This presentation will focus on data gathered from a survey and in-depth interviews with Hudson Valley municipal officials. The goal of this project was to determine Hudson Valley local government officials’ attitudes toward climate change and perceptions of climate change taking place in their communities. We also determined local government officials’ views of risks, vulnerabilities, and issues associated with climate change as it will impact the natural resources and infrastructure under their jurisdiction. We will discuss what actions local governments are taking to mitigate and adapt to climate change as well as why some are not. Results also show local government officials’ views of adaptations and policy options which might address issues resulting from climate change. We also offer suggestions on the most effective ways of reaching municipal officials with information about climate change threats at a local level – including the resources that will help local government officials implement solutions and adaptations. Presentation by Shorna Allred, Allison Chatrchyan, and Maureen Mullen. August 13, 2012, Hudson Valley Climate Action Network, Norrie Point Environmental Center, Staatsburg, NY

1. Hudson Valley Municipal Official
Views on Climate Change
Allison M. Chatrchyan Shorna Allred Maureen Mullen
Cornell Cooperative Associate Professor Communications Outreach
Extension (CCE) Human Dimensions of Assistant
CCE Statewide Energy & Natural Resources Dept. of Natural Resources
Climate Change Team Dept. of Natural Resources Cornell University
Presentation to the Hudson Valley Climate Change Network
Norrie Point Environmental Center, Staatsburg, NY
August 13, 2012

2. Municipal Climate Change Study
• Cornell Smith Lever Funding (R. Schneider, PI)
2007-10 for three year study focused on natural
resource professionals. Grant from Water
Resources Institute (S. Allred, PI) 2011-2012 to
study municipal officials in Hudson Valley.
• Collaboration between faculty, CCE Extension,
and project partners (NYS DEC, HREP) in survey
design & outputs.

3. Importance of Local
Governments
• Cities are pivotal actors in climate change but a
relatively understudied in U.S. (Sharp et al. 2011)
• Many local governments are crafting policy to
address climate change (Sharp et al. 2011)
• Important to understand motivation for actions for
climate protection policies as well as what actions
are being taken for planning and implementation

4. Goals of Study Were to Determine…
1. General views on climate change; risks and issues
associated with climate change and natural resources
2. Adaptation tools which might successfully address climate
change.
3. Attitudes towards various state and local policy solutions to
address climate change.
4. If/if not already taking action in their positions to address
climate change (why/why not). Benefits/obstacles of taking
action.
5. Information Needs/Tools to help implement
solutions and adaptations.

5. Research Methods
Quantitative
• Web + Mail Survey
• Factor Analysis
Qualitative
• In-depth interviews
• Thematic coding

6. Survey Methodology
• Survey of municipal officials in New York State, with oversampling for
Hudson Valley (N=1,488)
– Primarily web (mail for those without accessible e-mail addresses)
– County Executives, Mayors, Town Supervisors, Environmental
Management Council members, and Conservation Advisory Council
members, N=1,416
– Conducted 2010-2011
– 1 invitation e-mail and up to 6 reminder e-mail contacts
– Response rate=21% (n=299)

7. Our respondents were:
Municipal Role n %
Elected officials 201 70.5%
Appointed officials 35 12.3%
Paid Staff 23 8.1%
Volunteer Position (i.e., committee member) 12 4.2%
Conservation Advisory Commission (CAC)
25 8.8%
or Board Member
Municipal consultant 4 1.4%
0.4%
Other function 1 “Codes, Ag
Comp. Plan”

8. Respondents held these positions for:
Number of years n %
0-9 years 158 59.0%
10-19 years 71 26.5%
20-29 years 29 10.8%
30-39 years 8 3.0%
40-49 years 1 0.4%
50+ years 1 0.4%

9. Region 1: 3.3%
Respondents were from: (10)
Region 2: 0%
Region 3: 26.4%
(79)
Region 4: 16.7%
(50)
Region 5: 11.4%
(34)
Region 6: 5%
(15)
Region 7: 13.8%
(41)
54.5% Region 8: 12%
(36)
Region 9: 10.4%
(31)

10. How would you assess your current level of
knowledge about the causes and potential
impacts of climate change in New York State?
1%
(2)
8%
13%
(24)
(38) I don't know much
23% I know a little bit
(67)
I am moderately well-
informed
I am very
knowledgeable
I am an expert
55%
(156)

