Planning for State Resilience: A 50-State Breakdown

State officials face unprecedented challenges as they seek to enhance statewide resilience to  floods , disasters, or climate change. In response, many state governments are embracing new organizational structures or making new commitments to strategic action. While approaches vary from state to state, trends in resilience governance features are emerging.

Previous efforts have analyzed statewide resilience plans or documented the rise of state resilience offices, chief resilience officers, and interagency coordinating bodies (e.g., Burnstein and Rogin 2022; C2ES 2017; Cramer et al. 2021; GCC 2023; NCSL 2023; Resor and Modelfino 2020). And some of these efforts have produced guidance for state officials interested in improving resilience governance (e.g., Rupp, Sheets, and Hanson 2021; SGA and GICD 2015; SRP 2023).

This story map synthesizes and builds off previous research to present a typology of state resilience governance frameworks. It explores this typology through a series of thematic maps highlighting specific governance features and provides short profiles of four states with noteworthy practices.

In the U.S., state governance comprises the system of interactions among institutions, actors, processes, laws, rules, norms, and practices that constitute the administration of a state government. It’s what the state does and how it chooses to do it. State resilience governance is a subset of these interactions, which, for the purposes of this story map, comprises state activities intended to help state systems and local communities absorb and bounce back from shocks associated with flooding, other hazardous events, or a changing climate.

This story map uses the intersection of two broad concepts as a proxy for a state’s approach to resilience governance. The first concept is the degree of formality in institutional arrangements, and the second concept is the degree of strategy formation and implementation.

As the maps above illustrate, evidence of formality in institutional arrangements and evidence of a commitment to strategic action each exist on a spectrum. Mapping the intersection of these concepts at their midpoints creates a coordinate plane, with four quadrants. Each quadrant represents a potentially distinct approach to state resilience governance (Figure 1). Here, lower numbers on the x-axis represent a less formal approach to institutional arrangements, and higher numbers represent a more formal approach. Similarly, lower numbers on the y-axis represent a less strategic approach to planning and implementation, and higher numbers represent a more strategic approach.

The top-left quadrant is labeled as Type A. Less Formal | More Strategic. The top-right quadrant is Type B. More Formal | More Strategic. The bottom-right quadrant is Type C. More Formal | Less Strategic. And the bottom-left quadrant is Type D. Less Formal | Less Strategic.

As described above, each state has a cumulative "Formality Score" and a cumulative “Strategy Score.” Using these scores as x-y coordinates, you can plot each state on the coordinate plane (Figure 2).

The following map series highlights the geographic distribution of states by type.

The following profiles briefly describe how specific states use subsets of the governance features highlighted above in their efforts to enhance statewide resilience to floods, disasters, or climate change.

Based on the typology presented here, Washington is an example of a Type A: Less Formal | More Strategic state. Its aggregate Formality Score is four out of a possible 11, and its aggregate Strategy Score is eight out of a possible 11.

The state’s current approach to resilience governance is rooted in a realization that its first attempt to formulate a statewide climate response strategy had not inspired widespread action. In 2009, Washington legislators had directed the Department of Ecology to coordinate the development of an integrated strategy to prepare for and adapt to climate change impacts ( §70A.05.010 ). The department published the resulting document,  Preparing for a Changing Climate: Washington State’s Integrated Climate Response Strategy , in 2012. The strategy incorporated findings from a 2009 climate change impact assessment prepared by the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group (CIG) and presented an ambitious set of recommendations for climate action.

According to Jennifer Hennessey, Special Assistant to the Director of the Washington Department of Ecology, Washington had already established itself as a leader on climate change mitigation, but the 2012 strategy was not effective in shifting the focus to resilience. The strategy was so broad that it was difficult for state officials to sequence, monitor, and evaluate actions. Hennessey says a lack of an explicit governance structure made implementation more difficult.

