Strengthening Climate Resilience Through Urban Policy: A Mixed-Method Framework with Case Study Insights

Abstract

While climate resilience is a growing priority in urban planning, limited attention has been given to the procedural and governance mechanisms needed to effectively integrate resilience into policy development. This study presents a comprehensive policy analysis aimed at enhancing climate resilience, using the city of Kamloops, Canada, as a case study. A policy evaluation framework was developed, encompassing four dimensions and 20 indicators, to assess 11 policies and bylaws in Kamloops. The evaluation yielded a moderate score of 0.559 out of 1, revealing both existing strengths and critical gaps in the city’s climate resilience strategies. Key challenges identified include policy inflexibility, the absence of clear climate adaptation goals, insufficient emphasis on education and research, the lack of long-term projections and risk assessments, and implementation gaps such as unclear timelines, responsibilities, and funding mechanisms. To validate these findings, interviews with city staff from multiple departments provided further insights into governance barriers and opportunities for policy enhancement. Beyond Kamloops, this study offers a scalable and adaptable framework for cities worldwide seeking to integrate resilience into their urban planning policies. By addressing governance and procedural challenges, cities can strengthen their capacity to mitigate climate risks, enhance sustainability, and build long-term urban resilience.

1. Introduction

Global climate change poses significant challenges to urban areas worldwide, necessitating the enhancement of urban resilience to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate-related hazards [1]. As climate change continues to accelerate, cities must adapt their infrastructures and policies to withstand extreme weather events, rising temperatures, and other environmental stresses [2,3]. Recent events in Canada, such as the Lytton fire and Merritt flood of 2021, highlight the urgency of this need [4,5]. These disasters caused significant economic losses, displaced thousands of residents, and highlighted vulnerabilities in urban planning and emergency response. Enhancing urban resilience is necessary for protecting communities, reducing economic losses, and ensuring sustainable urban development [6,7]. Effective resilience strategies can safeguard public health, support biodiversity, and promote social equity, making cities more robust against the adverse effects of climate change [8,9]. Given the critical role of policy in shaping urban resilience, strengthening resilience through informed policy development is essential for ensuring long-term urban sustainability.

Despite the clear need for climate resilience, integrating resilience into policy frameworks remains a significant challenge. Current research on resilience largely focuses on the concept of urban resilience [6], evaluation frameworks on resilience [10,11,12], technical aspects of enhancing infrastructure resilience [13,14], and impacts of urban disasters and mitigation measures [15,16]. However, much of this study overlooks the procedural and governance mechanisms necessary to effectively embed resilience into policy development. Resilience is not only critical to mitigating risks but also essential for sustaining long-term urban development, as it enables systems to adapt to evolving environmental and socio-economic conditions. Moreover, resilience policy must be viewed through a multi-actor relational lens, recognizing that it operates within socio-technical systems that require evidence-based, deliberative governance. Demonstrating the capacity to govern resilience in practice at the urban level remains a pressing challenge [7,17]. Many urban policies lack the necessary provisions to address rapidly evolving climate conditions and fail to integrate climate resilience considerations into planning and regulatory mechanisms [7].

Moreover, there is often a disconnect between policy development and the practical implementation of resilience measures [17]. This disconnect is heightened by limited resources, insufficient data, and a lack of coordination among various stakeholders [18,19]. While much of the research on resilience focuses on conceptual frameworks, significant progress is also being made by practitioners, urban planners, and local governments in developing and applying resilience strategies. These efforts often address practical challenges, such as implementing resilience metrics, adapting infrastructures, and managing cross-sectoral collaborations within dynamic socio-technical contexts. However, gaps still exist in how these metrics and strategies are applied effectively in diverse urban settings, especially in transitioning and rapidly evolving socio-technical systems. Political and public support for climate resilience initiatives is often lacking, further hindering progress [20]. To bridge these practical and conceptual gaps, there is a critical need for comprehensive research that not only informs policy development but also equips practitioners with the tools and frameworks necessary to apply resilience strategies effectively in the real world.

To address these gaps, this study examines the city of Kamloops, Canada, as a case study to evaluate how resilience is integrated into current urban planning and development policies. Kamloops was selected due to its geographic and climatic characteristics; its history of exposure to climate-related hazards such as wildfires, floods, and extreme heat; and its proactive but evolving approach to climate resilience planning. As a mid-sized city in British Columbia, Kamloops presents a representative case for examining resilience policy in municipalities facing similar climate risks. Studying Kamloops provides valuable insights into the strengths and gaps in existing urban resilience policies, offering a replicable framework that can be applied to other cities.

This paper evaluates the integration of resilience into urban planning and development policies, identifies key challenges and gaps, and offers strategic recommendations to enhance climate resilience. It highlights the importance of defining resilience not only through technical and environmental metrics but also in ways that engage communities culturally and ethically. The practical implementation of resilience requires meaningful engagement with local communities, respecting territorial sovereignties and ensuring that resilience strategies align with diverse cultural values and priorities. By addressing these complexities, this study aims to support cities in refining their policy approaches, enhance the education of urban and environmental management practitioners, and inform broader discussions on embedding resilience into urban governance frameworks that reflect local needs and contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Kamloops, located in the Thompson–Nicola region of British Columbia, Canada, is a mid-sized city with a population of approximately 100,000 people, making it one of the largest urban centers in the interior of the province [21]. As an important urban center in the interior of British Columbia, Kamloops faces various environmental challenges that necessitate robust urban resilience and climate adaptation strategies [22,23]. The city’s geographical location and semi-arid climate make it particularly susceptible to extreme weather events, including urban flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, and drought, as shown in

Table 1. Climate threats, policy response, and resilience in Kamloops, British Columbia.

Climate Threats	Strategic Response	Related Policy	Resilience Actions
Flooding	Improved stormwater management, floodplain mapping	Integrated Stormwater Management Plan Zoning Bylaw No. 55 Building Bylaw Tree Protection Bylaw Subdivision Control Bylaw	Construct flood barriers, restore natural floodplains
Wildfires	FireSmart programs, land-use planning	Community Wildfire Protection Plan Zoning Bylaw No. 55	Conduct controlled burns, create defensible spaces
Extreme heat	Urban greening, heat response plans	Urban Forest Management Plan Zoning Bylaw No. 55 Landscape Guidelines Tree Protection Bylaw	Increase urban tree canopy, create cooling centers
Drought	Water conservation, alternative water sources	Sustainable Kamloops Plan Agriculture Area Plan	Implement water-saving technologies, diversify water supply sources

. As a growing urban area, Kamloops is experiencing an increasing demand for infrastructure, water resources, and emergency response capabilities, creating significant pressure on its systems and highlighting the urgent need for effective climate resilience strategies.

