Advertisement

Think globally, act locally: adoption of climate action plans in California

  • Iris HuiEmail author
  • Gemma Smith
  • Caroline Kimmel
Article

Abstract

California has been a global leader in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The state has set an ambitious goal of reducing GHG to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The statewide goal cannot be accomplished without the support of local stakeholders. We analyzed over 150 city climate action plans (CAPs) in California and examined their reduction goals. We hypothesized five sets of factors that can explain whether a jurisdiction adopts a plan or not, and what kind of target it sets. We find that size of the city, political ideology, and institutional capacity are related to a higher chance of adopting a climate action plan, while political ideology and air quality explain the extent of aspiration of targets. We also find evidence of policy diffusion where neighbors are more likely to adopt plans. Our findings identify gaps in the CAPs within the state and address what lessons can be learned from the Californian experience of local climate policy adoption and goal-setting.

Notes

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2505_MOESM1_ESM.docx (60 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 60 kb)

References

  1. Andonova L, Betsill M, Bulkeley H (2009) Transnational Climate Governance. In: Global Environmental Politics, vol 9.2, pp 52–73Google Scholar
  2. Bassett E, Shandas V (2010) Innovation and Climate Action Planning: perspectives from municipal plans. J Am Plan Assoc 76.4(Autumn 2010):435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry FS, Berry WD (1990) State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev 84(2):395-415Google Scholar
  4. Berry FS, Berry WD (1999) Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In: Theories of the policy process. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 169–200Google Scholar
  5. Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (Jun 2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. Int Stud Q 48(2):471–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2006) Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Glob Gov 12(2):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brody SD et al (2008) A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the United States: risk, stress, and opportunity. Landsc Urban Plan 87:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brody S, Grover H, Lindquist E, Vedlitz A (2010) Examining climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviours among public sector organisations in the USA. Local Environ 15(6):591–603Google Scholar
  9. Bromley-Trujillo R, Butler JS, Poe J, Davis W (2016) The spreading of innovation: State adoptions of energy and climate change policy. Rev Policy Res 33(5):544–565Google Scholar
  10. Bromley-Trujillo R, Poe J (2017) The importance of salience: public opinion and state policy action on climate change. Working paper, FebGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandler J (2009) Trendy solutions: why do states adopt sustainable energy portfolio standards? Energy Policy 37:3274–3281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Figueres C, Schellnhuber HJ, Whiteman G, Rockström J, Hobley A, Rahmstorf S (2017) Three years to safegourd our climate. Nature 546:593–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischel WA (2001) The Homevoter Hyptohesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  14. Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class. vol. 9. New York: Basic booksGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerber E (2013) Partisanship and local climate policy. Cityscape: J Policy Dev Res 15.1:107–124Google Scholar
  16. Godwin ML, Schroedel JR (2000) Policy diffusion and strategies for promoting policy change: evidence from California local gun control ordinances. Policy Stud J 28.4:760–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grupp F, Richards A (1975) Variation in elite perceptions of American States as referents for policy making. Am Polit Sci Rev 69(3):850–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison K (2007) The road not taken: climate change policy in Canada and the United States. Glob Environ Politics 7.4:92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Homsy G, Warner M (2015) Cities and sustainability: polycentric action and multilevel governance. Urban Aff Rev 51.1:46–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsu A, Weinfurter A, Kaiyan X (2017) Aligning subnational climate actions for the new post-Paris climate regime. Clim Chang 142:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang M-Y et al (2007) Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random? Energy Policy 35:5571–5575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes S, Runfola DM, Cormier B (2018) Issue proximity and policy response in local governments. Rev Policy Res:192–212Google Scholar
  23. Hunt A, Watkiss P (2011) Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Clim Chang 104:13–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inglehart R (1981) Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. Am Polit Sci Rev 75(4):880–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inglehart R (1997) Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Jørgensen SL, Termansen M (2016) Linking climate change perceptions to adaptation and mitigation action. Clim Chang 138(1-2):283–296Google Scholar
  27. Kane S, Shogren J (2000) Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim Chang 45:75–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krause RM (2012a) Political decision-making and the local provision of public goods: the case of municipal climate protection in the US. Urban Stud 49.11:2399–2417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krause R (2012b) An assessment of the impact that participation in local climate networks has on cities’ implementation of climate, energy, and transportation policies. Rev Policy Res:585–604Google Scholar
  30. Laukkonen J, Blanco PK, Lenhart J, Keiner M, Cavric B, Kiniuthia-Njenga C (2009) Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level. Habitat Int 33:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lubell M, Feiock R, Handy S (2009) City adoption of environmentally sustainable policies in California’s Central Valley. J Am Plan Assoc 75.3:293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maibach E, Nisbet M, Baldwin P, Akerlof K, Diao G (2010) Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an explanatory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marsden G, Frick K, May A et al (2010) How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North America. Transp Policy:1–12Google Scholar
  34. Matisoff DC (2008) The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards: regional diffusion or internal determinants? Rev Policy Res 25.6:527–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nisbet M (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 52:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olson M (1971) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Ormrod RK (1990) Local context and innovation diffusion in a well-connected world. Econ Geogr 66.2:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pendergraft CA (1998) Human dimensions of climate change: Cultural theory and collective action. Climatic Change 39(4):643–666Google Scholar
  39. Putnam R (1993) The prosperous community: social capital and public life. Am Prospect 4(Spring)Google Scholar
  40. Ryan D (2015) From commitment to action: a literature review on climate policy implementation at city level. Clim Chang 131:519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharp E, Daley D, Lynch M (2011) Understanding local adoption and implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Aff Rev 47.3:433–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sippel M, Jenssen T (2009) What about local climate governance? A review of promise and problems, MPRA Paper no. 20987 [online]. Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Energy Economics and Rational Energy Use, Department System Analysis and Renewable Energies, University of Stuttgart, pp. 1–52. Available from: http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/20987/1/MPRA_paper_20987.pdf
  43. Tang Z, Dai Z, Xinyu F, Xue L (2013) Content analysis for the U.S. coastal states’ climate action plans in managing the risks of extreme climate events and disasters. Ocean Coast Manag 80:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wheeler SM (2008) State and municipal climate change plans: the first generation. J Am Plan Assoc 74.4(Autumn):481–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zahran S, Brody SD, Vedlitz A, Gover H, Miller C (2008) Vulnerability and capacity: explaining local commitment to climate-change policy. Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 26:544–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zia A, Todd AM (2010) Evaluating the effects of ideology on public understanding of climate change science: how to improve communication across ideological divides? Public Underst Sci 19(6):743–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bill Lane Center for the American WestStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations