these stakeholders to inform future research in the Philadelphia region. The working group members generated research topics spanning various categories with the cross-cutting themes of equity and justice, governance and policy, and the economy.

CRRA and other co-production and participatory research practices are often underutilized, especially in fields of research that are aiming to directly inform decision-makers like climate resilience. Participants valued the process with large and small group discussions, opportunities to network, and collaborative learning. There was criticism about the timeline and direction of the process as well as geographic and racial representation within the working groups. Taking these reflections into consideration, future processes must pay more attention to inclusivity and action-oriented research.

Moving forward, the PT's hope is that the insights from the CRRA process will play a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of research in climate resilience in Philadelphia. Fostering collaboration between researchers and the stakeholders that will use their research, CRRA lays the groundwork to conduct more effective and informed investigations that will in turn allow for efficient decision-making to create a more resilient Philadelphia. This process is intended as a first step in catalyzing a broader adoption and iteration of collaborative research that promotes community input in scientific inquiry. By centering co-production in climate resilience efforts that prioritize community input, research and implementation can produce more effective and equitable solutions to the challenges posed by climate change.

Appendix

Appendix A - CRRA Planning Team and Participants

Planning Team

  • Franco Montalto and Korin Tangtrakul, Drexel University and CCRUN

  • Hugh Johnson and Jennifer Britton, Drexel University

  • Richard Johnson, Alexis Schulman and Roland Wall, ANS

  • Saleem Chapman and Matina Granieri, City of Philadelphia Office of Sustainability

  • Julia Rockwell, Philadelphia Water Department

  • Chris Linn, Robert Graff and Miles Owen, DVRPC

  • Ariella Maron, LION Advisors

CRRA Participants

The following individuals participated in the CRRA process:

  • Abby Sullivan, Philadelphia Water Department, currently at City of Philadelphia Office of Sustainability

  • Adam Hendricks, Philadelphia Water Department

  • Alan Bush, PhD, University of South Florida (based in Philadelphia)

  • Alexandra Skula, Philadelphia Department of Public Health

  • Allison Lassiter, University of Pennsylvania

  • Allison Lau, Philadelphia Water Department, Climate Change Adaptation Program

  • Andrew Belfiglio, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Penn Injury Science Center

  • Andrew F. Smith, Drexel University

  • Ariel A Ben-Amos, Philadelphia Water Department

  • Arthur Frank MD, PhD, Drexel University SPH

  • Ben Morrow, McCormick Taylor, Inc.

  • Bethany Wiggin, University of Pennsylvania

  • Bridget Wadzuk, Villanova University

  • Brooke Petry, Moms Clean Air Force

  • Carlos Claussell Velez, Institute for Sustainable Communities

  • Carolyn Kousky, University of Pennsylvania

  • Carr Everbach, Swarthmore College

  • Charles Ellison*, WURD and ecoWURD, 2023 Emerson Collective Fellow

  • Charles Haas, Drexel University

  • Cheyenne Flores, City of Philadelphia Office of Sustainability

  • Christopher Gillespie, Energetics, Inc.

  • Christina Rosan*, PhD, Temple University

  • Dan Bader*, Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast (CCRUN)

  • Daniel Szekeres, Michael Baker International

  • Darlene Cavalier, Arizona State Univ and SciStarter

  • David Mazzocco, The Sheward Partnership

  • Denis Devine, N/A

  • Derek Ruhl, PA Public Utility Commission

  • Dion Lerman, Pennsylvania Intergrated Pest Management Program/Penn State

  • Donald Azuma

  • Dorothy (Dottie) Ives Dewey, West Chester University

  • Drew Anderson, West Chester University and WFMZ-TV

  • Drew Jones, Merck Global Vaccines Organization

  • Eliza Alford, Office of City Councilmember at Large Katherine Gilmore Richardson

  • Elizabeth Brown, National Audubon Society

  • Elizabeth Quinn, Grant Blvd, Drexel University

  • Ellen Schultz, Fairmount Water Works

  • Ellis Foley, Montgomery County Planning Commission

  • Emily Watts, PennDOT

  • Emma Giardina, Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management

  • Emma Rakestraw, Jacobs

  • Erica DePalma, The Water Center at Penn, currently at US Water Alliance

  • Eugenia Victoria Ellis, Drexel University

  • Franklin Mims, Southwest Leadership Academy Charter School

  • Gabrielle Ratliff, Chester County

  • Gennifer Rollins, Overbrook Environmental Education Center

  • Gregory Scheirer, Dynamic Engineering Consultants, PC

  • Hamil Pearsall, Temple University

  • Hayden Smith, PHENND Sustainability

  • Henry Felsman, Portfolio Associates

  • Iulia Barbu, AECOM

  • Jack Heide, FEMA Region II

  • Jane Clougherty, Dornsife School of Public Health

  • Jasmin Velez, Esperanza

  • Jean Lynch, PA DCNR

  • Jelena Matic, Inch and Meter, PC; also Adjunct Assistant Professor at Temple University

  • Jenny Greenberg, Neighborhood Gardens Trust

  • Jerry Fagliano, Drexel SPH

  • Jessica Caum, Philadelphia Department of Public Health

  • Jin Wen*, PhD, Drexel University

  • John Haak, Philadelphia City Planning Commission

  • Jon Lesher, Montgomery County Planning Commission

  • Josh Lippert, City of Philadelphia

  • Joshua Moses, Haverford College

  • Joyce Lee, IndigoJLD Green + Health; Econsult

  • Judith Robinson, Susquehanna Clean Up/Pick Up,Inc.

