Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Public Infrastructure for Effective Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

The Board on Environmental Change and Society of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine appointed a planning committee to hold a hybrid workshop¹ in May 2024, which was devoted to the role of public infrastructure in effective climate mitigation and adaptation. Bilal M. Ayyub (Workshop Planning Committee Chair, University of Maryland) opened the workshop by providing background information about the study and touched upon Congressional interest in infrastructure made evident in recent major investments in transportation, internet connectivity, water systems, and other networks. Noting that the American Society of Civil Engineers has highlighted the need for these investments,² he discussed how a current debate centers around not only what counts as infrastructure but also the public sector’s role in defining, enhancing, and preparing it for climate adaptation and mitigation. Traditionally, “infrastructure” has been narrowly conceptualized as human-made “gray” materials such as concrete and steel. However, Ayyub suggested a shift towards a broader conceptualization that includes not only hard infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, bridges) but also soft or social infrastructure (e.g., knowledge networks, health, education) as well as nature-based infrastructure (e.g., ecosystems, watersheds). To support human well-being and achieve environmental justice, he stated that infrastructure planning should be holistic, covering all interconnected systems. Ayyub called for future adaptation and mitigation infrastructure solutions that balance physical and economic efficiencies to enhance community well-being. A challenge he pointed out will be integrating social and behavioral science and engineering to achieve effective just adaptation.

REGIONAL ACTION CASE STUDY: CALIFORNIA’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Lindsay Correa (California Department of Water Resources [DWR]) shared perspectives on efforts designed to build resilience in California by preventing, preparing for, and adapting to climate change “using science as our guide.” The DWR emphasizes the integration of public infrastructure in its approach to building climate resilience through mitigation and adaptation. In the water sector, this includes traditional systems like channels, pump stations, and levees, as well as natural systems such as watersheds, meadows, and floodplains. DWR also considers the human dimension which she defined as “the institutions and organizations with various border management responsibilities, as well as the

__________________

diverse communities and people connected to and shaped by the built and natural elements” of these systems. Providing an overview of DWR’s mission to sustainably manage state water resources, Correa discussed the State Water Project,³ which serves more than 27 million people and irrigates 750,000 acres of farmland. DWR’s other responsibilities include flood management, dam safety, groundwater basin management, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and environmental and physical monitoring. With a commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2035, using 100% zero-carbon electricity, DWR has developed and implemented a climate action plan that serves as a comprehensive guide to addressing climate change impacts on the DWR’s activities.⁴ The plan not only includes a framework for anticipating and evaluating climate change impacts on projects and programs but also outlines adaptation strategies for the most vulnerable assets.

Focusing on human dimensions, last year the DWR updated its Strategic Plan⁵ to prioritize integrative approaches to water management, including community capacity building, modernizing infrastructure, and incorporating nature-based solutions to effectively address climate mitigation and adaptation. Additionally, in 2023, the California Water Plan was updated,⁶ with a focus on understanding climate change science and vulnerability; developing a framework for watershed resilience; and enhancing equity and engagement in water management. Highlighting how climate change can create cascading negative effects among water sectors within a watershed—Correa emphasized the need for transdisciplinary science, partnerships, and integrated approaches to water management and public infrastructure.

STATEWIDE COLLABORATION CASE STUDY: “RESILIENT RHODY”

Rhode Island’s climate resilience efforts are being spearheaded by the “Resilient Rhody” Strategy⁷ focusing on actionable solutions with 61 key statewide actions put in place to address challenges associated with natural systems; community health; emergency preparedness; and critical infrastructure and utilities (water, power, transportation). Building resilient municipalities is an essential strategy for achieving statewide resilience, Kimberly Korioth (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management) explained, and the plan leverages statewide partnerships across agencies, universities, and nonprofits and investment in these municipalities are a set of strategies to advance the overall vision of statewide resilience. A number of the actions she mentioned were about building connections, partnership, capacity, and information sharing. Recognizing the need for local collaboration, the state launched the Municipal Resilience Program⁸ in 2019 to help municipalities identify hazards, strengths, and vulnerabilities, resulting in the identification of over 1,600 resilience actions and $19.4 million in grants. Currently, 97% of municipalities in Rhode Island are participating.

The Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) role, per Executive Order 2307, coordinates all statewide resilience efforts. The CRO’s goal is to elevate local resilience needs; foster collaboration among statewide agencies; ensure transparent and accessible resilience information; and address identified needs—such as the need to expand resilience support, aligned with local planning processes, for all 39 municipalities; to increase community engagement; to provide resilience technical assistance; and to expand local and regional resilience capacity.

Korioth discussed Rhode Island’s comprehensive climate resilience strategy focused on planning, implementation, capacity building, as well as transparency and information sharing. With regard to “planning,” efforts emphasize gathering climate data, revisiting local resilience plans, and fostering community engagement. “Implementation” efforts involve providing technical assistance; securing state and federal grants for resilience projects; and supporting nature-based solutions. “Capacity building” initiatives include expanding the state resilience office and employing regional resilience coordinators to assist municipalities. Korioth highlighted collaborative partnerships including not only a resil-

__________________

iency-focused subgroup within the climate council but also coordination with nonprofit and university partners. Transparency and information-sharing initiatives include efforts designed to centralize resources as well as create a searchable database of resilience actions. Overall, she emphasized the building of both resilience capacity as well as collaborations seeking to empower communities, streamline efforts, and enhance resilience across Rhode Island.

INSIGHTS FROM STATE INITIATIVES AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Christine J. Kirchhoff (Penn State University) asked for elaboration on how public infrastructure projects, programs, policies, and investments can reduce risk and support socially just, sustainable, effective responses. She pointed out a significant emphasis on establishing metrics for success in resilience and adaptation projects—although developing a universal framework has proven challenging due to the diverse nature of different projects. Korioth noted that beyond project counts and stakeholder engagement, there is a growing focus on metrics designed to measure tangible outcomes such as homes protected, or square feet of wetland restoration, prompting discussions among state agencies and leading to adjustments in grant criteria to prioritize disadvantaged communities and refine resilience criteria. Rhode Island’s approach involves identifying local community hazards, engaging local municipalities, and emphasizing community resilience. Challenges that Korioth shared include not only differing interpretations of resilience but also balancing flooding challenges (which is currently a primary concern in terms of climate adaptation) along with the broader recognition of diverse climate impacts that she noted would be essential for comprehensive adaptation strategies.

Correa discussed California’s efforts designed to prioritize equity and emphasize it in climate resilience strategies for public infrastructure, such as in the update to the California Water Plan. These efforts involve funding traditional infrastructure alongside community engagement initiatives, such as the Watershed Resilience Program that also supports building networks across sectors and communities. Challenges she noted include not only reconciling differing visions of resilience, but also ensuring alignment with local needs and perspectives. Commenting on the importance of investments and collaborative partnerships and how to get a shared understanding of climate resilience—Correa emphasized the approaches and investments made on meaningful engagement and capacity building that includes dedicated regional climate change specialists and investments in outreach and education that includes training the next generations on water and climate change issues.

THE NEED FOR ENHANCED GOVERNANCE INFRASTRUCTURE

Joseph Thompson (Government Accountability Office [GAO]) discussed the confusion surrounding terminology such as “infrastructure” and “resilience”—whether in reference to climate, adaptation, or other factors—and the need to specify targets and timelines. He argued that besides physical gray, green, and other infrastructure, there is a need to consider governance infrastructure to facilitate adaptation actions. While some states and localities are making strides, he suggested nationwide consistency is hindered by inconsistent federal actions. Limiting the federal government’s fiscal exposure through better management of climate change risks has been on the GAO High Risk List for a decade.⁹ A certain amount of adaptation will be required by the federal government, irrespective of emission reduction outcomes. Thompson pointed out that the GAO meticulously evaluates each federal program to assess and manage climate change risks, while at the same time identifying and addressing gaps in federal activities. With a focus on oversight of federal greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts, the GAO scrutinizes funding allocations and ensures accountability. Additionally, the GAO advocates for embedding climate resilience across federal initiatives, employing its Disaster Resilience Framework grounded in principles of information, integration, and incentives.¹⁰ Enabling ongoing assessment of adaptation effectiveness over time, this framework provides a way to monitor the progress made toward managing risks and fostering resilience within federal programs and practices.

