Protected Places
How subnational governments are building resilience against environmental risks
Environmental risks are playing out on every continent. From remote Pacific Islands to bustling Asian cities, from European farmlands to African townships.
The threats, costs, and severities of these risks are growing in plain sight. Subnational governments are faced with a constellation of environmental issues – particularly water security, deforestation, and climate change – endangering economic growth and societal well-being.
Cities, states and regions are pivotal to tackling this crisis – without them, action simply will not be effective. Cities alone make up an estimated 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and 80% of GDP. They are also the site of frequent extreme weather events which are causing untold financial and human costs.
Disclosure is supporting decision-makers in widely different jurisdictions to make informed policy choices and create plans to protect their citizens. This essential tool supports stakeholders to build resilient places by illuminating risks and identifying and implementing untapped, long-term opportunities for growth.
The following insights are based on data from almost 1,000 disclosing subnational governments across 111 countries. Taken together, these jurisdictions represent 16% of the global population.
Building resilient places
These insights look at how subnational governments are responding to the environmental risks they face.
In this context, “place resilience” refers to the extent to which subnational governments have taken sufficient steps to gain an understanding of the jurisdiction’s environmental dependencies and impacts, effectively managing the risks and capitalizing on the opportunities.
A holistic, multi-stakeholder, view of place resilience – beyond the scope of this analysis – looks at the unique context of each place, and necessarily involves all people, businesses, governments and communities that live, impact, contribute, and are dependent on an area.
Building Earth-positive, resilient places is a collaborative effort and requires integrating data from all organizations: subnational governments, corporates, small and medium enterprises and financial institutions.
Instant insight
Three steps to protect the places we call home
Place resilience can be achieved by taking three steps: understanding the risks, taking impactful and measurable action to address these risks, and harnessing the co-benefits.
By this yardstick, subnational governments are heading in the right direction. Almost all respondents – a total of 972 cities, states and regions representing over one billion people – are assessing the factors which stand in the way of adaptation. These cover everything from budgetary costs to land use planning, and inequality to ecosystem health.
A key takeaway from these results is that building resilience is achievable and offers governments substantial co-benefits. Reduced costs, better quality of life, and job creation are frequently cited as benefits by disclosers.
Policymakers should view resilience as a route to tackling wider, seemingly unrelated issues covering economic, social and health concerns.
Step one: Understanding the risks
of jurisdictions are considering nature in their Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessments (CRVA).
of all states and regions report that deforestation is an issue in their region.
of cities, states and regions are considering water, nature, and transition risks.
The most recent data shows strong awareness – and action – of the varied environmental issues affecting cities, states and regions. But while roughly two-thirds of jurisdictions assess nature (65%), this falls considerably when taken alongside transition risks (25%). The concept of transition risks – policy, market, technology, or reputational issues associated with shifting to a zero-carbon economy – is becoming established within the public sector. A number of jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, are now expecting public sector bodies to disclose on these risks.
Case study: How disclosure has transformed Freetown's climate plans
Learn how Sierra Leone’s capital has emerged as a trailblazer in leveraging climate data to drive impactful strategies.
Step two: Taking action
More than simply assessing environmental risks, governments are building them into their plans for economic growth. 65% of respondents have a climate action plan with an almost equal amount (67%) carrying out adaptation actions which respond to the risks they have identified.
of cities, states, and regions have a climate action plan.
The next major challenge lies in enacting these plans. While two-thirds of disclosers report taking action, levels of implementation vary across regions. This is, in part, due to how successful governments are in securing adequate finance, resources, and technical capacity, as well as in engaging a broader range of stakeholders.
India shows the lowest proportion of actions in operation, with only 5% (across 38 actions), highlighting a significant gap between planning and actual implementation.
Latin America and Africa follow, with 23% (185 actions) and 31% (28) of actions in operation, respectively.
Japan and China demonstrate stronger progress, with 75% (44) and 86% (78) of actions in operation, respectively.
Regional differences
A striking similarity in the data is how different places are perceiving the same environmental hazards. Urban flooding, for example, is reported as one of the top three hazards across all regions, with Brazil, India, the UK and US all identifying it as a major concern. Extreme heat and drought were also singled out as a top hazard across geographically distinct regions, from Canada to China.
The next stage after identification is the development of a clear action plan which adequately responds to these hazards. In this selection of examples reported to CDP, we see some notable differences in priorities across regions.
Market focus
Case study: Penang confronts its climate vulnerabilities
Find out how Penang Island is using nature-based solutions to build resilience against frequent bouts of drought and floods.
Step three: Harnessing the benefits
of jurisdictions are assessing the co-benefits of adaptation actions.
of jurisdictions identify cost reduction as an economic co-benefit of adaptation actions.
There are many opportunities and benefits which flow from these actions. Governments are seeing reduced health impacts from extreme heat (29%), increased social inclusion (25%), enhanced energy security (17%), and improved food security (15%), among others.
These are some of the positive outcomes of place resilience, accessible only after a plan is developed, and sensitive to the unique risks faced within a locality. The issues – from labor productivity to road safety – are often indirectly related to climate and nature, and ones which governments often devote significant resources to addressing.
Effective place resilience depends not only on technical planning but also on social equity. The most vulnerable populations, including those in informal settlements and marginalized groups, often face the greatest risks. Subnational governments that integrate inclusivity and just transition principles into adaptation planning are better positioned to build lasting resilience.
Case study: Bogota’s journey to ambitious climate action
Read how Colombia’s capital is building green infrastructure, changing urban mobility and embracing renewable energy in response to climate concerns.
Creating strong foundations
The insights in this report show how subnational governments are taking steps to respond to multilayered environmental risks. But beyond local government, all stakeholders – including business and civil society – need to collaborate to build place resilience.
Those who rely on strong local infrastructure, a skilled workforce, or public financing, for example, need to approach these concerns with a holistic view on how they could be impacted. One blind spot is a tendency to prioritize climate concerns and ignore the wider nature puzzle. In reality, climate change and nature are inseparable – protecting forests will cut carbon emissions while adapting to climate disasters will improve water security.
Taking a wider environmental approach will deliver further economic and social dividends. Nature-based solutions such as urban greening, wetland restoration, and coastal ecosystem protection are emerging as cost-effective adaptation strategies that deliver multiple co-benefits. By integrating climate, water, and biodiversity considerations, subnational governments can address interconnected risks while strengthening resilience across sectors.
Finally, none of this would be possible without the disclosure data which supports effective decision making. Governments, investors, and businesses are basing their policies and decisions on the insights that flow from disclosure, allowing them to maximize economic and societal benefits.
CDP’s place resilience recommendations
The following recommendations are intended to complement the three steps outlined in these insights.
Have a process in place to measure, manage, and disclose environmental dependencies and impacts.
Know the risks and opportunities, including where they are and their financial implications.
Set clear, impactful adaptation goals.
Engage stakeholders across business, levels of government, local communities, and vulnerable populations on your actions.
Create a strategy and a plan based on the environmental issues uncovered, linked to achieving adaptation goals.
Create new economic and social initiatives and harness the co-benefits.
The data in this report was collected in partnership by CDP and ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability.