Local Climate Action Planning toward Larger Impact: Enhancing a Park System's Contributions by Examining Regional Efforts

Climate Action Plans

Climate action plans (CAPs) set strategic goals to address climate impacts, implement policies, and reduce reliance on resources through practical solutions (Climate Smart Communities, 2014; Deetjen et al., 2018; Reckien et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2010). Throughout this discussion, climate action references climate mitigation and/or adaptation strategies. CAPs set goals and actions leading ideally to policy change while guiding communities to reduce their collective carbon footprint (Climate Smart Communities, 2014). Cities, especially, are creating CAPs to prepare for, mitigate, and adapt to climate impacts (Laukkonen et al., 2009; McKibbin & Wilcoxen, 2003). The combination of mitigation and adaptation is stressed due to the uncertainty ahead. Considering both in planning ensures preparedness and risk minimization (Laukkonen et al., 2009; McKibbin & Wilcoxen, 2003). City CAPs often focus heavily on greenhouse gas emissions and their mitigation while also containing a range of involved sectors and policies, including transportation, energy usage, public utilities, and green space expansion (Deetjen et al., 2018; Lamb et al., 2019; Reckien et al., 2014).

CAPs have been analyzed on different scales and with different lenses, (see for example, Deetjen et al., 2018; Lambrou & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2022; Reckien et al., 2014; Tozer, 2018). Many analyses routinely consider two characteristics of a “strong” CAP. The first is integration across sectors and resources (Deetjen et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2010; Tozer, 2018). The most robust plans contain practical recommendations or actions spanning climate-related areas including waste management, energy, and green space (Deetjen et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2010). The second is action with aligned metrics and adaptive management. Uncertainty warrants consistent check-ins and ability to adapt to changing circumstances while also measuring rates of success (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022; McKibbin & Wilcoxen, 2003). Providing these checks creates necessary pressure in following up and following through on jurisdictional actions.

The landscape of CAPs remains uneven as adoption is not yet universal across cities, nor do all municipalities in a region have such plans. Plans vary in strength, practicality, and direction (Reckien et al., 2014), which could create insufficient action to reach national or global goals and failure to contribute to regional resilience needs (Deetjen et al., 2018; Reckien et al., 2014). A need exists for local CAPs to complete the climate planning puzzle and bridge multi-level efforts and coordination (Laukkonen et al., 2009; Woodruff, 2022). As global emissions rise, effects will increasingly be localized, raising the urgency to prepare actions from the bottom-up (Huq et al., 2006; Laukkonen et al., 2009; Tang et al., 2010). Local jurisdictions can adapt unique strategies tailored to community needs and engage closely with community members to raise awareness about potential impacts (Chu et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2010). This narrowed focus ensures actions are being implemented that assist small communities in preparing for a changing climate.

Jurisdictional (e.g., city government) planning is not in sole control of local climate action; others also contribute (Laukkonen et al., 2009). Entities working locally also contribute to systems-wide efforts. Parks are one of these entities. Local and regional park systems prominently support community well-being and decision making and are already instrumental in community-building efforts such as food access, public health, and youth development (Perry et al., 2019). They also strongly support and manage a portion of a community's ecological components (Berke et al., 2015). Many park systems already de facto engage in climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, whether or not listed in their management plans. Some actions are inherent in resource management, such as prescribed burns, tree plantings and canopy increases, and species protection. Formalizing these actions is a next step to parks emerging as community leaders and actors in regional CAP networks.

The National Park Service has created strong widespread climate initiatives and outreach surrounding climate adaptability for their parks. However, there is less traction across regional park districts, with only sporadic examples containing expansive climate plans (see for example, Metro Parks Tacoma, 2015; NYC Parks, 2010; Urbana Park District, 2021). But, regional park systems are where more action is needed as these are places that could substantially impact and support local social systems needing climate adaptation assistance (Rega et al., 2022).

Scaled Planning Networks

Climate change and environmental concerns do not live by political or administrative boundaries; they work on spatial scales transcending social categorization of jurisdictions (Chu et al., 2018). Common pool resources cross jurisdictional lines creating social-ecological systems within an entire region. For example, river flooding after a heavy rainfall event could result in one community battling flooded streets and stormwater concerns with another facing flooded agricultural fields and loss of crops. In this, a singular extreme weather event has perpetuated different concerns. Climate change effects are similarly and intimately felt within communities, though the causes and resources run parallel. This presents a challenge to insular planning approaches.