Furthermore, Kamloops has been actively engaged in climate action and sustainability planning, making it a suitable case study for evaluating policy effectiveness. The city has adopted multiple initiatives, such as the Community Climate Action Plan and the Official Community Plan, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing adaptive capacity. Despite these efforts, challenges persist in integrating resilience into policy and long-term planning, particularly in the face of rapidly evolving climate conditions. The city’s commitment to sustainability, combined with its vulnerability to climate hazards, makes it an ideal case study for evaluating how resilience is integrated into urban planning and policy.

The selection of Kamloops for this study was also significant due to its position as a mid-sized city that sits at the intersection of urban and rural governance challenges. This context allowed for a broader understanding of how resilience policies can be tailored to municipalities with similar climate risks and developmental pressures. By analyzing Kamloops’ policies, this study aimed to identify both best practices and gaps, offering a framework that can inform climate resilience planning in other Canadian cities and beyond.

2.2. Policy Review and Evaluation

This study employed a mixed-method approach that integrates policy analysis with qualitative insights from policy makers to provide a comprehensive evaluation of urban resilience in Kamloops. By leveraging both qualitative and quantitative dimensions, this study situated policy evaluation within the practical realities of urban governance, recognizing the complex, multi-actor nature of resilience decision-making. The case study of Kamloops serves as an illustrative example of how cities are navigating these challenges, providing insights that are both context-specific and broadly applicable to municipalities facing similar climate risks.

2.2.1. Policy Review

Strategic planning documents (e.g., Building Bylaw, Landscape Guidelines, Tree Protection Bylaw, Zoning Bylaw) were investigated to provide insight into the city’s experience with climate impacts and the nature of policy response with respect to urban climate resilience. Including these documents helped to supplement and validate the interview findings, thereby enhancing the overall rigor of the research [24]. All the selected documents are publicly available and can be obtained through the municipality’s website.

2.2.2. Policy Evaluation Framework

The policy evaluation framework was adopted from the research by Bonnett and Birchall (2023) [25], originally designed for assessing general policy effectiveness. Their framework, widely used in policy analysis, provides a structured method for evaluating policy coherence and implementation. It consists of four dimensions: goals, policy content, fact base, and implementation. Given its systematic approach to policy assessment, this framework serves as a strong foundation for analyzing urban resilience policies. However, to better align it with the concept of climate resilience, the framework was modified and expanded to specifically evaluate how well urban policies integrate resilience principles. The adapted framework ensures that resilience is examined not only in terms of policy intent but also through its grounding in evidence, feasibility of implementation, and capacity to address climate risks effectively.

The revised dimensions are as follows:

Goals: assesses whether plans explicitly address climate resilience by incorporating climate change and adaptation strategies into the guiding vision and long-term objectives of strategic documents. This included identifying whether resilience-building was a core priority across relevant policy areas.

Policy content: identifies the presence or absence of resilience-related policies, including specific adaptation measures and climate-responsive actions, across various sectors (e.g., transportation, buildings, land use, environment, etc.) and planning areas, ensuring that climate resilience was integrated into multiple domains.

Fact base: assesses the extent to which climate-related contextual information was integrated into planning documents, including comprehensive evaluations of climate change causes, region-specific vulnerabilities, and the projected impacts of climate stressors on community resilience.

Implementation: evaluates the robustness of the implementation plan, focusing on resilience-building measures, including clear timelines, allocated funding, designated responsible parties, and strategies for monitoring and adaptation as conditions evolve.

These modifications included refining the goal dimension to emphasize explicit climate adaptation and mitigation targets; adjusting the policy content dimension to capture resilience-specific strategies, such as nature-based solutions and adaptive planning; enhancing the fact base dimension to include long-term risk assessments and climate data utilization; and expanding the implementation dimension to assess governance mechanisms, stakeholder engagement, and funding clarity.

The detailed indicators reflecting these modifications are presented in

Table 2. Policy evaluation framework (modified from [25]).

Dimensions	Indicators	Explanations
Goals	N1: Content of climate change	The content of climate change is included in the policy
	N2: Climate change resilience integrated	The concept of climate change resilience is integrated in the policy.
	N3: Climate resilience as part of its own goal	The policy adopts the climate adaptation/resilience as part of its own goal.
	N4: Long-term goals	The policy has long-term goals on climate resilience.
Policy content	N5: Climate change resilience strategies	The policy has detailed requirements/strategies on climate change and resilience enhancement.
	N6: Land-use and development strategies related to climate impacts	The policy involves the land-use and development strategies related to climate impacts.
	N7: Green infrastructure strategies related to climate impacts	The policy involves the green infrastructure strategies related to climate impacts.
	N8: Energy strategies related to climate impacts	The policy involves the energy strategies related to climate impacts.
	N9: Resilience strategy connections with provincial or national policy	The policy mentions its connections with related provincial or national resilience policy.
	N10: Resilience strategy connections with other policy.	The policy mentions its connections with other related policies.
	N11: Language used and strength of policies	Clear mandates, uses strong language, e.g., should versus must
	N12: Education and research	The policy mentions the need for education and research in climate resilience.
Fact Base	N13: Reliable climate data	The policy is supported or developed based on reliable climate data or it provides access to reliable climate data.
	N14: Long-term projections	The policy requires long-term projection of a particular natural disaster.
	N15: Risk assessment or vulnerability analysis	The policy requires risk assessment or vulnerability analysis for a particular natural disaster.
Implementation	N16: Implementation plan with individual actions	The policy includes an implementation plan with individual actions.
	N17: Implementation timeline	The implementation timeline of the policy is clear.
	N18: Funding identified	There are fundings supporting the implementation of the policy.
	N19: Responsible parties identified	Responsible parties are identified in the policy.
	N20: Partnerships and collaborations	The policy develops meaningful relationships between organizations and citizens.