  • Julia Rockwell, Philadelphia Water Department

  • Julie Ulrich*, The Nature Conservancy

  • Kaitlin Tucker, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

  • Katera Moore*, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, currently at Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)

  • Katherine Liss, City of Philadelphia

  • Katie Bartolotta, Green Building United

  • Kermit O*, Land/Food/Environmental Organizer

  • Kevin Hess, PA Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Resources Management Program

  • Laura Barron, Reinvestment Fund

  • Leah Schinasi, Drexel University

  • Lindsey Walaski

  • Liz Johnson, The Nature Conservancy

  • Liza Herzog, LandHealth Institute

  • Lyndell (Lindy) Backues, The Dialog Institute at Temple University

  • Lyndon DeSalvo, The Nature Conservancy

  • Mari Radford, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 3, Mitigation Division

  • Maria Dellapina, College of Nursing and Health Professions' AgeWell Collaboratory

  • Marina Moses, CNHP/Health Admin Department

  • Mark Maimone, CDM Smith

  • Matt Slotman, NJ TRANSIT

  • Melissa Tier, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs

  • Micah Shapiro, PEER

  • Michael DeVuono, Arcadis U.S., Inc.

  • Michael Waring, Drexel University

  • Michele Aquino, American University Center for Environmental Policy (School of Public Affairs)

  • Michelle Barakat

  • Michelle Niedermeier, Pennsylvania Sea Grant College Program (PASG), Penn State University

  • Michelle Shuman, City of Philadelphia, Dept. Of Public Property, capital projects division

  • Mira Olson, Drexel University

  • Molly Hesson, Sage Services, LLC

  • Nicole Ochroch, Delaware River Port Authority

  • Patrick Gurian, Drexel

  • Peleg Kremer, Villanova University

  • Peter Barnard, City of Philadelphia Departments of Planning and Development (DPD) and Public Health (DPH)

  • Philip Orton, Stevens Institute of Technology

  • Radika Bhaskar, Thomas Jefferson University

  • Raymond Scheinfeld, City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation

  • Rebecca Collins, Temple University

  • Richard Whiteford, Independent Environmental Journalist/Climate Reality Project Leader

  • Rick Ricciardi, Marathon Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc

  • Rob Fleming, THomas jefferson University

  • Robert Traver, Villanova University - Civil and Env. Engineering

  • Russell Zerbo, Clean Air Council

  • Scott Quitel, LandHealth Institute

  • Sebastian Malter, CDM Smith

  • Simi Hoque, Drexel University, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering

  • Sonia Dattaray, Health Union, LLC

  • Stefanie Kroll, Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University

  • Stephanie Chiorean, Philadelphia Water Department

  • Steve Krug*, Krug Architects, PA Climate Change Advisory Committee

  • Straso Jovanovski

  • Susannah Anderson, Temple University College of Public Health

  • Thomas Daniels, Weitzman School of Design at the University of Pennsylvania

  • Thomas Salzer

  • Tiffany Ledesma, Philadelphia Water Department, CDM Smith

  • Todd Baylson, Solar States

  • Tom Bonner, PECO

  • Tonyehn Verkitus, Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania

  • Ulysses Sean Vance, Temple University Tyler School of Art and Architecture

  • Virginia Smith, Civil and Environmental Engineering/Villanova University

  • Walter Tsou, PSR PA

  • William Matulewicz, Colliers Engineering and Design, Inc

  • Yocasta Lora, AARP Pennsylvania

*Working Group Co-leads

Appendix

Appendix B - Post-Process Survey Questions for Working Group Members

  • Which working group did you participate in?

  • On a scale of 1–5, how much do you feel that your group was able to identify critical areas of research and concerns?

  • If you would like to elaborate on your selection above, please do so here.

  • Please describe any unresolved conflicts/disagreements that arose in your working groups

  • Considering the list of prioritized research topics generated at the end of meeting #3, is there subject matter that you think is missing?

  • What part of the entire process worked best?

  • What part of the entire process could have been improved and how would you have improved it?

  • We recognize that there was a lack of racial representation in these working groups and that most members were White, and the majority of publications shared in the CRRA clearinghouse Google drive were White authors. In an effort to diversify the contributions of this effort, we're seeking BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) perspectives to highlight and share in our write up of this work. Please list here any BIPOC-led resources, organizations, publications, efforts, etc. that you think should be highlighted.

  • Do you have anything else you'd like to share with the planning team?

  • As we compile the findings and research suggestions from these working group meetings, what form do you think the work product of this process should be? Or what form do you think would be most useful for you/your organization? (select all that apply)

  • We're thinking of how to build on the momentum of this Climate Resilience Research Agenda process and what a continuation, expansion or reformation of this group might look like. How do you see yourself participating in the future, if at all? (You may select more than one)

  • What do you think next steps for this group should be?

  • What resources could you contribute to moving this forward? For example,: providing communication forums, seeking funding opportunities, bringing new perspectives/voices to the group, etc…

  • Are there individuals that didn't participate over the summer that you would like to see involved in future efforts? Please share their contact information if you would like us to reach out to them.

