The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

Small and Medium Sized City Action Plan Creation and Implementation in Western Washington and Oregon

Item

Title (dcterms:title)

Eng Small and Medium Sized City Action Plan Creation and Implementation in Western Washington and Oregon

Date (dcterms:date)

2018

Creator (dcterms:creator)

Eng Simmons, Arielle M

Subject (dcterms:subject)

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED CITY
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CREATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
IN WESTERN WASHINGTON AND OREGON

by
Arielle M. Simmons

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Masters of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2018

© 2018 by Arielle M. Simmons. All rights reserved

This Thesis is for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
By
Arielle M. Simmons

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College

_____________________________________________________
Shawn Hazboun
Member of the Faculty, The Evergreen State College

___________________________

Date

ABSTRACT
Small and Medium-Size City
Climate Action Planning and Implementation
In Western Washington and Oregon

As cities acknowledge their contributive roll in anthropogenic climate change and
experience the destructive impacts of pollution, many are quickly motioning toward the
development of localized climate action plans (CAPs). Environmental impacts paired
with concerns of rapidly increasing population make small and medium-sized cities in
Western Washington and Oregon ideal places to observe CAP creation and
implementation. Using two frameworks for policy innovation, the internal determinants
and regional diffusion models, eight localized stand-alone climate documents and
nineteen comprehensive plans from twenty cities were analyzed and condensed into a
Climate Actions Inventory (CAI). Additionally, thirteen city staff and two consultant
interviews were conducted. Together this data identifies both motivations and barriers to
CAP formation and implementation.
This research determines that limitations to CAP implementation within cities (i.e.
money, staff resourcing, utility management, etc.), vulnerabilities and susceptibility to
climate impacts, regional and local population growth, and community participation and
demand all have significant value as cities create localized CAPs. Though CAP formation
is primarily determined by internal viabilities and city staff, state and county policies as
well as other cities also have impact in the municipal climate planning process. Further
research assessing community emissions, perception, and behaviors is needed to
strengthen the impact and relatability of city CAPs.

Key Words: climate action plans, municipal comprehensive plans, Washington, Oregon,
policies, strategic development, community, municipalities, cities, internal determinants,
regional diffusion

Table of Contents
Introduction Small and Medium Size City Climate Action Planning in Western Washington
and Oregon _____________________________________________________________1
Chapter One Components of Climate Action Planning Background and Purpose _______5
1a. Creating an Arena for Climate Action ____________________________________5
1b. Climate Action Planning Purpose and Structure ____________________________7
1c. Cost, Leadership, and Community Participation ___________________________12
1d. Plan Quality and Impact _____________________________________________16
Chapter Two Climate Action Planning: Regional and Local Perspective ______________20
2a. Defining Region: The Pacific Northwest __________________________________20
2b. State-Level Emissions Reduction Standards and Planning in Washington State ___21
2c. County-Level Emissions Reduction Standards and Climate Planning ___________27
2d. Municipal Policy Cores: Buildings and Energy, Land Use and Transportation, Waste
Management, and Public Health and Safety__________________________________29
Chapter Three Frameworks and Methods _____________________________________34
3a. Policy Innovation: Internal Determinants & Regional Diffusion Frameworks _____34
3b. Sample Size and City Selection _________________________________________37
3c. Acquisition of Data and Quantitative Analysis: Climate Actions Inventory _______41
3d. Acquisition of Data and Qualitative Analysis of Municipal and Consultant
Interviews ___________________________________________________________43
Chapter Four Results, Discussion, & Suggestions for Future Research _______________46
4a. Climate Action Inventory (CAI) Results __________________________________46
4b. Interview Results & Discussion ________________________________________56
4c. Discussion: Internal Determinants and Regional Diffusion, Intertwining the CAI and
Interviews ___________________________________________________________66
4d. CAI and Interview Limitations_________________________________________72
Chapter Five Suggestions and Considerations for Creating Stronger CAPs ___________75
5a. Promises of Togetherness, Communalism, and Sacrifice _____________________75
5b. Redefining Urbanism ________________________________________________79
5c. Promotion of Transformational Resilience & Deep Green Living in CAP ________85
Conclusion Re-CAP ______________________________________________________90
Bibliography ___________________________________________________________93
Appendix A: Interview Questions for Municipal City Staff _______________________103
Appendix B: List of Interview Questions for Consultants ________________________104

iv

List of Tables
Table 1: Factors of the Internal Determinants and Regional Diffusion
Models_______________________________________________________________ 37
Table 2: Oregon Cities, Counties, City Populations, Planning Titles, and Planning
Years________________________________________________________________ 40
Table 3: Washington Cities, Counties, City Populations, Planning Titles, and
Planning Years________________________________________________________ 41
Table 4: Interview Participants

44

Table 5: City-Staff and Consultant Titles

44

Table 6: Most Common Actions Across Municipalities

48

Table 7: Least Common Actions Across Municipalities______________________ 51
Table 8: Total City Actions by Municipality________________________________ 54
Table 9: Total Combined Actions by Category______________________________ 55
Table 10: Prevalent Interview Themes____________________________________ 57
Table 11: Key Success___________________________________________________62
Table 12: Key Limitations_______________________________________________ 63

v

Acknowledgements
This has been an incredible journey and there are many people I would like to
thank for my success. First, this work is dedicated to my amazing grandmother Mary
Castellon, for without whom this project would not have been possible. Thank you for
your unyielding support, your gentility and kindness, and for instilling in the strength in
me to accomplish anything.
I would also like to thank my mother Ana Castellon, for her continuous prayers,
love, and encouragement. Mitch Leo, thank you for taking care for my mother and for
using your vacation time so that you both are able to visit and explore the amazing
Pacific Northwest with me!
Additionally, I am very grateful for the support of my amazing boyfriend, Eric
Beaudoin. You have been so patient, supportive, and have worked diligently with me
through much of the writing process. Your hard-working ethic and dreams parallel mine
in many ways and I look forward to a future of trial, error, and inevitable success.
To an incredible and soulful man, my big brother Orion Castaneda: I am so
blessed to have you so close to me in this phase of my life. Thank you for always being
by my side when I need you, editing my writing, and engaging in such deep and
meaningful conversations about the future. You inspire me endlessly.
I would like to extend a special thank you to my wonderful thesis mentor and
friend, Shawn Hazboun. You have truly illuminated my experience in the Master of
Environmental Studies (MES) Program. You are an amazing woman and excellent
teacher, and your brilliance has informed much of my work.
Finally, thank you to all MES faculty and staff, to my peer review group, to all of
the cities and interview participants in my study, to The City of Olympia, Climate
Reality, and Thurston Climate Action team, and to all of my friends and family on the
West and East Coast!
I love you all!
Sincerely,
Arielle Simmons

vi

vii

Introduction
Small and Medium Size City Climate Action Planning in Western Washington and
Oregon
Cities play a fundamental role in the production of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Therefore, they are essential places for proactive innovation around adaption
and mitigation strategies and actions (Basset & Shandas, 2010). Recent development in
climate science indicates that, “Since the mid-20th century, most of the large cities of the
United States have been warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole”
(Stone, Vargo, & Habeeb, 2012 pg. 263). As populations continue to grow and physical
and mental displacement from severe weather events trend as a “new normal,” small
cities must reduce emissions impacts, strengthen urban infrastructure, conceptualize landuse design and purpose, and protect citizens from the physiological and psychological
impacts imposed from climate disruption.
For many small cities, there exist considerable challenges in climate action
planning. Specifically focusing on the Pacific Northwest region with emphasis on
Western Washington and Oregon, this research explores the question, “What factors
shape the decision-making process of small and medium-sized city Climate Action Plan
creation, and how do these plans differ across municipalities?” Addressing the barriers
encountered by decision makers and stakeholders, determining levels of leadership and
expertise in the CAP development process, and highlighting economic and social benefits
and constraints, this research broadens the scope for plan evaluation and success through
an analysis of climate action plans as well as interviews with internal city staff and
consultants involved in climate action planning. Identifying commonalities and
differences between small and medium-sized CAP targets and actions can aid in
1

determining methods to diffuse planning strategies throughout the region. Finally,
suggestions for incorporating dynamic urban and social reformation constructs into the
CAP process may generate the movement needed to accommodate critical levels of
urgency.
While there are many cities mobilizing throughout the United States, the small
cities in Western Oregon and Washington can provide key insights into how cities can
overcome obstacles and rapidly accommodate for transformative change. According to
the Washington Office of Financial Management, Washington State’s population grew an
estimated 126,000 people, a two percent increase between June 2016 and June 2017. This
is the largest percent increase of people in this state since the year 2006 (Zhao, 2017). As
of June 2017, there are now over 7,300,000 people residing in Washington (Zhao, 2017).
Migration to Washington was the primary reason for the increase accounting for seventytwo percent of the state’s growth between 2016-2017 (Zhao, 2017). Natural birth
accounted for twenty-eight percent of the increase (Zhao, 2017). To accommodate this
growth, Washington added 39,500 housing units in 2017, an increase of fifteen percent
from 2016. More than half of these units were multi-family structures (OFM, 2017).
These homes were primarily incorporated in the five largest metropolitan counties: King,
Snohomish, Pierce, Spokane, and Thurston (Zhao, 2017). Oregon’s growth follows that
of Washington’s.
Oregon is experiencing similar population spikes. Oregon was the 9th fastest
growing state in the US between 2016-2017, adding 64,750 people- a 1.6 increase
(Dubois, 2017). Migration accounted for eighty-eight percent of this increase, with the
remaining twelve percent attributed to natural birth (Dubois, 2017). Portland absorbed the

2

most population, with an estimated 640,000 people living within city limits (Dubois,
2017). Multnomah and Washington counties added more than 12,000 residents each and
Clackamas County absorbed just over 8,000 people (Dubois, 2017). Central Oregon also
had an increase of four percent with Bend adding 3,265 residents contributing a total
population of 86,765 (Dubois, 2017).
Population is just one of the many reasons why it is of crucial importance to
observe and interact with municipal CAPs. Washington and Oregon are home to many
species of keystone flora and fauna such as salmon habitats and old growth trees. The
naturalness of both places-- majestic forests, marine and aquatic life, as well as the
diverse landscapes and terrain make cities of Washington and Oregon are not only
incredibly beautiful, but also sensitive to dramatic changes in the climate. Keeping
natural systems operating at high capacity is pivotal to maintaining the health and
functionality of social systems (Millar, Stephenson, & Stephens 2007; Kabisch et Al,
2016).
Washington and Oregon are particularly vulnerable to climatic shifts. The
University of Washington College of the Environment’s Climate Impacts Group asserts
that the Pacific Northwest region will be subject to a number of dramatic climate events
now and in the years to come. Among these changes are 1) Increases in average annual
temperatures, 2) Warming in all seasons, 3) More extreme heat events, 4) Ongoing
natural variability and associated uncertainties (i.e. El Niño and La Niña) (Oscillation,
2013). Results of these projected scenarios of warming will result in dramatic changes in
annual precipitation, sea-level rise, and wildfire intensity (Oscillation, 2013). Coastal
ocean temperatures and ocean acidification have detrimental impacts on shellfish

3

production, local livelihood, and the regional economy. Increased wildfires result in
localized public health crisis and impair timber harvest and production services. Rain
events exacerbate flooding, stimulate landslides, and cause travel impediments for people
throughout the region—and these are just the foreseeable problems.
Municipalities within the Pacific Northwest region possess an incredible
obligation to design climate action plans to be policies and guidelines for all people
within their respective communities. Observing key indicators such as land use changes
and population increases, addressing knowledge gaps, acknowledging and working to
elevate beyond financial and social barriers generate opportunities for action and create
communicative space between municipal and regional leaders and respective
communities (Kabish et. al, 2016). This study contributes a subsect of urban governance
and policy innovation planning to identify how CAPs are formed in small and mediumsized cities in Western Washington and Oregon, who informs the development process,
and how CAP influence is dispersed throughout the region. Additionally, this research
specifies core conceptual components missing from the CAP process and recommends
ways to make CAPs more impactful.

4

Chapter One
Components of Climate Action Planning Background and Purpose
Chapter One summarizes Climate Action Plan (CAP) creation and background. It
addresses international movements, coalitions, and organizations that have placed cities
at the forefront of climate planning and policy-setting. It then details CAP structure,
content, and the leadership involved in the creation process. Finally, Chapter One
addresses factors in plan quality and impact.
1a. Creating an Arena for Climate Action
There is consensus that state and municipal mobilization for climate action is
increasing in the United States (Krause, 2011; Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012; Krause,
Yi, & Fieock, 2017). This is largely a result of failure at the federal level to comply with
international policy negotiations set within consortiums such as the 1992 Rio Earth
Summit, 2005 Kyoto Protocol, 2015 Copenhagen United Nations COP 21 Conference,
and the 2016 Paris Agreement (Krause, 2011; Gough 2013.). As a result of federal
negligence to aggressively combat climate through emissions reduction standards and
land-use reform, the inception of the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005
has stirred cities toward policy innovation (Krause, 2011; Boswell, Greve, & Seale,
2012).
Commitment from cities to enhance resilience, reduce emissions, and track
progress was met with resounding international appeal, prompting UN Secretary Ban Kimoon and Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael R. Bloomberg to create
the 2014 Compact of Mayors (Global Covenant of Mayors, 2017). Aligning objectives
with European Union’s Covenant of Mayors formed in 2008, the two entities joined
together to form the Global Covenant of Mayors in 2016 (Global Covenant of Mayors,
5

2017). According to the Global Covenant of Mayors website, there are “7,496 cities
representing 681,365,803 people worldwide and 9.27% of the total global population”
(Global Covenant of Mayors, 2017). The Covenant remains the world’s largest coalition
of cities dedicated to mitigating pollution and adapting to change (Global Covenant of
Mayors, 2017).
With the guiding principles of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
and Global Covenant of Mayors, municipalities of varying sizes, demographics, and
political orientations are prompted to make commitments toward emissions reductions.
Some of these principles include adopting land use polices to preserve open space and
promote compact urban development for walking and bicycle accessibility (Boswell,
Greve, & Seale, 2012). Other principles include improving building code standards for
new developments within communities, incentivizing investment in renewable energy,
and increasing public outreach, education, and public health services (Boswell, Greve, &
Seale, 2012). However, transforming guiding principles into tangible progress is a
challenge for cities both internationally and in the United States (Anguelovski &
Carmin, 2011). Resources such as city-staff and expertise, time, funding, and community
engagement for municipalities vary considerably from city to city (Boswell, Greve, &
Seale, 2012; Lyles, Berke, & Overstreet, 2017) as there are no set standards for climate
planning and visioning (Anguelovski & Carmin, 2011; Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012).
Despite these limitations, the impact of technology and the influence of
urbanization have created networks to aid cities in reducing emissions and has allowed
for more incorporative information sharing (Sterman, 2011). The most notable
organization providing technical support is the International Council for Local

6

Environmental Initiative (ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability). Founded in
1990, ICLEI is the “leading global network for towns, cities, and regions who have
committed to building a sustainable future” (ICLEI, 2017). A crucial partner to the
Global Covenant of Mayors, ICLEI provides guidelines, tools, programs, methodologies,
and consultation to 1,500-member cities in 100 countries (ICLEI, 2017; Global Covenant
of Mayors, 2017).
Cities dedicated to climate action plan (CAP) development are encouraged to
partner with the ICLEI. The Global Covenant of Mayors standards follow the ICLEI Five
Milestone Process, also called the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP). These five
milestones are: 1) Create a baseline emission inventory and forecast of emissions, 2)
Form an emissions reduction standard, 3) Design a local climate action document, 4)
Supplement this plan with policy, 5) Develop a regulatory monitoring system to measure
standards and verify results (ICLEI, 2017). ICLEI works to develop a number of software
tools such as ClearPath and C-LEAP to ease transitioning between steps, make GHG
emissions reduction monitoring simpler, and provide a systematic flow for amending
CAPs. (ICLEI, 2017). Other essential partnership organizations with the Covenant are the
C40 Climate Leadership Group and the United Cities for Local Governments (Global
Covenant of Mayors, 2017).
1b. Climate Action Planning Purpose and Structure
The international arena plays a tremendous role in determining core emissions
targets and projecting climate impact (McCright, Aaron, & Dunlap, 2003). In contrast,
climate action plans (CAPs) work to scale down larger frameworks to integrate state and
regional directives with community vision and local context (Boswell, Greve, & Seale,

7

2012). Therefore, every plan contains city-specific content CAPs are created for two
distinct purposes. The first is mitigation, or the purposeful reduction and elimination of
carbon emissions and GHG pollution (Stone, Vargo, Habeeb, 2012). The second is
adaption, or the ability of a municipality and community to withstand or recover from
climate impacts. (Adger et al. 2003). Some documents simply provide a visionary
mission for cities, with most plans primarily focused on strategies concerning energy,
land-use, transportation, waste, and public health (Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012).
According to Boswell, Greve & Seale (2012, pg. 9) are four varieties of local
planning documentation cities can choose to adopt. These are 1) CAPs: municipal standalone documents that focus on providing guidelines for mitigating and adapting to
climate change, 2) Sustainability Plans: define and envision sustainability initiatives, but
include a climate action section, 3) Energy Plans: focus on conservation and efficiency,
4) Comprehensive and General Plans: community visioning and land use planning
documents that may contain elements or sections of CAP (Boswell, Greve, & Seale,
2012). Budget constraints, time, and resources available to cities often determine which,
if any, CAP variations are infused into city policy and community value systems (Lyles,
Berke, & Overstreet, 2017). Regardless of these constraints, many municipalities
recognize the importance of local-level climate planning and strive to incorporate costeffective strategies into many facets of city planning and life (van Staden & Musco,
2010).
Jurisdictional CAPs possess a standard structure that includes a background,
contributors, local greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, forecast of city growth and future
emissions, targets and goals, emissions reduction strategies, and adaptation

8

recommendations. Boswell, Greve, and Seale (2012, pg. 10) also suggest for CAPs to
intergrade implementation, monitoring, and evaluation measure. While the entire CAP
process relies largely on scientific and quantitative reasoning, two of the most technical
aspects of the plan are inventorying GHG emissions and developing GHG reduction
strategies (Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012; Roseland, 2006). Once a GHG inventory is
complete, reduction strategies tied to emissions are formed.
GHG inventories are defined as “the introduction and accounting of emissions
emitted to the atmosphere within a community over a period of time. They are not
measured directly but are estimated from quantifying community activity and behavior
(i.e. vehicle miles traveled (VMTs and electricity consumption)” (Boswell, Greve, &
Seale, 2012, pg. 11). Despite the prevalence of GHG inventories in CAP formation and
the inclusion of them in CAP documents, research indicates that emissions inventories
must be refined to adequately inform reduction targets and implementation strategies
(Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012; Basset & Shandas, 2010).
Identification of emissions sources by assigning designated carbon boundaries is a
key element to reduction within municipalities (Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012 Bassett &
Shandas, 2010; Rice, 2010). According to Rice (2010), territorializing emissions is a key
component to maintaining accurate emissions records, determining levels of effective
planning and implementation, and stimulating community participation in the reduction
process. To accomplish this, Boswell, Greve, & Seale, (2012) advise that the data
assumptions from GHG inventories be made more transparent by public officials and
between stakeholders. Clearer justifications for emissions reduction targets can result in
more impactful strategies and actions (Rice, 2010; Bassett & Shandas, 2010). The ability