. These indicators were modified through a systematic review of resilience and urban policy literature, identifying key attributes essential for effective climate resilience governance. Urban planning and policy scholars were also invited to validate and refine the proposed indicators.

Based on the framework, all the selected policies were evaluated using a 0–1 scoring system. If a policy met the required indicator, it received a score of one. If the policy failed to meet the requirement described in the indicator, it received a score of zero. Finally, the Climate Resilience Policy Performance (CRPP) was measured using Formula (1).

$$\mathrm{CRPP}={\displaystyle \frac{total scores of the policy}{total number of the indicators}}$$

(1)

2.2.3. Selected Policies

Based on the key threats and strategies identified in Section 2.1, 11 major related policies were chosen for the resilience evaluation. They were chosen based on their upcoming revision timelines and their relevance to resilience planning, as indicated by city policymakers. The details of the policies are listed in

Table 3. A list of the policies evaluated in this project.

No.	Name of the Policy	Year	Description
P1	Urban Forest Management strategy	2016	A plan to enhance and manage the urban tree canopy to improve resilience to climate change.
P2	Zoning Bylaw No. 55	2021	Regulations governing land use and development, including provisions for climate resilience.
P3	Landscape Guidelines	2007	Guidelines promoting sustainable landscaping practices to mitigate climate impacts.
P4	Tree Protection Bylaw No. 50-1	2017 (Amendment bylaw 2022)	A bylaw aimed at preserving and protecting trees within the city to enhance green infrastructure.
P5	Community wildfire protection plan	2016	Focuses on reducing wildfire risks through FireSmart programs, land-use planning, and community education.
P6	Building Bylaw	2006 (Amendment bylaw 2021)	Regulations ensuring that building designs and constructions adhere to resilience and sustainability standards.
P7	Integrated Stormwater Management Plan	2009	Plan addressing stormwater management to prevent flooding and enhance water quality.
P8	Sustainable Kamloops Plan	2010	Guidelines promoting sustainable development practices to reduce environmental impact and enhance resilience.
P9	Agriculture Area Plan	2013	A plan aimed at promoting sustainable agricultural practices and enhancing the resilience of agricultural areas to climate change.
P10	Zoning and Official Community Plan Bylaw Amendments for Compliance with Provincial Housing Legislation	2024	Amendments to ensure zoning and community plans comply with provincial housing legislation, promoting sustainable and resilient housing development.
P11	Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw No. 4-33	2012	A bylaw regulating the subdivision and development process to ensure sustainable and resilient community growth.

.

2.3. Semi-Structured Interview

To support and validate the findings from the policy evaluation, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with municipal staff members in July 2024. These interviews aimed to gain insights into the practical realities of climate resilience integration within the city of Kamloops’ policy framework. Participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure that interviewees had direct experience and expertise in areas relevant to climate resilience planning, policy development, infrastructure, and emergency management. City staff were contacted through formal email invitations, and participation was voluntary.

The interviews were conducted virtually using video conferencing tools and lasted between 40 and 60 min. A semi-structured format was adopted to balance consistency across interviews with flexibility for follow-up questions and in-depth discussion. The interview protocol was organized into three thematic sections: (1) the perceived integration of resilience in strategic and operational planning; (2) the processes and challenges associated with implementing resilience-focused actions; and (3) reflections on institutional and governance barriers as well as opportunities for policy improvement. The sections were designed to encourage discussion on the extent of resilience integration in strategic policy, the nature of action implementation, and the challenges and gaps related to climate resilience policy.

3. Results

3.1. Current Policy Evaluation Results

Based on the above policy evaluation framework, 11 policies in Kamloops were evaluated by the researcher and city staff, with the results shown in Figure 1. The thermal map provides a visual representation of the policy evaluation results for various climate change and urban resilience strategies implemented in Kamloops. Each policy is evaluated against 20 indicators categorized under four different dimensions: goals, policy content, fact base, and implementation. The total score for all the policies is 123 out of a possible 220, resulting in a total CRPP of 0.559.

For each dimension, policy content has the highest CRPP score at 0.8125, followed by implementation at 0.62. The CRPP for goals is 0.425, while the fact base dimension receives the lowest score of 0.333. Among all the indicators (Figure 2), N6 (land-use and development strategies related to climate impacts) and N11 (the strength of language used in the policies) achieved full scores for all the policies. In contrast, N4 (setting long-term goals for climate resilience) has the lowest score of 0.09, with only one policy, P7 (Integrated Stormwater Management Plan), setting long-term goals for climate resilience.

As for the goals, most of the policies have content related to climate change (N1) and integrate the concept of climate change resilience (N2). However, fewer policies explicitly adopt climate resilience as part of their own goals (N3) and set long-term goals for climate resilience (N4). In terms of policy content, many policies detail climate resilience strategies (N5) and land-use approaches (N6), with a strong focus on green infrastructure (N7), but fewer include energy strategies (N8). Policies often reference provincial or national links (N9, N10) and use firm language (N11), though education and research (N12) are less common. In the fact base dimension, few policies are based on reliable climate data (N13), long-term projections (N14), or risk assessments (N15). As for the implementation dimension, implementation plans with specific actions (N16) and timelines (N17) are included in some, but not all, and funding sources (N18) are rarely identified. Most policies identify responsible parties (N19) and emphasize partnerships (N20), though not all have clear collaborations.

The final scores of the 11 policies are also shown in Figure 2. P7 (Integrated Stormwater Management Plan) has the highest CRPP score at 0.9, while P11 (Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw No. 4-33) has the lowest CRPP score at 0.3. Plans have relatively higher score than bylaws. The average CRPP score for the 11 policies is 0.559.

3.2. Identified Challenges and Gaps

Based on the policy reviews, seven major challenges and gaps of the policies related to resilience are identified as follows based on the evaluation results.