Jason Vogel, Interim Director of CIG, suggests governance challenges became clear to those outside of state government when the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) engaged CIG to help it prepare a statewide resilience plan. Because the head of the department is the elected Commissioner of Public Lands, who does not report to the governor, the plan would not create obligations for any other state agencies. Consequently, DNR officials reframed the resulting document as a departmental plan (2020).

In 2021, state legislators passed the landmark  Climate Commitment Act , establishing a cap-and-invest program for greenhouse gas emissions. The act also directed the governor to create a governance structure for climate action, which included a requirement to update the state’s climate response strategy ( §70A.65.050 ). While these statutes do not specify a lead resilience office or a timeline for the strategy update, Hennessey’s department submitted subsequent legislation (adopted in April 2023) that designated the Department of Ecology as the “central convener” for the state’s climate response efforts ( 1170-S2.SL ).

Under this new law, the Departments of Ecology, Agriculture, Commerce, Health, Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Transportation, along with the State Conservation Commission, the Puget Sound Partnership, and the Emergency Management Division must collaboratively prepare an updated climate change response strategy by the end of September 2024. Statutory guidelines for the strategy establish top-level goals for resilience efforts, stakeholder engagement requirements for the planning process, implementation and monitoring responsibilities, and a requirement for an update every four years.

In a parallel effort, state legislators adopted new statutes that require all local jurisdictions that are subject to the state’s  Growth Management Act  (GMA) to include a climate change and resiliency element in their comprehensive plans ( 1181-S2.SL ). While these statutes do not address consistency with the state’s new climate response strategy, the Department of Commerce, a core collaborator in the development of the strategy, is responsible for helping local jurisdictions plan under the GMA. Because local decisions have a considerable effect on statewide resilience, Vogel speculates that this new requirement may, ultimately, be more significant to advancing statewide goals than the state’s climate response strategy.

Based on the typology presented here, Massachusetts is an example of a Type B: More Formal | More Strategic state. Its aggregate Formality Score is six out of a possible 11, and its aggregate Strategy Score is also six out of a possible 11.

In Massachusetts, two offices share the primary responsibility for coordinating statewide efforts to enhance resilience to climate change. Former Governor Charlie Baker established this dual resilience office approach by executive order in 2016, and state legislators reaffirmed it by state law in 2018 ( Executive Order No. 569 ;  §21N-10 ).

Both sources direct the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) and Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (PSS) to prepare, publish, implement, and periodically update a statewide climate adaptation plan and to create and maintain a framework to help state agencies and municipalities assess their vulnerability to climate change. Both sources also require the secretaries of all 10 executive offices to designate a climate change coordinator for their respective offices to serve as an interagency coordinating committee, the  Resilient MA Action Team , to help EEA and PSS carry out their charge.

In fulfillment of Baker’s executive order, EEA and PSS published the  Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan  in September 2018. While not explicitly required to do so by the executive order (or subsequent statutes), state officials elected to combine an update of the statewide hazard mitigation plan with additional analysis and recommendations specific to climate change adaptation, becoming the first state to take this approach (Kaplan and Herb 2021).

The plan includes five statewide goals “to implement the vision of the Commonwealth for mitigating risk and adapting to climate change.” The project team developed these goals in collaboration with stakeholders from across the state through a series of three workshops.

Massachusetts' approach to resilience governance seems to reflect widespread interest across the state in enhancing resilience to climate change. In a recent survey of municipal officials, 89 percent of respondents indicated that they had already prioritized climate adaptation and resilience planning (Vicarelli et al. 2021). However, according to the study’s lead author, Marta Vicarelli, Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the data collected seems to suggest that challenges posed by climate change may exceed local capacity to respond.

In recognition, former Governor Baker established the  Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Program  in 2017 (with state legislators reaffirming it a year later), which provides grants and technical assistance to help cities and towns prepare for climate change ( Executive Order No. 569 ;  §21N-11 ). According to program materials, the first phase was so successful that 99 percent of all municipalities in the state have applied The Nature Conservancy's  Community Resilience Building  framework to help develop local resilience plans.