11. Key findings of municipal officials’ attitudes about
climate change:
3%
The science indicates our
7% 20% 40% 31%
climate is changing
There is sufficient evidence 3%
that over the coming
decade, climate change will 13% 21% 37% 26%
affect the natural resources Strongly disagree
with which I work Disagree
4% Neutral
I already see evidence of how
Agree
climate change is affecting 14% 23% 40% 19%
New York's natural resources Strongly agree
There is sufficient information
available on how to address
10% 38% 28% 20% 4%
climate impacts at the local
level
0% 50% 100%

12. Please rate the relevancy and vulnerability of the
following impacts to your municipality:
5
Relevancy
Vulnerability
4
3
2
1
eased averageIncreased temperatureIncreased severity or frequency of other extreme weath
Increased sea level temperature with reduced freezingheatdrought
winter in summer, higher
Increased summer index Increased precipitation,
SCALE: 1 = not at all relevant/vulnerable, 5 = very relevant/vulnerable

13. Has your municipality already taken actions to
address climate change?
I don't
know Yes
9% 24%
(23) (60)
No
67%
(169)

14. What actions has your municipality taken to
adapt to climate change?
Adaptation Actions n %
Partnering with local groups to address climate issues 25 42%
Developing a flood mitigation plan/program 22 37%
Planning on long-term horizons (10+ years) 14 23%
Conducting outreach and education 13 22%
Practicing adaptive management 13 22%
Developing a climate action plan 12 20%
Planning for specific adaptations at the local level 12 20%
Implementing a climate action plan 6 10%

15. What actions has your municipality taken to
mitigate climate change?
Mitigation Actions n %
Investing in energy savings from buildings 52 87%
Planting trees 43 72%
Investing in and protecting green and open spaces 36 60%
Investing in energy savings from transportation 24 40%
Purchasing renewable energy 22 37%
Adopting Climate Smart Communities 22 37%
Investing in energy savings from industrial & waste
19 32%
processes
Conduct baseline GHG emissions inventory and forecast 16 27%
Developing climate action plan for GHG 12 20%
Adopting emissions reduction target for the forecast year 10 17%

16. What factors prompted your municipality to
take action?
Factor Mean Rating1
Being a Responsible Leader 3.68
Fiscal Savings 3.59
Cooperation and Partnerships 3.37
Constituent Pressure 2.97
Inaction of Government, Top-down Mandate,
2.82
and Local Impacts
11=not important, 2=slightly important, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important

17. Factors that Influenced Adaptation Actions
Influencing Factors1 Mean for Each Group F-Statistic P-value
1-2 actions= 3.53
Proactive Leadership 5.757 .020*
3-12 actions= 4.06
1-2 actions= 2.67
Inaction of Government 4.391 .042*
3-12 actions= 3.26
Cooperation and 1-2 actions= 3.27
2.885 .095
Partnerships 3-12 actions= 3.76
1-2 actions= 3.54
Fiscal Savings 1.507 .225
3-12 actions= 3.82
1-2 actions= 2.97
Constituent Pressure 0.176 .677
3-12 actions= 3.10
11=not important, 2=slightly important, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important
*significant difference between groups at the p<.05 level

18. Factors that Influenced Mitigation Actions
Influencing Factors1 Mean for Each Group F-Statistic P-value
1-4 actions= 3.42
Proactive Leadership 9.778 .003*
5-10 actions= 4.10
Cooperation and 1-4 actions= 3.11
5.695 .021*
Partnerships 5-10 actions= 3.78
1-4 actions= 2.70
Inaction of Government 1.418 .240
5-10 actions= 3.05
1-4 actions= 3.13
Constituent Pressure 1.284 .262
5-10 actions= 2.8
1-4 actions= 3.52
Fiscal Savings 1.252 .268
5-10 actions= 3.77
11=not important, 2=slightly important, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important
*significant difference between groups at the p<.05 level

19. What factors are barriers to your
municipality taking action?
Mean
Factor
Rating1
3.72
Lack of Resources (Financial and Human)
Inaction of Government at All Levels 3.17
Lack of Information and External Pressure to Act 3.06
Intra-Organizational Issues 2.42
11=not a barrier, 2=minimal barrier, 3=slight barrier, 4=moderate barrier, 5=significant barrier