9

to make informed assumptions about the technical, legislative, and regulatory processes
of current systems are imperative, as is projecting associated risks and uncertainty
(Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012). Finally, population growth and reduction patterns
should be comprehensively accounted for in GHG emissions forecasts (Boswell, Greve,
& Seale, 2012).
Emissions reduction strategies are core components of CAPs. They are designed
to assist in municipalities in reaching designated targets and goals (Bassett & Shandas,
2010). To ensure that novel technical specifications are performed correctly, third-party
consulting firms can provide municipalities with GHG emissions inventories and
planning services (Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2011). Municipalities are also motioning to
“create high-level staff positions to oversee preparation and implementation of climate
action and sustainability plans” (Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2011, pg. 13). Additionally,
training and technical planning support can be provided through colleges, universities,
certificate programs, and other professional organizations (Boswell, Greve, & Seale,
2011, pg. 13).
Complementing emissions reduction strategies, adaption is a critical component
of advancing CAPs (Hamin & Gurran, 2009; Laukkonen et. al, 2009; Boswell, Greve, &
Seale, 2012). While some cities select to separate them in policy planning, they are
inevitably intertwined and must be equally considered (Laukkonen et. al, 2009).
Laukkoenen et. al (2009, pg. 287) state, “It is not sufficient to concentrate on either
mitigation or adaption, but a rather a combination of these results with the most
sustainable outcomes.” However, that does not mean both should be equally prioritized,
or that mitigation and adaption are always complimentary processes (Laukkonen et. al,

10

2009; Hamin & Gurran, 2009). Mitigation measures are often technical and broad, with
minimal certainty as to how changes in energy systems and infrastructure will impact
communities in both long and short-term trajectories. Adaptation policies tend to be
directly allocated toward addressing specific hazards and system pressures within a
community (i.e. sea-level rise migration, wildfire prevention, etc.) (Laukkonen et. al,
2009, pg. 289). However, adaptation is often costlier and while adaptation responses can
work, adaptation requires effective coordination of individual response to an emergency
(Paton & Johnson, 2001; Laukkonen et. al, 2009, pg. 289).
Adaption planning relies directly on scientific analysis of community and
municipal vulnerability (Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012). As a result, adaptive strategic
development requires addressing uncertainties as well as larger upfront capital investment
(Ingham, Ma, & Ulph, 2007). Therefore, it is critical that municipalities evaluate
potential climate impacts according to level of risks to community and municipal assets.
In doing so, communities can better integrate mitigation planning with adaptive
management (Hamin & Gurran, 2009). A way for municipalities to assess mitigation and
adaption together, according to Hamin & Gurran (2009, pg. 239), are to place adaptation
and mitigation into a common frame of resilience. Acting as a metaphor to ecosystems
theory, resilient communities demonstrate the ability to accommodate and successfully
adapt to stress and disturbances (Hamin & Gurran, 2009, pg. 239). Paton & Johnson
(2001, pg. 273) establish that a crucial element of resilience is the fostering of sense
community, especially in times of crisis. This aids in building critical skills such as
“problem-focused coping” and “emotionally-focused” reactions (Paton & Johnson, 2001,
pg. 273).

11

There are many components to fostering resilience within communities (Burby et.
al, 2000; Moench, et al. 2009, Stone, Vargo, & Habeeb, 2012; Boswell, Greve, & Seale,
2012). Diversifying assets and financial resources, transparent and clear communication
with community residents, ecosystem maintenance and recovery, partnerships with local
organizations and businesses, adaptive infrastructure, and hazard-specific reduction
policies are just some of the many components needed to make progress. Central to all of
these is land-use development and planning (Burby et. al, 2000; Moench et al., 2009,
Stone, Vargo, & Habeeb, 2012). According to Burby et al, (2000, pg. 99), “Land-use
planning is the means for gathering and analyzing information about the suitability for
development of land exposed to natural hazards, so that the limitations of hazard-prone
areas are understood by citizens, potential investors, and government officials.” In
consideration of municipal CAPs and incorporated CAP strategies, land-use planning
integrates natural hazards mitigation to help communities become more intelligent about
long-term threats, facilitate collective problem solving, and create the ability for
communities to experiment with transformational management and leadership strategies
(Burby et. al, 2000; Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008).
1c. CAP Core Components: Cost, Leadership, and Community Participation
Specialization such as consultant expertise or full-time city environmental
personal significantly help municipalities generate climate action plans (Lyles, Berke, &
Overstreet, 2017). However, the costs of specialization poses a major limitation.
According to Boswell, Greve, and Seale (2012, pg. 53) the cost of CAPs varies according
to planning processes-- with a typical cost range estimating from $50,000-$300,000.
Budget and financial allocation can be determined by a number of factors including level

12

of public outreach, strategic content, status of GHG inventory, use of consultants and
advisory committees, integration of other policy and planning documents, time needed
for preparation and review, time management, as well as many other details (Boswell,
Greve, & Seale, 2012, pg. 55-56).
Leadership is also a crucial component of CAP preparation and creation processes
(Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Few, Brown, Tompkins, 2007). Since reductions strategies
incorporate both long-term planning trajectories as well as short-term actions that
integrate in existing policies, it is of the upmost importance to have multiple stakeholder
input. There a number of ways that researchers propose to accomplish this task. Boswell,
Greve, & Seale (2012, pg. 42-46, 66-85) assert that assembling a climate action team
(CAT) consisting of a number of government staff, utility staff, local experts, business
owners, academic officials, and community members are essential to bolstering plan
quality (Berke & Godschalk, 2009; Anguelovski & Carmin, 2011).
Once a CAT is formed localities and consultants working to develop CAPs must
identify strategic actions that best address community needs (Anguelovski & Carmin,
2011; Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012). To achieve this, Anguelovski & Carmin (2011)
and Campos et. al (2016) assert that a primary task is for local leaders to organize
community partners and establish forums for public participation. Anguelovski & Carmin
(2011, pg. 172) also propose that in addition to mitigation, community-based adaptation
(CBA) must also come to the forefront of attention when addressing minority, poor, and
other vulnerable communities.
Public engagement around climate change mitigation and adaptation is not easily
achieved, as perceptions of climate change importance differ between communities.

13

(Whitemarsh, Seyfang, & O’Neill, 2011; Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2012). Perception of
urgency, comprehension of climate science, and prioritization of other pressing social and
economic factors prove to be among some of the greatest limitations of CAP (Sterman,
2011). According to Sterman’s Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world,
(2011, pg. 811), there are significant misunderstandings in climate complexity. He states,
“Our mental models lead to persistent errors and biases in complex dynamic
systems like the climate and economy. We have difficulty recognizing and
understanding feedback processes, underestimate time delays, and so not
understand basic principles of accumulation or how nonlinearities can create
regime shifts” (2011, pg. 811).
Sterman’s research indicates that a community’s “carbon capability” is limited by the
restrictive components of structural decision-making (i.e. knowledge-barriers, top-down
approaches, etc.), individual behavior and engrained practices (i.e. driving, electricity
use, etc.), and broader community engagement (pg. 825). To increase carbon capacity,
Sterman suggests that message-framing around community-based action should be paired
with experimental learning techniques and practices. One way to accomplish this in
climate planning is for cities to hire outside consultants to act as mediators between the
community and the municipality. Through workshops and public engagement sessions,
consultants work to integrate community input into objective-forming with municipalities
(Wilson. 2006; Sterman, 2011).
Additionally, researchers are working vigorously to address climate comprehension
and collaboration (Few, Brown Tomkins, 2007; Nisbet, 2009; Anguelovski & Carmin,
2011). According to Nisbet (2009, pg. 15), “To break through the communication barrier
of human nature, partisan identity, and media fragmentation, messages need to be tailored
to a specific medium and audience, using carefully researched metaphors, allusions, and

14

examples that trigger a new way of thinking about the personal relevance of climate
change.” Nisbet (2009) identifies framing as a core component of effective climate
leadership, asserting that policy innovation can only be achieved through unifying
objectives, incorporating morally relevant information, and evolving communication
through the formation of new meaning and purpose.
Public participation in policy making, and key frameworks such participatory
action research (PAR) are supplementing these practices and producing tangible results
(Chevalier, 2013; Campos et. al, 2016). Campos (2016)’s study titled Climate
adaptation, transitions, and socially innovative action-research approaches provide core
examples of “how research and practice co-evolve through interactive cycles” (pg. 1).
Presenting the case for PAR as a continuously evolving and transitional process the two
cases that illustrate the establishment of PAR in the policy-making process. Case 1 in the
study (pg. 2-3) was purposed for forming a CAP for the Atlantic Coast municipalities
Ilhavo and Vagos, which are particularly susceptible to sea-level rise and erosion. The
method involved forming an action-group, holding a series of meetings and seminars to
provide information to group member, and working with municipal leaders and elected
officials to develop planning stages.
The second case study (pg. 4-5) focused on creating a CAP for the Portuguese
city of Cascais. Case 2 followed a similar progression to Case 1 but used the
municipality’s Agenda 21 Cabinet alongside the research team to ensure political and
scientific professionalism. The combination of stakeholders resulted in new
developmental pathways and methods to adaptation and mitigation formation, such as the
“tipping-points method” and a “dynamic adaption plan for the following 75 years.”

15

(Campos et. al pg. 4). There are many key positive insights drawn from these two cases.
The first is that the forming action groups and participation in scenario workshops are
central in ensuring continuous effort in transition to resilient communities. Additionally,
engagement between stakeholders also bring into context issues of power and control and
promotes new collaboration and dialogue between actor-groups (Campos et. al, 2016, pg.
7). Finally, it contributes to a growing body of literature on transitional management and
governing practices in a world with dominant political and scientific obstacles (Campos
et. al, 2016, pg. 8).
Despite the promises of PAR to solicit political engagement from otherwise
disengaged social actors, PAR’s success also comes with limitation. Distrust between
community members and elected officials and communication barriers between decisionmakers, scientists, and citizens produce major roadblocks to progress (Campos et. al,
2016). Uncertainty must be weighted in bold decisive action, and issues surrounding
accountably of feasibility and outcomes also produces hesitation within stakeholder
groups—particularly in the consideration of “anticipatory learning (Tscharkert &
Dietrich, 2010).” However, the general practice of PAR and incorporation of community
stakeholders holds as beneficial in policy innovation and development (Tscharkert &
Dietrich, 2010; Chevalier, 2013; Campos et. al, 2016).

1d. Evaluating Plan Quality and Impact
Very little has been done to directly evaluate local CAPs for quality and impact
(Tang et al. 2009). Tang et al. (2009) analyzed 40 local CAPS in the US for mitigation
and adaption methods and capabilities. Their research indicates that while high levels of
awareness are present in the plans, there are moderate levels of analysis capability and
16

significantly limited action approaches for mitigation and adaption measures. Defining
the capacity of a municipality as political will, state mandates, and community wealth
Tang and colleagues: ( 2009 pg. 45-46) propose ten hypothesis: 1) stronger political will
results in higher plan quality, 2) state mandates result in higher plan quality, 3) wealthier
municipalities will have higher plan quality, 4) coastal area communities will have higher
plan quality, 5) localities with larger populations will have higher plan quality, 5)
historical disaster damage will result in higher plan quality, 7) jurisdictions with higher
energy use will adopt lower quality CAPS, 8) higher percentages of people using public
transportation will result in higher plan quality, 9) higher vehicle emissions will result in
higher plan quality, and 10) higher average commuting time will result in lower plan
quality.
To test the above hypotheses, Tang and colleagues ascribed each CAP a set of
indicators categorized in the categories of awareness, analysis and action (Tang et. al, pg.
47). The results of the study found significant variation in CAP quality. The study
validated the presence of state mandates as among one of the most foundational
components of plan quality (pg. 56). Transportation-related factors (i.e. vehicle emissions
and commuting time) result in higher quality and evaluation planning, with over 80% of
the plans detailing strategies and actions for transport-related issues. Additionally, (Tang
et. al, 2009 pg. 57) discovered that historical damage of a municipality from severe
weather events does not directly contribute to planning quality, as localities may be more
focused on shorter-range adaptation not long-term climate impacts. All these findings are
tied together by the revelation that there is minimal understanding of how to substantiate
CAP implementation. To address this Tang et. al (2009) suggest local jurisdictions

17

expand their resource management authority and design policy instruments to address
uncertainty and financial limitations.
One additional critical critique of current local CAP focus is predominately on the
social and built environment, and less on the natural environment (Tang et. al 2009,
Stone, Vargo, & Habeeb 2012). Stone, Vargo, and Habeeb (2012, pg. 263) echo this
concern in a study measuring the temperature change and the urban heat island effect in
fifty of the most populous US cities. Measuring the temperature of the fifty cities against
global warming projections, the researchers paralleled their findings with the cities’
CAPs and strategic climate initiatives and found that land use changes within cities
increase the urban heat island effect, resulting in cities warming faster than global
temperatures.
The researchers make a prominent point that “national and international climate
policy generally do not recognize climate forcing agents related to changes in albedo and
the surface energy balance” (Stone, Vargo, & Habeeb, 2012, pg. 267), stating the case
that it is an imperative to account for land-based planning in CAP development. Burby et.
al, (2000, pg. 99) define land-use planning as “the means for gathering and analyzing
information about the suitability for development of land exposed to natural hazards, so
that the limitations of hazard-prone areas are understood by citizens, potential investors,
and government officials.” To support a nature-based ecosystem perspective in political
and urban planning, new considerations for nature-based solutions must supersede the
planning process (Kabisch et. al, 2016). While GHG emissions reduction planning is
important it does not result in enough protective benefit for cities as temperatures
fluctuate and increase (Stone, Vargo, & Habeeb pg. 269). Therefore, it is crucial that

18

cities consider planting and vegetation enhancement in all considerations of land use and
urban development (Stone, Vargo, & Habeeb 2012).
Kabisch et al (2016, pg. 1), assert that the
“three main needs for future science and policy agendas are: 1) produce stronger
evidence for nature-based solutions in adaption and mitigation, 2) use reflexive
governance approaches when implementing strategies, 3) consider environmental justice
and social cohesion and integrative and transdisciplinary participation of diverse
actors.”
Enhancing quality of life through environmental remediation and addressing gaps in
perspective is limited by environmental stressors and ecological fragmentation in cities
(Kabisch, 2016 pg. 4). As densification increases and new residential and commercial
spaces are developed, the challenge of incorporating and maintaining green spaces for
health benefit and ecosystem well-being warrants increased attention (Kabisch, 2016).
This chapter has provided an overview of the general CAP development process.
Background knowledge of how CAPs are formed, the levels of leadership and
participation to needed inform objectives, and what the costs and impacts are provide
critical insight for municipalizes. Despite the generalizable nature of CAP targets and
objectives in the formation process, all cities possess specific assets and resources to
facilitate the CAP process. Narrowing perspective on regional and local CAP
development can provide further critical knowledge to cities and communities seeking to
advance climate planning, as well as provide insight as to regional progress and overall
climate readiness.

19

Chapter Two
Climate Action Planning: Regional and Local Perspective
Chapter Two highlights the regional characteristics of the Pacific Northwest, with
an emphasis on the states of Washington and Oregon. It explains the regional parameters
of this study and provides a summary of state-wide initiatives to reduce emissions. With
influence of state movement or stagnancy on climate, this chapter provides an overview
how county and city influence work to accommodate changes at the state level and how
local climate planning can also influence larger governmental entities.

2a. Defining Region: The Pacific Northwest
Many researchers specify that honing in on regional and local initiatives is one
of the most impactful ways to outwardly diffuse policies and ideas (Geddes, 1949; Berry
& Berry, 1999; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell, Greve, Seale, 2012). There is a
colloquial saying attributed from renowned biologist and urban planner Sir Patrick
Geddes’ Cities in Evolution (1949) that in essence states, “Think globally, act locally.”
While this quote is not stated in Geddes’ words, it is a reflective statement purposed to be
an impetus for regional and local innovation in urban planning. While many analyses
have been conducted around national CAP development and strategies (Basset &
Shandas, 2010; Greve, Boswell, & Seale, 2012), researchers are still working to narrow
perspective on the Pacific Northwest region. Even fewer have focused on small city CAP
directives, strategies, and leadership roles in the region.
The Pacific Northwest region has been defined in a variety of ways, as there are
no distinguished political boundaries defining the region. Geographically, the Pacific
Northwest is characterized by the Cascade Range which extends from southeastern
20

Alaska to Northern California. A core connector of the Pacific Northwest region is the
1,381-mile Interstate-5 corridor that spans the length of the West Coast from Canada to
Mexico. This study focuses on the stretch from Northern WA to Southern OR. This
specific region is characterized by the two metropolitan cities of Seattle, WA and
Portland, OR, and the dominant prevalence of environmental features such as iconic
douglas fir and sitka spruce forests as well as the prestige of mountain peaks from Mount
Rainier, Mount Saint Helens, Mount Adams, and Mount Hood.
Addressing regional scale, this study defines region through state, county, and
large city planning and perspective. Though it is difficult to state with certainty the
cultural characteristics of the Pacific Northwest regions highlighted in this study,
environmental perspectives tend to parallel the inimitable features of the surrounding
environment. There is clear indication that people in Western Washington and Oregon
are very concerned about climate change (Marlon et. al 2016). The Yale Climate
Communications Partisan Climate Opinion Maps (2016) indicate that over 85 percent of
citizens within my study range believe that global warming is occurring (Marlon et. al
2016). Over 70 percent of that representation believe that climate change is caused by
human activity and 90 percent believe carbon dioxide (CO2) should be regulated as a
pollutant (Marlon et. al, 2016). This contrasts with the counties in Eastern Oregon and
Washington, where on average 50 percent believe that climate change is caused by
human activity and around 70 percent on average believe that CO2 should be regulated as
a pollutant (Marlon et al., 2016)
2b. State-Level Emissions Reduction Standards and Planning in Washington State
Washington State is acting aggressively to address the aforementioned concerns,

21

working to reduce and eliminate pollution within cities (Saavedra & Budd, 2008).
Legislation targeted at emissions reduction and technological advancement for increasing
renewable energy capacity are of prominent focus. Washington State Initiative 937 (I937), requires electric utilities serving more than 25,000 customers in Washington State
to source 15% of electricity from renewable resources by 2020 (Washington State
Department of Commerce, 2017; City of Bellevue Environmental Stewardship Initiative
Strategic Plan, 2013). As a result of I-937, the Union of Concerned Scientists confirm by
2025 a 2.9% or $1.13-billion savings on customer electricity bills, the creation of 2,000
jobs, $138 million in additional income, $148 million increase in gross state product, and
$167 million in property tax revenue for local communities (City of Bellevue
Environmental Stewardship Initiative Strategic Plan, 2013; Deyette & Clemmer, 2006).
In 2014, Governor of Washington Jay Inslee released Executive Order 14-04
titled “Washington Carbon Pollution Reduction and Clean Energy Action”. In this he
confirms the science and history of anthropogenic climate change, details the climate
impacts Washington State is currently experiencing, and anticipates risks in the absence
of swift political and social change. In the Executive Order, he proposes The Governor’s
Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce. This group was comprised of representatives of
business, labor, public health, tribal nations, local governments, etc. (Inslee, 2014). It was
designed to provide policy recommendations for offsetting carbon pollutions and to
create a fair and responsible policy model for energy sourcing and utilization.
Designating state agencies to oversee specific tasks, Governor Inslee created a
model for strategic planning. Specifically, he assigned The Governor’s Legislative
Affairs and Policy Office (LAPO) to organize and secure the Taskforce, provided

22

background information, and informed program design. He instated The Office of
Financial Management (OFM) to oversee all economic facets of the Taskforce, cost
impact of emissions reduction (cost per ton), calculation of costs and benefits for the
overall economy, the impact on job creation or loss, and household energy price. With an
emphasis on transportation, Inslee (2014) called upon The Department of Transportation,
Commerce, and Ecology to work within regional transportation networks. Together, these
larger state entities worked with localities to produce Comprehensive Plans that increase
efficiency to transportation, travel, and land-use matrices. The Department of Commerce
monitored all Energy Efficiency performance through the State Building Code Council. It
also worked to measure the accuracy of energy use and savings, support vulnerable
communities, improve access to financing, and perform cost-benefit tests.
Governor Inslee’s 14-04 showcases the level of commitment, organizational
development, and collaboration needed to achieve preliminary successes at the state,
regional, and local levels. Since its inception, it appears that this Taskforce was only
active for the 2014-2015 legislative session. It proves useful to observe the power
dynamic and leadership levels in emissions reduction planning at the state level. It
provides evidentiary support for the research of (Tang, et al. 2010). According to their
study Moving from agenda to action: Evaluating Climate Action Plans, “the most
significant predictor contributing to high plan quality is the presence of state mandates”
(pg. 17). Top-down direction from state-level experts pressure localities to enact
impactful measures that address the roots to pollution and social inequity. Bringing
heightened awareness to localities, state-wide planning also provides examples of
leadership roles as well as organizational and community cooperation (Tang, et al. 2010).

23

In 2013, $36 million was allocated by the Washington State Legislature for the
inception of the Clean Energy Fund (CEF) (Nordstrom & Sharp, 2017). The CEF
supports an array of clean energy technology projects across the state. The projects
enable communities to conserve energy while reducing costs, avoid pollution, and
increase economic and energy independence (Nordstrom & Sharp, 2017). The program
continued to grow in 2015, with the Washington State Legislature approving $40 million
for CEF2. While many of the CEF1 projects continued to flourish, CEF2 incorporated
stakeholder outreach and advisory panels to ensure that program goals are met and that
outcomes of the program are monitored (Nordstrom & Sharp, 2017). On January 19,
2018, Governor Jay Inslee signed CEF3 into the capitol budget bill to
improve program dynamics including increasing public and private electrical utilities
participation, offer funding for electrifying transportation, expanding strategic research
and development, and deploying solar projects throughout the state (Department of
Commerce, 2018).
This is only a snapshot of initiatives and actions Washington State has enacted to
accelerate the clean energy transitions, prepare residents for climate impact, and conserve
the natural environment. Most recently, the 2018 Washington State Legislative Session
has largely focused on dramatically reducing pollution, particularly Senate Bill (SB) 6203
(2018, pg.1-2). Described as “reducing carbon pollution by moving to a clean energy
economy, the bill “imposes a carbon pollution tax to equal $20 per metric ton of carbon
on the sale or use of fossil fuel within Washington and the sale or use of electricity
beginning in July 1, 2019” (Inslee et al., 2018, pg. 1). However, reluctance to tax
pollution and questions of the bill’s effectiveness are called into question in both

24

professional and personal testimonies. Some key highlighted cons to the proposal
include: 1) Poor representation of people of color, minorities, and vulnerable
communities, 2) Failing to take leakage into account, 3) Lack of collaboration between
agencies on fiscal impacts, as well as other concerns (Inslee et. al, 2018, pg. 10).
In contrast, resounding support from state and community organizations continue
to prompt Washington to more aggressive and progressive policies and resource
allocation. The State of Oregon also possesses a set of distinct visioning goals,
ordinances, and policies that address climate adaptation and emissions reduction.
Officially stated by the Oregon Department of Energy, “Oregon’s Renewable Portfolio
Standard requires that 50 percent of the electricity Oregonians use must come from
renewable resources by 2040, phasing out coal by 2030” (Oregon.gov/Renewable Energy
Portfolio Standard, 2018). Facilitating this process is the Oregon Global Warming
Commission, a 25-member committee responsible for tracking GHG trends and
providing reports for state and local emissions reduction coordination and communication
(Oregon,gov/Oregon Global Warming Commission, 2018). In partnership with the
Commission, ODOE provides analysis for Commission reports, revisions, and technical
assistance. The Commission produces a biannual Report to the Legislature and provides
recommendations for reducing Oregon’s GHG emissions reduction target of 10 percent
below 1990 levels by 2020 (Oregon.gov/Oregon Global Warming Commission, 2018.)
The Oregon Department of Energy also extends its resources to public school and
institutions through the SB 1149 Energy Efficient School Program (Oregon.gov, Energy
Efficient Schools Program, 2017). The program provides staff resourcing to ensure that
“schools understand their energy needs, identify improvements, and connect with

25

financial resources to improve learning environments” (Oregon.gov, Energy Efficient
Schools Program, 2017). This is accomplished through assessment of building
requirements and updates, developing a planning strategy, and collaboration with school
leadership (Oregon.gov, Energy Efficient Schools Program, 2017).
Oregon also possess the Oregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI) led
by the Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Land Conservation
and Development, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Energy (DOE),
and stakeholder committees comprised of elected officials, business owners, and
residents throughout the state (Oregon.gov/Oregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative,
2018). Building from 2010 Oregon Legislature SB 1059, OSTI is “an integrated
statewide effort” that examines state-level transportation trends including the movement
of people and goods. It identifies core strategies to reduce GHG emissions, enhances
vehicle technology, and accounts for urban land use patterns and development as
regulated under Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Commissions’
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Rule (Oregon.gov/Oregon Sustainable
Transportation Initiative, 2018).
Despite Oregon’s progress with these and many other initiatives, the challenge of
aggressively reducing emissions remains a challenge. The Global Warming Committee’s
2017 Report to the Legislature states that Oregon is slated to miss the 2020 target and is
not on track to achieve the 2035 and 2050 reductions objectives (Keeporegoncool.org
/2017 Report to the Legislature). Additionally, Oregon is paralleling Washington’s
challenge to price carbon and move away from fossil fuels. Most recently, House Bill
(BH) 4001, titled Relating to GHG emissions; declaring an emergency which would

26

require the Environmental Quality Commission to adopt a program to a GHG cap-andtrade program, did not pass in the 2018 Oregon Legislative Session (Oregon State
Legislature, HB 4001, 2018).
2c. County-Level Emissions Reduction Standards and Climate Planning
In addition to state movement around CAP, it is important to subsequently highlight
county-level action. All counties possess a unique set of cities, and therefore county
influence pertaining to CAP varies. Examples of these variations can be observed
throughout Western Washington and Oregon. King County, Washington is the most
active county in Washington State addressing climate change (Saavedra & Budd, 2009).
King County is one of the largest counties in the United States, and according to US
census data (2016), it is home to over 2.1 million people. While most of the county’s
population in centralized in the City of Seattle, the King County region is experiencing
rapid growth and development.
To ensure King County is poised to absorb the pressure of population increase
paired with environmental impact, the county has been in active collaboration with city
governments, environmental organizations, and key stakeholders. In 2015, King County
released their Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP), which is incorporative of all cities
and communities within county borders. SCAP “sets the long-term goals and priorities of
the county, is focused on performance-based measuring, and reflects county priorities for
Equity and Social Justice” (King County, SCAP, pg. 9). Thirteen cities comprise the
King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C), which serves to enhance the measures
and targets reflected in the plan. These cities include Bellevue, Burien, Issaquah,
Kirkland, Mercer Island, Normandy Park, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, Seattle,

27

Shoreline, Snoqualmie, and Tukwila. Together these cities work with one another to
develop outreach and coordination strategies, secure grant funding for climate-related
programs/projects, and finally share solutions, local successes, and challenges.
(Kingcounty.gov/King County-Cities Climate Collaboration).
Multnomah County, Oregon, home to the bustling metropolis of Portland, is also
leading regional and state efforts to address climate. The county’s office of sustainability
released a 2015 Local Strategies to Address Climate Change Action Plan that seeks to
“strengthen awareness of climate as a public health risk, empower vulnerable
communities, reduce emissions, expand alternative fuel and transportation options, and
advocate for climate equity and development” (Multco.us, 2015 Climate Action Plan).
With over 170 actions encompassed in the Plan, the county is continuously monitoring
and reporting progress (Multco.us, 2015 Climate Action Plan). Most recently, this
progress is highlighted in 2017 City of Portland and Multnomah County Progress Report
(Multno.gov). This report is an overview of updated annual emissions data and major
accomplishments in achieving 2030 objectives (Multno.gov., 2017 Portland and
Multnomah County Progress Report).
Another instrumental county for CAP is Thurston County, Washington. Home to
Washington’s capitol of Olympia, Thurston County is working to improve regional
collaboration. The Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) is a collaboration of
local city governments that focus on plans and studies concerning population, growth
management, and environmental quality (TRPC.org, About Us). Particularly notable is
their work on hazard mitigation, adaptation planning, sustainability initiatives, and most
recently an emissions mitigation effort. TRPC works within the county to provide

28

information sharing and incorporative enlightenment to its operations so that cities have
the tools and plans needed to create and implement impactful policy innovation
(TRPC.org, Agency Mission).
Overall, these examples highlight how county innovation and directives can bring
individual cities together around policy innovation planning. However, not all counties
are as advanced in CAP or have established connections between cities, local institutions,
and organizations for the purpose of CAP. The role of CAPs “refer to the functions that
the plan performs in the community”. The content “refers to the topics or issues that the
plan covers” (Boswell, Greve, and Seale, 2010 pg. 7). Since communities within a county
do not always possess the same capabilities, levels of growth, or shared visions, some
counties may be more reluctant to impose overarching standards and targets. An example
of this within the frame of my research is Lane County, Oregon - home to Springfield and
Eugene. Lane County and Springfield do not possess CAPs. However, The City of
Eugene is actively engaging with stakeholders in their community to address climate
change impacts through updating their 2010 Climate Action and Energy Plan (CEAP) to
be released in 2018-2019. The movement of cities to climate action despite county
limitations indicates that cities possess a significant power over regulations and
policy formation.
2d. Municipal Policy Cores: Buildings and Energy, Land Use and Transportation,
Waste Management, Public Health and Safety
Cities have a tangible impact on communities, as they are the core of
inhabitance and livelihood of people. Concerning CAP, this influence helps to determine
the formation of objectives for the four areas of concentration that are commonly shared
across municipal and stand-alone CAP documents. These are: 1) Building and Energy, 2)
29

Land Use and Transportation, 3) Waste Management, and 4) Public Health and Safety.
These categories are significant as they often possess objectives that have substantial cobenefits between categories. An example of this is densification resulting in lower
commute times, which in turn has positive impacts on public health (Younger et al.,
2008). Some cities also incorporate Natural Resources Planning and Economic Planning
as individual sections, but generally these values are incorporated into the frame of these
four areas.
Highlighted in stand-alone CAP and municipal plans are growth and resource
demand projections. The City of Bellevue’s 20-year planning targets include the
incorporation of 17,000 additional housing units and 53,000 additional employment
opportunities (City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan, pg. 105). Land use assessments are
imperative to accommodate the increased demand. For cities this means replacing and
retrofitting aged infrastructure and increasing service provider coordination, and
compiling with evolving laws and regulations (City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan, pg.
106). To ensure that there is an equal distribution of work within city departments, many
of the components of land use development are emphasized in master plans such as
Waster Comprehensive Plans, Wastewater Systems Plans, Parks and Recreation Master
Plans, as well as many others.
Downtown strategies possess a specific role in CAP development. For most cities,
downtowns are centers of growth, wealth, residence, business, and entertainment. For the
City of Bellevue, situated just East of Seattle, “in 2012 there were more than 45,000 jobs
located in downtown center and more than 10,000 residents (City of Bellevue
Comprehensive Plan, pg. 44).” As these numbers steadily increase, Downtown Bellevue

30

is considered to be one of the most intense centers for development in King County (City
of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan, pg. 44). Paired with infrastructural accommodation
expectations and challenges, cities such as Bellevue must foster strong, diverse, and
adaptive economies. To ensure that this is achieved, Bellevue must creatively consider
land capacity, evaluate how to maintain historic character, create and revitalize mix-use
centers, and ensure open and public spaces for community connection (City of Bellevue
Comprehensive Plan).
Among the most important considerations for municipalities is transportation.
Since transportation is the most prevalent source of emissions within cities, all cities
possess a Transportation Element within a general Comprehensive Plan. The city of Kent,
Washington, for example, has “established a 20-year planning horizon that extends into
2035 (Kent, Transportation Element, 2015, pg. 1)” Transportation elements are similar
between municipalities in that they support community and economic vitality “by
addressing connections for people and places and designing streetscapes that compliment
and contribute to current land use” (City of Kent, Transportation Element, 2015, pg. 2).
Coordinating land use and transportation planning, cities develop strategies to ensure they
are meeting demand while complying with state and federal regulations. These actions
include the promotion of multimodal transportation (i.e. biking, walking, public
transportation), coordination with local transportation entities (i.e. rail, bus, and port
institutions), installation of electric car-charging stations, as well as many others (City of
Kent, Transportation Element, 2015, pg. 59-64).
As cities improve the connection of people to place, they must also consider the
energy needed to power residential dwellings as well as retail and industrial centers. Each

31

city possesses varying capacities to influence electricity sources and consumption. For
example, the City of Ashland, Oregon’s electrical utility is municipally owned and
therefore allows the city of have direct control of business decisions, operations, and
program implementation. (City of Ashland, Climate and Clean Energy Plan, 2017, pg.
33) However, Washington cities like Lakewood and Olympia use utility providers like
Puget Sound Energy (PSE). Cities must therefore choose to financially invest in energysaving and reducing permits and practices. This typically results in the reduction of
energy within the municipality and less so in the community and retail arenas.
To address community emissions, cities must incentivize and provide support for
transitioning community energy sourcing and consumption. The City of Bellingham,
Washington is an example of where providing incentives is proving successful. Through
the creation of the Bellingham Energy Prize, sponsored by organizations including
Northwest Clean Air Agency, PSE, Sustainable Connections, Cascade Natural Gas, and
many others, the city is prompting the community to take collective action to reduce
emissions for the opportunity to win $5 million from Georgetown University for clean
energy development (Bellinghamenergyprize.org, 2018). Using characters such as the
Kilowatt Kitty, Bellingham has created an online forum to engage residents, create
achievable targets, and function as a place for participants to track progress with a userfriendly online profile format (Bellinghamenergyprize.org, 2018).
As cities develop creative and incorporative ways for their communities to reduce
energy, they are also addressing issues concerning waste. Waste in cities takes many
forms (e.g. water, food, demolition debris, and waste from consumption). At the
municipal and community levels, cities such as Corvallis, Oregon are encouraging the

32

purchase local, sustainability-packed, and sustainably-sourced products (City of
Corvallis, CAP, 2016 pg. 71). Cities such as Olympia and Bellingham are working on
city-wide composting programs, using the waste for education and beautification
throughout the city while reducing landfill in-flow (City of Olympia, Comprehensive
Plan, 2014; City of Bellingham, Climate Protection Action Plan, 2017). Water
conservation and management are top priorities for many cities. There are great amounts
of resources and energy being funneled into projects concerning greywater, storm and
wastewater retention/treatment, and water conservation, and preservation of natural
space.
Human services and public health and safety are at the forefront of attention when
cities consider new CAP policy. According to the City of Kent’s Human Service’s
Element, “to achieve community impact, investments must be made to 1) Meet
Community Basics, 2) Increase Self-Reliance, 3) Strengthen Children and Families, 4)
Build Safe Communities 4) Improve Health and Well-Being, and 4) Improve and
Integrate Systems” (City of Kent, Human Services Element 2015, pg. 116). Cities rely on
partnerships with education districts, local organizations, businesses, and institutions to
ensure community representation in CAP and municipal planning processes.

33

Chapter Three
Frameworks and Methods
Chapter Three describes the frameworks that guide this research project: the
internal determinants and the regional diffusion frameworks. This chapter also provides
an overview of the methods used to collect and analyze the Climate Actions Inventory
(CAI) as well as city-staff and consultant interviews.
3a. Policy Innovation: Internal Determinants & Regional Diffusion Frameworks
This research is framed in the context of two theoretical perspectives purposed for
conceptualizing policy innovation. These are the internal determinants model and the
regional diffusion model (Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Berry & Berry 1999). Though
emphasized in recent climate action planning research by Bassett and Shandas (2010) the
model was formed by Ormrod’s (1990) critical work on spatial diffusion, local relevance
and the support of policy innovation and transformation. Berry and Berry (1999)
elaborated on this work in their analysis of state policy formation and influence of
decision-making across many states. The models have subsequently been used by
researchers Shipan & Volden (2006) in their demonstration of how antismoking policies
have diffused between states across the United States. However, there is a strong
indication that these frameworks are particularly useful in climate policy visioning.
Specifically, studies suggest that city size, incorporation of external consultants, as well
as state and federal policy-decisions facilitate the spread of policy perspectives (Shandas,
Graybill, & Ryan, 2008; Mills & Graybill, 2004).
This contributes theory and application of these models through analyzing local
relevance of climate action planning in small and medium-sized Pacific Northwest cities.
Incorporating collective contributions of Ormrod, Berry & Berry, and Bassett & Shandas,
34

this study defines internal determinants as core values and facets of cities such as
municipal policies, community needs and values, businesses, schools, and organizations
that play collective roles in shaping new public policy (Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Brody
et al., 2008. Berry & Berry 1999; Ormrod, 1990). Policy innovation informs cities of how
to create goals and structure city and community operations. The regional diffusion
model highlights the collective influence of these policies in county, state, and city
planning (Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Berry & Berry 1999; Ormrod, 1990). For example,
the research of Matioff (2008), demonstrates how internal factors such as citizen demand
can recreate a groundswell that influences state and local polices regarding climate
adaptation measures. The two models work together to form a system of influence. As
regional trends either advance or regress toward climate commitments, internal
determinants within municipalities will follow suit, and vice versa (Bassett & Shandas,
2010; Berry & Berry 1999).
According to Bassett & Shandas (2010) extrapolation of Ormrod’s (1990) work,
there are three internal determinants that affect the decision to adopt CAP innovations
within particular municipalities. These are 1) the relevance of the innovation, 2) the
availability of local resources to support adoption, and 3) the capacity to innovate. “Other
studies suggest that size of the municipality, the use of external consultants, and the
extent of involvement by state or federal actors may also influence innovation” (Bassett
& Shandas, 2010 pg. 3; Ormrod, 1990, pg. 109). Table 1 highlights components of the
two theoretical frameworks that are used in this analysis. This table comprises a list of
internal and regional factors to consider. For internal determinants, these are local
relevance and community participation, resource restrictions such as time, monetary, and

35

staff, feasibility of infrastructural changes, and city population and size. For regional
diffusion, these are connectedness to other cities, adherence to state and federal policies,
use of external consultants, and overall population and land use changes.
Identifying core common values within and between municipalities is a critical
way of connecting communities under a common frame of resilience. Increasing capacity
for collectively addressing needs and stresses, accentuating cultural diversity, and
maintaining safe and welcoming environments are just some of many values that connect
cities together. (Bellevue Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhoods, 2015). These values can
be internalized and externalized through the assistance of consultants, streamlined
through state polices, facilitated through regional alliances and networks, and influenced
by land use and population changes throughout the region.
These connections between internal determinants and regional diffusion are highlighted
as Converging Factors in Table 1. An example of convergence between models is
demonstrated by the city of Bellingham, WA. Bellingham hired a full-time staff
consultant to work within a local context to ensure CAP objectives were informed by
regional movement.

