Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Synthesis of Indicators, Datasets, and Frameworks Available to Establish Resilience and Adaptation Indicators: Case Study of Chesapeake Bay Region, USA

  • Progress in the Solution Space of Climate Adaptation (E Gilmore, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Climate Change Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Adaptation planning and evaluation is challenging because adaptation is occurring on complex systems that are not completely understood. Though assessment is more straightforward for single projects, the larger question often asked is whether multiple adaptation actions, developed by different actors and for different purposes, are making a region more resilient. One way to comprehensively assess adaptation is through indicators—a promising decision support tool because they can be designed to efficiently and comprehensively summarize system behavior even if significant uncertainty exists. In practice, choosing indicators requires navigating a rich and often contradictory information landscape of peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed documents and data products, largely produced for other purposes. In this paper, we review the available information applicable to resilience indicators for the Chesapeake Bay region of the USA. To provide consistency across such diverse projects and information sources, we develop a resilience framework through literature and stakeholder engagement that provides a consistent definition of objectives and frame for evaluation. Using systematic search methods, we identified 283 relevant documents, which were then qualitatively assessed for climate change and resilience themes. Predominant themes emerge around key regional impacts—sea level rise, water quality, flooding, and aquatic ecosystems—as well as magnitude of, exposure to, and impacts of climate hazards. Notably, relatively little information was found for designing indicators for coping and adaptive capacity and adaptation responses. This result highlights that even for well-known problems in the Chesapeake Bay region, much work remains in translating the existing information landscape into actionable indicators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Coded themes and resulting document clusters are available upon request

Code Availability

Not applicable

References

  1. Bierbaum R, Smith JB, Lee A, Blair M, Carter L, Chapin FS, et al. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2013;18:361–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moser SC, Coffee J, Seville A. Rising to the challenge together: a review of critical assessment of the State of the US Climate Adaptation Field [Internet]. 2017 p. 106. Available from: https://kresge.org/sites/default/files/library/rising_to_the_challenge_together_linked_0.pdf

  3. Keeney RL. Developing objectives and attributes. In: Edwards W, Miles Jr RF, von Winterfeldt D, editors. Adv Decis Anal [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 104–28. [cited 2020 Aug 24] Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511611308A017/type/book_part.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Kenney MA, Janetos AC, Gerst MD. A framework for national climate indicators. Clim Change [Internet]. 2018; [cited 2020 Aug 24]; Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-018-2307-y.

  5. Kenney MA, Janetos AC, Lough GC. Building an integrated U.S. National Climate Indicators System. Clim Change. 2016;135:85–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Arnott JC, Moser SC, Goodrich KA. Evaluation that counts: a review of climate change adaptation indicators & metrics using lessons from effective evaluation and science-practice interaction. Environ Sci Policy. 2016;66:383–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Janetos AC. Why is climate adaptation so important? What are the needs for additional research? Clim Change. 2020.

  8. Hammill A, Dekens J, Leiter T, Olivier J, Klockemann L, Stock E, et al. Repository of adaptation indicators: real case examples from national monitoring and evaluation systems. 2014 p. 74.

  9. Mäkinen K, Prutsch A, Karali E, Leitner M, Völler S, Lyytimäki J, et al. Indicators for adaptation to climate change at national level - Lessons from emerging practice in Europe:68.

  10. Holling CS. United Nations Environment Programme, editors. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. [Laxenburg, Austria] : Chichester ; New York: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis ; Wiley; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gregory R, editor. Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Chichester, West Sussex ; Hoboken, N.J: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Keeney RL, Gregory RS. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res. 2005;53:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Klostermann J, van de Sandt K, Harley M, Hildén M, Leiter T, van Minnen J, et al. Towards a framework to assess, compare and develop monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation in Europe. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2018;23:187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harley M, van Minnen J. Development of Adaptation Indicators [Internet]. The European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (ETC/ACC); 2009 p. 16. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.623.2826&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  15. Biagini B, Bierbaum R, Stults M, Dobardzic S, McNeeley SM. A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility. Glob Environ Change. 2014;25:97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schipper ELF, Langston L. A comparative overview of resilience measurement frameworks: analysing indicators and approaches [Internet]. Overseas Development Institute; 2015. Available from: https://resiliencemetrics.org/sites/default/files/files/Resilience-Metrics-A-comparative-overview-of-resilience-measurement-frameworks.pdf