Scaled approaches may address such challenges. As climate impacts are felt heavily on a local level, adaptation is necessary. But, mitigation strategies are needed to moderate larger scale concerns and assist in global efforts to curb climate change (Laukkonen et al., 2009; McKibbin & Wilcoxen, 2003). Consideration of scale includes an array of strategies and CAP coordination at multi-jurisdictional and sector levels to encourage systems-wide security nets (Woodruff, 2022). Attention to scale also centers deliberate change without overshooting, and related manageable and accepted approaches (Folke et al., 2010). Studies suggest that strong networks of plans in a jurisdiction can help realize a less hazardous future, if that network includes all sectors and organizational bodies and attends to vulnerabilities, community needs, and resources (Berke et al., 2015; Woodruff, 2022; Woodruff et al., 2022). Lack of coordination could lead to missing pieces and risky exposure when faced with extreme events or fluctuating threats (Woodruff, 2022). Research analyzing networks of urban hazard mitigation plans in cities across the United States (e.g., Boston, New Orleans) have found incomplete coordination within local planning, and policy efforts of a planned network expose social and ecological vulnerabilities (Berke et al., 2015; Burby, 2006; Woodruff, 2022).

Temporal scale presents similar CAP challenges. Traditional planning horizons make it difficult to consider climate change happening on uncertain and longer time scales (Laukkonen et al., 2009). It is also difficult to plan for an unknown future. Adaptation strategies need to be considered on longer time scales to strengthen system resilience when issues inevitably arise (Laukkonen et al., 2009; McKibbin & Wilcoxen, 2003). Larger and longer scale climate approaches help match response scope to problem scope, and a strong planning network can take this response from ideas to actions (Berke et al., 2015; Woodruff et al., 2022). Granted, no singular plan can be everything for everyone, but each organization focusing on their strengths and relationships can collectively build overall network capacity (Chu et al., 2018; Granovetter, 1973). Defaulting to collaboration avoids climate action as a competition and reduces fragmentation through strengths-based collective action.

Parks and Protected Areas: Contributions and Frameworks

Parks are integral when considering collective climate action. Though CAPs are frequently found in city and jurisdictional entities, parks offer a space to implement and demonstrate unique and complementary efforts. Parks are increasingly working beyond their boundaries on other important issues, such as environmental justice, regional outdoor recreation economies, and landscape-level conservation. Their natural fit into concepts to approach climate change provides an ideal space to uniquely contribute. Many parks are already seizing the opportunity to emerge as CAP leaders (see for example, Metro Parks Tacoma, 2015; NYC Parks, 2010; Urbana Park District, 2021). Parks offer space to address climate change concerns through green spaces and tree canopy that create cool zones in cities, or natural buffers to manage stormwater and flooding (Brown et al., 2015; Gearey, 2018; Kellman & Hersher, 2022; Rega et al., 2022; Schottland, 2019; Vieira et al., 2018). These spaces are already used for resource conservation, education, and appreciation. Including climate within their planning could contribute to alleviating regional system concerns.

Coordination of larger-scale planning requires participation and recognition of where contribution is best suited. Park systems already envision a regional identity and future and their contributions toward it using management-by-objectives (e.g., Seattle Park and Recreation, San Francisco Recreation and Parks) (Manning, 2022). This approach provides climate action implementation check-ins via monitoring and revision. City parks provide assistance in urban built environments (Brown et al., 2015; Kellman & Hersher, 2022; Rega et al., 2022; Xing & Brimblecombe, 2020), but regional parks can provide an expanded, integrated approach to climate action and resilience. They can function as a connector among others' efforts while devising goals and actions unique to their social-ecological conditions (Perry et al., 2018a). This opportunity to complement and extend climate action can solidify a strong network of properly prepared plans while continuing to contribute to mitigation efforts that provide relief on a global scale (Huq et al., 2006; Laukkonen et al., 2009; Woodruff, 2022).

This study uses an integrated recreation amenities framework to analyze climate actions across multiple domains and scales (Perry et al., 2020). Perry and colleagues' framework builds on established parks-related frameworks and re-envisions content areas within the traditional three themes (managerial, social, and resource conditions) to encompass more transcending topical, spatial, and temporal aspects and allow conceptual space for emergent aspects (Manning, 2022; Interagency Visitor Use Management Council, 2016). Following the expansive and emergent spirit of the integrated model by Perry et al. (2020), this study tests its application in CAPs across the park-community divide. In this way, the framework could identify climate action commonalities that could be addressed by both parks and communities within a single region and assist in understanding park systems' role in regional climate action.

Southeastern Michigan and the Huron-Clinton Metroparks

Michigan is a state located in the upper Midwest of the United States. The state is comprised of two peninsulas jutting into the Great Lakes and bordering Canada. Southeastern Michigan is its most populous area, home of half of the state's population and encompassing the tenth largest metro area in the country, Detroit. It is also an area rich in natural and cultural resources, many of which are conserved for protection and public enjoyment in parks. The Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority (HCMA) manages 13 metroparks across five counties in southeastern Michigan. These parks provide over 4.8 million residents access to 25,000 acres of green space and natural areas (HCMA, 2021; Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2021). The park system provides access to recreation facilities and four-season pursuits including fishing, boating, golf, skiing, birdwatching, hiking, mountain biking, and environmental education.