36

Table 1: Factors of the Internal Determinants and Regional Diffusion Models
Internal Determinants
Local relevance

Resources/Restrictions
(Expertise, Money, Time,
Values, Motivation, State
and National Leadership)
Viability/ Feasibility

City Population/City Size

Converging
Factors
Use of
Consultants
(RFPs)
State Policy

Regional
Alliances
and
Networks
Land and
Resources
Use

Regional Diffusion
Connectedness (Are cities
referencing and working
together?)
Awareness and Adherence to
State Policy & Regional
Directives/Organizations (Are
cities ICLEI members?)
Use of Consultants (Are cities
using consultants to form
GHG Inventories and CAP
plan strategies?
Population Growth (What is
the influence of overall growth
in CAP?)

3b. Sample Size and City Selection
This study critically analyzes ten small and medium-size cities in the State of
Washington and ten in the State of Oregon. Though there are varying classifications for
city-size, this study uses the definition for medium-small size cities from the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD states
"Large metropolitan areas have a population of 1.5 million or more, medium-sized urban
areas contain a population of 200,000-50,000 or less, and small urban areas possess a
population of 50,000 or less” (OCED Data, 2017). The OECD classification places all of
the Western Oregon and Washington cities in the analysis within medium-small city
status.
All cities selected are located along the Interstate-5 Corridor beginning at the
southern-most border of Oregon extending to the northern-most border of Washington.

37

This location was selected because Interstate-5 is a major regional arterial roadway.
Research indicates that large freeway systems specifically determine the urban ecological
form and footprint of a region (Grimm et al. 2008) Additionally, if cities seek to decrease
the amount of urban sprawl, lower the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and
consider densification as it pertains to social climate perspectives such as political
fragmentation, Interstate-5 may have specific influence as it pertains to population
growth, land use changes, and policy diffusion through regional movement (Carruthers,
2003).
Proximity and influence of large cities are important components in policy
innovation. Shipan & Volden test this diffusion theory in their analysis of anti-smoking
policy decisions made within 675 of the largest cities within the United States between
1976 and 2000. (Shipan & Volden, 2008) This research draws from evidence that smaller
cities can learn from and imitate from early policy adopters. However, Shipan & Volden
found that simply imitating larger cities results in short-lived diffusion. They conclude
that large cities are more equipped to learn from and incorporate policy practice from
other large cities (Shipan & Volden, 2008). This finding is significant because if large
cities can influence large cities more impactfully, perhaps the same is true of small cities.
Expanding this idea, an observation of policy decisions at the county level have
substantial value for smaller cities and may have an authority in municipal CAP
development. While cities are continuously acknowledging their obligations to protect
public health, particularly at the international level (i.e. Global Compact of Mayors),
counties combine city-localized values to form tiers of influence that may be useful when
modeling internal determinants and regional diffusion (Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Shipan

38

& Volden, 2012).
Tables 2 and 3 provide descriptive characteristics of the cities in this study. This
information includes city name, state, county, population, municipal comprehensive plan,
CAP title or both, and the year the municipal plan and/or the CAP was written. Cities
marked with an asterisk (*) currently possess a CAP. Cities marked with a wave (~) are
currently developing a climate action plan. Together there are eight climate action plans
and nineteen municipal comprehensive plans incorporated in this study. Comprehensive
plans were introduced to account for cities that do not possess stand-alone CAPs or
sustainability plans. Comprehensive plans often incorporate similar goals and objectives
outlined within climate plans such as land use strategies, transportation initiatives, and
many others. Principally, comprehensive plans evaluate a city’s capacity for
developmental change through overarching community values and assets.

39

Table 2: Oregon Cities, Counties, City Populations, Planning Titles, and Planning
Years
City

State

County

Albany

OR

Linn

*
Beaverton*
Corvallis*

OR

Jackson

Ashland

Eugene

*

OR

City
Population
53,211
(2016)

*

Washington

*

OR

Benton

OR

Lane

21,639
(2016)
97,590
(2016)
57,110
(2016)
166,575
(2016)

*

Gresham

OR

Multnomah

Grants Pass

OR

Josephine

Medford

OR

Jackson

Salem

OR

Marion

Springfield

OR

Lane

*

111,523
(2016)
37,779
(2016)
81,636
(2016)
167,419
(2016)
60,757
(2015)

CAP Title/Municipal Plan
Title
City of Albany Comprehensive
Plan
Ashland Climate and Energy
Action Plan & City of Ashland
Comprehensive Plan
Sustainability Strategy/ City of
Beaverton Comprehensive Plan
Corvallis Climate Action
Plan/City of Corvallis
Comprehensive Plan
Climate and Energy Action
Plan (CEAP) / Envision
Eugene Comprehensive Plan
Salem Area Comprehensive
Policies Plan
Salem Area Comprehensive
Policies Plan
Medford Municipal Plan
Salem Area Comprehensive
Policies Plan
Springfield 2030
Comprehensive Plan

CAP/Municipal
Plan Year
2013
2017/2016
2014/2017
2016/2000

2017/2017
2009
1982-2014
2016
2017
N/A

Cities and counties marked by a wave symbol (~) are forming CAPs. Cities marked by an
asterisk (*) possess climate action plans (CAPs). In this sample area, Oregon has four
cities with CAPs, and four counties with CAPs.

40

Table 3: Washington Cities, Counties, City Populations, Planning Titles, and
Planning Years
City

State

~

WA

Auburn

Bellevue

*

WA

*

City
Populati
on

County

*/Pierce
*

77,472
(2016)

*

141,400
(2016)

King

King

Bellingham

WA

Whatcom

~
Kent*

WA

Snohomish

Lakewood

WA

Mount Vernon

WA

~
Shoreline*

WA

Everett

WA

Olympia

Vancouver

*

WA

WA

*

*
Pierce*
Skagit*
Thurston~
King*
King

Clark

87,574
(2016)
109,043
(2016)
127,514
(2016)
60,665
(2016)
34,590
(2016)
51,202
(2016)
55,333
(2016)
174,826
(2015)

CAP Title/Municipal
Plan Title

CAP/Municipal
Plan Year

Imagine Auburn
Comprehensive Plan
Bellevue Environmental
Stewardship Initiative/
Bellevue Comprehensive
Plan
City of Bellingham
Climate Protection Plan/
Bellingham
Comprehensive Plan
City of Everett
Comprehensive Plan
City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan
City of Lakewood
Comprehensive Plan
City of Mount Vernon
Comprehensive Plan
City of Olympia
Comprehensive Plan
Shoreline Climate Action
Plan/ City of Shoreline
Comprehensive Plan
Vancouver Sustainability
Plan/ City of Vancouver
Comprehensive Plan

2015

2015/2016

2017/2016

2014
2016
2016
2016
2016
2013/2012

2009/2030

Cities and counties marked by a wave symbol (~) are forming CAPs. Cities marked by an
asterisk (*) possess climate action plans (CAPs). In this sample area, Washington has five
cities with CAPs, one city in the CAP formation process, four counties with CAPs, and
one county creating a climate mitigation plan.

3c. Acquisition of Data and Quantitative Analysis: Climate Actions Inventory
This study is comprised of two types of data. The first dataset is a Climate Actions
Inventory (CAI). The CAI is a compilation of 117 strategies and actions proposed by
municipalities in eight stand-alone CAPs and nineteen comprehensive plans. Both types
41

of plan can be sourced from municipal websites. The action items within the CAI are
derived from four focus areas that are commonly highlighted in climate and
comprehensive plans. These focus areas are: 1) Buildings and Energy, 2) Land Use and
Transportation, 3) Consumption and Waste, and 4) Public Health and Safety. Within these
focus areas, a categorical list of strategic actions proposed by municipalities was formed.
Strategic actions within these plans include items such as creating pedestrian and bicycle
master plans, offering assistance for energy-efficient programs, curbing waste and
monitoring community behavior purchasing practices, conserving natural resources for a
healthier community and economy, and many others.
Each climate and municipal plan was analyzed a total of three times to ensure that
all climate action items were extracted from each document. Items that were too specific
to generalize for every city were omitted from the analysis. All other CAP items were
incorporated into the inventory. Only items that pertained directly to the environment and
emissions reduction were selected from comprehensive plans and incorporated into the
CAI. These include objectives such as land use and growth management, multi-modal
transportation goals, and access to community health resources and partnerships. If a city
stated an item in either document the item box was marked 1 under the city name. All
empty fields were marked with left blank. A total of three spreadsheets were created for
the analysis, one with Washington cities, one with Oregon cities, and a master with all
cities and actions.
The CAI was then analyzed for most common actions, least common actions,
most to least active cities, most to least prioritized categories, and average number of
actions per city for both Washington and Oregon. Results are presented in Chapter 4:

42

Results. All CAI data was compiled, analyzed, and calculated using a MacBook Pro in
Microsoft 360 Excel.
3d. Acquisition of Data and Qualitative Analysis of Municipal and Consultant
Interviews
Interviews are a crucial parallel to the CAI. They expand perspective by
addressing the core value systems of municipal policy-making and can more accurately
detail the barriers to planning and implementation. Therefore, the second dataset are
transcripts from fifteen semi-structured interviews with city staff and consultants who
have worked to form CAP criteria and oversee strategic implementation within the study
cities. Participants were recruited using publicly available information online. Some
localities do not possess climate change or sustainability staff positions; therefore, city
planners, public works, or natural resources staff were also interviewed.
Each interview participant was emailed an introduction to the researcher and the
study. Attached to the email was a Letter of Information which provided a higher-level
detail of the study. Once a response was received, interviews were scheduled.
Municipalities who did not respond right away were sent a follow-up email a week later.
Together, twenty municipalities and four consultant groups were contacted. In total,
fifteen interviews were conducted. These included eight Washington municipal staff, five
Oregon municipal staff, and two private consultants. Table 4 provides the full list of cities
that participated in the interview process. Table 5 provides a list of the city staff and
consultant titles (separated and randomized to respect the anonymity of participants). The
interview protocol included fourteen semi-structured interview questions for city-staff
and ten interview questions for consultants. Interview questions and protocol are located
in Appendices A and B.
43

Table 4: Interview
Participants
Auburn

State
WA

Bellevue

WA

Bellingham

WA

Lakewood

WA

Mount Vernon

WA

Olympia

WA

Shoreline

WA

Vancouver

WA

Kulshan LLC.

Consultant

ICELI

Consultant

Albany

OR

Ashland

OR

Corvallis

OR

Eugene

OR

Springfield

OR

Table 5: City Staff and
Consultant Titles
Climate Analyst
Sustainability Analyst
Comprehensive Planning
Manager
Environmental Specialist
Program Director for Tools
and Innovation
Public Works Director
Long Range Planning
Manager
Long Range Planner
Senior Planner- Long Range
Planning
Environmental Consultant
Assistant Manager for
Developmental Services
Assistant to the City
Administrator
Environmental Stewardship
Initiative Director
Natural Resources Policy
Manager
Sustainability Program
Specialist

Interviews ranged from 25-40 minutes. Each interview was audio-recorded using
a voice recorder on MacBook Pro Voice Notes and hand-transcribed into Microsoft
OneNote. Transcripts were hand-coded using open-coding process. Using conventional
content analysis to code interview transcripts, reoccurring themes were transferred to
Microsoft Excel, with quotes from each city that acknowledge the theme included.
Within Excel, a spreadsheet that included Key Limitations, Accomplishments in Climate
Planning, and Prevalent Themes was formed. A conventional content analysis draws
codes from text data. Directed content analysis begins with a hypothesis or theoretical
guidelines to inform coding figures (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This content analysis was
44

also used to determine how consultant and city-staff perspective integrate into the internal
determinants and regional diffusion models in climate planning and implementation.

45

Chapter Four
Results, Discussion, & Suggestions for Future Research
Chapter Four provides an overview of results from the Climate Actions Inventory
(CAI) as well as city-staff and consultant interviews. Additionally, this chapter engages
in discussion regarding how both data items integrate or defer from the internal
determinants and regional diffusion frameworks. Finally, Chapter Four outlines data
limitations and offers suggestions for future research.

4a. Climate Action Inventory (CAI) Results
The Climate Actions Inventory (CAI) is designed to determine the number of actions
municipalities include within their comprehensive plans and stand-alone CAP documents.
It addresses how planning goals parallel and differ between municipalities and which cities
are more or less advanced in climate planning. This section also identifies the most
prevalent and least common actions, the combined total actions per category, and the
difference in average actions per city in Washington and Oregon.
An extrapolation of the CAI data indicates an interconnectedness and
interchangeability of actions between the 1) Buildings and Energy, 2) Land Use and
Transportation, 3) Food, Water, and Solid Waste, and 4) Public Health categories. For
example, the objective to emphasize land use design could be applied not only in the
Land Use and Transportation section, but also in the Buildings & Energy and Public
Health categories. The incorporation of multimodal street schemes could expand local
transport options which would then improve air quality. It could also increase community
health resources through the integration of open space and connecting communities
46

together in a more fluid and cohesive method. These are just some of many ways CAI
actions can be interlinked to form co-beneficial outcomes.
Of additional significance is the shared responsibility of municipal governments
and community members to prioritize and integrate the same action. Most CAPs separate
community and municipal targets, actions, and leadership, yet many actions are relevant
to both the community and the municipality. For example, creating partnerships with
school districts and businesses, improving air quality, composting, and recycling require
shared obligations of both city and community entities and therefore require collaborative
strategic planning and implementation. Examples of actions enacted solely by the
municipality include expanding anti-idling regulation, updating district and downtown
ordinances, monitoring and improving species habitats and urban design, as well as many
others. While municipalities are specifically responsible for ensuring that CAP targets are
addressed, the CAI indicates that communities require municipal leadership to progress
on all action items. Therefore, actions are signified as either Municipal or Comm/Muni in
Tables 6 and Table 7 below.
Table 6 identifies the most common actions listed across comprehensive and CAP
documents. Most common actions were selected if fifteen or more cities have state a
written commitment for addressing the objectives with higher priority derive primarily
from municipal plans; however, all CAI items pertain specifically toward the
environmental and climate planning. This includes but is not limited to actions
concerning affordable housing, growth management, land use development, and
increasing community health resources. There is particular emphasis across the region to
ensure that infrastructure growth and development are managed in congruency with

47

community involvement. All cities encourage neighborhood planning and formation of
partnerships as well as increasing community health through air and water quality
improvements, expanding local transport options for more multimodal activity,
supporting cultural diversity, and encouraging density while providing a variety of single
and multi-family housing options.
In addition to these items, small- and medium-sized cities are placing prominent
attention on land use, natural design, creating space for cultural diversity, addressing
budget constraints for human services (medical care, hunger, poverty, etc.), and many
others. There is also a critical interest to improve regional and local partnerships between
city officials, businesses, universities, and non-profits and community organizations.
Partnerships like this include the Green Everett Partnership, Thurston Climate Action
Team, and local chapters of 350.org and Climate Reality. These partnerships are not only
formulated for emissions reductions, but for also addressing the objectives of improved
access to community health and educational resources.
Table 6: Most Common Actions Across Study Municipalities
Leadership

Building & Energy Actions

# Cities

Comm/Muni

Create Partnerships with School Districts, Businesses, and the Community*

20

Comm/Muni

Emphasize Design, Landscaping, and Building Materials*

20

Comm/Muni

Prioritize Affordable Housing Projects*

19

Comm/Muni

Promote Live-Work Units, Diverse Housing Options, and Density*

18

Leadership

Land Use & Transportation Actions

# Cities

Land Use
Comm/Muni

Coordinate with Conservation Districts, Non-Profits, Institutions, and Local

20

Governments*

48

Comm/Muni

Protect and Enhance Downtown and Mixed-Use Centers*

20

Municipal

Increase Distribution of Parks and of Open Space*

20

Municipal

Evaluate Growth and Growth Boundaries*

20

Comm/Muni

Monitor and Improve Species Habitats and Remove Invasive Species*

19

Municipal

Balance Interest for Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Zoning*

19

Comm/Muni

Protect Existing Trees and Increase Tree and Vegetation Planting*

19

Municipal

Update Downtown and District Ordinances*

18

Municipal

Preserve Low-Impact Development Areas*

16

Municipal

Improve Wildlife Quality and Water Efficiency for Streetscapes*

16

Comm/Muni

Increase Education about Public Lands, Community Amenities, and Assets*

15

Transportation

# Cities

Comm/Muni

Expand Local Transport Options*

20

Comm/Muni

Maintain and Improve Air Quality*

20

Comm/Muni

Coordinate with County, State, and Regional Groups*

20

Municipal

Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian-Friendly Projects*

20

Municipal

Contain Urban Growth Boundary*

20

Municipal

Monitor Population Growth Rate*

20

Municipal

Update and Maintain Transit Plan*

18

Municipal

Evaluate Options for Reducing Vehicle Use (VMTs)*

17

Comm/Muni

Support Equitable Development around Transit Hubs*

16

Municipal

Identify Funding for Planning and Implementation Efforts*

16

Municipal

Convert Streets to Possess Multimodal Connectivity*

15

Leadership

Food, Water, and Materials Waste Actions

# Cities

Water
Municipal

Ensure Growth Rate Does Not Exceed Water Supply*

20

Municipal

Make Storm Drain/Sewer Improvements*

20

Comm/Muni

Improve Water Quality*

20

Municipal

Encourage Industrial and Commercial Water Conservation*

15

Solid Waste and Consumption
Comm/Muni

Improve Recycling Programs, Education, and Outreach*

15

Leadership

Public Health Actions

# Cities

Comm/Muni

Incorporate Community Perspective in Planning*

20

Comm/Muni

Encourage Neighborhood District Planning*

20

Comm/Muni

Increase Community Partnerships*

20

Comm/Muni

Improve Multi-Family Livelihoods*

20

Community

Improve Single-Family Residential Livelihoods*

20

49

Comm/Muni

Support and Enhance Cultural Diversity*

19

Comm/Muni

Increase Community Health Resources*

18

Comm/Muni

Preserve historical and cultural places and structures*

18

Com/Muni

Work with Vulnerable/Low-Income Populations*

18

Comm/Muni

Address Vulnerability Communities and the Homeless*

18

Comm/Muni

Addressing Funding and Budget Constraints for Human Services*

18

Comm/Muni

Address Community Health Impacts and Comprehension*

17

Comm/Muni

Work with and Improve Local Businesses and Schools*

17

In contrast, Table 7 details the Least Common Actions found within the CAI. Least
common actions were selected if less than fourteen cities stated commitment for
addressing the item. Of the observed twenty cities, only eight cities possess active CAP
or sustainability documents. Thus, the remainder of cities were evaluated on their
comprehensive plans. Many of the actions in the Table 7 contain objectives that are
specific to climate action plans, and therefore there marked with lower numbers. While
some actions rank as higher priorities for cities (i.e. targeting occupant behavior to reduce
energy use and increase conservation, expanding urban forestry initiatives, and educating
city staff and public service), other items fall short of city attention. This is particularly
true in the consideration of Solid Waste and Consumption and Buildings, Food Waste,
and Energy Average Actions. One reason for this could be that objectives are highlighted
in other planning documents such as transportation master plans and other city
documents. Another reason could be a result of outsourcing services and utility providers
for waste management and energy. Objectives reflected in the CAI that have little to no
significance in municipal comprehensive planning include requiring building and energy
scorecards/ratings, developing renewable energy projects, implementing a local fuel tax,
supporting edible food donation, and exploring material package bans.
50