  17. Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, editors. Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Clim Change 2014 Impacts Adapt Vulnerability [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014 [cited 2020 Aug 24]. p. 1101–31. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9781107415379A041/type/book_part

  18. Kenney MA, Janetos AC, Lough GC. Building an integrated U.S. National Climate Indicators System. Clim Change. 2016;135:85–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cobb C, Rixford C. Lessons learned from the history of social indicators. San Francisco: Redefining Progress; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  20. National Research Council. Enhancing the effectiveness of Team Science [Internet]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/19007/enhancing-the-effectiveness-of-team-science

  21. Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci. SAGE Publications Ltd. 1989;19:387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. National Research Council. Advancing the Science of Climate Change [Internet]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12782/advancing-the-science-of-climate-change

  23. Brunton G, Oliver S, Thomas J. Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11:316–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Innes JE. Knowledge and public policy: the search for meaningful indicators. 2nd expanded ed. New Brunswick, U.S.A: Transaction Publishers; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  25. The Chesapeake Bay: Geologic Product of Rising Sea Level [Internet]. U.S. Department of the Interior: U.S. Geological Survey; 1998. Report No.: 102–98. Available from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs102-98/

  26. Learn the Issues: Population Growth [Internet]. Chesap. Bay Program. Available from: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/population_growth

  27. Chesapeake Bay Program. A Comprehensive List of Chesapeake Bay Basin Species. 2007.

  28. Pimental A. Ask a Scientist: How big of an industry is the Chesapeake Bay? [Internet]. Chesap. Bay Program. 2011. Available from: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/news/blog/ask_a_scientist_how_big_of_an_industry_is_the_chesapeake_bay

  29. Najjar RG, Pyke CR, Adams MB, Breitburg D, Hershner C, Kemp M, et al. Potential climate-change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2010;86:1–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Maryland Commission on Climate Change. 2019 Annual Report [Internet]. Annapolis, MD; 2019 p. 27. Available from: https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/ClimateChange/MCCC/Documents/2019MCCCAnnualReport.pdf

  31. Ambrette B. Prioritizing Local Climate Adaptation through Regional Collaboration on Maryland’s Eastern Shore [Internet]. Easton, MD: Eastern Shore Land Conservancy; 2017 p. 27. Available from: https://www.eslc.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/coastal-resilience/escap-white-paper-2017.pdf

  32. Maryland Commission on Climate Change. 2019 Annual Report [Internet]. Annapolis, MD; 2019 p. 27. Available from: https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/ClimateChange/MCCC/Documents/2019MCCCAnnualReport.pdf

  33. Teodoro JD, Nairn B. Understanding the knowledge and data landscape of climate change impacts and adaptation in the Chesapeake Bay region: a systematic review. Climate. 2020;8:58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Richards L. Handling qualitative data: a practical guide. London Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Teodoro JD, Nairn B. Understanding the knowledge and data landscape of climate change impacts and adaptation in the Chesapeake Bay region: A Systematic Review. Climate. 2020;8:58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Arbelaitz O, Gurrutxaga I, Muguerza J, Pérez JM, Perona I. An extensive comparative study of cluster validity indices. Pattern Recognit. 2013;46:243–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hämäläinen J, Jauhiainen S, Kärkkäinen T. Comparison of internal clustering validation indices for prototype-based clustering. Algorithms. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. 2017;10:105.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Liu Y, Li Z, Xiong H, Gao X, Wu J. Understanding of internal clustering validation measures. 2010 IEEE Int Conf Data Min [Internet]. Sidney, NSW, Australia; 2010 [cited 2020 May 19]. p. 911–6. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5694060