The Huron-Clinton Metroparks offer a community space and recognize the importance of this space in the region for recreational access, community building, and assistance (HCMA, 2021). They also recognize their role beyond park boundaries: enhancing southeastern Michigan's social and environmental resilience. Climate change and its localized impacts concern HCMA, as the organization considers actions to retain and improve its functioning within and beyond its boundaries.

The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2018) reports that as climate change worsens worldwide, Michigan and the Midwest are experiencing its effects. Heavy precipitation events have increased by 14 percent since 1951 across the Great Lakes region and the average temperature has risen 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (Environment and Climate Change Canada & U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2022). In Detroit and across southeastern Michigan, major flood events have become more frequent, causing recurrent household flooding and detrimentally impacting infrastructure (Sampson et al., 2019). Extreme heat is creating major public health and infrastructure concerns, as some people do not have access to cooling strategies (e.g., air conditioning) and those who do are increasingly relying on it to keep their homes habitable (USGCRP, 2018; White-Newsome et al., 2014; Ziegler et al., 2019). Those without air conditioning face health risks including heat exhaustion and respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses (USGCRP, 2018).

Parks can play an important role in combatting these climate issues and helping communities navigate climate impacts (Rega et al., 2022; Schottland, 2019). As pre-existing green spaces are already contributing to social-ecological resilience, parks and park plans can advance this further by addressing climate change and its impacts. HCMA has embraced providing this service regionally, deciding in 2022 to craft a park-contextualized yet regionally relevant CAP. This builds on earlier recognitions that the Metroparks serve an important role in social-ecological health and safety. Existing HCMA plans have included climate-related actions. For example, the 2019 HCMA Sustainability Plan recommended implementation of sustainable and green efforts within internal processes. Other plans with climate-related actions include their 2018 Mowing Plan, park-specific Stormwater Management Recommendation Plans (2019), and Deer Herd and Ecosystem Management Plan (2021). They are now eager to create a CAP that addresses climate change within the Metroparks and increases regional climate resilience (HCMA, 2021).

Cities across southeastern Michigan are taking on climate action and prioritizing it within planning processes (see for example, Huron River Watershed Council, n.d.; Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, n.d.). HCMA hopes their plan will nestle appropriately into this growing network of plans, to complement and extend climate capacity and implementation. As a Metropark system that functions independently, spans multiple counties, and borders multiple jurisdictions, their reach exceeds that of a single city. This potentially provides them the agency and ability to implement impactful goals and strong actions coordinated to meet their needs and those of the larger region.

Data Collection and Inclusion

HCMA leadership partnered with Michigan State University researchers (the authors of this work) to create a CAP aiming toward park and regional ambitions and meeting criteria of scientific rigor and organizational capacity-building. Part of this work entails context alignment, or analyzing existing CAPs, in the region. The researchers sought insight from these CAPs on what was being included in southeastern Michigan.

The first task was to work with HCMA staff to define the geographic boundaries of what was generally referred to as southeastern Michigan. For the purposes of HCMA's CAP and regional scope, the area was co-defined as the five counties of southeastern Michigan (Wayne, Washtenaw, Livingston, Oakland, and Macomb), statewide efforts affecting these counties, and two large metropolitan neighbors—Toledo, Ohio (US), and Windsor, Ontario (Canada).

Second, in spring 2022, the team systematically searched for and collected municipal CAPs across this geography. Plans were gathered through a county-by-county search, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, the Carbon Disclosure Project Open Data Portal, Michigan Climate Network, and input from HCMA staff. To be initially included, a plan had to: 1.) be published and publicly available, 2.) have defined goals/objectives, and 3.) contain explicitly climate-focused actions.

Nineteen cities had climate initiatives, but ultimately seven were determined to have CAPs fitting the defined scope. Detroit had two iterations of a CAP in the past five years; both were included given Detroit's large regional presence. Two additional entities—the state of Michigan and the University of Michigan—had plans that met the inclusion criteria. In total, 10 plans were included (Table 1). Four sustainability plans were included, as they were within the region and co-located climate and sustainability actions in a single plan. For these, only climate actions were considered in the analysis. It should be acknowledged that a variety of climate actions are being implemented across the region and beyond the scope of this study's inclusion parameters, such as those beyond official planning documents (e.g., initiatives listed on websites but not detailed in public plans, draft plans, contributory commercial or community actions not phrased as climate-focused).

Data Analysis

A conventional, qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Stemler, 2019) was used to analyze climate actions and the process to achieve them. The 10 plans were uploaded into Nvivo (1.7), a qualitative data analysis software that assists in data management and coding structure organization (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2020). The process was framed by a priori and emergent, iterative coding. Regular meetings with academic and practitioner experts were held, which, along with increasing content familiarity, expanded and adapted the coding structure. The a priori codes were based on the integrated framework for recreation amenities components of theme and spatial and temporal scale (Perry et al., 2020). The three major themes of this framework encompass managerial, resource, and social actions.