3.2.1. Lack of Adaptability and Flexibility

The current plans may lack mechanisms for regular updates and adjustments based on new data, changing conditions, or lessons learned from implementation. For example, P3 (Landscape Guidelines) and P7 (Integrated Stormwater Management Plan) are important policies for dealing with flood disasters. However, one was developed in 2007 and the other in 2009, with no further updates since their inception. Therefore, one significant issue is the static nature of these plans, which often have fixed timelines and goals that do not account for the dynamic and unpredictable nature of climate change. This rigidity can result in outdated strategies that fail to effectively address evolving environmental challenges. Another problem is the infrequent updates to these plans. When updates are not made regularly, the plans do not incorporate the latest scientific research, data, and technological advancements [26]. This can lead to significant gaps in the effectiveness of climate resilience strategies and an inability to respond swiftly to unexpected climatic events [27,28]. Additionally, the lack of institutional mechanisms for plan revisions reflects broader interorganizational and governance challenges, including siloed policy approaches and fragmented decision-making processes. Without regular updates and improved cross-sector coordination, resilience strategies may remain static, limiting their ability to address multi-actor, relational, and power-distribution dimensions necessary for building long-term urban resilience.

3.2.2. Lack of Clear Climate Change Goals

While several policies in Kamloops address climate change and resilience, many do not have explicit climate resilience as part of their core objectives. This absence of clear climate resilience goals can hinder the effectiveness of these policies in addressing the evolving challenges posed by climate change. For instance, P2 (Zoning Bylaw No. 55) and P6 (Building Bylaw) lack explicit goals related to climate resilience, focusing instead on broader regulatory frameworks without specific attention to climate impacts.

3.2.3. Lack of Emphasis on Education and Research

Many existing policies in Kamloops do not place enough emphasis on education and research related to climate resilience. This shortcoming can significantly limit the city’s ability to raise awareness, build capacity, and promote innovative solutions for climate adaptation and mitigation. The indicator N12, which measures the involvement of education and research in policies, has a relatively low score of 0.454. This score highlights the insufficient integration of educational and research initiatives within the policy framework. P2, P3, P4, P6, P10, and P11 focus on regulatory measures without incorporating educational components that could help builders, developers, and residents understand and implement resilience measures more effectively. Education and research are crucial components in the resilience cycle [1]. They enable the community to understand the risks and challenges posed by climate change, foster a culture of preparedness, and drive the development of new strategies and technologies for climate adaptation and mitigation. Without strong emphasis on these areas, policies may fail to engage stakeholders effectively or harness the latest scientific insights.

3.2.4. Absence of Long-Term Projections and Risk Assessments

The absence of long-term projections and risk assessments is a significant gap in Kamloops’ policies regarding climate resilience. Indicators N14 (long-term projections) and N15 (risk assessment or vulnerability analysis) received the lowest scores in the fact base dimension, with scores of 0.182 and 0.272, respectively. This indicates a critical deficiency in incorporating forward-looking assessments into policy frameworks. Only a few policies, such as P5 (Community Wildfire Protection Plan) and P8 (Sustainable Kamloops Plan), include long-term projections of climate impacts or comprehensive risk assessments. Long-term projections and risk assessments are essential components of proactive planning for climate resilience [29]. They provide a scientific basis for understanding potential future scenarios and the associated risks, enabling policymakers to develop strategies that are robust and adaptive over time. Without these projections, policies may be short-sighted, focusing on immediate concerns without adequately preparing for future climate conditions. Beyond the technical gap in risk assessments, the lack of long-term planning also reflects broader organizational and governance limitations in urban resilience. This issue is closely linked to environmental and social transitions research [30], which emphasizes the need for adaptive governance structures capable of managing interconnected environmental, social, and economic challenges.

3.2.5. Implementation Gaps

Several policies in Kamloops exhibit significant implementation gaps, lacking detailed plans, timelines, and identification of responsible parties. These deficiencies can impede the effective execution of climate resilience measures and hinder the city’s overall preparedness for climate impacts. For instance, policies such as P2 (Zoning Bylaw No. 55) and P3 (Landscape Guidelines) do not specify clear implementation frameworks. This lack of detail makes it challenging to track progress and ensure accountability, resulting in potential delays and inefficiencies in achieving policy goals. Without a structured implementation plan, there is a risk that the policies will not be fully or effectively executed, diminishing their intended impact.

3.2.6. Unclear Funding and Resource Allocation

A critical issue in Kamloops’ policies on climate resilience is the lack of clear funding sources and resource allocation for implementation. This gap is highlighted by the indicator N18 (funding identified), which has a score of only 0.181, the second lowest among all the indicators. Only a few policies, such as P7 (Integrated Stormwater Management Plan) and P8 (Sustainable Kamloops Plan), provide minimal information related to funding. This lack of financial clarity can significantly hinder the effective execution of climate resilience measures. Securing and identifying funding sources is essential to ensure the feasibility of the proposed actions [31].

Moreover, policies often overlook the importance of monitoring and learning mechanisms, which are critical to the long-term success of resilience strategies. Without mechanisms to track progress and adapt based on new data or implementation challenges, policies may become ineffective. Ongoing funding is necessary to support monitoring efforts, allowing for adjustments to be made based on real-time results. This also enables community education, where local residents participate in monitoring, gaining the knowledge and skills needed to address evolving climate risks. Through this process, resilience-building becomes a shared effort, fostering long-term educational outcomes.

While well-designed policies are essential, their effectiveness hinges on the human, organizational, and cultural contexts that shape their interpretation and implementation. Without attention to these aspects, policies may lack feasibility. For example, infrastructure projects aimed at enhancing flood resilience require substantial investment not only in materials and labor but also in ensuring local capacities for maintenance and adaptation [12]. Knowing the available resources allows for better planning and prioritization of actions. It helps policymakers allocate resources efficiently, ensuring that the most critical measures are implemented first [32]. For instance, a comprehensive funding strategy for initiatives like the Sustainable Kamloops Plan could help the city prioritize actions that offer the highest return on investment, both in terms of financial feasibility and long-term resilience benefits.

3.2.7. Unclear Partnerships and Collaborations

Many policies in Kamloops fail to emphasize the importance of partnerships and collaborations with other organizations, stakeholders, and the community. This deficiency is reflected in the score for indicator N20 (partnerships and collaborations), which is only 0.363. While the Sustainable Kamloops Plan (P8) acknowledges the importance of community involvement, it does not provide detailed strategies for fostering long-term partnerships with key stakeholders. Effective climate resilience requires a coordinated approach involving multiple sectors and levels of governance, yet this crucial element is often missing in the city’s existing policies.