  40. Morrissey EM, Gillespie JL, Morina JC, Franklin RB. Salinity affects microbial activity and soil organic matter content in tidal wetlands. Glob Change Biol. 2014;20:1351–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Moore KA, Shields EC, Parrish DB. Impacts of varying estuarine temperature and light conditions on Zostera marina (Eelgrass) and its interactions with Ruppia maritima (Widgeongrass). Estuaries Coasts. 2014;37:20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jarvis JC, Brush MJ, Moore KA. Modeling loss and recovery of Zostera marina beds in the Chesapeake Bay: the role of seedlings and seed-bank viability. Aquat Bot. 2014;113:32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Glandon HL, Kilbourne KH, Schijf J, Miller TJ. Counteractive effects of increased temperature and pCO2 on the thickness and chemistry of the carapace of juvenile blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, from the Patuxent River, Chesapeake Bay. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2018;498:39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Glaspie CN, Longmire K, Seitz RD. Acidification alters predator-prey interactions of blue crab Callinectes sapidus and soft-shell clam Mya arenaria. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2017;489:58–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Glick P, Staudt A, Inkley D. The Chesapeake Bay and global warming: a paradise lost for hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts? [Internet]. National Wildlife Federation; 2007. Available from: https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Reports/chesapeake_bay_full.ashx

  46. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2014 State of the Bay Report. 2014 p. 11.

  47. Chesapeake Bay Report Card 2017 [Internet]. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; 2018. Available from: https://www.stardem.com/chesapeake-bay-report-card-2017/pdf_95e3b7bc-e62f-54e0-9da7-3ad2e77b4a2f.html

  48. Renkenberger J, Montas H, Leisnham PT, Chanse V, Shirmohammadi A, Sadeghi A, et al. Effectiveness of best management practices with changing climate in a Maryland watershed. Trans ASABE. 2017;60:769–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Harding LW, Gallegos CL, Perry ES, Miller WD, Adolf JE, Mallonee ME, et al. Long-term trends of nutrients and phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Coasts. 2016;39:664–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Zheng G, DiGiacomo PM, Kaushal SS, Yuen-Murphy MA, Duan S. Evolution of sediment plumes in the Chesapeake Bay and implications of climate variability. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:6494–503.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Du J, Shen J, Park K, Wang YP, Yu X. Worsened physical condition due to climate change contributes to the increasing hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay. Sci Total Environ. 2018;630:707–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Jiang L, Xia M. Modeling investigation of the nutrient and phytoplankton variability in the Chesapeake Bay outflow plume. Prog Oceanogr. 2018;162:290–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Corsica Targeted Watershed Initiative Progress Report: 2005-2011 [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://dnr.maryland.gov/ccs/Publication/Corsica_report.pdf

  54. Akerlof KL, Rowan KE, La Porte T, Batten BK, Ernst H, Sklarew DM. Risky business: engaging the public on sea level rise and inundation. Environ Sci Policy. 2016;66:314–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kettle NP, Dow K. The Role of Perceived Risk, Uncertainty, and trust on coastal climate change adaptation planning. Environ Behav. 2016;48:579–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kettle NP, Dow K. Cross-level differences and similarities in coastal climate change adaptation planning. Environ Sci Policy. 2014;44:279–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Considine C, Steinhilber E. Collaboration strategies for sea level rise adaptation in Hampton Roads, Virginia. J Green Build. 2018;13:193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Strauss B, Tebaldi C, Kulp S. Maryland and the surging sea: a vulnerability assessment with projections for sea level rise and coastal flood risk [Internet]. Climate Central; 2014. Available from: https://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/ssrf/MD-Report.pdf

  59. Walsh P, Griffiths C, Guignet D, Klemick H. Adaptation, sea level rise, and property prices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Land Econ. 2019;95:19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Spanger-Siegfried E, Dahl K, Caldas A, Udvardy S, Cleetus R, Worth P, et al. When rising seas hit home: hard choices ahead for hundreds of US Coastal Communities [Internet]. Union of Concerned Scientists; 2017. Available from: https://www-jstor-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/stable/resrep17236

  61. Grannis J, Hoverter S, Bennett A, Deas A, Deweese J. Policy considerations for the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. Georgetown Climate Center; 2017.

  62. Cole WD. Sea Level Rise: Technical Guidance for Dorchester County. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Chesapeake and Coastal Management Program; 2008 p. 60.