__________________

Thompson provided some specific examples of the GAO’s work—such as scrutinizing federally funded flood risk management infrastructure,¹¹ and opportunities for improving federal planning for climate resilience for infrastructure like roads.¹² Other examples of GAO work that he noted were design standards and building codes for infrastructure,¹³ including water infrastructure,¹⁴ all aimed at embedding climate resilience across federal initiatives and influencing practices at both federal and local levels. Emphasizing the governance infrastructure used to support coherent adaptation action as a key gap, Thompson highlighted the need for a national climate resilience strategic plan that would include a national climate information system; expanded availability and use of climate economics information; a unified approach for prioritizing resilience investments; and a community-driven climate migration pilot program.

HOW DO YOU GET “JUST DESIGN”?

Highlighting shifting population demographics, aging infrastructure unable to support technological advancements, and the evolving needs of society, resulting in massive public infrastructure-related problems, Gerald Galloway (University of Maryland) emphasized the imminent need to phase out and rebuild approximately 40% of our infrastructure.¹⁵ Additionally, technological progress poses financial burdens, he went on to say, while social awareness and climate change exacerbate the uncertainty of future developments in a “volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world.” He stressed that the challenges ahead require comprehensive action.

While conventional approaches prioritize efficiency and completion, just design principles—as advocated by Catherine Coleman Flowers,¹⁶ encompassing fair access, community engagement, environmental justice, resilience, and job creation—offer a framework for equitable solutions that are in alignment with societal values. Practicing “just design” involves inclusive participatory planning, data-driven equity assessments, and the consideration of equity impacts on policy and regulation. Showing a map of Galloway discussed Houston’s urban planning between 1996 and 2010¹⁷ as an example of the tension between quality and equity in infrastructure development where a lack of holistic planning led to widespread flooding during Hurricane Harvey. He said this disproportionately affected marginalized communities and underscored the imperative need for equitable outcomes over uniform distribution and just design principles to ensure resilience and fairness in infrastructure investments. Addressing infrastructure challenges, Galloway said, requires inclusive education and a broader consideration of social justice and equity in the decision-making processes. He pointed out that, at the same time, current benefit-cost analysis methods and bureaucratic turf issues hinder progress, highlighting the need for a shift towards holistic, system-oriented solutions that involve collaboration across disciplines aimed at ensuring long-term resilience and adaptation to changing environmental and societal conditions.

FEDERAL ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), focuses on advancing America’s use of scientific technology, advises the President on science and technology matters. One action undertaken by President Biden that Douglas J. Mason (OSTP) noted involves the issuance of executive orders aimed at tackling the climate crisis.¹⁸ These orders set a comprehensive agenda, emphasizing the imperative of resilient infrastructure while concurrently prioritizing environmental justice and equity considerations. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget released a climate-smart infrastruc-

__________________

ture memo,¹⁹ which serves as a guiding framework for federal funding allocation. Underscoring the importance of long-term resilience planning, it stresses the incorporation of current and future climate risks into all phases of infrastructure planning, design, and operations. A cornerstone of OSTP’s approach to sustainable infrastructure lies in its recognition of the interconnectedness of built and natural environments. Infrastructure encompasses not only physical structures like buildings and roads but also incorporates natural elements such as ecosystems and green spaces. This holistic perspective informs OSTP’s policies and funding initiatives, which seek to maximize societal benefits while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Mason highlighted the National Climate Resilience Framework²⁰ which is part of an effort to ensure infrastructure will be resilient in the future.

Sustainable infrastructure, operating as a system with not only social and economic but also environmental dimensions, encompasses both built and natural environments. This requires minimizing negative impacts and maximizing benefits to ensure equitable distribution of investments. Federal investments, like those funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the National Climate Assessment, aim to address resilience and climate risks.²¹ Navigating the complex landscape of federal funding sources remains a challenge, Mason acknowledged. He went on to say that efforts are underway to streamline access to funding opportunities and provide technical assistance to communities—particularly those that, historically, have been underserved. Stakeholder engagement and collaboration are deemed essential in the ongoing effort to incorporating diverse perspectives and prioritizing the needs of communities most vulnerable to climate impacts.

