Vicky Chanse, Ph.D., Univ of Maryland Increasingly, climate change is influencing the health of our waterways. In the years and decades to come climate change will be a growing focus of the work of policy-makers, planners, and advocates dedicated to protecting and restoring our watersheds. This panel examines policy approaches, adaptive strategies, and community involvement to ensuring clean water while protecting our communities from the impacts of climate change.

1. CHOOSE CLEAN WATER CONFERENCE 2013
LOCAL APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN
THE CHESAPEAKE
SOCIAL APPROACHES TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
IN THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
Panelist:
Victoria Chanse, Ph.D.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

2. Social Responses &Shifting Scales:
Barriersto Developing Sea Level Change
Responses
1. lack of available local data;
2. the gap between hazard-related plans and land
use planning;
3. lack of public support;
4. competing workplace priorities; and
5. limited budgets.
(Source: NOAA 2010)

3. Approaches to Addressing the Social
Components of Local Climate Change
1) Developing visualization approaches and
communication (NOAA 2010; Schroth 2009)
2) Work with with stakeholders and communities
to develop an understanding of the localized
impacts and the design responses at the regional
and site scales is critical (Schroth et. al. 2009).
(Source: NOAA 2010)

4. Questions
1. What are some different ways to involve the
public in climate change management &
design?
2. What are the implicationsof these different
approaches with regards to the Chesapeake
Bay Restoration and Clean-up?

5. What are some different ways to
involve the public in climate change
management & design?

6. Flyer designed by doctoral student
Jennifer Salazar.

7. Workshop Goals
• Convey potential impacts to Dorchester
County stakeholders.
• Identify and prioritize locations around the
county.
• Examine different design responses and
preferred approaches to incorporate into the
design.

8. MLA Students Rosamaria Mora, Matt Sickle, and Michael Boeck

9. Some Examples of Particular
Workshop Approaches
• Identify where residents live and spend time.
• Preferences & Priorities(environmental, built
form, flooding solutions, prioritizing natural
features
• Statements in terms of selecting which was
important (economic, infrastructure, drinking
water)
• Identification of Issues and locations within the
county that residents were concerned about.

10. Issues of Concern to Residents and
Stakeholders
What is most important to you?
• Roads near home
becoming unusable (#1)
• Concerned about the
quality of wells and
septic systems (#2)
• Flooding (#3)
• Property value (#4)
Participation Team:
MLA Students Kory Kreiseder, Allison Jensen, Kim Wharton, and Chris Myers

11. 2. What are the implications to with the
Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Clean-up?

12. LARC 748 – ARCH 403UG COLLABORATIVE STUDIO
STUDENT:
MORA, ROSAMARIA
PROJECT:
KINETIC LANDSCAPES

16. LARC 748 – ARCH 403UG COLLABORATIVE STUDIO
STUDENT:
MOYER, KIM
PROJECT:
WILDLIFE MASTERPLAN

22. Stakeholder Involvement Needs:
Climate Change Visuals
1) To translate complex climate change data into potential impacts at
the local scale;
2) To examine the different possible trajectories such as retreat or
protect the shoreline by building up (Sheppard 2011);
3) To incorporate different types of information
(social, ecological, and economic components); and
4) Engaging stakeholders in exploring possible responses. Different
types of images and maps at different scales inform different
stages of the process and different types of involvement. Personal
images of important local places can quite literally bring climate
change home to audiences.

23. Priorities, Visuals, and Trajectories
• Developing a series of scenarios of adaptation responses
(defend, retreat, or other forms of adaptation) for stakeholder
workshops.
• Use visuals to engage cross-disciplinary and cross-collaboration
with stakeholders, residents, hazard planners in order to a)
identify and prioritize areas and issues of concern and b) to
examine different possibilities. This is particularly pertinent
given sense of loss in addressing sea level change in Dorchester
County.
• Developing and demonstrating a rationale for planning and
design decisions.

24. Implications
• Public Involvement Process from Site Analysis
to Alternative Responses
• Visual Communication Approaches
• Time Frames
• Scales of Inquiry
• Design Exploration of Alternative Responses
• Design Exploration

25. References
• Cole, Wanda Diane. 2008. Sea Level Rise: Technical Guidance for Dorchester
County. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management
Division.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center. 2010.
Hazard and Resiliency Planning—Perceived Benefits and Barriers Among Land Use
Planners: Final Research Report 26 April 2010. Accessed at:
www.csc.noaa.gov/publications/social_ science/NOAACSCResearchReport.pdf
• Sheppard, Stephen R.J.; Alison Shaw; David Flanders; Sarah Burch, ArnimWiek, Jeff
Carmichael, John Robinson,andStewart Cohen. 2011. “Future visioning of local
climate change: A framework for community engagement and planning with
scenarios and visualization.” Futures 43(4): 410.
• Schroth, Olaf, Ellen Pond, Sara Muir-Owen, Cam Campbell, and S.R.J. Sheppard.
2009. Tools for the understanding of spatio-temporal climate scenarios in local
planning. National Science Foundation SNSF Bern: Swiss.
www.calp.forestry.ubc.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2010/02/Schroth_2009_Final_SNSF_Report.pdf.
• Sheppard, Stephen. 2012. Visualizing Climate Change: A Guide to Visual
Communication of Climate Change and Developing Local Solutions. Routledge
Press.

26. Dorchester Acknowledgments
• Dorchester County, the City of Cambridge, and the Eastern Shore Land
Conservancy.
• Anne Roane, Planner and Landscape Architect and Rodney Banks, Hazard
Planner (City of Cambridge, MD).
• Thanks to Chris Haynes (NOAA Coastal Services), David Cronrath (School of
Architecture), Brad McCrea (SF Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, Rising Tides Competition), Olaf Schroth (CALP), Clark Wilson
(U.S. EPA), and Zoe Johnson (MD DNR) for their insights, support, and ideas
as the project developed.
• Spring 2011 LARC748 MLA Students Allison Palmer, Chris Myers, Kim
Wharton, Kory Kreiseder, Matt Sickle, Michael Boeck, and Rosamaria Mora.
• Research collaborators Architecture Professor Luis Diego Quiros and
doctoral student Kevin Adams.
• Spring 2012 ARCH403 Sections (Architecture Professors RonitEisenbach,
Isaac S Williams, and Michael Stanton)
• This work would not have been possible without the financial support of
the 2011-2012 Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Grant.