  63. Glick P, Staudt A, Nunley B. Sea-level rise and coastal habitats of the Chesapeake Bay: a summary: National Wildlife Federation; 2008.

  64. Zwissler B, Oommen T, Vitton S. Method to quantify freeze-thaw effects on temperate climate soils: Calvert Cliffs. J Cold Reg Eng. 2016;30:06016002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Cavigelli MA, Nash PR, Gollany HT, Rasmann C, Polumsky RW, Le AN, et al. Simulated soil organic carbon changes in maryland are affected by tillage, climate change, and crop yield. J Environ Qual. 2018;47:588–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Segura C, Sun G, McNulty S, Zhang Y. Potential impacts of climate change on soil erosion vulnerability across the conterminous United States. J Soil Water Conserv. 2014;69:171–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hawkins TW. Simulating the impacts of projected climate change on streamflow hydrology for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2015;105:627–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Barnes ML, Welty C, Miller AJ. Impacts of development pattern on urban groundwater flow regime. Water Resour Res. 2018;54:5198–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Williamson S, Horin C, Ruth M, Weston RF, Ross K, Irani D. Climate change impacts on Maryland and the cost of inaction. Maryland Commission on Climate Change; 2008.

  70. Nadeau CP, Fuller AK, Rosenblatt DL. Climate-smart management of biodiversity. Ecosphere. 2015;6:art91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hickman JE, Lerdau MT. Biogeochemical impacts of the northward expansion of kudzu under climate change: the importance of ecological context. Ecosphere. 2013;4:art121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Fernandes A, Rollinson CR, Kearney WS, Dietze MC, Fagherazzi S. Declining radial growth response of coastal forests to hurricanes and Nor’easters. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences. 2018;123:832–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Soneja S, Jiang C, Fisher J, Upperman CR, Mitchell C, Sapkota A. Exposure to extreme heat and precipitation events associated with increased risk of hospitalization for asthma in Maryland, U.S.A. Environ Health. 2016;15:57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Akerlof K, Delamater P, Boules C, Upperman C, Mitchell C. Vulnerable populations perceive their health as at risk from climate change. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:15419–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Jiang C, Shaw KS, Upperman CR, Blythe D, Mitchell C, Murtugudde R, et al. Climate change, extreme events and increased risk of salmonellosis in Maryland, USA: Evidence for coastal vulnerability. Environ Int. 2015;83:58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Climate Change, Phase II: building societal, economic, and ecological resilience. Report of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, Adaptation and Response and Scientific and Technical Working Groups. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, Maryland and Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland; 2010 p. 80.

  77. Montgomery County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013. Montgomery County Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security; 2013.

  78. Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prince George’s County; 2010.

  79. Maryland Emergency Management Agency. State of Maryland 2016 Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2016.

  80. The City of Annapolis Office of Emergency Management. Weather it together: a cultural resource hazard mitigation plan for the City of Annapolis. 2018.

  81. Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project [Internet]. City of Baltimore; 2013. Available from: https://www.baltimoresustainability.org/plans/disaster-preparedness-plan/

  82. Eastern Shore Land Conservancy. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Report: Kent County, Maryland [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.eslc.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/coastal-resilience/kent-county-climate-change-adaptation-report-2016.pdf

  83. Office of Planning and Zoning. Sea Level Rise Strategic Plan, Anne Arundel County. 2011.

  84. Sea Level Rise Response Strategy, Worcester County, Maryland. CSA International; 2008.

  85. Grannis J. Adaptation Took Kit: Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Land Use. Georgetown Climate Center; 2011.

  86. Global warming and the free state: comprehensive assessment of climate change impacts in Maryland. Report of the Scientific and Technical Working Group of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. Cambridge, Maryland: University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; 2008 p. 92.

  87. Markle T. Climate change: cost of inaction for Maryland’s economy: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions; 2015. p. 12.