Table 7: Least Common Actions Across Study Municipalities
Leadership

Building & Energy Actions

# Cities

Municipal

Implement Housing Rehabilitation, Retrofitting, and Construction Programs

12

Comm/Muni

Target Occupant Behavior to Reduce Energy Use and Increase Conservation

12

Comm/Muni

Promote Use of Low and Non-Carbon Fuels

12

Municipal

Continue to Monitor and Update GHG Emissions Inventory/Additional Inventories

11

Municipal

Expand Utility Partnerships

11

Comm/Muni

Incentivize Solar Energy Production

10

Comm/Muni

Expand Community Participation in Energy Efficiency and Conservation

10

Increase Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (ENERGY STAR & LEED)

8

Comm/Muni

Develop Community-Scale Renewable Energy Project

7

Municipal

Expand Day Shading and Weatherization Techniques

6

Incentivize Small Home Energy Reduction (prizes, rebates)

6

Convert Municipal Lighting (traffic lights, offices etc.) to LED

6

Community

Reduce Energy Efficiency Barriers in Rent/Lease Properties

5

Comm/Muni

Create Minimum Efficiency Standards for Affordable Housing Units

4

Municipal

Enhance Retailer and Contractor Best Practices

4

Municipal

Require Building Energy Scorecards/ Ratings

4

Municipal

Comm/Muni
Municipal

Leadership

Land Use & Transportation Action

# of Cities

Land Use
Comm/Muni
Municipal
Comm/Muni
Municipal
Comm/Muni

Promote Native Species Planting*

14

Expand Urban Forestry Efforts

13

Facilitate Communication Between Community and Developers*

13

Expand Tree Canopy in Urban Heat Island Areas*

5

Encourage Lawn Reduction

3

Transportation
Municipal

Limit New Development in Risk Areas*

12

Municipal

Increase Capacity for Electric Charging Stations

11

Comm/Muni

Support Equitable Development around Transit Hubs*

11

Comm/Muni

Promote Purchasing of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

9

Designate Carpool, Hybrid, and EV Parking

9

Enhance Trail Connections and Maintenance*

8

Research Minimum and Maximum Parking Requirements

7

Municipal
Comm/Muni
Municipal

51

Municipal

Upgrade Signal Management Systems to Improve Traffic Flow

7

Expand Anti-Idling*

6

Municipal

Increase Fuel Efficiency for Buses

4

Municipal

Require Carbon Analysis for Large Asphalt Projects

4

Municipal

Expand Biofuel Research/Capacity

3

Comm/Muni

Implement a Local Fuel Tax*

1

Leadership

Food, Water, and Materials Waste Actions

Comm/Muni

# of Cities

Food
Comm/Muni

Expand Community Garden and Urban Agriculture Projects*

14

Comm/Muni

Promote Purchase and Manufacturing of Local Food/Material Products*

14

Comm/Muni

Compost All Organic Materials in City/Community Operations*

7

Comm/Muni

Support Edible Food Donation*

3

Water
Comm/Muni

Create Residential Water Metering Program

3

Solid Waste and Consumption
Comm/Muni

Develop a Plan for Infrastructure and Waste Service Adequacy*

14

Comm/Muni

Implement Waste and Consumption Education Campaigns*

13

Comm/Muni

Update Residential Recycling Ordinances*

9

Comm/Muni

Introduce Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Guidelines (EPP)

8

Comm/Muni

Increase Resource Efficiency in Schools and Organizations

8

Community

Provide Kitchen Best Practices and Purchases Guide

7

Comm/Muni

Expand Community Cleanups and Special Events*

7

Comm/Muni

Encourage Use and Funding for Reuse*

6

Municipal

Partner with Businesses to Safely Collect Hard-To-Recycle/Hazardous Material*

6

Municipal

Develop Ways to Tack Waste and Consumption-Based Emissions

6

Develop Stewardship Programs for Responsible Recycling/Manufacturing*

6

Establish Range of Diverse and Stable Funding for Waste Divergence

6

Develop Strategy to Reduce Paper Product Consumption and Purchasing

5

Municipal

Strengthen Demolition Debris Diversion

4

Municipal

Support Stewardship Policy for End-of-Life Product Management

3

Comm/Muni

Explore Material Package Bans*

1

Leadership

Public Health Actions

Comm/Muni
Municipal
Comm/Muni

52

# of Cities

Municipal

Educate City Staff and Identify Service Roles*

13

Municipal

Bolster Emergency Services*

13

Municipal

Map Potential Areas at Risk of Sea-Level Rise and Flooding*

12

Municipal

Conduct a Vulnerability Assessment and Create/Update Hazard Mitigation Plan*

10

Community

Establish Resident Engagement and Civics Programs*

8

Comm/Muni

Promote Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design*

7

Reduce Risk of Wildfire/Fire in Urban Area*

6

Comm/Muni

Facilitate Training for Emergency Responders*

5

Comm/Muni

Educate Public Health Professionals*

5

Community

Increase Communication through Social Media*

4

Comm/Muni

Strengthen Hunger Relief Systems and Services*

4

Develop Heat-Warning Systems*

2

Municipal

Municipal

Table 8 identifies the total number of actions per city in Western Washington and
Oregon. These tables provide insight as to what cities are underscoring climate in
municipal and community planning. Cities marked by an asterisk (*) possess stand-alone
CAPs. Cities marked with a wave (~) are creating CAPs. Emphasizing regional
leadership, it is significant that Ashland, OR ranks first among all of the cities with a total
of 113 total actions. While Ashland is one of the smallest cities in the study, Ashland’s
CAP is the newest, and includes an implementation strategy. Through the support of the
community, Ashland was also able to incorporate consultant expertise for both their GHG
inventory and community workshops to inform objectives. Following Ashland are the
cities of Bellevue, WA and Shoreline, WA. These cities are located in King County close
to Seattle, WA. Both Shoreline and Bellevue possess environmental city-staff members
and have the highest populations and budgets across the study area. Their city staff and
councils also consider climate to be a major infrastructural and social priority, and
therefore, have allocated resources to implementing their CAP measures.

53

Table 8: Total City Actions by
Municipality
City
Ashland*

State
OR

Total Actions
113

Bellevue*

WA

99

Shoreline*

WA

99

Corvallis*

OR

94

Eugene*

OR

93

Olympia~

WA

92

Bellingham*

WA

89

Everett~

WA

78

Beaverton*

OR

77

Vancouver*
Lakewood
Mount Vernon
Auburn
Gresham
Albany
Kent
Grants Pass
Medford
Salem
Springfield

OR

73

WA
WA
WA
OR
OR
WA
OR
OR
OR
OR

70
63
59
59
53
52
45
44
38
22

In contrast, cities with the lowest number of action items are Springfield, Salem,
and Medford, OR. Springfield is the only city in this study that does not possess a fullyformed comprehensive planning document. To account for Springfield’s actions, the
city’s Comprehensive Plan website page was analyzed instead. In the absence of both a
comprehensive and climate plan, Springfield significantly lowers OR’s average action
items. Medford’s rank, just slightly above Salem, could be a result of a Medford’s
incorporation into the 2013 Jackson County Climate and Health Action Plan. However,
there is some indication that citizen demand and regional movement are stimulating
Salem to create a CAP in the near future.

54

The average number of actions per city was 76.9 in Washington and 63.4 in
Oregon. While Ashland, OR is the city with the highest number of CAP objectives,
Washington has the highest average CAP goals per city, with an average difference of
about 13.5 actions. While both states possess an equal number of city CAPs in this
research (four in WA and four in OR), Washington has more cities motioning toward
creating stand-alone CAPs. These cities are Auburn, Everett, and Olympia. Oregon cities
such as Springfield, Grants Pass, Medford, and Salem possess notably lower CAP
commitments. This could be due to a number of factors such as a lack of political and
social will, the absence of internal resources, or state and county
collaborations/guidelines.

Table 9. Total Combined
Actions by Category
Category
Total Actions
Transportation
340
Public Health
339
Water Waste &
Consumption
268
Land Use
250
Buildings &
Energy
238
Solid Waste &
Consumption
177
Food Waste and
Consumption
91
Lastly, Table 9 details the combined number of actions city prioritize in each
category. Transportation and Public health are paralleled categories, illuminating city
perspective and emphasis on social well-being as it pertains to regional movement and
accessibility to community centers and residences. Water consumption, waste, and

55

management are also addressed as a high concern with municipal and CAP documents, as
water is a crucial facet for all aspects of ecological, economic, biological, and
physiological life. Land use items have tremendous precedence within cities, and its
status on this table is simply reflective of the lower number of actions included in the
CAI. Buildings and Energy fall just below land use, as many of the objectives fall within
the scope of stand-alone CAPs and are less likely to be included in municipal
comprehensive plans. It is significant that lowest on this table is solid materials, food
waste, and consumption. Lower prioritization and incorporation of these items can be
indicative of many things, such as deference of obligation from cities to waste
management utilities and operations beyond city limits. Budget constraints may also pose
as limitations as cities struggle to prioritize some areas over others. Finally, cities may be
relying on communities to substantiate behavioral changes around food waste and
consumption, and there may be insecurity from city entities concerning the behavioral
components of climate planning. These and other data extrapolations are explored in
environmental, city planning, and consultant interviews in the following section.

4b. Interview Results & Discussion
While much of the interview data complements the results of the CAI, city staff
and consultant interviews provided a number of considerations that extend beyond
written documents. These considerations include staff concerns, insights, personal
feelings, and levels of responsibility. Interviews provide deeper and more meaningful
discussions around the barriers inhibiting CAP, and more intricately pronounce
commonality and differences between municipalities. For example, interviews revealed
that overarching state decisions facilitate the policy-making process within both counties
56

and cities. Additionally, jurisdictional reign over utilities also plays a tremendous role in
determining energy efficiency goals and targets. Though these may be present in the CAI,
the descriptive articulation of these and many factors contribute to a more thorough
analysis of CAP determinates and diffusion. Prevalent themes that emerged from
interviews are highlighted in Table 10. This section will address these themes, highlight
key struggles, and emphasize opportunities cities are currently experiencing when
forming CAPs.

Table 10: Prevalent Interview Themes
1. Affordable Housing and
Homelessness
2. Land Use and Urban Growth
3. Community Engagement
4. Staff Resourcing
5. Use of Consultants
6. Utility Relations
7. Implementation Measures and
Actions
8. Successes and Limitations
9. Money and Budgeting
10. Political Affiliations
11. Buildings and Energy
12. Planning Vision, Progress, and
Updates
13. GHG Inventories and Emissions
Targets
14. Risk and Hazard Management
15. Personal Thoughts and Future
Projections
To address the research question what factors shape the decision-making process
of small- and medium-sized city climate action plan (CAP) creation, and how do these
plans differ between Western WA and OR?, common themes were extracted from

57

consultants as well as city and environmental planning staff. Quotations and insights
from conversations were organized and discussed by theme. From these themes, key
successes and limitations were formed. Insights from interviews and CAI data were then
intertwined with the context of the internal and regional diffusion frameworks to
determine the levels of influence and leadership needed when forming municipal CAPs.
Staff Resourcing, Use of Consultants, Utility Relations, Money and Budgeting
Staff resourcing, use of consultants, collaboration with utility corporations,
management of city services, money, and budgeting were some of the most prevalent
themes formed in conversations. While some cities possess capabilities to advance in
these areas (i.e. hiring full time sustainability analysts into city positions, owning
electrical, waste, and storm water utilities, etc.), many municipal staff expressed these as
prominent barriers to climate planning. For cities to circumnavigate some of these
constraints there must be resounding state, county, and community-level demand. There
must be implicit understanding that if cities and communities seek formation and
implementation of CAPs, other important budget items must either be cut or redirected.
This also puts pressure on city planners and environmental consultants, as many
individuals who hold city positions often have other responsibilities:
“I’m the city’s environmental specialist. The city has an environmental service
division that is a part of community development and Public Works. It is myself and
my manager, the Environmental Services Manager, who are the sum of environmental
services (laughs). We have taken on the role of initiating the climate action plan and
moving it forward with our consultants and working with them. As the division of
environmental services, we are the midpoint or connecting point between various
other departments and sustainability.”
While this municipality is able to resource at least two people to substantiate
sustainability directives between city departments, many municipalities do not possess
this resource.
58

“Let me just say it this way, the city is poor. It struggles with its budget even
though it's a city of about 60,000 people. It doesn't have the economic base that
more mature cities have, and so as a result we struggle. And so, when you start
talking about climate change, other things get to the top of the list and have
priority very quickly.”
In addition to pressing city demands, there are concerns that investments in CAPs often
do not result in much tangible impact within cities unless objectives and actions are
measured to targets. Use of consultants can assist in creating measurable targets, however
cities often do not have the resources to maintain consultant connection or to hire fulltime staff to ensure CAP objectives are implemented.
“We’re looking at filling a permanent position next year to be the climate lead on
our implementation. But what I did this last round was work with an intern, and
he did a lot of the updating material. I then hired a local consultant here. It was a
little complicated, but the guy I had working for me was working for a consultant
firm in town. Instead of paying him the minimum wage I was required to pay him,
I hired the consultant so we were able to make his compensation align with his
work. He was actually more of a hybrid-internal staff person.”

These quotes demonstrates that new staff-resourcing for CAP creation can be
impermanent given funding restrictions. While consulting firms can assist cities with
some of the regional components of climate action planning, cities often require
dedicated staff to monitor progress as well as enforce and facilitate sustainability
transitions between departments.
Land Use and Growth Management, Housing and Homelessness
Internally and regionally, cities have very challenging feats ahead. A foremost
concern for municipalities is population growth and affordable housing. Within the CAI,
housing and growth management ranked among the top resounding priorities across all
municipalities in the study. Additionally, concerns about urban growth boundaries and
land use interweave with adaptive infrastructural innovation (Carter et. al, 2015). One
59

city planner accounts, “We are pretty much up to our boundary limits. We have a few
urban growth areas that have been worked out through the county. We have no plans to
annex that area in a foreseeable future and are looking at redevelopment opportunities to
move forward.” Projected population spikes have many cities concerned. This is
apparent for the City of Albany, OR. In the next 65 years, the city is projected to grow
from 40,000 to 70,000 people - a difference of approximately 30,000 people.
One key consideration for city planners is the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA). Instated in 1990, the GMA requires all rapidly growing cities
and counties to develop a comprehensive plan to manage population, reduce urban
sprawl, improve regional transportation, and implement affordable housing projects. The
GMA also requires cities to include economic development planning, streamline
permitting processes for housing, and ensure protection and preservation of the natural
and built environment (MRSC.org, 2015). Through the identification of urban growth
areas (UGAs), counties and cities possess the shared responsibility of reducing sprawl.
While Oregon does not possess a GMA, it has a similar policy called the Oregon
State Transportation and Growth Management Program. While Oregon does not possess
the same stipulations as Washington, Oregon cities can use program workshops and
grants to improve community design and transportation accessibility, collaborate with the
Oregon Department of Transportation, and remove some of the technical and financial
barriers associated with capitol design and public facilities projects. These programs are
pivotal, as the substantial increases in population that small cities and counties are
experiencing will continue to impact Oregon and Washington. The case for consideration
of land use and growth management should be strengthened as deliberations over public

60

and environmental health become increasingly diminished as a result of this change
(Perrot & Holland, 2005).
Paired with these concerns is ecosystem health, well-being, and strength. In
Mount Vernon, WA many city planners are concerned about the impacts of homelessness
on the environment.
“I will let you know the largest impact is felt in our wetlands and to the Skagit
River, because those wetlands feed Skagit River really for the homeless that are in
these wetland protected areas. I mean the opioids and other drugs. When we
clean up these areas they are having a very determinately huge impact to the
water system. Fecal matter, that's usually the biggest thing we see.”
Despite an overall lack of research on this issue, it is becoming increasingly
apparent that growth management, homelessness and housing, and land use concerns are
at the top of the list of priorities for almost all Pacific Northwest cities. However, there
remains some uncertainty regarding how these variations can best be incorporated into
municipal CAPs as well as within larger county and state planning.

Key Success and Limitations in Planning Vision, Progress, and Implementation
Despite the limitations of resource and population demands, key successes are
being met throughout the region. These are highlighted in Table 10. This demonstrates
some of the core priorities of implementing CAP directives within the municipal
frameworks and capabilities. It also highlights some innovative approaches cities are
taking to ensure that their plan is actively addressing the needs of the community. Cities
that do not possess key successes can thus use this as a guide for what to prioritize in
their own CAP creation, and who to connect with to facilitate and inform guidelines and
objectives.

61

Cities
Table 11: Key Successes Identified in Interviews
Releasing a New or Updated CAP within the next 1-2 years

Auburn
Bellingham
Eugene
Everett
Olympia

Increasing Coordination Between CAP and Utility Ownership

Ashland
Bellingham
Lakewood
Olympia

Addition of Equity Element into CAP Process

Bellingham
Eugene
Eugene
Olympia
Ashland
Bellingham
Bellingham
ICLEI
Shoreline

Introduction of New Methods (i.e. Strategic-Doing Approach)
Incorporation of Local Cities and County into CAP Process
Addition of Climate Analyst Position into City Staff
Structural Document Changes to Emphasize and Focus on Solutions
Establishing Incentive Programs for Energy Conservations
Creation and Updating of Assessable Carbon Monitoring Tools (C-LEAP)
Increasing Transportation Options and Capacity for Multi-Modal Travel

While these successes express how CAP is advancing, there are pronounced key
struggles and limitations. These are highlighted in Table 11. It is significant to note that
this research presents more struggles than success, and struggles are also most commonly
shared throughout all cities within this research frame. These expressed barriers to
success include limitations within the city policy-making structure vs. state and federal
levels, substantive lack of community interest and participation, technical and economic
complexities, lack of utility control and ownership, time and organizational management,
and many others. The interview participant from Vancouver, WA stated,
“To me it’s one thing to have a CAP, it’s another thing to actually measure
things. CAPs are good, but if you don’t measure your progress, it’s sort of less
effective. We’re pretty good at aspirational thinking and I think generally our
leadership is very supportive in this kind of work, but we don’t have the resources
to measure it.”
62

This quote emphasizes the desire within cities to not only create sustainability and
climate plans, but also to be able to measure progress, correct where necessary, and
restructure plans and visions as circumstances shift. Technical complexity regarding
GHG inventories and challenges regarding other systems also present confliction in
prioritization of items within municipal and city operations.
Table 12: Key Struggles and Limitations Identified in Interviews
Collaboration, Cooperation, and Negotiating for Change
City-Level Government Control and Operability
Political Perspectives and Affiliations
Funding and Budgeting for CAP Development and Implementation
Lack of Methods for Meeting State-Level Directives
Prioritizing and Coupling Adaption and Mitigation
Lack in Consistency of Measuring and Monitoring GHG Inventories
Time Management and Organization of Priorities
Disengaged Community Membership
Lack of Staff Resources and Increased Pressure on Existing Staff
Technical Complexity of Science and Solutions
Critically Demanding City Pressures (i.e. Homelessness, Population Growth)
Economic Complexities and Feasibilities
Reactive Policy Planning and Thinking as Opposed to Preemptive Planning
Lack of Utility Ownership and Control

These limitations create deep frustrations and concerns. One municipal staff
person confided “I am very frustrated with the fact that nothing seems to work anymore
and that the answer at the state level is to push it down to the locals and make them fix it.
I'm ticked off and I'm not happy that we are put in this position and don't have the
resources to fix it.” Another staff person commented, “It's important to recognize too
that a city only has so much power or influence. It’s interesting writing a plan that is
trying to provide a vision and be aspirational beyond the power of the city government.”