3.3. Interview Results

From July 9 to July 22, interviews were conducted with staff members from the city of Kamloops, each having more than five years of working experience in the city. The interviewees came from diverse departments, including the parks division of the civic operations department and the development, engineering, and sustainability department. The recruitment process was designed to ensure a comprehensive representation of professionals directly involved in urban planning, climate resilience, and sustainability efforts. The inclusion of long-term staff members, with their institutional knowledge and understanding of the city’s policy framework, ensured that the insights gathered were not just individual opinions but reflections of their professional expertise, grounded in their roles and experiences within the city. They were asked to assess the identified challenges and gaps and provide some recommendations for resilience-related policy development in Kamloops.

The key opinions from the interviewees on the identified challenges, gaps, and recommendations are summarized in

Table 4. A summary of the opinions from the interviewees.

Main Challenges	Suggestions
Rapid climate change conflicting interests (e.g., development vs. natural resource protection). Funding limitations. Policies need to be adaptable	Look at successful cases like Logan Lake and Kelowna consider the specific climate and conditions of Kamloops compared to other regions in BC Involve higher authorities, such as the National Energy Board, to ensure big companies are held accountable for restoration and other responsibilities. Emphasis on the need for stronger policies at higher levels to support local policy enforcement
Four to five years ago, understanding the impacts of climate change on the community was a significant challenge. Time and resources are always a general challenge but not specific to climate resilience policies.	Recognized a distinction between regulatory documents (like the subdivision development control bylaw) and visionary policies (like the Official Community Plan). Suggested that resilience should be incorporated primarily in higher-level, visionary policies rather than detailed regulatory documents. Emphasized the importance of selecting appropriate locations for development to avoid flood-prone areas and integrate natural flood protection methods. Climate resilience should be integrated selectively, focusing on policies where it is most relevant rather than uniformly across all policies.
Political Priority: Climate resilience is not always a high political priority, impacting policy development. Education: Need for education among staff, politicians, and the public to prioritize climate resilience.	Exploring practical, cost-effective tools and requirements to enhance climate resilience without adding undue regulatory burdens. The need for greater public education and political prioritization of climate resilience

. The interviewees emphasized systemic challenges, such as rapid climate change, conflicting interests (e.g., development vs. natural resource protection), and funding limitations. They also provided thoughtful recommendations for resilience-related policy development, emphasizing the importance of adaptability, higher-level political prioritization, and enhanced public and institutional education. Major discussions on the funding, the term of resilience, the policy updates, and the Indigenous community involvement are also illustrated in Section 3.3.1, Section 3.3.2, Section 3.3.3 and Section 3.3.4.

3.3.1. Discussions on Fundings Mechanisms and Collaborative Approaches to Resilience

Funding and resource allocation are pivotal elements in the development and implementation of climate resilience policies [33], yet interviewees provided diverse perspectives on their roles and priorities. One interviewee emphasized the fluid nature of funding, stating, “Funding and resource allocation often change, making it a variable factor. While funding is crucial for policy development and implementation, it is not always necessary to have all funding sources identified at the policy creation stage.” This viewpoint suggests that while securing funding is essential, policies can be designed with flexibility to accommodate evolving financial landscapes. The ability to identify alternative funding sources as needed allows for adaptive policy strategies that can respond to changing economic conditions and priorities [34]. This flexibility ensures that climate resilience initiatives are not hindered by initial funding uncertainties [35], promoting sustained progress even when specific financial commitments are delayed or altered.

However, the discussion should also recognize the importance of multi-actor relational approaches, partnerships, and collaborative models in addressing financial barriers. Such approaches are crucial in overcoming the challenges that arise from limited or shifting financial resources. As one interviewee noted, “Public education and political prioritization of climate resilience are more important. If politicians and the public do not see climate resilience as important, it is unlikely to receive significant resources.” This perspective underscores that without strong political and public support, securing adequate funding becomes a significant challenge regardless of the availability of financial resources. Effective climate resilience policies depend not only on the presence of funds but also on the willingness of political leaders [36] and the public to prioritize and advocate for these initiatives [37]. It suggests that the role of collaboration and creative partnerships—including with community groups, non-governmental organizations, and private-sector entities—can help bridge financial gaps by securing diverse funding sources and leveraging new economic models, such as culturally responsive and community-driven approaches [38,39].

These contrasting viewpoints illustrate that while funding is undeniably important for climate resilience, it cannot be addressed in isolation. Both financial adaptability and strong advocacy are essential for the successful implementation of resilient policies [40]. Moreover, the interplay between funding and political prioritization suggests that efforts to secure financial resources should be accompanied by initiatives to educate and engage the public and policymakers [41]. Effective climate resilience strategies require a holistic approach that integrates financial planning with advocacy and education. By ensuring that climate resilience is a visible and prioritized issue, cities like Kamloops can create a supportive framework that attracts and sustains funding over the long term.

3.3.2. Discussions on the Terms of Resilience

The use of the term “resilience” in policy documents has emerged as a key point of discussion, as the interviewer noted the difficulty in finding references to resilience in existing policies. The interviewee offered an explanation, stating that “resilience” has only become a central term in the past year or two. Many of the city’s policies were developed before the concept of resilience was widely recognized or incorporated into policy language. This highlights the evolving nature of policy frameworks, which often reflect the priorities and knowledge available at the time of their creation. As resilience becomes more prominent in discussions of climate adaptation and urban planning [42], future policy updates are expected to incorporate the term more regularly, signaling its growing importance in guiding decision-making processes.

Several interviewees echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that “resilience” is still infrequently used in existing policies but agreed that it is a newer term gaining recognition and relevance. Interviewee 3 pointed out that the upcoming Official Community Plan (OCP) update provides an opportunity to integrate the concept of resilience more thoroughly into policy. This aligns with a broader trend in urban governance, where resilience is increasingly seen as a necessary framework for addressing the challenges posed by climate change, natural disasters, and other urban stressors. However, it is crucial to note that the integration of resilience into urban planning is not just about adding a buzzword to policy documents. In the context of sustainability frameworks, there are risks of oversimplification and tokenistic use of resilience if its human, organizational, and political dimensions are not carefully considered [43]. This concern points to the need for resilience to be embedded in both policy language and practical application in ways that reflect its complex, evolving nature.