20. In-Depth Interviews
• Focus on the Hudson Valley
• Qualitative Methods: face to face interviews
• Nine interviews with cross section of officials:
– Rural vs. Urban Views
– 4 Climate Smart Communities (CSC) vs. 5 Non-CSCs
– 5 Communities that had experienced significant FEMA-
level flooding events vs. 4 Communities
with less flooding events

21. Municipalities Interviewed
CSC/FEMA-Level Flooding: No CSC/FEMA-Level Flooding:
-City, Mid-Hudson Valley -Populated Suburban Town, Mid-Hudson
-Large Urbanized Town, Lower-Hudson-Valley Valley
-Small Rural Town, Lower-Hudson Valley
-Small Rural Town, Mid-Hudson Valley
CSC/Less FEMA-Level Flooding: No CSC/Less FEMA-Level Flooding:
-Small, Rural Town, Mid-Hudson Valley -Small Rural Town, Mid-Hudson Valley
-City, Upper-Hudson Valley -Small Town, Lower Hudson Valley
Municipal Officials Interviewed: Town Supervisors (7), City Mayor (1), City
Alderman (1), Town Board (1), CAC (1), Staff (3)
Counties Represented:
Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Green, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster

22. In-Depth Interview Questions
• How much knowledge do you feel you have?
• Have you seen any local effects of climate change?
• How vulnerable do you think your municipality is?
• Has your municipality started any local planning?
• What are the barriers to addressing climate change?
• What kinds of local projects or planning tools would be most useful?
• What specific information do you need?

23. Key Findings: Knowledge
• 9 Municipalities:
– 4 minimal knowledge; 3 fair bit of knowledge; 2 High level of knowledge
• Unclear about Science, but See Changes:
– “I would say I have limited knowledge as to the theoretical causes for
weather changes…I‟m not sure how to tie the cause and effect. We have
had some extreme weather situations in the past 2-3 years, but I haven't had
anyone connect the dots as to the causes of those events.”
• Precautionary Principle:
– “I think if we wait for the scientists to definitively say “oh there is climate
change”, I think it‟s too late so I think that we need to...just start changing our
behavior patterns to do what we can to, I won‟t say combat climate change,
but counteract it with, with our activities.”

24. Key Findings: Local Effects
Are you seeing local effects in your municipality?
1. Flooding *(*mentioned in every municipality)
2. Effects on infrastructure - roads, bridges, culverts
3. Heavy rainfall over short periods of time, effecting streams
4. Blizzards &ice storms, causing downed trees and power
outages
5. Negative Budget Impacts
6. Milder winters and decreased snowfall/road salt costs
7. Sea Level Rise & Ecosystem Effects
8. Periods of high temperature, that negatively
affect air quality

25. Key Findings: Local Effects
Are you seeing local effects in your municipality:
• “We‟ve had these spectacular events - that 17” of snow in October, the huge
snowstorm a couple years ago; we‟ve had flooding, and thing is, all these events
are extreme events. There‟s never a nice dusting, there‟s never just a spring
shower anymore, you know…It‟s a torrent.”
– Supervisor, large Town in Mid-Hudson Valley
Inconsistency: Planning & Budgeting Challenges:
• “We see such an inconsistency in the weather. Other than that big snowstorm
there hasn‟t been any snow this winter. Last year we had 40 something events of
snow - so from one year to the other…it‟s incredibly difficult to plan.”
– Supervisor, large Town in Mid-Hudson Valley

26. Key Findings: Vulnerability
• 9 Municipalities:
– 1 limited vulnerability; 5 somewhat vulnerable; 3 very vulnerable
• Higher vulnerability assessment did not lead to
greater action
• “I‟d say we‟re significantly vulnerable because of
the fact that one-third of our community is
surrounded by water”
– Mayor, Small City in Upper Hudson Valley