63

These statements are reflective of the pressure cities feels to address issues around
climate while working with minimal resources, limited timeframe, and budgets.
Collaboration, Community Engagement, Advocacy, Demand
While there is variation between cities in terms of political and social engagement
with climate planning, some cities are actively allocating specific energy to reduce
emissions, increase resiliency, bolster adaptation efforts, and improve quality of life.
Successes in progressing CAP measures to the forefront of leadership, creativity, and
value are typically prompted from engagement with community activists. This is
particularly the case in cities such as Ashland, OR and Olympia, WA. According to A
city staff person in Olympia, “There’s a lot of citizens in the community that are very
engaged in the topic, wanting the city to show leadership--in fact wanting the whole
region to get behind these efforts. So, there is a strong constituency.” In the case of
Olympia, this is not only influential for the city itself, but for neighboring cities
Tumwater and Lacey.
“There are many examples that in which the three cities collaborate on issues. It
makes sense to work regionally on this. In order to address the need for emissions
reduction we are going to have to work with our energy provider, transportation
issues, and land use issues. Those are issues that are collaborative. There a lot of
areas where if we come up with reasonably consistent policies and approaches it
could be effective.”
For Olympia, the perspective is that increased collaboration will result less
competitive and more collaborative systems for addressing climate impacts and emissions
reduction. Under the leadership of the Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC), the
Washington cities of Olympia, Tumwater, and Lacey are in Phase 1: Scoping Process of
the regional CAP. This will soon be followed by Phase 2: Formation of Initiatives, and
Phase 3: Implementation. The project is expected to culminate in 2019.
64

Community involvement, perspective, and engagement are critical pieces of
diversity and intersectionality. Community intelligence and perspective on climate
interest, though overall pronounced in the Pacific Northwest, varies considerably in the
scope of small- and mid-sized cities. For example, cities such as Olympia, Bellingham,
Shoreline, Vancouver, and Ashland have incredibly supportive and at times adamant
community bases. A representative for the city of Vancouver stated, “Yeah, I think
there’s a very active environmental community here.” The representative in Olympia held
a similar position, “I would say we have a pretty educated and engaged community on
this topic. Maybe as you extend further in our region less so, but I believe the community
wants to show leadership on this topic.” Cities like Bellingham are emphasizing cultural
inclusion and considering restrictions:
“This last round of updating our CAP after we had got substantially - well 99% through that process, there has been a community group that is pushing for
carbon emission neutrality by 2030 or 2035. And they’ve been active, they’re
trying to get these more aggressive goals into the CAP. I think we all agree that
the more aggressive we can get with carbon emissions, the better chance we will
have of not changing the world completely. It’s also a matter of balancing
cultural abilities and things like that, so the timeframe is pretty aggressive when
the goal is only several years out. But it’s great to have that component of a
community that understands and is pushing hard.”
This statement exemplifies that engaged members not only emphasize CAP, but also seek
to make CAP more impactful through the construction of solution-based and achievable
standards for both the city and community entities.
However, not all cities share the same level of urgency and enthusiasm for climate
change policy. One city accounts, “There are individual groups and people here who do
support stronger CAP efforts, but it hasn’t risen to the level where it’s been debated at
council or anything like that.” Political affiliations and worldviews play a critical role in

65

community involvement on climate change issues, and this holds true for all cities
analyzed in this study. Another city states, “I think that in recent elections we may have
voted generally democratic, but at the council level, which is bipartisan, at least at this
point, the council leadership and the mayor are more conservative and republicanleaning. And certainly, in contrast to Eugene, we are more conservative.” Other cities
such as Lakewood simply struggle with more intense and pressing day-to-day issues,
which presses the city council for most of its resources, time, and considerations.
Community engagement, neighborhood advocacy, and demand for climate action
all influence local and regional decision-making and planning. This is primarily due to
the fact that climate change is a community health threat and that local environmental
disruptions ripple out into the larger region and vice-versa (Van Aalst, Cannon, Burton,
2008). Engaged communities highlight these risks to city council and public officials,
often posing recommendations for changes officials can take to reduce risks and
vulnerabilities. Cities have central responsibilities for incorporating concerns. Forums for
leadership and advocacy must therefore be made available to cities that possess the same
levels of engagement. Narratives around personal connection with nature, experience
with climate disruptions, and how work on climate can illuminate economic and social
prosperity must be center focus for all communities.
4c. Discussion: Internal Determinants and Regional Diffusion, Intertwining the CAI
and Interviews
This section intertwines CAP data from the Climate Actions Inventory (CAI) with
the city-staff and consultant interviews. Identifying correlations, deviations, and gaps
between data sources provides perspective as to how CAPs are formed and what local

66

and regional influences inform the development process. While the CAI primarily
highlights internal operations and strategies, regional trends and internal determinants are
formed through the statement of common objectives and asserted through the
perspectives of limitations and successes from city planners and consultants. Finally,
while all CAPs are designed for each individual city, climate plans are not currently
created to function as policies themselves but rather as guidelines. Cities must critically
evaluate this current system to ensure the money, time, and energy spent in climate
planning is invested wisely, and that objectives are adequately designed to achieve
emissions reduction and resilience targets.
To address this, cities are beginning to understand the integral relationship
between university presence and municipal and community operations. There appears to
be a strong correlation between university influence and the possession of a municipal
CAPs in the study cities. The representative from the City of Ashland notes this in their
interview: “Our university (SOU - Southern Oregon University) had a climate action
plan before we did, and they’ve been very involved at the university-level in many
commitments.” The City of Eugene, home to University of Oregon, spoke similarly about
the university’s climate commitments and involvement in climate action planning:
“The plan approach focuses on ‘strategic doing,’ which means that we are working
with large-level shareholders for each of the chapters. In a nutshell, ‘systems change’
shareholders such as local utilities, cities, universities, school district, the natural gas
provider, and our transit district--entities that have control over systems.”
This and other examples of cities within the frame of this research strongly suggest
partnerships with universities are prominent of the determinant factors for cities in the
Western Washington and Oregon to adopt CAP objectives. Regionally, there is evidence
universities mold perspective, create communities, facilitate the scientific consensus
67

processes, and in some cases shape the way CAPs are formed and enacted (Eliasson,
2000). The two other cities who possess CAPs are situated outside of Seattle or the
Portland metropolitan areas. Though inconclusive, this suggests that cities within close
proximity to large metropolitan areas who have robust CAPs are more likely to have
developed a CAP or to develop one in the near future.
A way for environmentally proactive cities to extend their resources beyond city
structures is to develop partnerships with cities who struggle to adhere to the pressing
demands of climate change. Regionally, university partnerships between cities could
emphasize collaborative development between stakeholders across city and state
boarders. Forums, workshops, and developmental trainings for community members,
businesses, policy-makers, and municipal operations staff could provide constructive
learning opportunities for both individualizing and generalizing CAPs so that all cities are
adhering to climate development in both unique and collective ways.
Another significant limitation to climate planning is that there exists no true
commitment or accountability to enact or adopt policies that will ensure goals and targets
are met. One city states, “The climate action plan is committed to reducing 80% by 2050,
50% by 2030, 25% by 2020. We’re not going to be close to meeting the 2020 goals.” Of
all eight CAPs in this research, only Ashland possesses an implementation strategy. In
current inception, all proposed goals and strategies are simply guidelines. Without
ordinances to ensure CAP goals possess a legal structure and are made actionable, there
is no basis for accountability when CAP targets and objectives are created.
Climate and comprehensive plans are expansive and costly documents that
possess great detail. To make the most of the investment and garner community

68

participation, cities must adopt climate objectives into legal frameworks for all facets of
city life and operations. If individual cities begin reframing climate actions into legallybinding obligations, it is possible that more cities will begin to consider their climate
objectives as policy. Cities across the Pacific Northwest have an amazing opportunity to
come together and address affordable housing, land use, and environmental planning
standards. All cities analyzed have stated this as a core objective within their municipal
visions and can incorporate CAP objectives within the frame of community and
environmental health. More on how cities can do this will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Green technologies and modernizing conservation occur on three levels: municipal,
community, and utility (Calthorpe, 2011, pg. 18) Both the CAI and the interviews
conducted for this research suggest that cities identify CAPs to be specifically municipalfocused but fail to engage communities on how cities can integrate changes at the
community and utility levels. One staff-person asserted, “We have traditionally focused
our emissions reduction targets within municipal operations. We have made a huge
amount of progress. The next big jump is focus on actions the city can take to influence
emissions more broadly within the community.” Another city staff stated, “I think folks in
us community are doing what they can. Climate change is something that's difficult for
many folks to act on because they are operating on limited budgets and maybe don’t
know what they can do to make a difference on the issue or they just really feel like they
can.” In some cases, green technology and infrastructural development is even being
challenged within environmentally active communities. One participate stated, “We have
many people who are in opposition to re-zoning that are really active environmentalists.
And these people often aren’t able to make the connection that high density transit as

69

opposed to green field development is the environmental solution.” These statements
highlight a significant element of distrust between city governments and stakeholders as
it pertains to CAP and land use development. This means cities must spend a significant
amount of time and allocate funding for consultant facilitation to educate community
groups and receive feedback about large capital projects for them to successfully
implement these ideas.
The results of the CAI and the interviews offer significant understanding of the
internal determinants and regional diffusion model frameworks. Local relevance and
community assets such as schools, organizations, businesses, and city governments are all
key stakeholders in CAP. Additionally, the viability and feasibility of a city to
accommodate and afford social and infrastructural changes also plays a major role in
whether a city is able to create a focused plan with attainable goals. While having an
overarching general vision is imperative, many cities must work to narrow focus and
create supplemental implementation and budgeting strategies to meet targets. Lastly,
projected city growth has many cities nervous about the future—especially as tensions
around homelessness and affordable housing increase.
Regional diffusion of CAP objectives is more difficult to measure, though there
are some indications in this research that confirm regional influence within and between
cities. Comprehensive plans throughout all cities analyzed share many of the same action
items pertaining to land use, water conservation and consumption, and public health.
While this may be do directives from the state, CAP items also possess commonalities in
structure and context. This may be primarily due to the incorporation of consultants
within the planning process. Additionally, this study confirms that regional (i.e. county

70

and city) alliances foster cooperation in creating common goals and deriving objectives to
strategies to achieve common targets.
Given concerns and necessities to create stronger CAPs and elicit community
support and impacts, cities must prominently focus on the converging points of internal
capacities and regional movement. Some methods for cities to connect themselves to
larger networks include through the use of consultants as well as through the formation of
coalitions and organizations (i.e. Thurston Regional Planning Council, K4C, Global
Compact of Mayors, ICLEI, etc.). Cities should also be encouraging community
members to join larger regional and networks such as 350.org, Climate Reality, the Sierra
Club, etc. In doing so, cities and communities can best work together to form regional
connection while bolstering internal progress.
State policy decisions can act as inhibitors and as a beneficial components of
CAPs within cities. Cities without resources select to use state regulation as a means of
incorporating CAP into comprehensive, transportation, and land use plans. However,
cities with CAPs and with environmental staff sourcing may not find state goals or
ordinances to be aggressive enough, and therefore some cities may surpass state and
county regulations in emissions reductions. In fact, these cities may be setting the stage
for climate regulation that surpass the larger frames of government. Though this remains
an optimistic perspective, the contributions of regional perspective and resources from
other localized cities have the potential to build momentum, influence regulation, and
safeguard assets from climate impacts. Continued research and application of these
models is critical in ensuring that climate policy has developed as well as how it is
adopted locally and regionally.

71

4d. Research Limitations: Climate Actions Inventory
Despite the small sample size, a key limitation associated with this study is the
contrast between comprehensive and stand-alone CAPs. Comprehensive plans do not
provide GHG inventory analysis, project targets for energy consumption reduction, or
propose actions for implementation and measuring progress regarding CAP values. While
some contain environmental elements, comprehensive plans often do not incorporate
actions pertaining to energy efficiency, food consumption and waste, and materials
consumption and waste. Therefore, it is recommended that research works to address
these gaps.
Verbiage is also a limitation in creating the CAI. Many CAP and municipal
actions are often over-generalized. While generalized actions are critical in ensuring that
attention is brought to a specific issue, the broad nature of many comprehensive and CAP
goals inevitably means that details are too vague, are either overlooked, or are too
momentous for a city to undertake. Words like “encourage” and “explore” signify a
broadness in planning, whereas more concrete words such as “reduce”, “facilitate”, and
“educate” are more authoritative and actionable. However, some municipal actions were
too specific to be included in the CAI.
The Climate Actions Inventory (CAI) requires routine maintenance and advanced
research. For instance, in the duration of this study the City of Bellingham announced
that it will transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. This will inevitably shift
Bellingham’s status in the inventory up some ranks as the city updates planning
procedures to accommodate this change. It is recommended that now this inventory has

72

been created that it be maintained and updated as well. The maintenance and upkeep of
data is imperative from year to year.
Finally, the field of climate action plan (CAP) creation is new. The information
provided in this study requires further development to enhance understanding of this type
of policy innovation. There is minimal research regarding internal determinants and
regional diffusion in climate planning. Furthermore, relevant scientific data, such as
climate modeling, changes rapidly. Therefore, continued efforts to strengthen planning
objectives and achieve targets while staying abreast of current climate research must
prioritized by climate researchers, city planners and officials, and community members.
4e. Limitations: Research Limitations: City Staff & Consultants Interviews
There is a wealth of information about CAP planning and development from the
interview process. However, future research should incorporate questions that address
specific implementation measures and budgeting strategies for climate action planning.
Additionally, for cities that do not have communities that believe in the necessity of CAP
creation, research must explore how other community values such as job security, social
equality, and public health can be best emphasized.
Limitations also exist in interviewing city staff. Often answers were pragmatic
and neglected the tonal urgency expressed in scientific and sensational literature about
climate change. While practical solutions and technical fixes are imperative for the
progress and development of cities, many failed to mention the role the community plays
in facilitating efforts within the municipality. Highlighted in the CAI, collaborating
between both entities is needed for actions to be appropriately conceived and
implemented. Therefore, city leaders must begin to develop partnerships between

73

departments, with other cities, and with their communities if they intend to promulgate
resilience.

74

Chapter Five
Suggestions and Considerations for Creating Stronger CAPs
Chapter Five provides suggestions and considerations for creating stronger and
impactful community climate action planning strategies. While much of the CAP forming
process incorporates technological solutions, climate planning requires that cities think in
creative ways to accommodate community needs such as living and mental health
services. While these considerations are largely missing from climate planning in its
current inception, inclusive living, reimagining cities through developments in urban
planning, and creating a foundation for transformational resilience can make climate
planning more relatable and more impactful.

5a. Promises of Togetherness, Communalism, and Sacrifice
There is evidence that communalism within and between city entities and
communities must be considered and prioritized in CAP and municipal planning
(Ludwig, 2017; Berkhout, 2010). For cities meeting successes in accomplishing
objectives, community members must know and believe that they have ownership over
tasks and projects. Paired with technological fixes, cities must work to prepare and
position people to change foundational components of livelihoods and perspective (i.e.
jobs, practices, diets, etc.). This process must be encouraging, profitable, and all people
must be guided to work collectively to “leverage sharing and cooperation as main tools
for becoming more ecological” (Ludwig, 2017, pg. 9). An integral way of achieving this
will be through the revitalization of land use planning, infrastructural building structure,
and energy sourcing for culture and creation.
Cities seek to maintain and improve quality of living now and into the future. This

75

objective is severely threatened by and through climate disruption. One way to address
this is to recognize the importance of united action and perspective. “Cohousing has done
a lot for expanding the appeal of intentional communities in the US and provides creative
ways that lead to significantly reducing ecological footprints” (Ludwig, pg. 16). Due to
the significance of necessity for community participation in CAP paired with the
economically underprivileged, vulnerable, and homeless populations throughout the
Pacific Northwest, cities must creatively consider constructs such as income-sharing and
deep community living into planning structures.
A common barrier among cities is the acknowledgment of city limitations as it
pertains to CAP. Collective perspective in city leadership requires immediate recovery
and restoration, as the significance of the moral and environmental benefits for society
and the environment must take a stronghold. The core of our cultural attitudes down to
the physicality of the body is a “battleground fought over by a host of interests, from the
largest multi-national food companies and media corporations, to the smallest
hairdressing salon and restaurants” (Holmes, 2016). Cities are aware of the enormity of
factors beyond their operations that contribute to climate change. However, this does not
render cities powerless or weak in the face of resilience building and mitigation.
According to Ma’ike Ludwig, author of Together Resilient: Building Community
in the Age of Climate Disruption, “Worldview is the place where everything starts: our
ecological practices are the result of our worldview, and the social and economic systems
that generate it” (Ludwig 2017, pg. 6) Ludwig emphasizes that a critical part in reducing
emissions within communities requires deep consideration of the ways we live and
consume. She proposes, in this recognition, that community itself is a living laboratory in

76

which we are able to monitor, account for, and change our systematic ways of living.
This however, must be done with intention. Once this is acknowledged, one is able to
begin the process by forming what are called “intentional communities” (Ludwig 2017).
Intentional communities are designed to address the social and economic obstacles
that prohibit and prevent practice-based solutions from entering the communal forum
(Mudler, Costanza, & Erickson, 2005). According to the Fellowship for Intentional
Community (FIC, 2018), intentional communities foster the values of “1) Cooperation, 2)
Sustainability, 3) Social Justice, 4) Nonviolence, and 5) Non-coercion” (Ic.org, 2018).
This is supported by community structures that include ecovillages, cohousing,
communes, student co-ops, and spiritual centers (Ic.org, 2018). The true purpose of these
establishments is to build group resilience through “shared decision-making, enhancing
the local economy, creating social enrichment, participation in natural building, and food
security practices” (Ic.org, 2018). Intentional communities are groups of people who are
easily able to identify and connect with one another on fundamental values and
acknowledgement of needing and wanting to change for the betterment of the self and
the environment (IC.org, 2018; Ludwig, 2017; Mudler, Costanza, & Erickson, 2005).
Ludwig (2017) determines that the prohibitive nature associated with change for
many comes from an inherent fear of changing ecological practices to meet our needs.
Suggesting that ecological practice is in essence the basis of economics, she outlines five
categories for which the needs of communities can be met. These are: “1) Redefining
needs and wants, and eliminating or reducing wants, 2) Sharing to reduce individual
burden, 3) Encouraging and incentivizing do-it-yourself projects (DIY), 4) Increasing
trade and barter, and 5) Reducing our dependency on money as a primary means of