Based on the typology presented here, South Carolina is an example of a Type C: More Formal | Less Strategic state. Its aggregate Formality Score is nine out of a possible 11, and its aggregate Strategy Score is four out of a possible 11.

In June 2023, the South Carolina Office of Resilience (SCOR) published the  South Carolina Strategic Statewide Resilience and Risk Reduction Plan . This document is the culmination of an 18-month planning process and represents a major milestone in the multi-year evolution of the state’s approach to resilience governance.

According to Susan Cutter, Co-Director of the University of South Carolina’s Hazards Vulnerability & Resilience Institute (HVRI), widespread flooding and damage in October 2015 made it clear to state officials that they needed a new governance structure to guide recovery and better prepare for future hazardous events. In response, former Governor Nikki Haley established a new Disaster Recovery Office within the South Carolina Department of Commerce and charged it with formulating and implementing a Community Development Block Grants–Disaster Relief [sic] (CDBG-DR) Action Plan ( Executive Order 2016-13 ). Cutter says state officials invited HVRI staff to help stand up the new office and provide guidance on federal recovery assistance programs.

Subsequent floods in 2016 and 2018 prompted Governor Henry McMaster to create the interagency South Carolina Floodwater Commission in 2018 to develop a statewide “flood accommodation, response, and mitigation effort” ( Executive Order 2018-50 ). The committee’s  final report  recommended that state officials design a “comprehensive and integrated structure and plan…for flood risk reduction and resilience.”

According to Alex Butler, SCOR’s Resilience Planning Director, this recommendation motivated state legislators to create SCOR in 2020 and integrate the existing Disaster Recovery Office into its structure. The resulting statutes specify that the head of SCOR serves as the state’s Chief Resilience Officer and reports to the governor and charge SCOR with developing a Statewide Resilience Plan, with assistance from a new interagency Statewide Resilience Plan Advisory Committee ( §48-62 ).

While the statutes do not specify an update schedule, Butler says his office is aiming at a five-year cycle, and they are continuing to meet with the advisory committee to discuss implementation. The plan is still new, but Hope Warren, SCOR’s Resilience Planner, notes that many of its recommendations are already moving forward. For example, the state’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation worked with the South Carolina Real Estate Commission to update residential property disclosures to increase awareness of flood and other natural hazard risks.

Like Washington, South Carolina’s legislators paired new state planning requirements with a new requirement for local comprehensive plans. Going forward, all municipal and county comprehensive plans in the state must include an integrated resiliency element ( §6-29-510(D)(10) ). According to Warren, local officials have already begun using data and recommendations from the state’s plan in their plan updates.

Cutter also sees clear evidence of progress in terms of governance. She says that most state agencies work well together and that the state is getting better at vertical integration. Perhaps to illustrate, as Butler notes, SCOR has shifted its focus, following completion of the Statewide Resilience Plan, to watershed planning as way to engage local communities in the process of enhancing resilience to floods and other hazardous events.

Based on the typology presented here, Nebraska is an example of a Type D: Less Formal | Less Strategic state. Its aggregate Formality Score is zero out of a possible 11, and its aggregate Strategy Score is three out of a possible 11.

Nebraska’s current approach to resilience governance is shaped, in part, by its experiences with widespread, devastating flooding following a bomb cyclone in March 2019. This event prompted state legislators to adopt new statutes requiring the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop a statewide flood mitigation plan as a standalone addendum to the state’s hazard mitigation plan by July 2022 ( §61-225 et seq .).

