Transportation planning is one of the key services provided by counties and cities. However, it has suffered with problems such as disinvestment and the prioritization of cars in the United States, which have led to challenges for communities and the natural environment, particularly with climate-related natural disasters on the rise. The Central Valley of California represents distinct transportation challenges, like other rural and sprawling metropolitan areas, such as long travel distances, infrequent transit services, and the cost of car ownership and fuel for a mostly working-class population. Given these challenges of climate change and transportation planning, this research examines the ways in which government administrators work to address these challenges and how the public is included in their initiatives. The study uses qualitative data analysis to explore the connections between climate change, transportation, and citizen involvement. Findings suggest implications for transportation planning in the face of a changing climate.
CarolynM. A.MarcusJ. (2015). The politics of collective public participation in transportation decision-making. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78(1), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.014
3.
DekkerS. (2019). Cities leading climate action: Urban policy and planning. Routledge.
GriffinG. P.JiaoJ. (2019). The geography and equity of crowdsourced public participation for active transportation planning. Transportation Research Record, 2673(1), 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118823498
6.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1724745
7.
HölscherK.FrantzeskakiN.McPhearsonT.LoorbachD. (2019). Tales of transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 231(2), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.043
8.
HughesS.Miller RunfolaD.CormierB. (2018). Issue proximity and policy response in local governments. The Review of Policy Research, 35(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12285
JeonC. M.AmekudziA. A.GuenslerR. L. (2010). Evaluating plan alternatives for transportation system sustainability: Atlanta metropolitan region. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4(4), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310902940209
11.
KarjalainenL. E.JuholaS. (2021). Urban transportation sustainability assessments: A systematic review of literature. Transport Reviews, 41(5), 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1879309
LegaspiJ.BhadaS. V.MathisenP.DeWinterJ. (2020). “Smart city transportation: A multidisciplinary literature review” (pp. 957–964). IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC42975.2020.9283471
14.
LelandS. M.DanisC.SmithS.BoyerR. H. W. (2022). The implementation of active transportation policies at the local level: Findings from a North Carolina survey. Public Works Management & Policy, 27(3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X221088835
15.
LeuenbergerD. Z.BartleJ. R.ChenC. (2014). Sustainability and transportation. Public Works Management & Policy, 19(4), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X14545540
16.
LiuH.ChenN.WangX. (2021). Comparing regional sustainability and transportation sustainability at the metropolitan level in the U.S. Using artificial neural network clustering techniques. Transportation Research Record, 2675(9), 1655–1669. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211009519
17.
MarkolfS. A.HoehneC.FraserA.ChesterM. V.UnderwoodB. S. (2019). Transportation resilience to climate change and extreme weather events – beyond risk and robustness. Transport Policy, 74(1), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.003
18.
MartensK.GolubA. (2021). A fair distribution of accessibility: Interpreting civil rights regulations for regional transportation plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18791014
19.
MeraR.MasseyN.RuppD. E.MoteP.AllenM.FrumhoffP. C. (2015). Climate change, climate justice and the application of probabilistic event attribution to summer heat extremes in the California Central Valley. Climatic Change, 133(3), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1474-3
20.
MiaoQ.WelchE. W.ZhangF.SrirajP. S. (2018). What drives public transit organizations in the United States to adapt to extreme weather events?Journal of Environmental Management, 225(1), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.093
NyaupaneG. P.PoudelS.YorkA. (2020). Governance of protected areas: An institutional analysis of conservation, community livelihood, and tourism outcomes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(11), 2686–2705. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1858089
23.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.
24.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action / elinor Ostrom. Cambridge University Press.
25.
OstromE. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004
26.
PhakathiS.SinyoloS.MarireJ.FraserG. (2021). Farmer-led institutional innovations in managing smallholder irrigation schemes in KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces, South Africa. Agricultural Water Management, 248(1), Article 106780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106780
27.
RodierC.HaroldB.ZhangY. (2022). Retrospective user survey for a rural electric vehicle carsharing pilot in California’s Central Valley. Institute of Transportation Studies.
28.
RoggeroM.BisaroA.Villamayor-TomasS. (2018). Institutions in the climate adaptation literature: A systematic literature review through the lens of the institutional analysis and development framework. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(3), 423–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137417000376
29.
SarrS.HayesB.DeCaroD. A. (2021). Applying Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development framework, and design principles for co-production to pollution management in Louisville's Rubbertown, Kentucky. Land Use Policy, 104(1), Article 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105383
30.
SchweikertA.EspinetX.GoldsteinS.ChinowskyP. (2015). Resilience versus risk: Assessing cost of climate change adaptation to California’s transportation system and the city of Sacramento, California. Transportation Research Record, 2532(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.3141/2532-02
31.
SokolowA. D. (1993). State rules and the county-city arena: Competition for land and taxes in California’s Central Valley. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 23(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/3330799
32.
TranY. L.SiryJ. P.M BowkerJ.PoudyalN. C. (2018). The role of the U.S. Mayors and urban forests in addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mathematical and Computational Natural-Resource Sciences, 10(2), 33–45.
33.
YeganehA. J.McCoyA. P.SchenkT. (2020). Determinants of climate change policy adoption: A meta-analysis. Urban Climate, 31(2), Article 100547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100547
34.
YiH.FeiockR. C.BerryF. S. (2017). Overcoming collective action barriers to energy sustainability: A longitudinal study of climate protection accord adoption by local governments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79(1), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.071