77

exchange (Ludwig, pg. 45). Currently, CAPs are not designed to deviate from
standardized norm, but to work within existing and failing social, political, and economic
systems. However, integration of these categories into CAP could aid in forming new
governance and social structures that are impactful and beneficial as cities are readying
for climate impact.
Ludwig (2017) provides many examples of why intentional communities should
be encouraged in city comprehensive and climate planning. Accounting from her
personal experience in communal dwellings, she asserts “income sharing can be kind of a
secret weapon in overcoming the American worldview of hyper-individualism” (Ludwig
2017, pg. 51). It additionally fosters cooperation as opposed to competition, emboldens
ecologically responsible decisions (e.g. emphasizing community space and sharing food
and resources), incorporates economic justice principles, increases options for how to
adequately spend one’s time, increases economic resilience, increases the value of labor,
and aids in redefining and breaking down gender-roles (Ludwig 2017, pgs. 51-52). The
mitigation and adaption of co-benefits of intentional communities are what makes the
idea of the movement so attractive and the reality of them so successful. The core
component of resilience in this model is the ability to establish cooperation and
leadership through trust-building and applied practice. Intentional communities foster this
lifestyle daily and with almost unperceivable attentiveness.
Ludwig (pg. 55) highlights ecovillage Twin Oaks, VA, an income-sharing
community of 100 residents, as an example of blending all five of her criteria for
ensuring needs are met. Twin Oaks is an Ecovillage, with a community mission that
seeks to “sustain and expand a community that values cooperation… and to be a model

78

system that includes human-scale solutions to problems of land use, food production,
energy conservation, and appropriate use of technology” (Ludwig, pg. 54). Cities should
be considering the substantial benefits of intentional communities. Particularly, cities
should place specific attention on the integration of communal living and dwelling as it
pertains to population growth and land-use planning.
All cities highlighted in this study identify population and land use change as a
core for forming objectives in both comprehensive and CAP documents. Though it is not
within city’s authority to dictate how community members should live, intentional
communities possess the ability to inspire others and to show how cities can foster and
promote the evolution of behavior and community participation as climate change
intensifies. Support for the creation of intentional communities within CAPs can aid in
bridging community value with city vision, address issues of homelessness and housing,
and provide examples of how density and land use can be beneficial for fostering local
economic and social welfare and growth.
5b. Redefining Urbanism
Cities in the Pacific Northwest are rapidly realizing their potential for urban
development and innovation. “Urbanism generates a fortuitous web of co-benefits—it is
our most potent weapon against climate change” (Calthrope, 2011, pg. 10) Among one of
the top priorities for small-medium cities in the Pacific Northwest is to create and
promote live-work units, offer diverse housing and transportation options, and join
people together through the formulation of denser development. Peter Calthorpe, an
influential architect from Berkeley California accounts for this movement in his book
Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. He states,

79

“Urbanism’s compact forms lead to less land consumed and more farmland,
parks, habitat, and open space preserved. A smaller footprint results in less
development costs and fewer miles of roads, utilities, and services to build and
maintain, which then leads to fewer impervious surfaces, less polluted storm
runoff, and more water directed back to aquifers” (Calthorpe, 2011, pg. 10)
Calthorpe demonstrates the interconnectivity between urban systems and the outcomes of
redevelopment of the urban landscape.
According to Steiner’s (2011) Landscape Ecological Urbanism: Origins and
Trajectories, the meaning of landscape is to “offer a complex way of seeing,
understanding, and shaping environments (pg. 333). He adds, “Developments in urban
ecology and landscape urbanism open up new possibilities to restructure ecosystem
understanding and city design” (pg. 333). This is a critical component of CAP that is
incredibly understated in the context of progression on climate goals within cities. To
facilitate change to meet the urgency of urban reform, cities must be collaborative bodies
that work together to reinvigorate the regions in which they are set. “Regionalism sets
city and community into contemporary reality of our expanding metropolis. Our cultural
identity, open space resources, transportation networks, social links, and economic
opportunities all function at a regional-scale (Calthorpe, 2011, pg. 16)” Calthorpe is
making the critical point that because so much of life exists within the proximity of the
individual, at the core there is significant need to consider the social geography of the
region to understand what and who extends into our local lives (2011, pg. 16).
An instrumental tool to understanding regional context and perspective is through
the integrated use of green technologies and modernizing conservation. This occurs on
three levels: municipal, community, and utility. However, just a little over half (11) of the
cities analyzed seek to expand utility partnerships to ensure sustainability and climate

80

goals are growing. Utilities are a major regional link between communities and cities, and
many municipalities recognize their influence in CAP. Olympia, WA states, “I think
working regionally will mean being more impactful when working with utilities and
organizations. As a collective voice we can assert more influence.” Cities have varying
authority over jurisdictional utilities. For example, while the city of Albany, OR
outsources its electricity, it manages its wastewater. However, the city of Ashland, OR is
unique. Ashland owns and controls its electric utility and is therefore able to make
internal changes as to how energy is sourced and used. In this consideration, Olympia
raises a crucial point: cities must collaborate together to pressure utilities to change their
sourcing practices.
Additionally, cities should be assessing how to create microgrid systems, energysharing programs, and expansive renewable energy projects and incentives (Hawkin,
2017). In contrast to a macro grid, which is a “massive electrical network of energy
sources that connects utilities, energy generators, storage, and controls,” microgrids are
“small localized grouping of energy sources such as wind, solar, in-stream hydroelectric
energy, biomass, and many others” (Hawken, 2017, pg. 5). Microgrids provide the
opportunity for whole communities to power individual neighborhoods, reduce cost, gain
profit, and lessen environmental impact. Germany is rapidly adopting and embracing
microgrid-energy, with a modern neighborhood in Frieburg receiving positive energy
balance. Each home produces $5,600 per year in solar benefits and each home functions
at maximum efficiency without sacrificing on style, sophistication, or comfort (Hawken,
2017, pg. 5).

81

In addition to residential, commercial, and industrial energy use, transit accounts
for over 48% of GHG emissions throughout Washington and over 30% throughout
Oregon (Ecology.wa.gov; Oregon.gov). While all cities have identified expanding local
transit options and improving air quality, many cities must confront and address
significant consumption issues. Incorporating “economic and social welfare, human
health, and ecological integrity” into transportation and infrastructure planning is critical
(Litman & Burwell, 2006; Jackson, 2003). Air pollution from respirable particulate
matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), heavy metals,
etc. will be dramatically reduced and eliminated through incentivizing multimodal
transportation development, resulting in dramatic diminishment of chronic respiratory
and heart disease, lung cancer, and asthma (Kampa & Castanas, 2008).
According to Paul Hawken’s esteemed Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive
Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming (2017), “Transportation is a doubleedge sword. The use and sustainability of transportation cannot be separated from how
and where people live, work, and play; two major influences going forward will be the
design of the urban environment and reduction of excess consumption” (pg. 135). There
are several modes of transport which PNW cities must consider in urban design. These
are: 1) mass transit (busses, trains, high-speed rail, and ships), 2) automobiles (electric
and hybrid vehicles), 3) trucks, 4) bicycles and pedestrian pathways Hawken, 2017). The
relationship between urbanism and travel behavior is quantified through vehicle miles
traveled (VMTs). The evaluation, calculation, and reduction of localized VMTs are noted
as a primary objective within cities regardless of climate. To successfully implement
vehicle reduction, Calthorpe asserts that transit should be approached hierarchically.

82

He states, “from walkable and bikeable streets supporting local bus and streetcar lines to
trunk transit lines with dedicated rights-of-way—this hierarchy is essential to transit’s
success” (pg. 84). Calthorpe notes that as process is formed it substantiates what planners
call transit-oriented development (TOD).
Primary locations for TOD include urban centers, first-ring suburbs, and new
growth areas. Transit-oriented development possesses many economic and social
promises. Rescaling and orienting transit around community health and increased service
can lessen dependency on vehicles and vehicle infrastructure cost, transform local and
regional economies through the promotion of local business and retail, increase land
value through public investment, revitalize inner-city areas and provide access and
connection in hard-to-reach and high-traffic places. A successful example of such
development can be seen and experienced in Portland, OR, which is home to the highly
efficient and dependable MAX- Trimet Light Rail Service, Bus Service, and Rail service.
Particularly, the MAX light rail has five color-coded lines that carry people throughout
the city and to neighboring towns Gresham, Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Milwaukie. Prices
for the MAX are also reasonable, with adults riding for $2.50 or $5 for the day
(Trimet.org). There is also a discount for senior citizens and youth high-school age or
younger. While wait times vary, they are approximately 5-20 minutes during times of
high demand (Trimet.org). The website is clear, simple, easy to understand and use.
Portland’s transportation system and level-of-service can be a key example of how to
integrate efficient and reliable transit options for cities as they increase in density and
population.

83

Another incredibly important facet of urbanism is materials, food, and water
consumption and waste. According to the CAI, cities significantly fall short on
prioritizing objectives for consumption and waste. Cities have a critical obligation to
reimagine the purpose of materials created and used, as well redesign reduction and
consumption standards and models (Hawken, 2017). Ordinances have particular benefits
when considering waste reduction and conservation. Plastic bag bans in Thurston County,
WA are one example of how local municipalities can reduce plastic waste, protect natural
wildlife, and encourage waste reduction while increasing efficiency. According to
Hawken (2017, pg. 159), “the most effective systems make collection easy and use
incentives to nudge behavior.” Cities must consider a wide-range of stakeholder
practices (e.g. businesses, industry, and residences), and reframe the take, make, waste
model into one that is productive and mutually beneficial for the community (Hawken,
2017). One way cities may begin to do this is through the enhancement of recyclable and
reusable goods. Partnering with internal and external waste utility operators can enhance
technologies that would remove components like plastics, metals, alloys, and chemicals
from materials and redistribute them for other purposes and uses (Hawken, 2017).
Concerns around water rank among one of the highest considerations when
forming CAPs and municipal comprehensive plans. There are a number of
environmental, political, and social and influences that impact water-related regulatory
practices. Principally, cities are most concerned with drinking water quality and
management, wastewater management, storm water management, and coastal resilience.
Due to water’s inextricable link to urban prosperity, leadership is increasingly moving
safeguarding water supplies to ensure population demands do not overwhelm systems,

84

intense rain and flooding does not contaminate potable water, and that water can be
accessed and sourced from clean and well-regulated sources.
5c. Promotion of Transformational Resilience in CAP
There is critical evidence that despite technological and infrastructural development
within cities, variations in climate will be detrimental to the mental health and safety of
all people. (Doppelt 2017; Bellard et al. 2012; Fritze et. al, 2008; McMichael, Woodruff,
Hales, 2006).
“The prevailing mantra in the climate field is that reducing GHG emissions,
hardening physical infrastructure and adapting agriculture and other natural
assets to withstand climate impacts, mainly through better science and new
technologies, are what matter most.” (Doppelt, 2017, pg. 9).
While this mantra is significant in addressing many facets of the climate emergency,
Doppelt argues that the sole reliance on technical fixes will simply not be enough to
ameliorate the devastation imposed from climate change. He warns that in the absence
adequate policies and educational networks to provide tools, skills, and resources for
substantiating transformational resilience, “climate disruption will create a bleak future
for most of humanity” (Doppelt, 2017, pg. 9).
Addressing this future with innovative and optimistic perspective, Doppelt
characterizes the capacity to overcome climate adversity as Transformational Resilience
(TR). He argues that “using toxic stress associated with climate disruption as catalysts to
finding new sources of meaning and hope” will aid in alleviating many psycho-socialspiritual maladies (2017, pg.11). Bob Doppelt’s definition and movement of TR seeks to
provide safeguarding mechanisms to increase well-being by addressing the
psychological, social, and spiritual elements of climate disruption and increased
warming.
85

As cities continue to grow and urbanize, significant mental and physical threats
threaten communities as a result of climate. Some of the foreseen impacts include
increases in toxic stresses and trauma, fear of personal safety, depletion and destruction
of social and financial resources, domestic violence, organized crime, and other mental
and physical health impacts (Doppelt, 2017; Fritze et. al, 2008). Researchers in the fields
of neuroscience, psychology, sociology, history and social movement, counseling, and
education are quickly galvanizing to address region-specific ways to integrate TR into
common practice. They are able to do this by providing behavioral analyses for
consumption patterns, wealth generation, perceptions of want and need, and
contextualizing norms against the weighted projections of climate disruption (Swim et.
al, 2009).
TR uses many different components both individually and organizationally to
achieve multiple models of resilience. Similar to the techniques used by intentional
communities, TR emphasizes acknowledgement and adherence to one’s core values,
pursuance of enlightenment amidst adversity, and altering perspective and narrative to
restructure worldview and perceptions to overcome trauma (Doppelt, 2017). Doppelt
draws an important distinction between values, goals, and results which is particularly
important in context of CAP within cities. He claims that values are not the same as
goals, as values cannot merely be obtained. Values are rather a set of intrinsic guidelines
that determine action for the achievement of goals. Values are also not rules, as they
should not contain directives that are “restrictive and burdensome” (Doppelt. 2017, pg.
172). Values instead are the opposite of rules, and provide free space to think, learn,
grow, and cultivate one’s being in a community with enrichment for others.

86

Pervasive hope can only be substantiated through a positive vision of the future.
This is something both CAPs and TR can accomplish simultaneously. By following the
directive steps of “1) Acknowledging the situation, 2) Reviewing the best practices for
self-care, 3) Accurately describing external physical dynamics and circumstances, 4)
Visioning future ramifications and likely conditions can and will assist in reframing the
reality of climate disruption while assisting in presencing and preparation for change.
Engaging with this visioning process means being honest within the descriptive
imagination and creating scenarios of how situations could be better or worse. This
includes conceptualizing what physical skills (i.e. climbing, making a fire, etc.) and
mental skills (critical problem-solving, witnessing and diffusing arguments, etc.), as well
as the incorporation of “magical thinking” to promote “optimism and self-transcendence”
(Doppelt, 2017, pg.193).
Community engagement ranked among one of the important components of
climate planning. CAPs must engage in these deeper intrinsic qualities of human
resilience and imagination if any objectives are to be achieved and progress sustained.
Individuals, businesses, organizations, government entities must become traumainformed. This means observing and discussing their purpose, values, and visions for
success. It also means establishing regulation of emotion and agreement about shared
practice (Doppelt, 2017, pg. 215-217). To form attainable city and climate objectives,
fragmented silos and functions must be unified, acknowledge and work to correct
injustice, allow for grieving, loss, and healing, incorporate interdisciplinary decisionmaking, emphasize trust, empathy, compassion, and support, and finally acknowledge the
importance of personal safety and health (Doppelt, 2017, pg. 215-217).

87

Ways for cities, community educators, and behavioral health specialists can
accomplish these tasks are through the use of meditation and mindfulness. Companies
such as IBM and Aetna are incorporating mindfulness skills and offering yoga to their
employees to facilitate clearer thinking and stabilize stress and emotions (Doppelt, 2017,
pg. 228). In 2014, Aetna found that 28% of workers experienced a reduction in stress and
a raise in productivity time by about 62 minutes, or a return of about $3,000 per
employee. (Doppelt, 2017, pg. 228).
If cities adequately leverage the culture of their organizations to restructure rules
for engagement, communities would more fluidly adhere to structural and cultural
changes due to climate disruption. To achieve this, new social narratives must entirely
reimagine and reinvigorate what cities could be and how they should operate. This would
result in an altering of principles and guidelines and redistribute the flow of information
within and between city entities to influence regional perspective (Doppelt, pg. 241-243).
Working together to adjust policies, procedures, and regulations to accommodate
collective moral value, health, equity, as well as create a clean energy and eco-centric
socio-economic culture are the primary outcomes of transformational resilience.
It is imperative CAP objectives on public health and infrastructural planning be
framed around reimagining community health, wellness, livability, and access.
Incorporating inclusive communities into land use development, reinvigorating urban
development to incorporate green technological innovations, and administering
transformational resilience practices into schools, businesses, institutions, and
governments will be critical for local and regional process on climate. All three
mechanisms cover the importance of mitigation and adaption and create opportunities for

88

communities to connect through contributive problem-solving. It is becoming apparent
that this type of collaboration is needed to reduce losses and empower community to
motion toward solutions (Pearce et al., 2009; Van Aalst, Cannon, & Burton, 2008).

89

Conclusion
Re-CAP
This research addressed the question, what factors shape the decision-making
process of small- and medium-sized city Climate Action Plan creation, and how do these
plans differ across municipalities in Western Washington and Oregon? The combined
outcomes of the Climate Actions Inventory (CAI) and city-staff and consultant interviews
indicate that limitations within municipal governments (i.e. city-staff, financial
impediments, utility management discrepancies, etc.) are very significant. Cites that are
able to incorporate environmental elements into comprehensive plans are largely driven
to do so by regional climate vulnerabilities and risks, land use changes and population
fluctuations, and community advocacy and demand.
This research concludes with the critical point that PNW cities remain within
what Wheeler (2008) calls “the first generation of climate action planning.” Remaining
consistent with the findings of Wheeler (2008) climate change planning should: 1) in
corporate objectives rooted in feasible outcomes, 2) monitored regularly and revised as
necessary, 3) prioritize adaptation and mitigation equally, 4) include resource
commitments necessary for implementation, and 5) deepen the need for fundamental
changes in behavior within the community (Wheeler, 2008, pg. 481). Many cities
struggle to create plans that are designed to adequately achieve emissions reduction
targets. This is due to the formation of action items that are too broad in nature, possess
no implementation strategy, and have no assigned budgets.
Municipal and environmental planning specialists express deep frustrations from
limited resources. These emotions stem from the acknowledging the importance of
strengthening mitigation goals and solidifying adaptation strategies within the
90

community. Planners are specifically focused on land use and development as a means to
address issues of homelessness, affordable housing, transportation ease and access, and to
accommodate growing populations. Many planners believe that deepening collaboration
between cities and communities can bolster regional understanding of these changes and
can help to inform cities across planning scales.
While climate change is a priority for some municipalities, levels of commitment
for achieving climate objectives vary throughout Washington and Oregon. Overall,
Washington has a higher number of average actions per city. This could be for a variety
of reasons such as faster growth rates, and memberships to organizations like Local
Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the Global Compact of Mayors.
Additionally, many WA cities have selected to consultants to mediate community
relations and inform CAP structure and objective and have incorporated growth
management and state mandates into climate planning possess. These all create
commonalty between neighboring cities and therefore result in increased reflection of
regional perspectives in planning documents. However, Oregon cities are also
strengthening their commitments to address climate, with Ashland, OR a shining example
of how community determination and political will can infuse to create an actionable and
robust plan.
Though climate strategies are intentioned to reduce emissions, for CAPs to be
most impactful actions be centered on community participation and behavioral change.
Municipal formation of CAP should be harnessing the concepts of communal living and
intentional communities and ensuring infrastructure and green technologies are harnesses
to redefine and reimagine the urban landscape. Urbanism must be scoped through socio-

91

ecological models and foundations of ecocentrism, which emphasizes human operations
on the basis of the natural health of the environment (Eskersley, 1992;
Finally, the wellness of individuals and communities must be a key motivation of
cities when forming CAPs. There is little to no mention particularly of the mental health
impacts of climate or associated strategies to directly assess mental illness. The future of
climate planning must emphasize nurturing relationships to reduce stress during times of
hardship and improve the ability to overcome depression (O’Neill et al. 2014). It can be
anticipated that the “next generation of CAPs” creatively integrate instruction for
planners, professionals, active community members, and many other to value the
principles of mental wellness. This can occur through creating new narratives, forming
resilience team and advisory boards, communicating the mission and purpose, and
embedding new policies and regulations into standard operating procedures (Doppelt,
2017, pg. 243)
In conclusion, climate action planning presents significant challenges. However,
policy innovation and development of CAPs is both continuously evolving and endlessly
promising. This research was conducted with the hope that cities will use its findings as a
tool for construction and reformation of their climate and municipal plans. Additionally,
findings from this project will be useful for those seeking to further insight about local
climate policy creation and its local and regional impact. Together, cities can formulate
key strategies to regionally align performance criteria, create incentives and reward
systems within communities, change purchasing and procedures that facilitate behavioral
transitions to sustainable practices, and build capacity for health and transformational
resilience (Doppelt, 20217, 242).