  88. Liu A, Soneja SI, Jiang C, Huang C, Kerns T, Beck K, et al. Frequency of extreme weather events and increased risk of motor vehicle collision in Maryland. Sci Total Environ. 2017;580:550–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Soneja S, Jiang C, Romeo Upperman C, Murtugudde R, Mitchell SC, Blythe D, et al. Extreme precipitation events and increased risk of campylobacteriosis in Maryland, U.S.A. Environ Res. 2016;149:216–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Kang H, Sridhar V. Assessment of future drought conditions in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2018;54:160–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Alamdari N, Sample D, Steinberg P, Ross A, Easton Z. Assessing the effects of climate change on water quantity and quality in an urban watershed using a calibrated stormwater model. Water. 2017;9:464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. 2010 p. 93.

  93. Sweet W, Park J, Marra J, Zervas C, Gill S. Sea level rise and nuisance flood frequency changes around the United States [Internet]. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); 2014 p. 66. Report No.: NOS CO-OPS 073. Available from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/NOAA_Technical_Report_NOS_COOPS_073.pdf

  94. Hino M, Belanger ST, Field CB, Davies AR, Mach KJ. High-tide flooding disrupts local economic activity. Sci Adv. 2019;5:eaau2736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Crimmins A, Balbus J, Gamble JL, Beard CB, Bell JE, Dodgen D, et al. The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: a scientific assessment [Internet]. U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2016. Available from: https://health2016.globalchange.gov/downloads

  96. Ebi K, Boyer C, Bowen K, Frumkin H, Hess J. Monitoring and evaluation indicators for climate change-related health impacts, risks, adaptation, and resilience. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:1943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Molino GD, Kenney MA, Sutton-Grier AE. Stakeholder-defined scientific needs for coastal resilience decisions in the Northeast U.S. Mar Policy. 2020;118:103987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Fleming E, Payne JL, Sweet WV, Craghan M, Haines J, Hart JAF, et al. Chapter 8 : Coastal Effects. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: The Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Internet]. U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2018. Available from: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/8/

  99. Bessette DL, Gregory R. The promise and reality of social and cultural metrics. Ecol Soc. 2020;25:art11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Weaver CP, Mooney S, Allen D, Beller-Simms N, Fish T, Grambsch AE, et al. From global change science to action with social sciences. Nat Clim Change. 2014;4:656–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Community Resilience Estimates [Internet]. United States Census Bureau; 2020. Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/experimental-data-products/community-resilience-estimates.html

  102. Rumore G. Public access to NSF-funded research data for the social, behavioral, and economic sciences workshop report [Internet]. 2016 May p. 69. Available from: https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/reports/Public_Access_NSF_Workshop_Report_Final_Briefs.pdf

  103. Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Paterson J. A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations: a letter. Clim Change. 2011;106:327–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Dilling L, Lemos MC. Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Change. 2011;21:680–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, Guido Z, Horangic A, Owen G, Wall T. Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim Soc. 2015;7:179–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the data collection and research support from J. Felix Wolfinger, Allison E. Baer, Jose Daniel Teodoro, Bruce Narin, Ariana Sutton-Grier, Eni Awowale, Cheryl Dombrowski, Kate Dorn, Greta Easthom, Shannon Evans Engstrom, Jill Freedman, Tyler Ruth, Christopher Smith, Sheena Patel, and Amanda Speciale. The resilience framework was refined given discussion by the project advisory committee members: Brian Ambrette, Eric Bannerman, Jim Bass, Nicole Carlozo, Jennifer Dindinger, Akosua Dosu, Sasha Land, Brian K. LeCates, Kelly Leo, Adam Ortiz, Anna Sierra, and Ariana Sutton-Grier. Kenney and Gerst received support from Maryland Sea Grant under award NA18OAR4170070 Subaward R/CL-2 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Department of Commerce.

Funding

Kenney and Gerst received support from Maryland Sea Grant under award NA18OAR4170070 Subaward R/CL-2 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Department of Commerce.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Kenney: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data development, manuscript writing original and revision, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition

Gerst: conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, data curation, manuscript writing original and revision, visualization, funding acquisition

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa A. Kenney.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Progress in the Solution Space of Climate Adaptation

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 108 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kenney, M.A., Gerst, M.D. Synthesis of Indicators, Datasets, and Frameworks Available to Establish Resilience and Adaptation Indicators: Case Study of Chesapeake Bay Region, USA. Curr Clim Change Rep 7, 35–44 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00170-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00170-6

Keywords

Navigation