Facilitating climate adaptation: The resilience adaptation feasibility tool (RAFT) framework

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of the RAFT process.

Figure 2. Location of RAFT implementation communities.

Table B1. Plan scores.

	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2
	Regional hazard mitigation plan		Regional emergency management plan		Locality 1 Comprehensive plan		Locality 2 Comprehensive plan		Locality 3 Comprehensive plan
Project‐Based Relevancy (Climate-Hazard)
Does the plan use factual and current evidence to explain why flooding is an important issue?
Does the plan offer a historical assessment of climatic impacts?
Have sources of flooding been identified and evaluated? Has this happened in the past five years?
Have assets and populations been identified that are vulnerable to flooding impacts?
Is there a completed or updated exposure and/or vulnerability assessment of localized flooding with mapping? Is there a completed or updated exposure and/or vulnerability assessment of localized flooding with mapping in the last 5 years?
Does the assessment identify impacts of climate change, such as changes in the frequency, severity, and extent of flooding risk?
Does this assessment include identified and mapped flooding for different annual probabilities?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score
Nature‐Based Infrastructure
Does the plan identify and map natural resources that are important for ecosystem health and are at risk of being lost due to flooding?
Is there evidence that steps to integrate natural resources into defenses against flooding/flooding hazards through projects, programs, or policies have been taken?
Has the locality identified and planned for natural and nature-based features that are protective and can assist with resilience?
Does the plan educate or inform residents and property owners of the benefits that natural resource protections provide to communities that are at an increased risk of flooding?
Does the plan show evidence that there are incentives for adopting natural resource protection practices or implementing green infrastructure/NNBF?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score
Equity
Is there evidence of public participation in the planning process?
Does the plan fully incorporate vulnerable community members into the planning process?
Were there adequate attempts of community engagement, particularly considering communication and accessibility?
Was a risk assessment of the socially vulnerable populations conducted?
Does the plan explicitly recognize past and existing inequities and present adaptation strategies as a way to address them?
Is there evidence that equity and the need to identify and support socially vulnerable populations is a priority for the locality/in the plan?
Does the plan have a process to review the equity impacts of hazard mitigation or resilience actions?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score
Cross-Jurisdiction Coordination
Is there evidence of collaboration across scales (e.g. regional, local, state, etc.)?
Have leadership roles been established and trainings/education offered?
Has the locality shown evidence that it has reviewed (or has intention to review) its plans and ordinances to ensure that they are coordinated in addressing resilience?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score
Planned Timeline
Is the plan’s implementation affordable and realistic for the present day?
Is there a set time frame for reevaluation?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score
Best Available Science
Is the locality aware of any recurrent flooding outside of the SFHA and is it being addressed in a plan?
Does the locality incorporate data, scientific analyses, and approaches to resilience developed into floodplain, zoning, or subdivision ordinances or a comprehensive plan?
Is the plan online and easy to locate?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score
Adaptive Management
Does the wording of policies seem to hold space for unexpected situations?
Does the plan list ongoing or points of reevaluation recommendations?
Are there firm metrics to gauge the plan’s success or failure?
Are there methods for monitoring whether the plan or the planning interventions are having intended effect?
Is there evidence of adaptive capacity for data analysis and best practice research?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score
Emergency Readiness
Does the plan show evidence of Emergency Operations and readiness, including internal emergency management roles?
Does the plan show evidence to support residents’ emergency preparedness such as providing information about risks and recommended preparedness actions?
Does the plan indicate that the locality has a means of communicating emergency response plans to the public during a hazard event?
Has critical infrastructure for emergency services been identified and assessed for vulnerability?
Does the plan address access to the following during and after emergencies and storms: food/water, medical, health, transportation, shelter?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score
Economic Impact
Does the plan indicate that the budget has allocated funds for addressing flooding hazards, protection, and mitigation?
Does the plan address the economic base of the locality when discussing climate changes or emergencies?
Have local business and economic vulnerabilities been identified?
Have the potential economic impact from hazards and sources of funding for mitigation projects been identified?
Does the plan address a property buyout program to voluntarily (proactively) acquire properties located in the floodplain?
Reviewer Mean Score
Criterion Mean Score

Table B2. Ordinance scores.

	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2
	Locality 1		Locality 2		Locality 3
Is there a ZONING ordinance?
Is there a floodplain district designation as part of the zoning ordinance or as part of a separate floodplain ordinance?
Are homes, permanent structures, and critical infrastructure prohibited in the floodplain district?
Are homes, permanent structures, and critical infrastructure limited or subject to restrictions in the floodplain district?
Does the ordinance establish setbacks and/or buffers that protect flood-prone areas outside of the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area?
Does the ordinance place limits on how much of a lot or land parcel may be covered by impervious surfaces?
Reviewer Mean Score
Ordinance Mean Score
Is there a SUBDIVISION ordinance?
Does the subdivision ordinance refer to flood risk or flood mitigation?
Does the subdivision ordinance contain specific requirements intended to reduce or eliminate flood risk when a proposed subdivision is designed and platted (e.g. street design to avoid flooding)?
Does the subdivision ordinance encourage the use of green infrastructure and/or NNBF in new developments?
Does the subdivision ordinance refer to other relevant ordinances or policies (e.g. zoning or floodplain ordinances)?
Reviewer Mean Score
Ordinance Mean Score
Is there an EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ordinance?
Does the ordinance contain requirements related to changes (i.e. pe-development and post-development) in peak runoff rates after the proposed project is completed (e.g. estimated change in stormwater runoff)?
Does the ordinance contain requirements related to the preservation or restoration of wetlands?
Are there requirements for the creation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities or stormwater control devices as part of the site plan?
Does the erosion and sediment control ordinance refer to other relevant ordinances or policies (e.g. zoning or floodplain ordinances)?
Reviewer Mean Score
Ordinance Mean Score