DOE OSTI2025
Communities who experience disproportionate climate change impacts tend to be excluded from resilience planning (Vale, 2014). Those efforts typically follow top-down processes within established governance practices that are inaccessible to marginalized folks and reinforce inequalities (Malloy & Ashcraft, 2020; Adger, 2003). Such participatory planning processes may offer the public little opportunity to influence the process itself or the outcomes (Smith & McDonough, 2001). They might ignore important public values or alternative ways of knowing which can be critical assets in resilience (Few et al., 2007). Designing communities for climate action and resilience means creating opportunities for everyone to meaningfully shape those decisions and experience related benefits. Having the opportunity to shape one’s community is necessary for human flourishing (Allen, 2016). Resilience planning that shifts power into communities and focuses on social vulnerability can affect how people survive and thrive in a climate changed world. The Massachusetts Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) 2.0 program is an attempt to change the status quo in resilience planning by bringing new voices into decision-making power, recognizing their labor, addressing root causes of vulnerability, and investing in social infrastructure. It aspires to build capacity for equity-focused community engagement within teams of municipal staff and community liaisons, and ultimately build social capital and community cohesion. My mixed methods research investigates implementation of this state grant program in several western Massachusetts towns. I am using document review, participant observation, and interviews to understand the MVP 2.0 process as written, how different towns navigate it, and how individuals make sense of their experiences in it. I seek to understand how those experiences explain relationships between engagement approaches, mediating factors, and process outcomes. I am interested in the conditions that allow for community empowerment and how a model like MVP 2.0 can shift conditions that hold systems in place. In a practical sense, our findings will help municipalities reflect on their work during MVP 2.0 and plan for future community engagement. They may be informative for designing future iterations of the MVP program and for other municipalities, offices of community engagement, and practitioners. The findings will also contribute to the participation, resilience, and climate justice literatures, by adding perspectives on equity-centered resilience and community engagement approaches in smaller towns and rural settings. References: Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79, 387-404. Allen, D. (2016). Toward a connected society. Our compelling interests: The value of diversity for democracy and a prosperous society, 71-105. 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. Malloy, J. T., & Ashcraft, C. M. (2020). A framework for implementing socially just climate adaptation. Climatic Change, 160(1), 1–14. Smith, P. D., & McDonough, M. H. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society & natural resources, 14(3), 239-249. Vale, L. J. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: whose resilience and whose city? Building Research & Information, 42(2), 191–201.