These statutes require DNR to engage a wide range of federal, state, and local stakeholders in the plan development process, including the state’s Departments of Transportation, Environment and Energy, Economic Development, and Agriculture and the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). Statutory guidelines for the plan require DNR to identify “cost-effective” flood resilience strategies; implementation opportunities for those strategies; gaps in current disaster program delivery; potential available funding sources; and flood risks for critical infrastructure and facilities. These guidelines also require the plan to evaluate the existing state policy framework for flood hazard mitigation and development in flood-prone areas and to recommend new policies, as necessary, to facilitate better coordination and collaboration between state and local entities.

According to Adele Phillips, Flood Mitigation Planner with DNR, the  2022 Nebraska State Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan , is organized to follow federal requirements for state mitigation plans but includes the supplemental information required in the new state guidelines. While this wasn’t the state’s first dedicated flood mitigation plan, it was the first developed under a statutory requirement. Phillips reports that some local jurisdictions are using the new plan to inform local hazard mitigation plan updates, but usage by other state agencies is unclear.

Following the historic Midwestern floods of 1993, former Governor Benjamin Nelson created an interagency Disaster Recovery Task Force to guide recovery efforts ( Executive Order 94-3 ). This body has been intermittently reactivated following subsequent disasters, most recently in response to the 2019 bomb cyclone and flooding, with a shift in focus in early 2020 to COVID-19 pandemic response, according to Phillips. However, there is no standing interagency coordinating body focusing on resilience from a more holistic perspective.

According to Martha Durr, Director of the Nebraska State Climate Office at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, there are some recent signs of state agencies taking climate resilience more seriously though. For example, the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy is currently working on a climate action plan, focusing on agricultural and electrical grid resilience, with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Program (established by the 2022 federal Inflation Reduction Act).

The typology presented here serves to highlight some emerging trends in state resilience governance. Twenty years ago, no state had a state resilience office, a chief resilience officer, or an interagency coordinating body for resilience. Now more than half of all states use at least one of these governance features to help enhance statewide resilience to floods, disasters, or climate change.

While states have been preparing hazard mitigation plans as a condition of eligibility for federal hazard mitigation funding for more than 20 years, explicit statewide resilience strategies and planning goals and sub-state resilience planning assistance programs are more recent phenomena. Now more states than not have or are developing resilience plans, goals, or assistance programs.

As the state profiles above suggest, the increased frequency and severity of floods and other hazardous events are motivating state leaders to take dramatic actions to establish or evolve resilience governance approaches. For example, within the past five years, Washington, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Nebraska have all codified new requirements for statewide resilience planning.

However, flattening governance approaches into four broad types may also obscure meaningful distinctions among states of the same “type.” Less than one-third of all states have more than half of the governance features associated with either evidence of formality in institutional arrangements or evidence of commitment to strategic action. That does not mean that most states are doing nothing to enhance resilience. In fact, the variation among states classified as Type D: Less Formal | Less Strategic may be greater than the variation between many of those states and states classified as other types.

Type D includes a nearly even split between states with zero of the governance features analyzed here and states with at least one of those governance features. Furthermore, it includes three states that are one governance feature short of classification as Type A, and one that is two governance features short of classification as Type B. Meanwhile, Types C and A both include two states that are one feature away from classification as Type D.

Furthermore, there are other governance features not included in this typology, which, if considered, might lead to a very different distribution when plotted on a coordinate plane. For example, because differences in state budgeting practices make it difficult to compare sources of funding for state agency operations, the typology only considers funding sources in the context of sub-state resilience planning assistance programs. However, many commentators and researchers would likely agree that operational funding is a key component of any state governance approach.

Finally, the typology presented here is for discussion purposes only. It is not a ranking or a scorecard. The presence or absence of specific governance features does not say anything about the efficacy of those features or the efficacy of a state’s overall approach to enhancing resilience to floods, disasters, or climate change.

Here are just a few unanswered questions about state resilience governance worthy of future study:

• How important are state definitions of resilience to building interagency and cross-sector understanding of and support for resilience-enhancing activities?
• How do the sources, availability, and amount of federal funding affect state resilience governance?
• What effects do different institutional arrangements have on the design of resilience planning processes or the implementation of resilience plans or strategies?
• What factors affect the durability of institutional arrangements and commitments to strategic action?
• How are regional planning agencies, local officials, and private-sector organizations using state resilience strategies?