COLLABORATIVE AND EQUITABLE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

Highlighting the importance of collaboration and communication across various levels of government, Ayyub initiated a discussion centered on the challenges and opportunities faced in the effort to enhance governance structures needed to effectively address climate change adaptation and infrastructure needs. While Thompson emphasized the need, in the face of evolving climate risks, for ongoing learning, adaptation, and collaboration across sectors by federal, state, and local entities, Galloway underscored the necessity of breaking down bureaucratic silos to facilitate collective action. Mason stressing the importance of incorporating nature-based solutions into infrastructure planning as well as taking into consideration the needs of disadvantaged communities. Mason also discussed an initiative showcasing how joint planning and coordination among towns and cities along the Mississippi River—aimed at addressing shared challenges—is an example of the growing recognition among state and local governments that cooperation is essential. The conversation also delved into the complexities of cost-benefit analyses—and, as articulated by Ayyub and Galloway, the imperative to ensure an equitable distribution of resources.

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY ACTION TO ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE

Micaela Martinez (WE ACT for Environmental Justice) discussed how structural racism manifests through inequitable systems²² such as community disinvestment; historical redlining; inadequate funding for education and healthcare; and increased policing and incarceration. In the United States, people of color are more likely to live in areas with poor air quality,²³ and non-Hispanic Black children, compared to non-Hispanic White children, are 7.6 times more likely to die from asthma.²⁴ These disparities persist even when controlling for income.²⁵ In New York City, her research found that people living in non-white neighborhoods experience much higher rates of Emergency Room visits for children with asthma when compared with predominantly white neighborhoods, despite sharing the same local and federal policies. Martinez pointed out that there must be an acknowledgment

__________________

of structural racism to have intentional policies for just communities.

Infrastructure disparities result in significant differences in household as well as community-wide conditions. In places like Mott Haven in the South Bronx where 97% of residents are Black and/or Latinx, not only are homes more likely to have maintenance defects, such as water leaks and pest infestations, but also fewer homes have air conditioning compared to the city average.²⁶ Additionally, Mott Haven experiences higher levels of outdoor particulate matter 2.5 air pollution.²⁷ Martinez’s recent research found that this pattern is consistent across New York City where non-white neighborhoods have higher rates of people living in substandard housing and are subject to environmental hazards, illustrating how health disparities are exacerbated by a pervasive infrastructure problems. Before implementing weatherization and electrification projects, Martinez emphasized that integrated approaches would need to address pre-existing hazards including problems associated with lead paint,²⁸ water damage, and pest infestations. These approaches, designed to advance energy efficiency and decarbonization, will involve coordination at federal and state levels to ensure comprehensive remediation of environmental hazards to improve housing conditions and health outcomes.

RAINREADY CALUMET INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTATION

Brandon Evans (Center for Neighborhood Technology [CNT]) discussed the RainReady Calumet initiative—supported through $6 million from Cook County’s American Rescue Plan Act funds—which is a decade-long project in six Southland communities of Chicago. The aim is to implement green infrastructure solutions designed to reduce flooding and improve stormwater infrastructure by involving community residents in the decision-making process. In collaboration with the Cook County Department of Environmental Sustainability, CNT prioritizes outreach and engagement, while partnering with design engineering and maintenance organizations. Ensuring that residents’ input is valued and incorporated, the approach involves using community steering committees to guide project prioritization to decrease nuisance flooding and improve stormwater infrastructure. The fact that participants receive stipends as an incentive to participate is intended to demonstrate to them that their knowledge and input are valued.

The prioritization process for projects began with revisiting the RainReady plan²⁹ to create a project shortlist based on steering committee votes and conducting technical analysis. Green infrastructure projects recommended in the RainReady Calumet plan include the revitalization and beautification of vacant lots; schoolyards; churches; streets and alleys; park projects; and metro stations; as well as neighborhood and residential retrofits. Next, a project shortlist was created based on steering committee votes. Final project selections were made as a result of further community engagement. Successful outcomes from the first steering committee’s guidance include support for adopting the Complete Streets ordinance in the Village of Calumet Park.³⁰ The steering committee included not only preferences for projects that provide the greatest community benefit—as well as those that address urban flooding and infrastructure deficiencies—but also the expressed need for local government support and long-term maintenance.