  • We're looking for individuals willing to work through the fall on the synthesis and interpretation of the findings. Would you be interested in participating in such an effort?

Appendix

Appendix C - Research Topics by Working Group

Working Group 1: Regional Climate Change and Cascading Hazards (co-led by Kermit O and Daniel Bader)

WG 1 Research Topics

Water

  • Investigate the impacts of increased air/water temperature on pathogen proliferation in summer months, and survival throughout the year in source water and recreational water of the Delaware River Basin.

  • Investigate how the time elapsed between precipitation events impacts local runoff, flooding and storage capacity in rivers of the Delaware River Basin.

  • Research the correlation between extreme precipitation events and increased nutrient runoff and/or algae growth in the Delaware River Basin.

  • Explore how the cascading impacts of increased river water temperature and extreme precipitation events (heavy rainfall from tropical or high-intensity non-tropical storms) impact the effectiveness of water treatment processes (particularly pathogen removal) at drinking water intakes in the Delaware River Basin, now and over the next 50 years.

  • Investigate how spikes in flow lead to spikes in input concentrations of sediment, nutrients and/or pathogens following individual events.

  • Explore how the cascading impacts of increased air and river temperature, prolonged drought, and migration of the salt line due to sea level rise will impact drinking water availability and water treatment processes (pathogen removal, disinfection by-product formation) at drinking water intakes in the Delaware River Basin in the next 50 years.

Health Impacts

  • Explore the relationship between the regional heat island and parallel changes in hardscape/softscape and climate. Specifically, investigate how the frequency and duration of heat waves in Philadelphia County will change over the next 50 years.

  • Research how changes in vehicle type and use and building HVAC electrification will impact air quality in Philadelphia County over the next 50 years.

Ecosystems and Green Infrastructure

  • Research how climate change, specifically changes in temperature, drought and flood frequency, water tables, precipitation intensity, and wind will impact the living components (trees, insects, etc.) of green infrastructure over different geographic scales, within and outside of the flood plain.

  • Investigate how much green infrastructure can offset the urban contributions to climate change via carbon sequestration.

  • Explore whether changes to the physical design, imperviousness, and albedo of residential, business, commercial spaces in Philadelphia can improve wellbeing, reduce temperatures, and reduce stormwater runoff as the climate changes.

  • Identify which kinds of green infrastructure (stormwater, non-stormwater, vegetated and non-vegetated) will be most resilient to the climate changes expected in the Philadelphia region

  • Explore whether intense precipitation events can mobilize toxins found on contaminated land (including Superfund sites), and/or spread invasive plants and insects

  • Investigate how temperature increases, water quality degradation, etc. will impact native species migration, as well as how the development of green infrastructure for climate change mitigation can impact biodiversity e and connectivity along the urban-rural gradient.

Built Environment

  • Investigate what geographic areas within the Delaware River Watershed will be impacted by sea level rise, and which housing and buildings will require adaptive retrofits or relocation over the next 50–100 years.

  • Explore how impervious/pervious surface distribution in specific areas of the Delaware River Watershed will impact water flow, velocity, and land and water surface elevations over the course of varied developments and climate change over the next 50–100 years.

  • Explore how projected temperature and humidity increases over the next 50–100 years may affect building materials (e.g., longevity and maintenance requirements) in different communities in the Greater Philadelphia region.

  • Identify the distribution and vulnerabilities of fuel infrastructure in the Delaware River Watershed, the demand for fuel and electricity during extreme weather events, and requirements for ensuring adequate fuel and energy supplies are available during extreme weather events.

Working Group 2: Health and Environmental Vulnerability (Co-Led by Julie Ulrich and Dr. Katera Moore)

WG 2 Research Topics

Identifying Vulnerabilities

  • Improve vulnerability analyses, including through better visualization of cumulative impacts, identification of unmet needs, and by conducting participatory neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveys and mapping the allocation of funding of city services (water/sewer repairs, green infrastructure, flood investigations and mitigation, etc.) to identify health/environment vulnerabilities across the city.

  • Study how will climate change impact access to resources, such as transportation, green space, medical care, schools, technology, fresh food. Explore whether access to these resources will worsen in already disadvantaged neighborhoods.

    • Investigate how municipal infrastructure can be better planned to address health challenges associated with climate change (equitable transit, access to greenspace, access to technology)

Assessing Impacts

  • Questions for Environmental Impacts:

    • What are the impacts of climate change (generally) on ecosystem health?

    • What are the best-case conditions and worst-case conditions for urban terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems considering future climate change scenarios?

    • Which terrestrial species might be the most useful indicators for monitoring urban forest health for climate adaptation?

    • What can we learn from urban forest research and climate vulnerabilities assessments conducted in other places to inform forestry management in the Philadelphia region?

    • What habitats are most urgently in need of protection to maintain ecosystem health?

    • What are the greatest threats to aquatic ecosystems in and related to urban areas?

    • How will climate change affect key resources and services provided by aquatic systems (fishing, water quality for recreation, safety and access, etc.)?

    • What restoration strategies have the potential to have the greatest, positive effects in increasing resilience? How much would it cost to implement them?

    • How will changing precipitation patterns and sea level rise impact environmental health?

    • What are the water quality impacts of climate and precipitation changes, and can green infrastructure effectively prevent water quality deterioration?