Perry et al. (2020) recognize community as an inherent fourth theme and leave space for currently untitled considerations. This active inclusion and active blank space acknowledge that contextualized and emergent factors occur in any application of the framework and encourage others to adapt it as appropriate; this framework has been used accordingly. An initial coding round with the existing themes and categories (i.e., content areas and foci) helped to accurately capture the plans' climate actions identified and the purpose of plans and each action. The inclusion of community was found to be essential within the CAPs and climate actions, and thus it was added as a theme for this analysis.

Further foci were added to those presented by Perry and colleagues, recognizing the diversity inherent in the framework's application to climate change and beyond-park planning. All actions were coded to their main content area plus a resource code, if applicable. This required using a generic Not Specified resource code for any action lacking a specific resource for data management purposes, though these instances have been excluded from the reporting of results to avoid skewing of resource-related actions. Table 2 lists and describes the final coding structure applied.

Within each main theme, coding was also done for temporal and spatial scale and involvement scope. Temporal scales were analyzed on a pre-determined scale and grouped into near term (≤ 5 years), mid-range (6-20 years), long term (≥ 21 years), and unspecified/unquantified time scales. The intention was to summarize scales of action on three common planning horizons, to examine general patterns and trends. This cross-plan summation meant that the coding, at times, did not match a specific plan's wording (e.g., the Detroit Sustainability Action Agenda 2019 defines mid-range as 3-5 years), but it was felt that this approach generally matched the corpus and its intended application for HCMA.

Spatial scales also reflected the corpus' general content. Six categories were used, ranging from smaller to larger geographies and acknowledging a similar or different resource base:

Finally, recognizing that involving others through partnerships, collaborations, and inclusion principles can expand a plan's scope organizationally, actions were coded for involvement scope. This captured those who were indicated as responsible for implementation and/or success. If no collaboration or partner was mentioned, it was assumed that responsibility fell solely on the plan creator. Three codes were used, derived from the data and ways in which involvement is often typified (Andrade & Rhodes, 2012; Chu et al., 2018; Koontz & Newig, 2014):

The analysis was validated through inter-coding reliability checks and with six researchers uninvolved with this work, as well as with member checks with HCMA staff. No major discrepancies were found through this process. The focus was purely on the actions defined within these plans rather than on the hierarchy of goals, actions, and metrics conducted in previous CAP content analyses (see for example, Deetjen et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2013; Woodruff et al., 2022).

Climate Action Content

A total of 292 actions were identified, representing 44 foci across four content areas: 22 resource, 13 managerial, five social, and four community. Each action had a main focus. A few had dual or multi-emphasis foci. Actions within a singular content area may reference a focus or multiple foci within that area. The coding approach captured these overlaps (Figure 1). Percentages presented represent portions of the total coded foci (n=344) unless otherwise stated, and may surpass 100 percent in sum because of instances of dual or multi-emphasis foci.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Percentages (%) of singular, dual, and multi-emphasis content areas within each climate action

Patterns emerged from this thematic coding. Over half of all actions were managerial, nearly half were resource, and less than a fifth were either community or social. Keeping community and social codes separate to better identify the ideas and message shared could explain the similarities in their frequencies and the gap between the two categories and managerial and resource. If combined though, they would still be the least common, accounting for just over a third of all codes.

Three of the four main content areas were represented in all 10 plans, with social absent from one plan, the Windsor Corporate Climate Action Plan. Many actions had either one focus or two or more foci within the same content area. Looking only at those with multiple content areas identifies broader integrations. The most common dual-emphasis action content overlap was managerial-resource (n=71; 20.6%). The next most common were managerial-community and resource-social (both n=15; 4.5%), though these were far less abundant than managerial–resource overlaps.

There were 18 actions that had multi-emphasis content areas. The most common combination was managerial–resource–community (n=9; 2.7%). As described in the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan, only one action was coded within all four themes: “Create programs to catalyze and accelerate the transition to cleaner technologies like electric and hydrogen fuel-cell farm equipment” (Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, 2022, p. 47). There were no co-occurrences of managerial–community–social.

Content area subcodes highlighted the specific foci for climate action (Table 3). The most common managerial focus was economic, which relates to actions concerning incoming funding, reallocation for funds, or economic support for climate action. Nine plans had economic actions (all except the 2017 Detroit Climate Action Plan), accounting for almost a quarter of managerial actions (Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, 2017).