Berke, Philip R. 1996. “  Enhancing Plan Quality: Evaluating the Role of State Planning Mandates for Natural Hazard Mitigation  .” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39(1): 79–96.

Berke, Philip R. and Steven P. French. 1994. “  The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality  .” Journal of Planning Education and Research 13(4): 237–50.

Burnstein, Eric Tjon and Amy Rogin. 2022.  State Flood Resilience and Adaptation Planning: Challenges and Opportunities . Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). 2017.  State Action on Resilience .

———. 2019. “ What Is Climate Resilience and Why Does It Matter? ” Climate Essentials, April.

Cramer, Sam, Campbell Delahoyde, Kelsey Jones, Kirsten Verclas, Dan Lauf, and Matt Rogotzke. 2021.  State Governance, Planning, and Financing to Enhance Energy Resilience . Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Energy Officials and National Governors Association.

Georgetown Climate Center (GCC). 2023.  State Adaptation Progress Tracker .

Kaplan, Marjorie, and Jeanne Herb. 2021.  An Overview of Climate Change Resilience Programs in Four States: Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island . New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, NJ Climate Change Alliance.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, State of. 2022.  Massachusetts Climate Change Assessment .

Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, State of. 2023.  Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Program .

Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, and Emergency Management Agency, State of. 2018.  Massachusetts Integrated State Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan .

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2023.  State Resilience Offices .

Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy. 2023. “ Nebraska Among the Quickest States to Pursue New EPA Climate Pollution Reduction Grants .” News Release, March 14.

Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. 2022.  2022 Nebraska State Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan .

Resor, Caroline, and Summer Modelfino. 2020. “ Across the Coalition and Beyond, States Advanced Flood Resilience in 2020 .” AFC Blog, December.

Rupp, Mark, Trina Sheets, and Carolyn Hanson. 2021.  Instituting Resilience: Recommendations for Governors and Legislators on Establishing and Supporting Chief Resilience Officers . Washington, D.C.: Environmental Defense Fund, National Emergency Management Association, and ECOS.

Smart Growth America (SGA) and Governors’ Institute on Community Design (GICD). 2015.  Building Resilient States: A Framework for Agencies .

South Carolina Floodwater Commission. 2019.  South Carolina Floodwater Commission Report .

South Carolina Office of Resilience, State of. 2023.  Strategic Statewide Resilience and Risk Reduction Plan .

State Resilience Partnership (SRP). 2023.  Strategic Planning .

University of Washington Climate Impacts Group (CIG). 2009.  The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate .

Vicarelli, Marta, Yu Ya Htut Tin, Madeline Leue, Aryen Shrestha, Mathew Barlow, Darci Connor Maresca, Andy Danylchuk et al. 2021.  Climate Resilience: A Survey of Massachusetts Municipalities . Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Washington Department of Ecology, State of. 2012.  Preparing for a Changing Climate: Washington State’s Integrated Climate Response Strategy .

Washington Department of Natural Resources, State of. 2020.  Safeguarding Our Lands, Waters, and Communities: DNR’s Plan for Climate Resilience .

David Morley, AICP, Research Program and QA Manager with the American Planning Association (APA) developed this story map under the auspices of APA’s applied research program. Support for this project was provided by  The Pew Charitable Trusts . 

The  American Planning Association  is an independent, not-for-profit educational organization that provides vital leadership in creating great communities for all. APA and its professional institute, the  American Institute of Certified Planners , are dedicated to advancing the profession of planning, offering better choices for where and how people work and live. The nearly 40,000 APA members work in concert with community residents, civic leaders, and business interests to create communities that enrich people’s lives. Through its philanthropic work, the  APA Foundation  helps to reduce economic and social barriers to good planning. APA is based in Washington, D.C., and Chicago.