    • How will regional changes in precipitation impact flow patterns in Delaware River Watershed? How will this amplify and intersect with other issues?

    • Will climate change (specifically droughts and salt migration) threaten the region's drinking water supplies?

    • What types of stormwater management can best improve water quality?

    • Which international best practices in water recycling and agricultural water use are most applicable to the Philadelphia region?

    • What impacts do short duration, high intensity precipitation have on urban forests, specifically with regard to tree species, locations, and soil types?

    • Do permitted effluent loads need to be revised/reconsidered to preserve stream health under climate change?

    • How will rising temperatures impact environmental health?

    • How will projected changes in temperature impact “native” aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna?

    • Do warmer climatic conditions exacerbate the threat to native species and increase the ability for non-native and/or invasive species to take hold? What is the relationship between invasive species and vectors? Specifically, do invasive plant species impact tick prevalence in Philadelphia?

    • What are the impacts of worsening heat waves on our urban ecosystems?

  • Questions for Human Health Impacts:

    • What are best practices for mitigating and adapting to climate related health impacts?

    • How will rising temperatures impact human health?

    • What allergens and diseases can we expect to increase with rising temperatures? And how will this impact health care costs? How will vectors and vector-borne diseases impact human health?

    • What are the mental health impacts of rising temperatures?

    • What is the collective impact of combining greening with other infrastructure investments (i.e., tree planting, energy efficiency, white roofs) to mitigate heat in high priority neighborhoods?

    • How will increases in temperature and vector borne diseases impact outdoor workers and other exposed populations (homeless) and how can results be best communicated to support changes to regulations and policy to better protect them?

    • How does increased vulnerability to flooding impact human health?

    • What are the mental health outcomes of living in a neighborhood that frequently floods?

    • What are best practices for addressing health consequences of recurring flooding and water intrusion?

    • How can we better document increases in mold problems and the populations affected by it?

    • How are communities preparing for and recovering from flood events?

    • How well distributed are support structures and resources, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood claims and neighborhood advocacy?

    • What are the best ways (fact sheets, toolkits, advocacy, etc.) to share information about climate risks, adaptation strategies for homeowners/landlords?

    • How many homes/small businesses do not have back-flow prevention flaps? What is the level of education around this issue?

    • What is the cost/benefit to continuing to permit building in the floodplain?

    • How will degrading air quality impact human health?

    • How will wildfires and desertification (generally happening outside of this region) impact air quality and health in this region?

    • What are the relationships between indoor and outdoor air quality?

    • What will be the air quality improvements resulting from implementation of the Philly Tree Plan?

  • Questions for Overlapping Environmental and Human Health Impacts:

    • What existing water-based challenges to human and environmental health will be exacerbated by climate change?

    • What are the full (social, economic, and environmental) impacts of degraded natural systems, overuse of natural resources, and inaction for climate resiliency?

    • What are the long-term effects of understudied contaminants of emerging concern on human and environmental health?

    • What are the economic outcomes of greening urban spaces, in terms of human health and watershed improvements?

    • What are best practices for managing contaminants that are unearthed by flooding?

Questions for Identifying Data Needs

  • Are there proxy data sets for longer term studies of impacts to health, infrastructure, built environment? Could a collective data collection framework and data management system would be useful?

    • Collaboration with healthcare providers and/or insurance could provide proxy data sets on human health impacts from extreme weather, environmental vulnerabilities, etc.

  • What information does the public need to make decisions or seek remediation services for themselves if impacted by environmental events/changes? (e.g., there are structures in place for emergency events, but not for lower-level needs)

    • What data does the city/health department need to address these chronic conditions? What do individuals/citizens need in order to make decisions/seek care?

    • For families with children with asthma, if air quality or heat is bad, do families with health vulnerabilities have tools and information they need?

  • City scale monitoring of the effectiveness of various adaptation best practices could be expanded (e.g., long term performance of existing green roofs)

  • Relating data sets, for example,: flooding + litter index + demographics, other non-obvious pairs

    • There is a need to coordinate the spatial (e.g., which sites are monitored) and temporal (when are they monitored) post-construction monitoring of best practices. A clearing house such as Open Data Philly could be redesigned to allow users to view/combine/access disparate types of data

  • Long term monitoring projects would be very useful, for example, monitoring tree/vegetation changes/health in response to climate changes along with associated indicator species (i.e., birds, insects).

Prioritizing Solutions

  • How does this work get prioritized and funded? Develop a rubric as to how we prioritize-rooted in shared understanding around outcomes and measures.

    • Prioritize research projects that could synergize with Infrastructure funding.

    • Identify foundations and funding sources to fund intersectional research.

    • Assess best ways to increase government investment in climate change resilience and equitable distribution of resources.

    • Rank solutions by impact (mitigation and resilience) and feasibility (acceptability and economics)

    • Create a policy roadmap for cities to effectively shift the system toward more environmental equitability.

      • What are the policy solutions to equitably distribute funds such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives (RGGI) to address health issues?

  • Building resilient communities

    • What is the scalability of various resilience methods (block vs. neighborhood vs. cities? What is the adaptability of various resilience methods (geographies, communities etc.)?

    • What are strategies to build resilience to more than one vulnerability?

  • Education and Communication

    • Connect with regional schools on climate change curriculum.

    • Make environmental and climate science curriculum mandatory or a core course in all Philadelphia schools.