Although not the most common of managerial foci, facilities and waste management was present in all 10 plans and therefore the most ubiquitous managerial action. Waste management includes actions related to recycling, composting, landfill production, construction materials, and related technology and processes (e.g., innovations to help local businesses decrease waste; City of Northville Michigan, 2020) and developing/formalizing a corporate waste target and strategy (City of Windsor, 2017). Facilities-related actions ranged in specificity from phrasings such as “Improve energy efficiency and durability of homes” (Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, 2017, p. 57) to:

Embark on a phased, district-level approach to converting U-M's heating and cooling infrastructure to be fossil-fuel free, beginning with electrified systems centered on geoexchange with heat recovery chiller technology and with the flexibility to pivot to other proven technological solutions as they emerge. (University of Michigan, 2021, p. 62)

The most common social focus was transportation and related access, accounting for nearly half of the social content area and present across eight plans. These actions aligned with increases in and access to public transportation and decreases in emissions from community transportation, such as improving accessibility “for all abilities and income levels” (City of Royal Oak, 2022, p. 53) and increasing park and ride options to “ensure seamless connection to transit” (City of Ann Arbor, 2020, p. 76).

The most common community focus was community engagement. Community building was the second most common. Community engagement concerns outreach or including the community in decision making about climate change, items such as tailoring carbon neutrality awareness campaigns with audience-specific formats and opportunities for input (University of Michigan, 2021). In contrast, community building includes actions such as fostering community capacity or creating community programming. This could refer to generally expanding “green jobs training and workforce development programs” (City of Detroit, 2019, p. 42 or specifically supporting business lifecycle assessments about clean energy and conducting “trainings to support minority-owned, veteran-owned, women-owned, tribal-owned clean energy businesses and help them compete in utility and state procurement programs” (Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, 2022, p. 29). No single community focus is represented across all 10 plans, but all 10 plans are represented throughout the content area.

Resources represented almost half of all actions, and within that, energy dominated. Energy-related actions were found in all 10 plans, most frequently attributed to residential or commercial building energy. Many of these actions refer to increasing building efficiency, implementing weatherization programs, and reducing overall emissions from built infrastructure. Often overlapping tightly with the facilities' focus, these include a variety of efforts such as workshops about retrofitting and weatherizing homes (Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, 2017) and developing minimum energy efficiency standards to deepen savings and reduce emissions from new buildings (City of Windsor, 2017).

Climate Action Scale and Scope

Temporal and spatial scales were present as structural and monitoring components and two basic sets were identified: scales for whole plans and scales for individual actions. Focus was placed on action-level scales (Table 4). Because the six spatial categories centered resources and divisions of cities, two plans were excluded from the scales analysis—the State of Michigan and the University of Michigan.

The distribution of temporal scales suggests actions are most likely to be of immediate, near-term priority: implementing climate actions within five years of the plan publication date (a common planning cycle). This immediacy was evidenced in actions such as committing to updating managerial plans as they sunset to “integrate information on climate change risks for residents and infrastructure and identify potential mitigation strategies” (City of Detroit, 2019, p. 83) or specifying that the entire plan is based on a three-year action strategy (City of Royal Oak, 2022).

Conversely, actions taking a great length of time to implement/achieve—longer than 20 years—were the least prevalent. These were seen in actions that provided stepwise active metrics of success. Examples include: 1.) the emphasis in the 2017 Detroit Climate Action Plan on reducing transportation, energy, and built environment emissions from a 2012 baseline: 10 percent by 2022, 30 percent by 2032, and 80 percent by 2050; and 2.) the emphasis in the 2017 Windsor Corporate Climate Action Plan on reducing primary energy use from a 2014 baseline: 11 percent by 2030 and 25 percent by 2041. Other plans referred to a more distinct future. One action in the 2022 MI Healthy Climate Plan illustrates this: “Provide incentives and technical assistance to advance the energy efficiency and other process improvements necessary to achieve carbon neutrality in the industrial sector by 2050.” (Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, p. 45).

Almost a third of the actions did not specify a stated measure for temporal evaluation of success, leaving this metric undetermined at least within the public-facing plan. The Toledo-Lucas County Sustainability Plan (2014) exhibited this with broad actions such as supporting “farmers in adopting best practices to help their farms remain productive while protecting the health of nearby lands and waters” (p. 7) and developing “programs and policies that connect neighborhoods to nearby businesses and open spaces with walking and/or biking trails or sidewalk” (p. 40). These also included actions in which the city was already successfully engaging, such as continuing a commitment to developing and expanding cycling infrastructure (bike racks, storage, etc.) (City of Windsor, 2017).

Spatially, actions overwhelmingly encompassed city-wide goals and initiatives. Most plans did not focus on certain sites, neighborhoods, or collections of similar sites across cities, but rather on broader geographies of city climate action. This includes actions to electrify city bus systems (City of Ann Arbor, 2020) and prioritize waste management access (e.g., recycling, composting) to city residents at home, work, and leisure locations (Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, 2017).

