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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld) and the COP21 Paris Agreement (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf)
See Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: https://www.c2es.org/document/climate-action-plans/
See California Institute for Local Government: http://www.ca-ilg.org/climate-action-plans
See Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: https://www.c2es.org/document/climate-action-plans/
See California Institute for Local Government: http://www.ca-ilg.org/climate-action-plans
Toolkit can be found here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localaction/localgovstrat.htm
It is important to highlight that CAPs are just one type of official target dealing with GHG emissions. There are other planning documents, local ordinances that jurisdictions have adopted to address GHG emissions. See, for example, http://opr.ca.gov/docs/California_Jurisdictions_Addressing_Climate_Change_PDF.pdf
See League of California Cities, as at 1 July 2011: http://www.cacities.org/Resources/Learn-About-Cities
See California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/California_Jurisdictions_Addressing_Climate_Change_PDF.pdf
Ibid.
See C40 Unlocking Climate Action in Megacities: https://www.c40.org/researches/unlocking-climate-action-in-megacities
https://igs.berkeley.edu/library/california-local-government-documents (accessed September 30, 2017)
https://data2.nhgis.org/main (accessed September 30, 2017)
https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/City-Other-Data/City-Consolidated-Statement/e4s3-uwib/data (accessed May 30, 2018)
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/report-registration/ (accessed September 30, 2017)
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 (accessed May 30, 2018)
There is a concern that perhaps these variables are highly correlated and multicolinearity may explain why none of the air quality coefficients are statistically significant at 0.05 level. We have experimented with various specification of the model and inclusion of variables and yet arrived at the same conclusion. We also tried re-specifying our models without the variable, EnviroScreen 3.0 score and only retained the air pollution indicators (ozone, PM 2.5, diesel PM) in our models. We arrived at the same conclusion: the EnviroScreen score was not statistically significant at 0.05 level.
In addition, based on the recommendation of our journal reviewer, we located a dataset from CAL FIRE which lists the cities for which CAL FIRE has made recommendations on very high fire hazard severity zones. (http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps_citylist). We added this variable to our models but it is not statistically significant at 0.05 level. That is, there is no linkage between potential fire hazard and adoption of CAP. The result is shown in Online Appendix Table A1.
We created our neighbor adjacency matrix with k-nearest neighbors, where k was set to 4.
See California Air Resources Board 2018 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
For example, coastal jurisdictions are encouraged to develop separate plans to address the rising sea level problems. http://www.opc.ca.gov/planning-for-sea-level-rise-database/
References
Andonova L, Betsill M, Bulkeley H (2009) Transnational Climate Governance. In: Global Environmental Politics, vol 9.2, pp 52–73
Bassett E, Shandas V (2010) Innovation and Climate Action Planning: perspectives from municipal plans. J Am Plan Assoc 76.4(Autumn 2010):435–450
Berry FS, Berry WD (1990) State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev 84(2):395-415
Berry FS, Berry WD (1999) Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In: Theories of the policy process. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 169–200
Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (Jun 2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. Int Stud Q 48(2):471–493
Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2006) Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Glob Gov 12(2):141–159
Brody SD et al (2008) A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the United States: risk, stress, and opportunity. Landsc Urban Plan 87:33–41
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):591–603
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):544–565
Bromley-Trujillo R, Poe J (2017) The importance of salience: public opinion and state policy action on climate change. Working paper, Feb
Chandler J (2009) Trendy solutions: why do states adopt sustainable energy portfolio standards? Energy Policy 37:3274–3281
Figueres C, Schellnhuber HJ, Whiteman G, Rockström J, Hobley A, Rahmstorf S (2017) Three years to safegourd our climate. Nature 546:593–595
Fischel WA (2001) The Homevoter Hyptohesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class. vol. 9. New York: Basic books
Gerber E (2013) Partisanship and local climate policy. Cityscape: J Policy Dev Res 15.1:107–124
Godwin ML, Schroedel JR (2000) Policy diffusion and strategies for promoting policy change: evidence from California local gun control ordinances. Policy Stud J 28.4:760–776
Grupp F, Richards A (1975) Variation in elite perceptions of American States as referents for policy making. Am Polit Sci Rev 69(3):850–858
Harrison K (2007) The road not taken: climate change policy in Canada and the United States. Glob Environ Politics 7.4:92–117
Homsy G, Warner M (2015) Cities and sustainability: polycentric action and multilevel governance. Urban Aff Rev 51.1:46–73
Hsu A, Weinfurter A, Kaiyan X (2017) Aligning subnational climate actions for the new post-Paris climate regime. Clim Chang 142:419–432
Huang M-Y et al (2007) Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random? Energy Policy 35:5571–5575
Hughes S, Runfola DM, Cormier B (2018) Issue proximity and policy response in local governments. Rev Policy Res:192–212
Hunt A, Watkiss P (2011) Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Clim Chang 104:13–49
Inglehart R (1981) Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. Am Polit Sci Rev 75(4):880–900
Inglehart R (1997) Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Jørgensen SL, Termansen M (2016) Linking climate change perceptions to adaptation and mitigation action. Clim Chang 138(1-2):283–296
Kane S, Shogren J (2000) Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim Chang 45:75–102
Krause RM (2012a) Political decision-making and the local provision of public goods: the case of municipal climate protection in the US. Urban Stud 49.11:2399–2417
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:585–604
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 33:287–292
Lubell M, Feiock R, Handy S (2009) City adoption of environmentally sustainable policies in California’s Central Valley. J Am Plan Assoc 75.3:293–308
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 10:299–310
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:1–12
Matisoff DC (2008) The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards: regional diffusion or internal determinants? Rev Policy Res 25.6:527–546
Nisbet M (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 52:12–23
Olson M (1971) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Ormrod RK (1990) Local context and innovation diffusion in a well-connected world. Econ Geogr 66.2:109–122
Pendergraft CA (1998) Human dimensions of climate change: Cultural theory and collective action. Climatic Change 39(4):643–666
Putnam R (1993) The prosperous community: social capital and public life. Am Prospect 4(Spring)
Ryan D (2015) From commitment to action: a literature review on climate policy implementation at city level. Clim Chang 131:519–529
Sharp E, Daley D, Lynch M (2011) Understanding local adoption and implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Aff Rev 47.3:433–457
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
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 80:46–54
Wheeler SM (2008) State and municipal climate change plans: the first generation. J Am Plan Assoc 74.4(Autumn):481–496
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 26:544–562
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):743–761
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 60 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hui, I., Smith, G. & Kimmel, C. Think globally, act locally: adoption of climate action plans in California. Climatic Change 155, 489–509 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02505-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02505-7