    • Create new community initiatives to educate and train young people on climate resilience strategies and also in fields that are designed to respond to climate issues and offer environmental improvement and quality of life solutions in their communities. For example,: initiatives to train young people into becoming arborists who can plant and maintain trees to expand tree canopy in their neighborhoods.

    • Educate the political leadership on climate change issues and policy solutions. Connect with local lobbyists to advance a climate education agenda.

  • Piloting projects as interim solutions

    • Review best practices and/or pilot programs to build resilience and improve health in vulnerable communities.

    • Demonstrate the urgency through mitigation projects, even if the data isn't perfect.

    • Pair surveying with follow up/education, and/or with Civic Science. Follow up is important.

    • Conduct research that implements and monitors practices over time: pairing design/implement with monitoring results/evaluating impact.

Working Group 3: Built Environment and Infrastructure System Resilience, and Decarbonization/Electrification of the Energy Sector (co-led by Dr. Jin Wen and Steven Krug)

This Working Group was originally titled “Planning Low-Carbon Adaptation of the Built Environment” but was later changed to better align with the group's identified themes.

WG 3 Research Topics

Energy Infrastructure Resilience

  • Grid Resilience

    • Research how to make electrical/power systems resilient to projected flood/storm conditions in our region.

    • How will increased temperatures impact electricity systems and how may these impacts shape travel and communications patterns?

    • What are best practices for building a climate resilient smart grid that connects and manages the complex mix of new and legacy micro and macro-electrical capacity that will power the future electrified Philadelphia community? Are there transferable models from California and western states (given their predisposition for innovation and climate stressors: prolonged heat waves, droughts, wildfires, grid failures)?

    • Mapping scenarios for future energy infrastructure (decentralized, clean, renewable) to understand the hazards/threats they face.

      • Research best practices and expert systems for resilient grid, such as when/where it is best for underground electric utilities, and how to balance the grid in our region.

      • If we assume low-carbon future energy sources and end uses, what are the risks, and how to address their resilience? (I.e., wind, solar, geothermal).

    • What are best practices for energy storage, with a focus on EV/transit infrastructure.

    • Research the effectiveness and potential expansion of the Philadelphia Tune Up Building Energy Performance Program.

    • Research latest data on air source heat pumps in our region.

    • Can gas distribution lines be repurposed to a climate/weather resilient conduit for fiberoptic broadband cable and smart grid infrastructure? This would recapture value in what looks destined to be another “stranded asset” of the hydrocarbon age.

Temperature and Water Resilience

  • Develop a systematic framework to understand how extreme temperature caused by climate change (intensive heat waves and winter cold snaps) would affect local neighborhoods and pursue localized solutions for extreme temperature impacts. The studies should assess extreme temperatures on human health as well as impacts on built infrastructure (what it can withstand, etc.) Such a study would facilitate the development of easy-to-use tools and frameworks to identify localized remediations and to evaluate these remediations based on their temporal impacts on the local neighborhood.

  • Research systematically designed financial programs to provide localized remediations for low-income communities to respond to climate change, including managed retreat.

    • Conduct pilot residential programs that evaluate the impact and effectiveness of both technological and financial programs.

  • Conduct multi-hazard vulnerability assessments:

    • Develop worst scenario cases.

    • Estimate potential impacts on infrastructure, environment (air quality, water quality…), and public health.

    • Identify weakest links within infrastructures and potential coupled impacts (e.g., flooding that causes power outage and data tower malfunction)

    • Develop response plans.

  • Explore Urban Heat Island resilience measures in other cities, including cities on the West Coast and the South experiencing heat waves that may soon be experienced in the Philadelphia region.

    • What heat risk mitigation strategies are most appropriate for Philadelphia's heat stressed neighborhoods?

    • Would it cool a community to strategically locate pocket-parks in a green-desert neighborhood? How do you place them? How many pocket parks for a given area will make a significant difference to the community? Are there other benefits that a “pocket of green” would bring to a community? What are they? Will these benefits address other neighborhood problems?

  • What is the capacity of our infrastructure to withstand flooding events?

    • Revised modeling of flooding impacts on critical infrastructure, particularly wastewater treatment.

    • How is funding of city services (water/sewer repairs, green infrastructure, flood investigations and mitigation, etc.) currently allocated across the city and how will climate change impact the needs of neighborhoods?

  • What best practices from urban flooding and resilient infrastructure adaptation can be applied to the Philadelphia region? There are examples in NYC (Rebuild by Design in response to Hurricane Sandy) and the Netherlands (the Dutch have been learning and adapting to water for its entire history) that could be emulated.

  • Develop conceptual designs to reinvent water services that are coupled with energy and material recovery, including decentralized solutions at various scales and stepwise implementation for different areas of the city at appropriate scales.

Decarbonization and Electrification of the Energy Sector

  • Future Energy Mix and Sources

    • Research a comprehensive amalgamation of energy scenarios for the future of the region to understand the land use implications (how much land, and where) of generating enough clean energy to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2035

    • Natural Gas Alternatives: Research pros and cons of biogas and renewable natural gas, including effects of production on regional ecological systems, and effects of combustion on air quality and health. Philadelphia may be well situated for piloting emerging gas alternatives such as blue hydrogen.

