Case study from Oregon Coast Visitors Association: Prioritizing Impact and Progress in Climate Action Planning

Q: How did your Climate Action Plan come about?

A: We started in 2020 after joining Tourism Declares a Climate Emergency. That was the spark — suddenly it all clicked that we needed to do this. At first, it was just me and our Executive Director sketching ideas, until we realized we needed a scientist. We brought in Patty Martin to draft the first version, providing the framework while we worked closely with her to ensure the actions made sense for our region. For example, Oregon’s coastal electricity grid is already low-carbon, so we didn’t want energy reduction to be a headline action.

Once we had a rough draft, we took it to state agencies like Energy and Transportation, and to tourism conferences. People were curious but didn’t really know what to do with us — no one had seen a tourism organization try something like this. Those early conversations showed us how little support there was for small businesses and tourism when it comes to climate action.

Q: How did you decide what to prioritize?

A: Prioritization was essential. We looked at Oregon’s greenhouse gas data and identified food systems, waste, and transport as the major intersections with tourism. Then we asked: where do we have influence? We can’t redesign aviation, so we focused on what we could directly act on. Our plan includes clear criteria so that choices aren’t based on passion projects or individual staff preferences. We wanted a plan that could outlast any one person and serve as a strategic framework for the organization.

Q: How did you address adaptation and climate risk?

A: Our plan has always been about mitigation, adaptation, and resilience together. The updated version localizes climate risks — drought in some counties, sea surge in others — and integrates emerging science like hypoxia and ocean acidification. Most of the work is implemented by local partners. Our role is catalytic: the more we understand local risks, the better we can support the right people to lead solutions.

Recently, for example, we were inspired by research on “situated resilience” that argues for place-based strategies instead of one-size-fits-all emergency responses. It’s about helping communities learn from past disruptions and prepare for what’s likely to come next, in ways that are meaningful locally.

Q: What changed between your first plan and the second?

A: The first plan was our North Star — just getting something out there was the breakthrough. We built in a timeline to update it, so the second version reflects everything we’ve learned: more detail, more specificity about our sphere of influence, better clarity about local risks. It’s also more practical and usable, with clearer prioritization criteria.

And we stopped aiming for perfection. Once we accepted the plan would evolve, the pressure lifted. Now we can update and refine it as new data, technology, and funding become available.

Q: How are you measuring and reporting progress?

A: We lead on about five core projects and catalyze many others. Each has its own indicators — like dollars directed to restoration projects or EV chargers developed. We publish a public resiliency dashboard that explains what we’re working on and why, which helps partners and residents see the connection between tourism and climate action.

We haven’t yet completed a full emissions audit — partly because our region doesn’t align with administrative boundaries — but we’ve applied for grants and are optimistic it’s now more affordable. We already know that transport and food waste are the biggest problems, so we act on what we know rather than waiting for perfect data.

Measurement also has to be useful. We use emissions data to make the case for projects like localizing seafood supply chains — 90% of the seafood tourists eat here is imported. By shortening the chain, we reduce emissions and strengthen our local food identity.

Q: How do you make sure the plan leads to real action?

A: We build ready to go projects into the plan. Instead of just saying “we need more EV chargers,” we define how many, where, and at what cost. That way we’re ready when funding appears. We review the plan every year to see which actions are bubbling up, where partners are engaged, and where funding exists — that drives implementation.

Q: What benefits has having a plan brought you?

A: Having a formal plan has allowed us to apply for external funding — and get it. Funders want to see a clear, science-backed plan before giving money. It’s also protected the work from changes in board membership or staff — climate action is no longer a passion project, it’s an organizational commitment. And the plan is a resource for other DMOs in our region who want to learn from what we’ve done.

Q: What advice would you give to destinations that have signed the Glasgow Declaration but are struggling to take the next step?

A: You don’t need a perfect plan to start. Some of our projects — waste, transport, local food — started before our plan was written. If your strength is marketing, start by promoting sustainable businesses. If you can’t talk about “climate change” politically, frame it as destination management. Many of the solutions are the same.

Above all, perfection can be a barrier — so just start. Attend a conference. Run a pilot. Find your peers — the network around the Glasgow Declaration has been invaluable for connection and learning. This work can feel lonely at first, but there’s a growing community to support you.

Key Takeaways:

• OCVA was one of the first DMOs globally to publish a tourism-focused Climate Action Plan.
  
   

• The plan prioritizes actions where OCVA has influence, focusing on food systems, waste, and transport.
  
   

• Adaptation and resilience are core elements, guided by local data and science partnerships.
  
   

• The Glasgow Declaration provides a global framework and community that helps OCVA stay connected and motivated.