The discussion on resilience reveals that while it may not yet be a common term in current policies, there is a strong awareness of its growing significance. All interviewees recognized that resilience is essential for future urban planning and policy development, particularly in the face of climate change. This reflects a shift in policy language and focus, where terms like resilience are being adopted to better address long-term challenges and uncertainties in urban environments. The inclusion of the term “resilience” in future policy updates is both necessary and inevitable. As Kamloops, like many other cities, prepares for the impacts of climate change, resilience will serve as a guiding principle in shaping policies that are adaptable, robust, and forward-looking. The recognition of resilience as a newer yet essential concept points to the need for continuous policy evolution [18,44], ensuring that future urban planning efforts are better equipped to handle the complexities of an uncertain future.

3.3.3. Discussions on Policy Updates

The frequency of policy updates emerged as a significant concern in the interviews. One interviewee highlighted that at present, the city of Kamloops reviews and updates its policies approximately every 10 years. However, given the rapid pace of global climate changes and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, this interval might be insufficient to ensure that policies remain relevant and effective. The interviewee suggested shortening the review cycle to every five years to better respond to evolving climate conditions. While more frequent updates would allow for more agile and responsive policy frameworks, the interviewee acknowledged that this could be cost-prohibitive due to the financial and resource demands associated with more regular revisions.

Moreover, as the concept of resilience evolves, the language and narrative within policies must remain flexible. Rather than adhering strictly to prescriptive, preemptive guidance, policy updates should allow for broader interpretation and adaptability [45]. This flexibility enables policies to accommodate emerging challenges, shifting priorities, and new knowledge over time. A dynamic approach to policy review, one that integrates continuous learning and adjustment, ensures that urban resilience strategies can effectively address the complexities and uncertainties of future climate risks.

Another interviewee provided further insight into the process of policy updates, mentioning that while regular discussions about updates are likely to occur, these are typically managed at higher, more managerial levels of governance. This suggests that while there may be ongoing internal assessments of policies, formal updates are still subject to longer intervals due to the structure and scale of policy-making processes within the city. The involvement of higher-level management in these discussions indicates a centralized approach to policy review, which may contribute to delays in updating policies at the pace required by rapidly changing climate conditions.

The differing perspectives reflect a balance between the need for more frequent updates to keep pace with global climate challenges and the practical limitations posed by resource constraints and existing governance structures. The tension between these factors underscores the importance of creating a policy review process that is both responsive and sustainable. While increasing the frequency of formal policy updates may be financially challenging [46], exploring hybrid approaches, such as combining regular smaller revisions with less frequent comprehensive updates, may offer a practical solution for cities like Kamloops to stay ahead of climate challenges while managing costs effectively.

3.3.4. Discussions on Indigenous Community Involved

All interviewees unanimously agreed on the importance of involving Indigenous communities in policy-making processes. One interviewee emphasized that “Indigenous community involvement is important for ensuring inclusivity but noted that it is sometimes perceived as less critical specifically in the context of climate resilience”. This perspective suggests that while Indigenous voices are valued for their contributions to broader governance and social inclusion, there may be a gap in recognizing their potential to contribute meaningfully to climate resilience strategies. Indigenous knowledge, particularly regarding land stewardship and sustainable practices [47], can provide valuable insights for addressing climate-related challenges [48], making their involvement not just inclusive but also highly relevant to resilience-building efforts.

The ethical implications of involving Indigenous communities in climate resilience research cannot be understated. Recognizing the historical and ongoing challenges from the Indigenous community is crucial when designing policies that aim to build resilience. Ensuring meaningful participation and representation in policy-making processes goes beyond just inclusion; it requires a respectful engagement with Indigenous knowledge systems. Expanding Indigenous involvement beyond sectors like waste management into climate-focused policies could strengthen the city’s resilience efforts by incorporating traditional knowledge systems that align with sustainable and adaptive practices [49,50].

The consensus among the interviewees reflects a growing recognition of the need to engage Indigenous communities, but it also reveals an opportunity for deeper integration of their knowledge into climate resilience frameworks. Ensuring that Indigenous perspectives are considered essential, not just for inclusivity but also for practical climate adaptation, can enhance the relevance and effectiveness of urban resilience policies. The existing involvement in high-level committees is a positive step, but broader and more systematic inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in climate resilience efforts could further enrich policy development in Kamloops.

4. Policy Implications

4.1. Challenges and Recommendations

Based on the case study and literature review, the key challenges and corresponding recommendations for integrating resilience into urban planning policies are summarized in Figure 3. The major challenges span environmental, socio-political, financial, governance, resource, and capital aspects. Each challenge is paired with a targeted recommendation to enhance policy effectiveness and implementation. While these challenges were identified in the context of Kamloops, they are not unique to this city; rather, they reflect broader systemic barriers faced by municipalities worldwide in advancing climate resilience. The findings are aligning with existing studies, which emphasizes the need for adaptive, forward-thinking policies that evolve in response to rapidly changing environmental and socio-economic conditions [29,44].

These findings contribute to a global understanding of urban resilience policy challenges and potential solutions, offering a replicable framework for cities worldwide. By addressing these issues through integrated governance, innovative financing, stakeholder participation, and flexible urban planning strategies, municipalities can enhance their capacity to adapt to climate change and safeguard their communities.

(1)

Environmental challenges and recommendations

The environmental challenges focus on rapid climate change, which poses a significant risk to cities like Kamloops. One recommendation is to learn from successful case studies where effective climate resilience strategies have been implemented. For example, Kelowna in BC has adopted a proactive strategy of floodplain management that combines traditional knowledge and modern engineering practices to protect vulnerable areas from flooding [51]. Additionally, it is important to regularly update risk assessments and climate databases to ensure that the city’s strategies remain relevant and proactive in the face of evolving climate patterns. This adaptive approach helps cities better anticipate and respond to environmental shifts, such as extreme weather events or long-term climate trends [52].