27. Key Findings: Local Action
• 9 Municipalities: 8 Taken Some Action; 1 Indicated No Action
Taken (actions not necessarily linked to knowledge of climate change
impacts):
1. Adaptation: Stormwater/Green Infrastructure
2. Adaptation: Emergency Preparedness
3. Mitigation Climate Smart Community/ICLEI – 4 Municipalities
4. Adaptation: Comprehensive Plan/Local Laws
5. Mitigation: Energy Conservation
6. Mitigation: Community Education
7. Mitigation: GHG Inventory
8. Mitigation: Renewable Energy
• Some municipalities unclear about mitigation vs.
adaptation measures

28. Barriers to Addressing Climate
Change Locally:
1. Financial
2. Lack of general understanding of climate change
3. Excessive Government Regulation
4. Technical
5. Competing interests
6. Knowledge local effects
7. Lack of time/volunteer burnout
8. Not a local problem
“That‟s the biggest hurdle we still have to overcome is getting the vocabulary
more in use. It‟s also a competition of interests…Our biggest immediate issues
are economic, employment, economic development, balancing the budget,
living within a 2% tax cap, paying for retirement plans for employees, etc. All of
those financial issues sit on the table every day and call our names, so how
could you even acknowledge climate change.”
- City Alderman, Mid-Hudson Valley

29. Information & Assistance Needs:
1. Knowledge of Local Effects
2. Education to Improve Basic Understanding
3. Funding
4. Technical/Government tell us what to do
5. Partnerships/Consultations/Cooperation
6. Planning Help/Adaptation Resources
7. Emergency Planning
“We tend to have a reactive plan, you know based around a historic set of weather
conditions, and we act accordingly. No one has given us any foresight into what to
expect. If I knew that we were going to get „x‟ amount more snow in the next year,
we‟d have to budget accordingly with materials, or if I knew we were going to have
rainfall of 4” greater in certain months, then that‟s something we‟d have to look at
certain roads and figure out what the 4” increase in rainfall would mean to those
roads. But I don‟t have that.”
- Supervisor of a small, rural town in the Mid-Hudson Valley

30. How useful would the following resources be in
your work to address climate change at the local
level?
Information about very useful
13% 29% 25% 15% 18%
regulations
useful
Educational and
22% 34% 22% 12% 10%
communication resources somewhat
useful
Climate change research slightly useful
24% 31% 22% 13% 10%
and data
Climate change not at all
information and planning 29% 33% 17% 12% 9% useful
resources
Information on
55% 22% 10%7%6%
funding/incentive sources
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

31. What information does your municipality
need to address climate change?
Information Needs %
How likely or severe the effects will be 52%
Things you can do to prevent it 51%
General information about climate change 44%
Available responses to the effects of climate change 41%
The process of climate change 27%
Multiple answers were allowed

32. Conclusions and Recommendations
• The majority of municipal officials have some
knowledge about climate change, but they
would like to know more about the likeliness
and severity of the predicted climate change
effects in their community, how they can
prevent and/or respond to these effects, as well
as learn more about climate change in general.

33. Conclusions and Recommendations
• Municipal officials would most like access to
resources about funding sources and
incentive programs, followed by climate
change information and data (e.g., monitoring
programs, vulnerability assessments,
adaptation research), and management plans
(e.g., model ordinances, hazard mitigation).

34. Implications
• New York has adopted an 80/50 goal
for GHG emission reductions
• Large number of small governments
(62 counties, 932 towns, and 62 cities)
• Municipalities control energy use, infrastructure,
planning, and land use decisions locally.
• Although a majority of municipal officials believe in
the science of climate change, only 24% of the
municipal officials surveyed have begun addressing
climate change in their community.

35. Tools
• Cornell Climate Change Website:
www.climatechange.cornell.edu
• Climate Change Fact Sheets
• Speakers & PPT Presentations
• To Be Developed: Decision
Tools, based on Needs

36. Forthcoming Publications
• Addressing Climate Change at the Municipal
Level. Cornell Climate Change Program Work Team
Fact Sheets Series, 2012.
• Local Climate Change Challenges and Opportunities:
Understanding Municipal Official Perspectives.
Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit,
Outreach Series.
• Climate Change Adaptation and Community
Resilience. Community and Rural Development
Institute (CaRDI) Research and Policy Brief.

37. Contacts/Questions:
Allison Chatrchyan (amc256@cornell.edu)
www.climatechange.cornell.edu
Shorna Allred (srb237@cornell.edu)
www.human-dimensions.org
Maureen Mullen (mlm394@cornell.edu)