92

Bibliography
Adger, W. N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D., & Hulme, M. (2003). Adaptation to
climate change in the developing world. Progress in development studies, 3(3),
179-195.
Alan, E., et. al (2016). Deep Green Living. GreenSpirit Book Series.
Anguelovski, I., & Carmin, J. (2011). Something borrowed, everything new: innovation
and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Current opinion in
environmental sustainability, 3(3), 169-175.
Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., & McAlpine, C. (2012). Local government response
to the impacts of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation
plans. Landscape and urban planning, 107(2), 127-136.
Bassett, E., & Shandas, V. (2010). Innovation and climate action planning: Perspectives
from municipal plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 435450.
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts
of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology letters, 15(4), 365-377.
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development? An
evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning
association, 66(1), 21-33.
Berke, P., & Godschalk, D. (2009). Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan
quality studies. CPL bibliography, 23(3), 227-240.
Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy
research. Theories of the policy process, 169.
Boswell, M. R., Greve, A. I., & Seale, T. L. (2012). Local climate action planning. Island
Press.
Brody, S., Zahran, S., Grover, H., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). A spatial analysis of local
climate change policy in the United States: Risk, stress, and opportunity.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(1), 33–41.
Burby, R. J., Deyle, R. E., Godschalk, D. R., & Olshansky, R. B. (2000). Creating hazard
resilient communities through land-use planning. Natural hazards review, 1(2),
99-106.
Burch, S. (2010). Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change:
insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global
93

Environmental Change, 20(2), 287-297.
Calthorpe, P. (2011). Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. Island Press.
Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the
contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 62(3), 296-312.
Campos, I. S., Alves, F. M., Dinis, J., Truninger, M., Vizinho, A., & Penha-Lopes, G.
(2016). Climate adaptation, transitions, and socially innovative action-research
approaches. Ecology and Society, 21(1).
Carruthers, J. I. (2003). Growth at the fringe: The influence of political fragmentation in
United States metropolitan areas. Papers in Regional Science, 82(4), 475-499.
Carter, J. G., Cavan, G., Connelly, A., Guy, S., Handley, J., & Kazmierczak, A. (2015).
Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in
Planning, 95, 1-66.
Chevalier, J. M., & Buckles, D. (2013). Participatory action research: Theory and
methods for engaged inquiry. Routledge.
City of Auburn. (2015). Imagine Auburn: City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: Core
Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.auburnwa.gov/Assets/PCD/Auburn
WA/Docs/Planning+Services/01-Core+Comprehensive+Plan.pdf
City of Auburn. (2015). Imagine Auburn: City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: Land Use
Element. Retrieved from: http://www.auburnwa.gov/ Assets/PCD/
AuburnWA/Docs/ Planning+Services/02-Vol+1_Land+Use.pdf
City of Auburn. (2015). Imagine Auburn: City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan:
Transportation Element. Retrieved March 2018 from: http://www.auburnwa.gov/
Assets/PCD/AuburnWA/ Docs/ Planning +Services/06-Vol+5_Transportation.pdf
City of Bellevue. (2015) Comprehensive Plan: Citizen Engagement. Retrieved March
(2018) from: https://planning.bellevuewa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server
_4779004/File/pdf/PCD/02_Citizen_Engagement_FINAL_20150807.pdf
City of Bellevue. (2013) Environmental stewardship initiative: Strategic plan. City of
Bellevue Environmental Stewardship Initiative.
City of Bellevue. (2015). Comprehensive Plan: Environment. Retrieved March (2018)
from: https://planning.bellevuewa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_47790
04/File/pdf/PCD/10_Environment_FINAL_20150727.pdf
City of Bellevue. (2015). Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Vision. Retrieved March
94

(2018) from: https://planning.bellevuewa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_
4779004/File/pdf/PCD/03_Land_Use_FINAL_20150727.pdf
City of Bellevue. (2013) Environmental stewardship initiative: Strategic plan. City of
Bellevue Environmental Stewardship Initiative.
City of Bellevue. (2015). Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhoods. Retrieved March (2018)
from: https://planning.bellevuewa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_4779004
/File/pdf/PCD/04_Neighborhoods_FINAL_20150727.pdf
City of Bellingham. (2018). Bellingham Energy Prize. Energy Saving Programs and
Incentives. Retrieved March 2018 from: http://bellinghamenergyprize.org/
City of Corvallis. (2016). Corvallis Climate Action Plan. Retrieved March 2018 from:
https://archives.corvallisoregon.gov/public/ElectronicFile.aspx?dbid=0&
docid=920368
City of Kent. (2015). Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved March 2018 from:
https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=6405
City of Kent. (2015). Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element. Retrieved March
2018 from: https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=6393
City of Kent. (2015). Comprehensive Plan: Human Services Element. Retrieved March
2018 from: https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=6399
City of Olympia. (2014). Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved March 2018 from:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Olympia/?compplan/OlympiaCPNT.html
Deyette, J. & Clemmer, S. (2006). The Washington Clean Energy Initiative: Effects of I937 on Consumers, Jobs, and the Economy. Union of Concerned Scientists
Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions.
Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 71(4), 367-378.
Doppelt, B. (2016). Transformational Resilience: How Building Human Resilience Can
Safeguard Society and Increase Wellbeing. Greenleaf Publishing.
Dubois, S. (2017). Oregon’s population keeps rising, now at 4.1 million. US News Best
States. Retrieved February 2017: https://www.usnews.com/news/beststates/oregon/articles/2017-11-17/oregons-population-keeps-rising-now-at-41million.
Eliasson, I. (2000). The use of climate knowledge in urban planning. Landscape and
urban planning, 48(1-2), 31-44.
95

Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric
approach. Suny Press.
FACT SHEET: U.S. Reports its 2025 Emissions Target to the UNFCCC. (2015).
Retrieved: February 2018 from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-pressoffice/2015/03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports-its-2025-emissions-target-unfccc
Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change
adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate policy, 7(1), 46-59.
Fritze, J. G., Blashki, G. A., Burke, S., & Wiseman, J. (2008). Hope, despair and
transformation: climate change and the promotion of mental health and
wellbeing. International journal of mental health systems, 2(1), 13.
Geddes, P. (1949). Cities in evolution. William and Norgate Limited, London.
Global Compact of Mayors. (2017). History of the Global Covenant. Retrieved February
2018 from: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/about/history-compact-ofmayors/Jmj
Gough, I. (2013). Carbon mitigation policies, distributional dilemmas and social
policies. Journal of Social Policy, 42(2), 191-213.
Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., &
Briggs, J. M. (2008). Global change and the ecology of cities. science, 319(5864),
756-760.
Hamin, E. M., & Gurran, N. (2009). Urban form and climate change: Balancing
adaptation and mitigation in the US and Australia. Habitat international, 33(3),
238-245.
Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does
the research tell us? International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146-167.
Hawken, P. (2017). Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Roll
Back Global Warming. Penguin.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
ICELI. (2018). Who We Are. Retrieved: February 2018 from:
http://www.iclei.org/about/who-is-iclei.html
Ingham, A., Ma, J., & Ulph, A. (2007). Climate change, mitigation and adaptation with
uncertainty and learning. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5354-5369.

96

Inslee, J et. al (2018). Senate Bill Report 6203. Retrieved March 2018 from:
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/201718/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6203
%20SBA%20EENT%2018.pdf
Inslee, J. (2014) Executive Order 14-04: Washington carbon pollution reduction and
clean energy action. State of Washington Office of the Governor.
Iyer, G. R. (1999). Business, consumers and sustainable living in an interconnected
world: A multilateral ecocentric approach. Journal of business ethics, 20(4), 273288.
Jackson, L. E. (2003). The relationship of urban design to human health and
condition. Landscape and urban planning, 64(4), 191-200.
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., &
Kampa, M., & Castanas, E. (2008). Human health effects of air
pollution. Environmental pollution, 151(2), 362-367.
King County. (2018). King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C). King County
Sustainability Services. Retrieved March 2018 from: https://www.kingcounty.gov
/services/environment/climate/strategies/k4c.aspx
King County. (2018) 2015 Strategic Climate Action Plan. King County Sustainability
Services. Retrieved March 2018 from: https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/
environment/climate/strategies/strategic-climate-action-plan.aspx
Krause, R. M. (2011). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of
climate protection initiatives by US cities. Journal of urban affairs, 33(1), 45-60.
Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Day, M., Kouwenhoven, P., Mason, G., Ericksen, N., &
Beattie, L. (2010). Evaluating the outcomes of plans: theory, practice, and
methodology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 740757.
Laukkonen, J., Blanco, P. K., Lenhart, J., Keiner, M., Cavric, B., & Kinuthia-Njenga, C.
(2009). Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the
local level. Habitat international, 33(3), 287-292.
Litman, T., & Burwell, D. (2006). Issues in sustainable transportation. International
Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 6(4), 331-347.
Ludwig, M. (2017). Together Resilient: Building Community in the Age of Climate
Disruption. Fellowship for International Community.
Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Overstreet, K. H. (2017). Where to begin municipal climate
adaptation planning? Evaluating two local choices. Journal of Environmental
97

Planning and Management, 1-21.
Matisoff, D. C. (2008). The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable
portfolio standards: regional diffusion or internal determinants? Review of Policy
Research, 25(6), 527-546.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative
movement's impact on US climate change policy. Social problems, 50(3), 348373.
McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human
health: present and future risks. The Lancet, 367(9513), 859-869.
Mildenberger, M., Marlon, K., Howe, P., Wang, X.; Leiserowitz, A. (2016). Partisan
Climate Opinion Maps 2016. Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication.
Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L., & Stephens, S. L. (2007). Climate change and forests of
the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological applications, 17(8),
2145-2151.
Millard-Ball, A. (2012). Do city climate plans reduce emissions? Journal of Urban
Economics, 71(3), 289-311.
Millard-Ball, A. (2013). The limits to planning: Causal impacts of city climate action
plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(1), 5-19.
Marlon, J, Howe, P., Mildenberger, M. & Leiserowitz, A. (2016). Yale Climate Opinion
Maps-U.S. 2016. Beliefs & Attitudes and Policy & Politics. Retrieved from:
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us2016/?est=regulate&type=value&geo=county
Moench, M., Fajber, E., Dixit, A., Caspari, E., & Pokhrel, A. (2009). Catalyzing climate
and disaster resilience: Processes for identifying tangible and economically
robust strategies. Institute for Social and Environmental Transition.
MRSC of Washington. (2018) Growth Management Act. MRSC-Local Government
Success. Retrieved May 2018 from: http://mrsc.org/getdoc/37359eae-8748-4aafae76-614123c0d6a4/Comprehensive-Planning-Growth-Management.aspx
Multnomah County. (2018) Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2017. Multnomah
County Sustainability. Retrieved March 2018 from: https://multco.us/
sustainability/climate-action-plan-progress-report-2017s
Mulder, K., Costanza, R., & Erickson, J. (2006). The contribution of built, human, social
and natural capital to quality of life in intentional and unintentional
98

communities. Ecological Economics, 59(1), 13-23.
Newman, P., & Jennings, I. (2012). Cities as sustainable ecosystems: principles and
practices. Island Press.
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public
engagement. Environment: Science and policy for sustainable
development, 51(2), 12-23.
Nordstrom, J. & Sharp, C. (2017). Clean Energy Fund Report: Program status per
2EHB1115 (2015), Section 1028(11). State of Washington Department of
Commerce.
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and
prospects. CPL bibliography, 24(4), 343-361.
OECD. (2018). Urban population by city size. Retrieved from:
https://data.oecd.org/popregion/urban-population-by-city-size.htm
Oregon Department of Energy. (2017), Oregon Global Warming Commission Reports.
Keep Oregon Cool: Oregon Global Warming Commission. Retrieved March
2018 from: http://www.keeporegoncool.org/reports/
Oregon Department of Energy. (2017) Energy in Oregon: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Data. Retrieved from: http://www.oregon.gov/energy/energyoregon/Pages/Greenhouse-Gas-Snapshot.aspx
Oregon Department of Energy (2018) Renewable Energy Portfolio. Energy in Oregon.
Retrieved from March 2018: http://www.oregon.gov/energy/energyoregon/Pages/Renewable-Portfolio-Standard.aspx
Oregon Department of Transportation. (2018) Oregon Sustainable Transportation
Initiative. Retrieved March 2018 from: http://www.oregon.gov/odot/
programs/pages/osti.aspx
Oregon Global Warming Commission. (2017) Biennial Report to the Legislature. Keep
Oregon Cool-Oregon Global Warming Commission. Retrieved March 2018 from:
http://www.keeporegoncool.org/reports
Oregon State Legislature. (2018). Regular Session: House Bill 4001. Oregon Legislative
Information. Retrieved from: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1
/Measures/Overview/HB4001
Ormrod, R. K. (1990). Local context and innovation diffusion in a well-connected
world. Economic Geography, 66(2), 109-122.

99

O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K. L., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T. R., & van
Vuuren, D. P. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: the
concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 122(3), 387-400.
Oscillation, P. D. (2013). How is Pacific Northwest climate projected to change?
University of Washington College of Environment Climate Impacts Group.
Retrieved February 2017: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/snoveretalsok2013
sec5.pdf
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and
prospects. CPL bibliography, 24(4), 343-361.
Paton, D., & Johnston, D. (2001). Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience
and preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal, 10(4), 270-277.
Pearce, T. D., Ford, J. D., Laidler, G. J., Smit, B., Duerden, F., Allarut, M., & Goose, A.
(2009). Community collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian
Arctic. Polar Research, 28(1), 10-27.
Perrott, G. S. J., & Holland, D. F. (1940). Population trends and problems of public
health. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 359-392.
Roseland, M. (2006). The Environmental Planning Handbook for Sustainable
Communities and Regions. Environments, 34(1), 89-91.
Rice, J. L. (2010). Climate, carbon, and territory: greenhouse gas mitigation in Seattle,
Washington. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 929937.
Saavedra, C., & Budd, W. W. (2009). Climate change and environmental planning:
Working to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in Washington
State, USA. Habitat international, 33(3), 246-252.
Sterman, J. D. (2011). Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical
world. Climatic Change, 108(4), 811.
Sager, T. (2017). Planning by intentional communities: An understudied form of activist
planning. Planning Theory, 1473095217723381.
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation
through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 145-158.
Shandas, V., Graybill, J. K., & Ryan, C. (2008). Are planners using ecosystem-based
management when developing environmental policy? Evidence from the Pacific
100

Northwest (US). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
51(5), 649–664.
Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2012). Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and
practitioners. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 788-796.
Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2006). Bottom-up federalism: The diffusion of antismoking
policies from U.S. cities to states. American Journal of Political Science, 50(4),
825–843.
Sterman, J. D. (2011). Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical
world. Climatic Change, 108(4), 811.
Steiner, F. (2011). Landscape ecological urbanism: Origins and trajectories. Landscape
and urban planning, 100(4), 333-337.
Stone, B., Vargo, J., & Habeeb, D. (2012). Managing climate change in cities: will
climate action plans work? Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 263-271.
Swim, J., Clayton, S., Doherty, T., Gifford, R., Howard, G., Reser, J., & Weber, E.
(2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted
phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological
Association’s task force on the interface between psychology and global climate
change. American Psychological Association, Washington.
Talen, E. (1997). Success, failure, and conformance: an alternative approach to planning
evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(4), 573-587.
Tang, Z., Brody, S. D., Quinn, C., Chang, L., & Wei, T. (2010). Moving from agenda to
action: evaluating local climate change action plans. Journal of environmental
planning and management, 53(1), 41-62.
Thurston Regional Planning Council. (2018). TRPC About Us. Retrieved March 2018
from: http://www.trpc.org/27/About-Us
Thurston Regional Planning Council. (2018). Agency Mission. TRPC About Us.
Retrieved March 2018 from: https://www.trpc.org/148/Agency-Mission
Trimet. (2018) Max Light Rail. (2018). Trimet. Retrieved April 2018 from: https:/
/trimet.org/max/index.htm
Tschakert, P., & Dietrich, K. A. (2010). Anticipatory learning for climate change
adaptation and resilience. Ecology and society, 15(2).
Van Aalst, M. K., Cannon, T., & Burton, I. (2008). Community level adaptation to
climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk
assessment. Global environmental change, 18(1), 165-179.
101

Van Staden, M., & Musco, F. (Eds.). (2010). Local governments and climate change:
sustainable energy planning and implementation in small and medium sized
communities (Vol. 39). Springer Science & Business Media.
Wheeler, S. M. (2008). State and municipal climate change plans: the first
generation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 481-496.
Whitmarsh, L., Seyfang, G., & O’Neill, S. (2011). Public engagement with carbon and
climate change: to what extent is the public ‘carbon capable’? Global
environmental change, 21(1), 56-65.
Wiek, A., & Iwaniec, D. (2014). Quality criteria for visions and visioning in
sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 497-512.
Wilson, E. (2006). Adapting to climate change at the local level: the spatial planning
response. Local Environment, 11(6), 609-625.
Younger, M., Morrow-Almeida, H. R., Vindigni, S. M., & Dannenberg, A. L. (2008).
The built environment, climate change, and health: opportunities for cobenefits. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(5), 517-526.
Yukubousky, R. (1999) Local Government Policy-Making Process. Municipal Research
& Services Center of Washington-MRSC.
Zaunberger, K. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and
adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers,
and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2).
Zhao, Y. (2017) Population growth in Washington remains strong. Office of Financial
Management. Retrieved from https://ofm.wa.gov/about/news/2017/06/populationgrowth-washington-remains-strong.

102

Appendix A: Interview Questions for Municipal City Staff
1. What are your city’s climate reduction targets?
2. Is your city on track to meet these targets?
3. What have been some major barriers or setbacks to planning?
a. What have been your greatest achievements?
4. Does your city consider a long-term or short-term planning process?
5. How much has CAP cost your municipality?
6. Who is the primary leadership working on emissions reduction?
a. City-staff
b. Consultants
c. Community/Academic
7. Has your city used outside consultation for GHG inventory work or CAP
formation?
a. Has working with them been a positive experience?
8. Is your city an ICLEI member city? If so, has membership been beneficial?
a. Has ICLEI connected you to others in the region working on CAP?
9. How is your city monitoring emissions reduction?
10. Does your city have an implementation plan?
11. Is your city in communication with others in the region for information-sharing?
12. What is the primary political association of your city council? Of your
community?
13. Do you know if people want CAP in their community? Is there urgency?
14. What does the community expect the municipality to do/services to provide?
15. What has been the cost of CAP planning?
a. Is cost a significant barrier?
103

Appendix B: List of Interview Questions for Consultants
1. How does your work with municipalities influence the PNW?
2. What services do you provide for emissions reduction?
3. How much do your services cost?
4. What trends do you see between municipalities?
a. What are the similarities? (in leadership, in strategies, targets, etc.)
b. What are some of the major differences between municipalities?
5. What new knowledge and innovation are you developing?
6. What are some of the largest barriers to CAP development you notice?
a. What are these for implementation?
7. What are some of the best successes?
8. How does a small municipality initiative become a regional effort? (Has it
happened before?)
9. Do you think cost of service is a major barrier for cities when they are considering
developing a CAP?
a. How do you believe you can remedy this concern?
10. What are some other barriers you notice?

104

Item sets

The Evergreen State College Masters Theses: Environmental Studies

Media

Simmons_Thesis_2018.pdf