My current major research project is focused on adaptation to sea level rise on the California coast. My dissertation draws on 50+ interviews with adaptation stakeholders, an ethnography of climate policymaking settings, and a novel dataset of public comments made during coastal adaptation planning meetings to make three, interconnected contributions.

In one study, currently being revised and resubmitted at Environmental Politics, I ask: Facing similar hazards and regulatory oversight, why might comparable local jurisdictions take unique approaches to coastal adaptation? I argue that institutional logics of coastal adaptation play a role in shaping the subtle yet highly consequential details of adaptation policy. Through a comparative policy analysis of four coastal cities in California that faced comparable adaptation pressures planning for sea level rise but developed different perceptions of what effective adaptation looks like, I identify two institutional logics tied to place-specific histories of how planning has been used to tackle local problems: an infrastructural logic that is largely technocratic, positioning the immediate future as controllable through engineering solutions and reinforcing an expert-driven over democratic approach; and a policy logic that places relative importance on participatory, long-term planning, highlighting future uncertainty in ways that can surface partisan conflict in increasingly polarized constituencies. I argue that theorizing institutional logics offers a useful heuristic for analyzing puzzling variation in local coastal adaptation.

In a second study, I investigate how property value and risk proximity shape public participation in local climate adaptation planning. When a coastal city plans for sea level rise, property regimes and structural inequality in coastal communities often limit who can participate and what perspectives are heard. We might assume that the loudest voices will be those with the most to lose—i.e., wealthy coastal homeowners and allied real estate interests. To test that assumption, I created a novel dataset comprised of verbal public comments (linked to commenters’ address and property value) made during a five-year sea level rise planning process in a flood-threatened coastal city. Using a structural topic model (STM), I then evaluated the probability of topic usage by commenters based on structural factors. I find, first, that obstruction was temporally structured, with more technocratic topics preceding phases of partisan backlash. I find, second, that it was wealthy homeowners (but not the wealthiest) and residents living close to the beach (but not at the beachfront) that were most likely to express ideas that mobilized partisan obstruction, shut down the planning process, and discredited environmentalists as outsiders.

In a third study, I investigate the political activity of realtor associations in sea level rise planning. An understudied actors in climate politics, realtor associations in California have been highly influential in lobbying local officials and state-level environmental governance institutions. Through participant observation, interviews, and content analysis, I analyze the material and ideological influence of realtor groups, showing how, by counter-mobilizing against climate action in California, real estate interests are effectively preserving and reinforcing existing property regimes.

Publications:

Malmuth, Andrew. 2026. “Taking the politics out of planning? Tracing the institutional logics of local coastal adaptation.” (Revise and Resubmit at Environmental Politics)

Malmuth, Andrew. 2026. “Grassroots climate obstruction: How temporality, proximity, and property value shape public comment during local coastal adaptation planning.” (In Progress)