CALUMET STORMWATER COLLABORATIVE AND STORMSTORE

Ryan Wilson (Metropolitan Planning Council) focused on community in two distinct contexts: the community of practice—and the enabling environment. “Community of practice” encompasses stakeholders such as elected leaders, government officials, utility leadership, business community members, engineers, planners, community leaders, impacted residents, environmental justice partners, and neighborhood action partners. The “enabling environment” refers to policies and regulations that shape development and infrastructure projects. The primary focus of recent Metropolitan Planning Council projects has been on understanding and improving stormwater management, a critical issue due to urbanization and the resultant increase in the proliferation of

__________________

impervious surfaces. In this context, urban flooding has become a significant challenge. Characterized by basement flooding, street water accumulation, property loss, and public health impacts, it presents a systemic risk due to disinvestment, failing infrastructure, fragmented governance, uncoordinated vision, a lack of relevant data, the cost of implementation, and an untrained workforce. Wilson highlighted the Calumet Stormwater Collaborative (CSC),³¹ which aims to address stormwater issues through place-based coordinated efforts. The Calumet area has been, historically, one of North America’s largest wetland ecosystems, but extensive development has disrupted its natural hydrology. CSC is working to reconnect and rebuild the hydrology of the region in a way that can meet changing climate challenges. CSC’s “community of practice” includes a collective impact model with consistent meetings, multi-year planning, self-identified work groups, and an engaged steering committee.

Wilson went on to point out that it is challenging to address large-scale infrastructure failings due to decades of disinvestment and systemic racism. Regulations set up around stormwater management are tied to individual development projects rather than a collective plan—an approach that leads, he emphasized, to a mismatch between development and regional infrastructure needs. He highlighted StormStore^TM32 a market-based approach that aims to align stormwater infrastructure with regional needs and address historic and systemic issues in the built environment while at the same time saving public funds. Both CSC and StormStore, though still evolving, he said, demonstrate the potential for adaptive practices designed to meet contemporary challenges. Wilson emphasized the need for capacity building required for public infrastructure projects as well as policy changes required to ensure equitable and sustainable development across the region.

EQUITY AND INCLUSION IN COMMUNITY-CENTERED CLIMATE ACTION

Highlighting the importance of a shared vision for impactful change to effectively address climate change adaptation and infrastructure needs, Lynnette Widder (Columbia University) pointed out that community scale is “vital for foregrounding equity and inclusion.” Martinez meanwhile emphasized the need for extensive workforce development in green infrastructure sectors in order for urban housing infrastructure upgrades to meet net-zero goals. Referencing the role of social infrastructure in mitigation and adaptation efforts, Wilson reflected on the significance of addressing local concerns and aligning professional practices with community needs, while Evans stressed the importance of centering community experiences and addressing climate change impacts through direct engagement.

The conversation went on to explore ways to dismantle structural racism, with Martinez advocating for both grassroots as well as top-down approaches being needed to create just cities. Wilson highlighted the importance of not only acknowledging systemic biases but also creating a shared language to facilitate investment and policy decisions. Evans discussed the need to engage both affected communities as well as those that have benefited from systemic issues through mutual benefit strategies. Wilson both acknowledged the challenges of coordination across sectors and praised recent federal investments, while Evans described current efforts to pursue diverse funding sources needed to implement infrastructure improvements. Martinez added that there are efforts by many organizations to collaborated, however organizational structures and legal mandates can hinder collaboration, so overcoming these barriers might require legislative action.

OPPOSITION TO CLIMATE POLICIES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

Focusing on public opposition to climate mitigation efforts and hard infrastructure policies, Aseem Prakash (University of Washington) noted widespread resistance—not just in the United States, but globally—to wind farms, solar projects, and transmission lines. This opposition poses a serious challenge, especially given the urgent need to meet net-zero commitments through developing renewable energy capacity and ensuring effective electricity transmission. To address this, he said there is a need to consider different theories of change.³³ Based on the idea that climate change is a scientific problem, one dominant theory, the information deficit model, suggests that policymakers fail to

__________________

act due to a lack of information. Prakash believes this approach is outdated. Other models view climate change as a moral, economic, technological, or political problem. He said that the political model, emphasizing the distribution of benefits and costs, might under current conditions be the most relevant since it explains why different sectors oppose climate mitigation policies. Understanding these theories can help in the development of more effective strategies to overcome resistance, thus advancing climate-related action.