    • Hydropower: With the abundance of rivers and creeks in the region, are there potential energy production through existing dams (Art Museum dam, Flat Rock Dam, Wissahickon Dam on Ridge Ave) or energy storage (Water Works Natatorium, unused reservoirs, polders constructed to store and retain stormwater to mitigate severe flood events can be pump-filled during normal times using daylight/wind power for hydropower release overnight) possibilities?

    • Geothermal: Geothermal is expensive and logistically difficult in a densely built urban environment. PGW in their diversification study recommended a feasibility study for networked geothermal systems to explore the technical and geological potential of block-level networked geothermal district systems as well as the utility financial model for such a system. Are there opportunities in the region for geothermal?

    • District Energy and Energy Recovery: District Energy (heating and cooling from a central plant) could be a low-carbon alternative that could be studied in comparison to retiring fossil fuels completely.

  • Decarbonize and Electrify

    • What are the cost/benefits of neighborhood or block scale electrification, coupled with renewable energy systems resilience, and related social impacts?

    • Electrification at Scale: How can the transition to electrification be deployed at scale, equitably, and addressing the highest impact areas for transformation at the highest priority? What kind of incentives (policies, rebates, top-down, bottom-up, etc.) are most effective at pushing the lever toward electrification city-wide? What communities/companies/ideas may be appropriate models for community transformation at scale?

    • Electric Vehicles (EV): EV penetration in an urban setting (and beyond) is limited by the siting/availability of charging stations and the significant price difference over conventional cars that acts a barrier to all but the wealthy. Identify and study the feasibility of installing charging stations (recommend focusing on Level 3 DC fast charging (20–30 min charge), as opposed to Level 2 (4–6 hr), or Level 1 (overnight). Around the city and region. What policies/incentives will expedite regional build-out of EV fast-charging (20–30 min full charge) infrastructure?

    • Potential opportunities for siting include Community Solar/charging stations: Parking lots (commercial, municipal, company, supermarkets, parking garages, schools) and converting parking meters into charging stations.

Working Group 4: Regional Climate Governance and Adaptive Management (co-led by Dr. Christina Rosan and Charles Ellison)

WG 4 Research Topics

Racial Justice and Inclusion

  • Prioritizing Lived Experience in Research, Decision-Making, and Planning

    • How do we, from the very beginning, co-create discovery and knowledge with local, marginalized, vulnerable communities—not just as acts of justice, but because the knowledge will be more profound, and it will be owned by local communities from the get-go?

    • In addition to physical science and financial considerations, what are the social science and environmental justice perspectives on communities' preferences for adaptation options? What are their perceptions of risks? How do they interact with the city government?

    • How is climate change affecting individual's homes, blocks and neighborhoods, according to the people that live there? How do these micro-scale experiences weave into macro-scale challenges?

    • How do regional land use changes impact the health, resiliency, and vulnerability of “downstream” communities in the region? (For example, emerging diseases, watershed challenges, air pollution, etc.)

    • What is the role of land use regulations (i.e., zoning) to enhance community resilience? How can communities influence these decisions?

    • What are best practices for engaging and activating local communities to show up while simultaneously creating the space for their voices to be heard at town hall, council meetings, and planning meetings and speak up about their experiences and needs?

    • What are ways that climate resilience advocates, organizations, media, and policymakers use combined “place-based” environmental neighborhood improvement strategies as a way to encourage and build immediate climate resilience in stressed communities?

Governance and Policy

  • Regional Governance

    • Regional climate resilience will require regional climate governance. What are the formal governance structures that will play key roles, at the municipal, regional, state, and federal level? What are the levers of power? How do they work together?

    • What is local government's role in the larger ecosystem of partners? What might a new governance model look like that reflects community priorities and allows for cross-disciplinary, cross-sector collaboration? What governance arrangements support coordination?

    • What are ways that climate resilience advocates, organizations, media and policymakers use combined “place-based” environmental neighborhood improvement strategies as a way to encourage and build immediate climate resilience in distressed communities?

    • Generally, regional governance that is more forward looking (as opposed to retrospective) could create a broader capacity to anticipate and prepare for climate impacts. What are the barriers to getting to a more anticipatory governance model? What role can academics, community, and researchers play in advocating for alternative governance approaches?

    • How do we go from the existing governance structures to be the kind of governance that we need to be resilient? What can we learn from “resilience governance” models elsewhere?

    • How do we connect zoning and Comprehensive Planning done by agencies like the City Planning Commission with the urgency of climate and risk, and promote intersectional climate planning? How can groups like the CRRA support this shift?

    • How can we change the structure and quality of relationships to change how government works in Philadelphia? A social network study could map out how procurement processes work, how decision making happens, and make visible the barriers to action so that they can be resolved.

    • How is Philadelphia's ability to be climate ready dictated by state and federal policies? State regulations can be a barrier to action, for example, with solar energy policy. The solar sector has seen tremendous growth nationwide in the last few decades, yet only 2% of eligible rooftops in PA have solar panels.

      • What policies would get Philadelphia to an energy grid of 50% solar in a decade, when the state's goal is 0.5%?

      • How can Philadelphia put pressure on the state to encourage policies that increase resiliency and equity?

    • How can we better coordinate and share expertise across the many organizations, businesses, and institutions that are all working on a piece of the puzzle but not able to tackle the full spectrum?

  • Advancing Equitable Regional Resilience through Policy-Making and Planning

    • What is the framework for a Just Transition in the clean energy space, and how do we make it happen in this region?