Special thanks to the following individuals who participated in state profile interviews:

• Alex Butler, Resilience Planning Director, South Carolina Office of Resilience
• Susan Cutter, Co-Director, University of South Carolina Hazards Vulnerability Research Institute
• Martha Durr, Director of Nebraska State Climate Office and Professor of Applied Climate Science, University of Nebraska
• Jennifer Hennessey, Special Assistant to the Director, Washington State Department of Ecology
• Adele Phillips, Flood Mitigation Planner, Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
• Marta Vicarelli, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Jason Vogel, Interim Director, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group
• Hope Warren, Resilience Planner, South Carolina Office of Resilience

Thanks also to Mathew Sanders, AICP, Senior Officer, Pew Charitable Trusts; Kristiane Huber, Officer, Pew Charitable Trusts; Joseph DeAngelis, AICP, Research Manager, American Planning Association; Siyu Yu, PhD, AICP, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University; and Matthew Malecha, PhD, Instructional Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, for reviewing a draft version of this story map and to Ann Dillemuth, AICP, PAS Editor, American Planning Association, for copyediting.

This story map reflects the results of my review of existing gray literature on state-level resilience planning and governance structures; a desk audit of state statutes, state-agency-published plans, official state agency web pages, official news releases, and similar state-government-published materials; and interviews with select staff members of state agencies and faculty members of public universities.

I based the methodology for this effort, in part, on APA’s  2022 Survey of State Planning Laws . First, I collected and reviewed existing gray literature to identify broad themes in state resilience governance and examples of specific governance features. Then, I developed a data collection form, with a standard set of questions for each state. These questions touched on each of the resilience features highlighted in this story map and included additional questions about agency funding and assistance program guidelines.

Next, I filled out the data collection form for each state, using references to governance features in specific states in the existing literature as a starting point. For each state, I sought independent verification by, at a minimum, searching the official version of each state’s codified statutes and each state government’s primary official website for explicit references to “resilience” and “resiliency” in the context of floods or other hazardous events and climate change. For states with standalone agency websites, I repeated my searches on the websites of agencies responsible for environmental protection, natural resource management, and emergency management. Whenever my searches yielded relevant results, I tracked down other referenced plans and strategy documents, executive orders, administrative regulations and policies, news releases, legislative acts, executive budgets, annual reports, and program guidelines.

Then, I narrowed my focus to seven distinct subsets of governance features: definitions, resilience offices, resilience officers, coordinating bodies, plan guidelines, planning goals, and assistance programs. Across these subsets, I selected 22 distinct governance features, split evenly between two overarching themes: Evidence of Formality in Institutional Arrangements and Evidence of a Commitment to Strategic Action.

Next, I created a coordinate plane, with evidence of formality on the x-axis and evidence of strategy on the y-axis. By plotting the intersection of these axes at their respective midpoints, I established four potentially distinct governance approaches: one for each quadrant.

After defining this typology, I plotted each state on the coordinate plane. Then, I created one thematic map for each type, thematic maps for each aggregate axis score, and thematic maps for each subset of governance features.

Next, I selected one state from each type, based on geographic distribution and variety of governance features, to spotlight through short narrative profiles. For each of these states, I requested interviews with state staffers working on resilience planning efforts and state university faculty with knowledge of state resilience governance issues. Based on these interviews and data collection through my desk audit, I prepared short profiles of these states.

Finally, I shared a draft version of the full story map with APA research staffers, APA’s primary contact for this effort at Pew, and two core faculty members of Texas A&M University’s Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center for review and comment. And I shared draft versions of relevant state profiles with interviewees for review and comment.

The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of The Pew Charitable Trusts or the American Planning Association. The author alone is responsible for the contents of this resource.

This resource reflects publicly available information available as of July 2023. The information provided here is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this resource constitutes legal guidance.