Opposition to climate policies at the community level, Prakash explained, often stems from the perception of injustice. This includes three “faces of climate justice”:³⁴ environmental justice; uneven distribution of benefits as a result of climate actions; and the uneven distribution of costs associated with climate policies. According to Prakash, this last issue is particularly contentious given how many climate mitigation efforts, such as subsidies for electric vehicles, disproportionately benefit the affluent while at the same time imposing local costs on disadvantaged groups. He suggested compensating those adversely affected by climate policies to ensure a fair and inclusive transition.

Community opposition to renewable energy infrastructure—including generation, transmission, and critical mineral mining—is widespread and even increasing globally. A recent study found that nearly 23% of U.S. counties have enacted restrictive zoning ordinances designed to limit renewable energy facilities—with blue counties more likely to do so than red ones.³⁵ Prakash’s research has found that community opposition to infrastructure is not due to climate denial, policy illiteracy, or false consciousness, but rather to issues such as distributional conflicts (e.g., local costs versus global benefits); cultural and religious aspects; differences viewpoints on environmental protection versus climate change; and “not in my back yard”-ism. He emphasized how addressing these diverse reasons for opposition is essential in the context of the ongoing effort to advance renewable energy infrastructure.

CLIMATE CHANGE-RELATED POLARIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in Americans’ understanding of climate change.³⁶ However, Kaitlin Raimi (University of Michigan) found that in one survey, understanding of climate change science and impacts has increased among Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans, conservative Republicans have consistently remained skeptical. Climate change remains one of the most politically divisive issue in the United States, with climate change topping the list of partisan gaps as pertains to both foreign and domestic policy priorities.³⁷ There is also significant variation within parties. For instance, generational gaps within the Republican party show younger people more concerned about, and supportive of action regarding, climate change than older generations.³⁸ Race and ethnicity also influence views on climate change, with greater political polarization evident among white respondents.³⁹ Additionally, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American respondents tend to adopt a broader environmental justice perspective, encompassing health outcomes as well as social equity. Gender differences also exist, with women, especially Republican women, showing not only more concern than men about climate change but also showing more support for related policies. The implications of these demographic divides within parties, Raimi pointed out, highlight the importance of considering an audience’s demographic makeup when discussing infrastructure.

Public perception often underestimates actual concern about the environment, especially among racial and ethnic minorities and low-income individuals,⁴⁰ a phenomenon known as pluralistic ignorance.⁴¹ This gap is particu-

__________________

larly pronounced in the context of climate policy support, with Republicans, compared with Democrats and independents, consistently underestimating public backing.⁴² Raimi noted that providing accurate information about support for climate policies could catalyze more productive discussions and actions. Polarization regarding climate change may be more influenced by perceptions of the viability of solutions rather than the understanding, or lack of understanding, of the problem itself. Evidence for this view has been provided by studies indicating that increasing education or scientific literacy does not necessarily close the polarization gap with regard to climate change. These studies challenge the notion that an information deficit approach alone will effectively address and reduce polarization.⁴³ To this point, research suggests that presenting information about not only private sector action⁴⁴ but also free market solutions can potentially bridge gaps in people’s climate change-related belief systems, particularly among Republicans.⁴⁵ Raimi suggested that citizens understanding of climate change may depend more on acceptance of related policies than on education or facts, Raimi highlighted the importance of prioritizing policies that can garner widespread support.

“ADAPT TO MITIGATE”

In an early-stage project, in collaboration with Michael Vandenberg and David Dana, Stephanie Stern (The University of Arizona) is exploring the concept of “adapt to mitigate,” aiming to integrate carbon mitigation into U.S. adaptation projects to avoid negative feedback loops and promote intergenerational justice. One example Stern discussed involves the relocation of the Isle de Jean Charles Tribal community in Louisiana due to rising waters. Despite advocating for solar arrays, the Tribe received Energy Star-certified homes, resulting in increased energy bills and an enlarged carbon footprint due to larger home sizes. She said this underscores the necessity of considering carbon implications across different adaptation efforts such as flood and building infrastructure.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognizes that while adaptation activities can increase carbon emissions, they at the same time offer opportunities for social and physical infrastructure adjustments aimed at promoting lower carbon post-adaptation communities. Recent U.S. policy developments⁴⁶ are moving toward quantifying carbon emissions, monetizing social costs, and promoting climate adaptation measures in federally funded infrastructure projects. There has been a significant push towards nature-based solutions—particularly in hazard mitigation and disaster relief infrastructure projects—where carbon sequestration is now factored into cost-benefit analyses. However, this represents the first generation of “adapt to mitigate” that focuses primarily on carbon benefits relative to inaction.