Specified, nonspatial actions were the second most common, pertaining to internal and policy-related actions regarding governmental/administrative processes (e.g., Department of Public Works updates) rather than spatial extents. These appeared as increasing managerial capacity by aligning budgetary items, contract agreements, and internal staffing.

Collections of similar sites was the third most referenced, and similar in number to specified, nonspatial actions. Examples include broadly creating and renovating parks throughout the city (City of Detroit, 2019) and specifically seeking financing for Solar Ypsi solar installations by monitoring “grant opportunities for solar hybrid systems on high water-usage public buildings, such as the Rutherford Pool and Fire Department” and remaining “alert for low-cost ways to support private installations” (City of Ypsilanti, 2012, p. 18).

Actions extending beyond the city, to a region, were relatively uncommon. These occasionally referenced partnering with nearby jurisdictions, such as the City of Windsor collaborating “with neighboring municipalities to establish an organics program” (City of Windsor, 2017, p. 48).

The intersections of the scales were also examined for each action (Figure 2). This indicated temporal-spatial relationships of the actions. Actions were most often defined as near-term and city-wide, such as finalizing and integrating a circular economy strategy into all planning initiatives by 2022 in Ann Arbor (City of Ann Arbor, 2020) or identifying catalyst projects to prioritize in Toledo's current planning cycle (Toledo-Lucas County Sustainability Commission, 2014).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Relationships between spatial and temporal scales (n=224) in city-level climate action plans in the dataset (n=8)

Site, multiple sites, and neighborhood actions were also most often phrased as implementable in the next five years. City-wide actions much more commonly included mid- and long-term timelines. Mid-term examples included actions such as implementing a Community Choice Aggregation program throughout the city of Ann Arbor by 2027 (City of Ann Arbor, 2020). Long-term examples included actions such those described in the Northville Sustainability Plan (City of Northville Michigan, 2020) to expand electrical vehicle infrastructure and increase permeable surfaces across the city by 2040. Regional actions had low frequency and had no instances of long-term scale.

Finally, the involvement of scopes and frequencies of actions were examined. This lent insight into who was indicated as responsible for implementation: the administrative entity, an organizational partner, the community, or multiple responsible parties. Across the 292 actions, there were 346 descriptions of involvement. Three-quarters (75.1%; n=260) of the actions were based mostly or solely within the administrative entity. This was explicit, such as when the 2019 Detroit Sustainability Action Agenda specified that the city “would lead by an example and expand recycling efforts in all municipal buildings” (City of Detroit, 2019, p. 68), or implicit, such as when the same plan would “launch a citywide recycling campaign” (p. 68) with fewer details on who would head the effort.

About a third (33.5%; n=116) named organizational partners as action implementers or co-implementers. Many of these highlighted partners pursuing their own related actions clearly within the plan, identifying individual organizations for individual actions. The Ann Arbor A2Zero plan (City of Ann Arbor, 2020) and the Royal Oak Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (City of Royal Oak, 2022) both contained such language and also identified specific city departments to assist in implementation.

Actions with only internal departments identified were considered under sole administrative entity control. A few (8.3%; n=29) indicated collaboration with community members including local landlords, homeowners, community neighborhood ambassadors, community organizations, or advisory committees.

There could be dual or multi-emphasis involvements, recognizing collective implementation to achieve objectives and indicators. This was uncommon though, as only 7.5 percent (n=22) of the actions involved two entities. Pairing an organizational entity and community collaborator was most pronounced, with an entity working with community organizations and neighborhood ambassadors to share information, conduct outreach, or understand community needs. For example, the Ypsilanti Climate Action Plan identified their need to engage community partners to gather more information on residents' needs, while recognizing certain organizations that could specifically assist in outreach and implementation. There were no instances in which all three entities were explicitly mentioned as implementers.

The Potential Mismatch in Regional Resource Foci

The resource content area made up nearly half of all actions in the plans, aligning with expectations of resources-based content being prominent among CAPs. However, the prominence of particular foci within resources is interesting and potentially actionable. The most common resource mentioned was energy, specifically energy consumption and emissions in buildings. All 10 plans included related actions. Commercial and residential building efficiency were covered in two broad ways, decreasing emissions escaping from buildings and increasing the efficiency within them. Energy efficiency is important for addressing high temperature concerns but is not the sole solution. Within the region, there appears to be an exaggerated reliance on building energy-related actions to address high temperatures and heat when other resource actions could assist in amelioration.

Other possible considerations to manage temperature and heat include increasing of tree canopies; conversion of open, developed space; and other green infrastructure strategies (Brown et al., 2015; Reynolds et al., 2020). These resources were present but lacked prominence across plans. Tree canopy and urban forest actions were only mentioned in half of the plans and represented less than 5 percent of all resource foci, indicating either a paucity or another source of plans (e.g., urban forest plans). Only the Detroit Sustainability Action Agenda 2019 mentioned the urban heat island effect as a concern, defining actions to expand emergency preparedness to extreme weather and integrating climate change into pre-existing hazard mitigation plans.