    • How can we ensure Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives (RGGI) proceeds are equitably distributed? How do we determine distribution? Are there criteria to promote equity?

    • How can energy resiliency investments in Philly relieve energy burden challenges (e.g., share of income spent on utilities)?

    • How can energy policy research connect with equity and job issues, and look at opportunities that come from climate investments that meet multiple needs at once? Can researchers work with city agencies and non-profits to evaluate the effectiveness of policies?

  • Climate emergency decision making, preparedness and risk

    • What do prepared communities look like?

    • Each impact needs to have a different threshold that needs to be established. That threshold might be different depending on who is doing the action, who it is impacting, what it is impacting. What are the thresholds where our existing governance mechanisms “break,” and we can say they are incapable of anticipating and preparing for risks?

    • What risk mitigation practices are most effective, equitable, and realistic for preparing for climate risks?

    • How do we set risk thresholds? What are the decision making factors to implement a project, or to move to plan B?

    • What progress is being made to address vulnerability to flooding and sea level rise at existing superfund and other contaminated sites in the region?

    • How can risk reduction be better quantified and tracked in mitigation projects?

    • What role can faith-based groups play in disaster response and preparedness?

  • Affording Adaptation versus Climate Impacts

    • How does climate action get paid for?

    • With a strain on municipal budgets and an economic system that favors growth and exploitation over conservation and equity, how can governments afford to take urgent action to address climate impacts?

    • How will climate impacts influence municipal budgets by leading to higher needed expenditures or lowering revenues? Are there financial models or innovations in municipal budgeting that could be pursued?

    • What are the information gaps for municipal government financial managers on how climate change will impact infrastructure and operations, and the cost saving opportunities of acting now?

    • How can climate resilience become a consistent and critical consideration in capital investments?

    • How can municipal governments raise funds for capital projects, aiming to avoid regressive types of fees? How can these approaches be linked to improving affordability?

  • Responsible Contracting and Purchasing

    • How can procurement processes reflect the transition to a more climate resilient region?

    • Local solar companies in Philadelphia hire locally and are working directly to provide clean energy to mitigate climate change. How can local solar companies be included in incentives and programs to further increase local hiring?

Knowledge to Action

  • Effective and Inclusive Communication Strategies

    • What are some success stories of using public art for messaging and raising awareness about climate change?

    • Some of the most powerful change agents and communications styles in Philadelphia are surrounded in celebration. How can joy and celebration be paired with effective and receptive communication to create resiliency?

    • How can the people who are living through climate change impacts be considered experts over those who have traditionally had deciding power, in a deliberative effort to message the way that different groups will be impacted by the climate crisis?

    • Civic associations, neighborhood action committees, and other such organizations in Philadelphia, and Environmental Advisory Councils in the region are very effective at reaching their constituents. How can we work with these existing networks to more effectively message climate resilience and political action?

    • Overcoming climate change can be seen as not impacting us as individuals or is “too big.” What are the digestible nuggets, so the public gets it and they feel like they are a part of the solutions? What are the engagement tools to mobilize or activate people?

  • Education

    • What kind of climate change education, formal and informal, is being offered across the region? How can this be improved? What models exist elsewhere that might be useful?

    • What is the role of educators (informal and formal) to build political will?

    • Where are there opportunities to incorporate and improve eco-literacy and civic literacy? Are eco-literacy and civic literacy more effective as a mandated part of the curriculum, a standalone standard or should it be integrated into other parts of the curriculum? What works and doesn't work in terms of curriculum design?

    • How can civic/citizen science be incorporated into education and research? For example, overlaying citizen complaint data with Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) models and FEMA flood models?

    • How can climate change education remove barriers that traditionally have considered climate change science as “hard science” and politically untenable for conservatives?

Cross-Cutting, General, and Complementary Findings

Cross-Cutting Research Recommendations

  • What are best practices to translate climate data (e.g., sea level rise) into planning policy? What should the municipal employees and developers do to incorporate climate change considerations when planning/constructing new buildings/infrastructure?

  • Take a closer look at zoning ordinance potential. Most ordinances include impervious coverage limits. How can zoning ordinances for redevelopment include measures to mitigate human health impacts with regards to climate change?

  • Comprehensive GIS Philadelphia planning map: immediate short-term planning should go toward identifying what projects to fund, prioritize how to proportionally distribute these funds, and where geographically to make these investments. President Biden's Justice 40 Initiative directs up to 40% of federal infrastructure funding to investments in communities that have historically been neglected. Building a GIS map with the appropriate data layers will facilitate the planning/decision process in an efficient and equitable way. Immediate next steps include identifying what GIS based city data exists, what existing data should be added, and what data does not exist but should be obtained and included.

  • Create a clearinghouse of all the relevant research that has been done.

  • Implement long-term monitoring for climate scenarios that can vet model assumptions.

  • Include behavioral science in modeling assumptions, especially for natural disaster scenarios.

  • How can we better measure associated benefits of climate adaptation projects beyond just flood/heat objectives? For example, what other associated health, economic, social benefits are provided and how can these be better captured (similar to what is being done to measure GSI impacts but expand to larger climate adaptation projects).

  • Research opportunities to change people's travel behavior by surface and structured parking incentives/taxes, including changes to the related storm water and other physical conditions.