Stern highlighted several potential next steps being considered for the second generation. Efforts should aim, she noted, to better align adaptation projects with the national climate goal of achieving a net-zero emissions economy by 2050, with the focus on evaluating retrofit readiness as part of this alignment process. Another possible step could be incorporating carbon mitigation into the cost-benefit analyses of disaster relief adaptation projects—although this may pose challenges in terms of potential project blockages. One proposed solution is to explore the use of offsets, allowing other state or federal actions to compensate for adaptation emissions. Additionally, she suggested the possibility of incorporating carbon mitigation into the scoring or ranking criteria for adaptation and disaster relief grant applications, thus ensuring that funded projects are aligned with national climate goals. Lastly, Stern highlighted institutional reforms such as increasing agency staff to increase technical expertise in carbon accounting and enhance inter-agency coordination. Stern emphasized, however, that the baseline goal for “adapt to mitigate” remains a key consideration, the focus on not only achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050—in line with national, state, and local climate objectives—but also prioritizing community preferences and participation despite potential resistance to increased costs.

__________________

NAVIGATING EQUITY AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES

The discussion highlighted the multifaceted challenge of crafting equitable policies for infrastructure development amidst varying community needs. Emphasizing the importance of considering both substantive and procedural equity, Prakash cautioned against overlooking differing perspectives in pursuit of rapid goals. Raimi commented on public perceptions of climate change, emphasizing the need to pay attention to the nuances in wording in survey responses (use of “belief in climate change”). Stern stressed the complexity associated with balancing adaptation and mitigation efforts, especially in local contexts where community-driven approaches and offset strategies may offer flexibility. The conversation also delved into carbon capture, with Raimi discussing public perceptions as well as potential moral hazard concerns. Related to the role of federal and state governments, all three panelists stressed the need to consider funding and local autonomy in supporting adaptation efforts. All the panelists highlighted the importance of local politics in assessing costs and benefits within communities during infrastructure decision-making.

CLOSING REMARKS

Ayyub highlighted several key themes that were discussed during the various sessions. The case studies not only provided valuable insights into public infrastructure definitions but also underscored issues such as structural and environmental racism, the importance of stakeholder engagement, health disparities, and community opposition to climate policies. On the first day, discussions touched upon the significance of governance, just design, equity, and systems thinking–and then also, the integration of environment, nature, and natural infrastructure into infrastructure development. During the second day, discussions included environmental justice, with recognition being given to the impact of community opposition to climate policies. Additionally, discussions underscored the challenges posed by climate change-related polarization, particularly in communication efforts. Ayyub pointed out that the workshop served an important role in breaking down the silos that separate and set apart the thinking done in different disciplines, allowing for not only the integration of social and behavioral science insights into engineering practices but also fostering understanding of the constraints and opportunities associated with the built environment. This enables just mitigation and sustainable adaptation by ensuring that adaptation efforts consider both physical and social infrastructure as well as how individuals and groups interact with all types of infrastructure.

DISCLAIMER This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by Heather Kreidler as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The statements made are those of the rapporteur or individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bilal M. Ayyub (Chair), University of Maryland, College Park; Lisa Dilling, Environmental Defense Fund; Christine Kirchhoff, Penn State; and Michael Vandenbergh, Vanderbilt University Law School.

STAFF Daniel Talmage, Study Director; Thomas Thornton, Board Director; and Sitara Rahiab, Senior Program Assistant.

REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed by Lindsay Correa, California Department of Water Resources, and Kristie Ebi, University of Washington. Kirsten Sampson-Snyder, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.

SPONSORS This workshop was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award No. BCS-2055602).

SUGGESTED CITATION National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Public Infrastructure for Effective Climate Mitigation and Adaptation: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27866.

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education Copyright 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.