The plans also lacked water resources mentions. Water usage was second to energy for resource foci, but with a large gap between their placements: 64 actions and 10 plans with energy versus 13 actions and seven plans for water usage. Considering the likely regional climate impact of increased precipitation, surprisingly only six plans had stormwater infrastructure goals (8.7% of resource foci). There was also an absence in attention to the region's significant waterbodies. No point in Michigan is more than six miles from a waterbody (Vaccaro, 2012). Southeastern Michigan is home to many significant water bodies, including two Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair. These natural resources define and critically support the region's social-ecological health, so the lack of actions within plans is notable. The approach used in the research excluded non-plan based initiatives (e.g., projects stated on websites) that may contain water-related actions, but the scope does suggest such actions are not commonly considered in prioritized climate planning.

This fragmentation between resource of focus and resource of concern presents a major opportunity for HCMA and their CAP, especially within the ecological system. While it seems that a major focus is attending to building efficiency to reduce to high heat concerns throughout the region, the Metroparks can expand past these efforts to assist in other vital ways. Their extensive green space provides ample opportunity to consider provisioning of shade and regional cooling (Brown et al., 2015; Schottland, 2019; Vieira et al., 2018; Xing & Brimblecombe, 2020) and stormwater management (Rega et al., 2022; Schottland, 2019). HCMA's 2019 Stormwater Management Plan offered recommendations regarding stormwater conveyance structure maintenance and replacement and green infrastructure projects each of its parks should pursue (OHM Advisors & HCMA, 2019). Community members have expressed related concerns. In HCMA's Community Needs Assessment, park users identified managing stormwater to protect water quality and reducing flooding as their biggest sustainability concerns (ETC Institute & HCMA, 2022, p. 328).

The Metroparks also have a climate action opportunity with the region's waterbodies. The parks are located within three major watersheds within the greater Lake Erie Watershed (Vaccaro, 2012). The Metroparks were developed along the Huron and Clinton Rivers, two major rivers in the region. Six of the Metroparks act as ecological corridors for the Huron River and are large draws for park visitors. Another two Metroparks are located directly on the Great Lakes and/or Lake St. Clair, with a collective 14 miles of shoreline (HCMA, 2020). The Metroparks also manage 3,634 acres of inland lakes (HCMA, 2020). This all emphasizes the importance and integration of water within the Metroparks. Beyond park-specific responsibilities, HCMA has the ability to consider these resources and impacts at the broader scale, within their regional jurisdiction. The HCMA already plays a substantial role in supporting these resources, but reliance on our waters for recreation and well-being is increasingly stressed (Perry et al., 2018b). As a park system with access to these resources, they may see more visitors seeking heat refugia and recreation. Considering both of these issues may provide strong guidance as the Metroparks outline their climate goals and specific actions. The use of the integrated recreation amenities framework helped to capitalize on this pattern and identify these specific foci.

The Relative Preponderance of Managerial versus Social and Community Actions

It is unsurprising that in the corpus of governmental plans, the most common actions were managerial. Actions focused mostly on budgetary concerns, policy and planning, and community infrastructure. These plans were created by and for governmental entities, so centering managerial actions seems logical, as they are within the entity's means to implement and enforce. This is encouraging, as internalizing these actions creates active pressure to achieve them. These plans also create checkpoints to track progress and dedicate follow-up. It thus appears that jurisdictions are owning their power to create and enact change. They are assigning themselves the work instead of pushing it to others to achieve. This pattern, especially in contrast to the abundance of managerial actions, may result from use of the action-level coding approach. Considering hierarchy within plans may show social and community themes represented in higher-level goals rather than specific actions. Though this may be a study limitation, it also opens an important consideration about governmental definition and implementation of climate actions. It is uncertain whether the de-emphasis of social and community actions was intentional or inherent in the planning process when considering climate resilience. The research suggests this was intentional framing since some plans discussed their community engagement processes (if there were any), yet actions and involvements rarely went beyond a managerial/administrative locus of control.

This creates a model for HCMA. The plans heavily focus on managerial actions (see Table 2), and thus provide a guide as HCMA considers how their CAP will fit into the broader network of actions. Using the integrated recreation amenities framework content areas to interpret regional plans for park contributions seems appropriate, in this way, to draw parallels between traditional park management and neighboring jurisdictions. Park management is presented with an opportunity to complement regional managerial actions, extending their contributions beyond park borders. For example, regional parks could assist in framing land acquisition actions as related to climate change. CAPs reference this as a way to expand green space and develop land in just and ecologically-friendly ways. Many regional park systems already include land acquisition in their strategic plans, so this could bridge relevant climate actions, for example, Long Beach, California's Strategic Plan for 2022-2032 Long Beach Parks, Recreation, and Marine (2022) and Arlington County's Strategic Plan 2021-2025 (Arlington Virginia, 2020).