(2)

Social-political challenges and recommendations

In the realm of socio-political challenges, two key issues are highlighted: conflicts of interest and political priority. Local conditions must be considered, especially climate and urban planning factors specific to the cities, to evolve resilience efforts effectively. Political prioritization is also crucial. It helps educate the public and focus political attention on the importance of climate resilience and can ensure that these efforts receive the support they need. By aligning political will and public understanding, socio-political barriers can be mitigated, leading to more effective climate action.

(3)

Financial challenges and recommendations

Implementing climate resilience strategies is frequently complicated by financial constraints. Funding limitations hinder the ability to execute and maintain large-scale green infrastructure projects. The recommendations suggest exploring alternative funding sources that are not necessarily the primary focus but can complement existing resources. Additionally, a cost-effective analysis of green infrastructures or natural based solutions (NbS) should be conducted to maximize the impact of limited funds. This approach ensures that even with financial constraints, meaningful progress can still be made toward improving urban resilience.

(4)

Governance challenges and recommendations

Addressing governance challenges involves tackling policy adaptability and ensuring that policies are strong enough at higher levels to facilitate resilience measures. Stronger, more cohesive policies at the national or regional levels are recommended to provide the necessary support for local resilience initiatives. Furthermore, distinguishing between different policy types and selectively integrating resilience components into them can enhance their effectiveness for both policymakers and communities [53]. As policies evolve, they should incorporate resilience considerations more explicitly, addressing the needs of various stakeholders and staying relevant to the changing climate context.

(5)

Resource and capacity challenges and recommendations

Resource and capacity challenges emphasize the need for improved technical tools and stronger collaboration with higher authorities. Time and resources are often limited, but with the right tools and involvement from authorities at higher levels, these challenges can be overcome. Education is another key aspect; raising public awareness and involving Indigenous communities in the decision-making process can significantly enhance the capacity of local stakeholders to implement and sustain resilience initiatives. Empowering these groups ensures a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to resilience.

4.2. Next Steps for Integrating Resilience into Urban Policy Development

Drawing on insights from the literature, policy review, and officer interviews, the proposed next steps for resilience-related policy development are outlined in Figure 4. This figure presents a hierarchical approach to prioritizing actions for enhancing climate resilience, categorizing them into top priority, second priority, and foundational priority. Each category reflects different levels of urgency and importance in implementing resilience strategies within urban planning and policy frameworks.

4.2.1. Top Priority: Immediate and High-Impact Actions

The top priority category includes urgent actions essential for integrating resilience into current urban planning. The primary objective is to ensure that policies remain adaptive and responsive to evolving climate risks. Cities worldwide must establish continuous policy monitoring and periodic updates to reflect emerging challenges, ensuring that these updates also consider local political ecologies and power dynamics within communities.

The selective integration of resilience into key regulatory frameworks must be conducted with careful attention to the local socio-political landscape. Policies should be shaped by a multi-actor relational approach, ensuring that diverse stakeholders, including community leaders, Indigenous groups, and marginalized populations, are included in the decision-making process. This participatory approach can help ensure that resilience policies are not only effective but also culturally appropriate, maintaining relevance to the local context and avoiding a one-size-fits-all model that might undermine community ownership and engagement.

A critical challenge in resilience planning is the lack of clear accountability mechanisms. Assigning responsible parties for policy implementation enhances transparency and enforcement, but this accountability must extend beyond formal government structures to include community-based actors and organizations. In the context of climate resilience, community-led initiatives, supported by strong partnerships between the public, private, and civic sectors, can help address the broader governance gaps that exist in many regions. Securing dedicated funding sources, such as climate adaptation grants, public–private partnerships, and green finance mechanisms, is vital for scaling resilience initiatives. However, these financial resources must be distributed equitably and with consideration for the power relations that may influence access to them.

Another key priority is the widespread implementation of NbS, which offers cost-effective and sustainable resilience strategies. Conducting comprehensive cost–benefit analyses of NbS helps policymakers and urban planners justify their integration, ensuring economic viability alongside environmental benefits. Cities across the globe, from coastal metropolises to inland urban centers, can benefit from NbS approaches such as green infrastructure, wetland restoration, and urban forestry, all of which enhance climate resilience while providing social and ecological co-benefits.

To begin with, policymakers and urban managers should establish continuous climate resilience monitoring systems that track key climate variables, such as temperature increases, flood events, and air quality, to stay adaptive to emerging risks. For example, they can implement real-time data collection tools like sensors for tracking heat islands or storm surges, allowing for rapid response and timely policy adjustments. Regular policy reviews should involve a multi-stakeholder approach, incorporating the voices of marginalized groups and Indigenous communities to ensure that resilience strategies are not only inclusive but culturally relevant. This can be achieved through community consultations, participatory workshops, and collaborations with local Indigenous leaders to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into urban planning. Clear accountability mechanisms must be established, with defined roles for government, community organizations, and private partners. For instance, each sector could be tasked with specific actions, such as the government overseeing regulatory compliance, community organizations engaging the public, and private companies investing in green infrastructure. Additionally, securing dedicated funding sources like climate adaptation grants or public–private partnerships is essential to ensure that resources are distributed equitably and that resilience initiatives are successfully implemented across all urban sectors.

4.2.2. Second Priority: Supportive Measures for Urban Resilience

The second priority category includes actions that reinforce top priority strategies, ensuring their long-term success. One of the most critical elements is strengthening partnerships across sectors, including government agencies, private enterprises, academic institutions, and local communities. Resilience-building is a multi-stakeholder effort, and global cities must facilitate cross-sector collaboration to leverage resources, knowledge, and best practices. This is particularly relevant in diverse urban contexts, where multiple actors with varied interests and experiences come together to address complex climate challenges.

Another key action is improving risk assessment and vulnerability analysis, particularly in data-limited regions where comprehensive climate risk mapping is still underdeveloped. Cities must continuously refine their resilience goals and conduct regular policy reviews to address emerging climate threats in their urban planning and development policies. This approach ensures that resilience measures are not static but evolve dynamically with changing environmental and socio-economic conditions.

Many urban centers, especially in regions with limited access to centralized climate data, lack standardized climate data platforms that support resilience planning. Investing in open-access data, climate modeling, and predictive analytics can enhance decision-making and enable cities to develop more context-sensitive and adaptive climate strategies. Moreover, acknowledging the socio-cultural and political dimensions of climate risk can ensure that resilience planning is inclusive and considers the specific needs of marginalized communities, including Indigenous peoples.