Real-Time Climate Crisis Management of the Built Environment

  • Research how data/communications flow during climate crisis management scenarios, and what is needed to make those systems resilient to event disruption.

  • Research critical systems that require adaptation to be resilient at the regional scale with more extreme weather, using GIS as part of amalgamation of systems. For example, what critical infrastructure (private and public) is in the seal level rise and storm surge zone, etc.

  • Research building codes regarding occupancy of basement spaces in flood prone areas.

  • What is the response plan before, during, and after extreme events such as extreme rain fall? Do we need better forecasting for extreme events?

  • Are there homes with basements that are/will be vulnerable to flooding that weren't before, or with households that do not want to speak out (e.g., in immigrant communities)?

Concurrent Impacts on Human Health and the Built Environment

  • What are the long term impacts of hazards, such as mold? Systematical study of the flooded area about their long-term impact on health and exposure and building degradation. How much remediation funding is needed? What are the implications for the city and its residents of not taking immediate action?

  • Temperature change and flooding have made new long-term hazards to the Northeast (such as mold growing) - need to identify these issues and generate action plans.

  • What are the co-benefits for public health on urban greening and reducing carbon emissions?

Regional Planning and Land Use

  • Research how increased precipitation and flooding impact economic productivity of the city. How can we make the transit system more resilient? What's the impact on regional transportation as a whole?

  • Explore the impact of land use changes (densification and transit-oriented development) that could reduce the energy and water footprint, and reduce generation of GHG.

Missing Subject Matter

  • How Philadelphia residents approach decision making.

  • Building the business/economic case for implementing solutions.

  • Historic sites and public spaces susceptible to flooding.

  • How to get to low-carbon scenarios (i.e., net zero by 2050)?

  • A comprehensive list of regulatory barriers in the way.

  • What Participatory Action Research truly is.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Supporting Regional Implementation of Integrated Climate Resilience: Consortium for Climate Risks in the Urban Northeast (CCRUN) Phase II* (NA15OAR4310147). We also acknowledge Second Nature who provided a “Climate Solutions Acceleration” grant to encourage diverse participation. This grant provided economic compensation provided to individuals representing non-profit organizations or historically marginalized groups. We also acknowledge the contributions of all participants in Appendix A, including the CRRA community participants, as well as the planning team and all supporting members.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used for categorization and illustration of research topics in Section 4 in the study are available in Appendix B and Appendix C at the end of this paper. The data will also be uploaded to the Drexel Research Discovery, Drexel's institutional repository housing all publications, thesis and dissertations, and data sets produced by our faculty and researchers. Drexel Research Discovery can be accessed at the following link: . The data specific to this project can be accessed at the following link: . Version 2405 of Microsoft Excel used for categorization and development of visual data presentation is available via academic license through affiliation with an educational institution and developed openly at Microsoft Microsoft Corporation (2023), Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.

Erratum

Since original publication of this article, Daniel Bader has been added as a coauthor with the following affiliation: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia Climate School, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. The error has been corrected, and this may be considered the authoritative version of record.

References

Abdulkareem, M. , & Elkadi, H. (2018). From engineering to evolutionary, an overarching approach in identifying the resilience of urban design to flood. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 28, 176, 190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.02.009]

Word count: 14776

Show less

© 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

The Philadelphia Region is threatened by anthropogenic climate change, with frontline communities facing disproportionate adverse impacts. To be effective, regional plans for climate resilience need to respond to diverse stakeholder needs, with research and information gathering critical to governance and decision‐making. The Climate Resilience Research Agenda (CRRA) is a co‐produced preliminary list of research activities that, if undertaken, could help to make the Philadelphia region more resilient to climate change. The CRRA process engaged over 100 individuals from over 60 organizations and entities across the region, collaboratively producing key research topics across four working groups: 1. Regional Climate Change and Cascading Hazards, 2. Health and Environmental Vulnerability, 3. Built Environment and Infrastructure System Resilience, and Decarbonization/Electrification of the Energy Sector, and 4. Regional Climate Governance and Adaptive Management. Research topics spanned working groups, and connections between topics highlighted the interconnectedness of climate challenges facing the Philadelphia region. In future project phases, the planning team will iterate and improve the recommendations with feedback from the participants from this process to continue important conversations regarding climate resilience within the region.

Details

Title
A First Step in the Co‐Production of a Climate Resilience Research Agenda for the Philadelphia Region
Author
Kavathekar, A. 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Tangtrakul, K. 2 ; Pearl, N. 2 ; Bader, D. 3 ; Britton, J. 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Chapman, S. 4 ; Graff, R. 5   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Granieri, M. 4 ; Johnson, H. 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Johnson, R. 6 ; Linn, C. 5 ; Owen, M. 5 ; Rockwell, J. 7 ; Schulman, A. 6 ; Wall, R. 6 ; Payab, A. H. 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Montalto, F. A. 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo 

1  Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA 
2  Drexel University and Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast, Philadelphia, PA, USA 
3  Lamont‐Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia Climate School, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA 
4  City of Philadelphia Office of Sustainability, Philadelphia, PA, USA 
5  Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA, USA 
6  Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA 
7  Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia, PA, USA 
Section
Research Article – Long
Publication year
2024
Publication date
Dec 1, 2024
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
ISSN
26929430
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023CSJ000071
ProQuest document ID
3188685903
Copyright
© 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.