This pattern of actions also explores a unique entry into augmenting the existing plan network. As a regional jurisdiction bordering municipalities that are engaged in climate action, HCMA touches and transcends the priorities within city bounds. HCMA can specifically extend these actions by addressing and including their own unique park community within their plan. This community includes the many visitors who enjoy the Metroparks, both local and non-local.

There is an opportunity to consider community on a different scale than traditional jurisdictions, and potentially incorporate them into defined collective action. HCMA and other urban-proximate regional parks already are situated uniquely in social-ecological systems. With established and extensive interpretation and outreach programming, relationships are sustained, and a trusted, reciprocal relationship may be upheld (Baur & Tynon, 2010). Unlike government entities, these relationships could lead to integration of social and community actions without the notion of offloading climate responsibility. Park systems often rely on partnerships to achieve management goals. These relationships remain inherent in planning processes. Climate action may not look any different on the park scale, and the incorporation of community assistance could be expected and welcomed.

The Encouraging Dual and Multi-Emphases

Lastly, regional park systems have opportunity to consider the lesser-emphasized overlaps among social, community, and resource-related actions. The patterns in Figure 1 identify where jurisdictions are thinking multidimensionally and purposefully. The most common of these was overlap in managerial and resource content, accounting for almost 21 percent of all actions. This further supports the trends previously discussed: managerial actions and natural resources were of highest concern and of most reference. This content overlap was unique among the 10 plans coded and exemplifies the importance of a resource and managerial ownership of protecting/enhancing it. Examples include:

However, this pattern of thematic overlap was not as prevalent across other content area intersections. There was only one action in one plan containing all four content areas. There was also only a sole action containing social, community, and resource content areas: “Expand emergency preparedness and communication tools” (City of Detroit, 2019, p. 83), concerning extreme weather preparedness and community well-being when facing major storms. The lack of actions at the managerial, social, and community intersection is of interest. While this may stem from the decoupling of social and community in the coding process, there were ways in which this separation was warranted and thus not likely due entirely to research design. For example, there were distinctions in multi-emphasis content area actions with managerial and resource and either social or community. Social examples included “Invest in institutional structures to expand and support carbon neutrality-focused ‘living-learning labs' across all three U-M campuses” (University of Michigan, 2021, p. 144) and “Create a citywide truck routing network” (City of Detroit, 2019, p. 38).

Community examples were more focused on community well-being, for example: “Transition Affordable Housing Sites to Net Zero Energy,” and “Expand Weatherization Program” both from the Ann Arbor's A2Zero plan (City of Ann Arbor, 2020, pp. 58, 66).

In conclusion, there is a lack of integration between actions of managerial implementation and community focus. The data patterns and examples illustrate that while community and social are a piece of actions, they are the focus rather than the driving force. There is a strong trend of managerial propulsion toward a community end vision. The integrated recreation amenities framework allowed qualification of these actions in ways that recognize subtle differences while offering a unique outlet to translate to park opportunity.

From this, regional park systems can extend climate action efforts. The Metroparks are a piece of many community members' everyday lives, and visitors in turn bring the Metroparks into their community conversations and concerns. This relationship inherently includes the park system's resources. Visitors are constantly interacting with the parks' natural environments, pressing parks to regularly revisit the balance between recreationists' expectations and park ecological health. This is an inherent consideration in parks, especially high-use and urban-proximate ones. Recreation is critical and also projected to change drastically in the coming years (Groshong et al., 2018; Perry et al., 2018a). It—and its balance with resource integrity—is at the forefront of management decisions.

Ultimately, this positioning provides a clear opportunity to extend climate actions centering social, community, and resource foci: implementing meaningful actions that protect the natural spaces and favorite recreation activities of southeastern Michigan through a varied and uncertain future. Looking beyond recreation in this nexus is necessary, though, to continue advancing and cultivating a distinctive yet cross-scale relevant CAP. Information gathering, which emerged as a pronounced action across content areas, has a key role. Information gathering describes the need for insight on what climate change means for the region while working within questions of global uncertainty. Advancing dual and multi-emphasis content area knowledge provides a pathway to finding deeper and broader intersections across types of action. For example, parks demonstrating waste reduction management initiatives with composting could pair citizen science inquiries on efficacy with green infrastructure development, interpretation, and ultimately improved soil and water quality.

Parks are spaces for learning and already have a role in where people can explore, ask questions, and study social-ecological systems. There is a regional, practical need for this. Providing space to explore furthering regional knowledge on climate impacts and actions assists in strengthening and refining integrated actions. HCMA, specifically, can act as such a conduit: engage and enhance climate actions and expand knowledge about climate change on managerial, resource, social, and community levels.