Urban managers should strengthen cross-sector partnerships to leverage resources and address climate challenges collaboratively. For instance, local governments can work with private sector companies to implement green infrastructure projects, such as constructing permeable pavements and creating urban wetlands for stormwater management. Collaborations with academic institutions and NGOs can help design sustainable urban transportation networks, focusing on electric vehicle infrastructure or bike-sharing systems. Additionally, urban managers can collaborate with environmental organizations to promote energy-efficient building retrofits and renewable energy integration. To better assess vulnerabilities in high-risk areas like flood plains or wildfire-prone zones, open-access climate data platforms and predictive models should be utilized. Regular vulnerability assessments can guide the allocation of resources for flood protection systems, wildfire mitigation plans, and the development of resilient housing in disaster-prone regions. Furthermore, policymakers should refine resilience goals through continuous feedback loops, incorporating the perspectives of marginalized and Indigenous communities in risk assessments and policy reviews. This approach ensures that resilience strategies remain dynamic, context-sensitive, and inclusive, ultimately fostering more equitable and effective climate adaptation efforts.

4.2.3. Foundational Priority: Establishing a Strong Institutional and Social Base

The foundational priority category focuses on building the institutional and societal foundations necessary for resilience policies. One of the most crucial actions is the development of new planning, monitoring, and evaluation tools to ensure evidence-based policymaking. Many cities worldwide still rely on outdated regulatory frameworks that lack climate resilience considerations. The integration of digital twins, geospatial mapping, and risk assessments can significantly improve resilience planning outcomes.

Public engagement and education are also fundamental to resilience success. Raising awareness about climate risks and adaptation strategies empowers communities to take an active role in resilience-building efforts. Globally, citizen science initiatives, participatory urban planning, and climate resilience training programs have proven effective in fostering public support and engagement.

Furthermore, the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in urban resilience planning provides valuable perspectives on sustainability, ecosystem management, and traditional risk mitigation practices. Indigenous-led conservation efforts, such as land stewardship programs and traditional fire management, have demonstrated strong climate resilience outcomes that modern urban planning can learn from and integrate into policy frameworks. Incorporating these knowledge systems into resilience strategies not only enhances the relevance of policies but also promotes cultural sensitivity and respect for local communities.

Lastly, institutional cooperation is essential for ensuring policy cohesion and preventing fragmented climate governance. Many cities struggle with siloed decision-making between municipal, regional, and national governments. Establishing multi-level governance frameworks, formalized collaboration networks, and shared policy platforms can enhance coordination and maximize resilience-building efforts on a global scale. Additionally, urban policies should be flexible and adaptable, allowing for ongoing adjustments based on evolving climate conditions and socio-political contexts.

For action, policymakers should invest in innovative planning and evaluation tools, such as digital twins, which create real-time virtual replicas of cities to simulate the impacts of various climate scenarios. Public engagement is also critical; policymakers should prioritize community education programs, host participatory planning workshops, and collaborate with local organizations to foster active public involvement in resilience efforts. For example, organizing climate resilience hackathons or local resilience fairs can help raise awareness and gather input on community-specific needs. Additionally, integrating Indigenous knowledge into planning through partnerships with local Indigenous groups will enhance sustainability by incorporating traditional ecological practices, such as fire management or water conservation methods. Institutional cooperation is essential for ensuring seamless policy implementation, so collaboration between local, regional, and national governments should be formalized through multi-level governance frameworks. Lastly, cities should create flexible, adaptable policies that allow for continuous updates and adjustments based on evolving climate conditions and socio-political contexts, ensuring resilience strategies remain relevant and effective over time.

5. Conclusions

This paper conducted a comprehensive analysis using a hybrid method that combined qualitative and quantitative data to inform and prioritize future updates to the policies and guidelines within the city of Kamloops. A policy evaluation framework was developed, encompassing four dimensions and 20 indicators. The evaluation results revealed a moderate score of 0.559 out of 1 for Kamloops based on the analysis of 11 policies and bylaws provided. This score indicates that while there are some strengths in the current policies, significant gaps and areas for improvement remain. The research also identified seven key challenges and gaps, including a lack of adaptability and flexibility, a lack of clear climate change goals, a lack of emphasis on education and research, an absence of long-term projections and risk assessments, implementation gaps (a lack of detailed implementation plans, timelines, and identification of responsible parties), unclear funding and resource allocation, and unclear partnerships and collaborations. These challenges are not unique to Kamloops but are widespread issues in urban policy frameworks globally, particularly as cities struggle to balance economic, social, and environmental priorities in the face of escalating climate risks.

To validate the framework and findings, interviews with city staff members from different departments provided critical insights into institutional barriers, governance structures, and potential pathways for policy enhancement. The diverse perspectives from interviewees, shaped by their professional roles and experiences, reinforced the need for context-specific, multi-stakeholder, and evidence-based approaches to resilience planning. Key recommendations emerging from this study include learning from the global best practices, adjusting policies to local conditions, engaging higher authorities, strengthening policies at multiple governance levels, selectively integrating resilience measures, and prioritizing public education and political commitment.

Beyond identifying challenges, this study outlined actionable next steps for integrating resilience into urban planning and development policies. The hierarchical prioritization framework proposed in this study offers a scalable and adaptable roadmap for cities worldwide with categorizing actions into top priority, second priority, and foundational priority. Cities worldwide, especially those facing climate-induced extreme weather events, rapid urbanization, and resource constraints, can leverage the methodology and framework developed in this study to evaluate and improve their own climate resilience strategies. However, the methodological limitations of this study, particularly in terms of its reliance on a single case study, should be considered when generalizing the findings to other urban contexts. Future research would benefit from a broader geographic and political context to further explore the transferability of the findings and the potential for multi-stakeholder and multi-perspective approaches to resilience planning.

While this study provides a useful framework for evaluating urban resilience policies, it also underscores the need for further engagement with the diverse and context-specific challenges that cities face. As climate change continues to challenge urban environments, the need for integrated, adaptive, and forward-thinking policies has never been more urgent. By implementing evidence-based and inclusive resilience policies, cities can create sustainable, climate-resilient communities that are better equipped to withstand future uncertainties.