The Politics of Urban Climate Change Policy

Abstract

Urban politics research has not kept pace—empirically or theoretically—with city governments’ engagement with climate change policy. Thousands of cities globally have made commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and are taking steps toward these goals. In the United States, research has examined the motivations for such actions and has described some of the implementation challenges cities are encountering, but we lack a theoretically informed understanding of how these actions intersect politically with existing interests, institutions, and fiscal realities in cities. This article identifies five political entry points that are specific to urban climate change policy and can provide a foundation for empirically and theoretically valuable research. The pursuit of such an interdisciplinary urban research agenda for climate change would enhance our understanding of when and how cities are successful in addressing climate change and would provide new answers to long-standing questions in urban politics.

Keywords

climate change urban governance urban policy politics of policy

Climate change will be, and in many cases already is, on urban policy agendas. Globally, thousands of city governments are formally engaged with climate change policy networks and have made commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Arup 2014; Bulkeley 2013). Cities are actively adapting to climate change through infrastructure and emergency response planning (Carmin, Nadkarni, and Rhie 2012; Hughes 2015). The actions cities are taking to respond to climate change have placed them on the world stage. At the World Summit on Climate and Territories in July 2015, a lead-up meeting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Paris (Conference Of the Parties 21), city leaders were told by UN Assistant Secretary-General Janos Pasztor that they are “on the frontlines of the climate challenge” and that national governments “need your support to raise ambitions.”¹ Indeed, more than 1,000 city leaders attended the Climate Summit for Local Leaders held on December 4, 2015, at COP 21. The lead climate change negotiators for the United States and China recently highlighted the role cities play in implementing federal climate change programs, and the momentum created by their independent actions and commitments for a historic agreement between the two countries (Davenport 2015). We can only expect cities’ engagement with climate change to increase, as demand from national governments, state and provincial governments, foundations, and citizens for cities to address climate change is on the rise.

Beyond its practical significance, the leadership of city governments on climate change introduces new interests, information, intergovernmental relationships, and ideas to urban politics, generating important new research questions. Responding to climate change could reshape the physical, institutional, and social underpinnings of cities in fundamental ways, and thus presents a set of challenges not found in other policy areas such as education, economic development, or housing. For example, in 2007, New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, released PlaNYC, a comprehensive plan that lays out the city’s approach to addressing housing, transportation, energy, water, air pollution, and green space. In this plan, they recognize the connection each of these sectors has to the city’s levels of GHG emissions and write, “collectively these initiatives all address our greatest challenge: climate change” (The City of New York 2007, p. 133).

However, urban politics scholarship has generally not kept pace with climate change policy developments in practice. As a community, we have been slow to take up the challenge of understanding the politics of urban climate change policy: the extent to which addressing climate change at the local level intersects with existing interests, institutions, and ideas about the city. Are current theoretical frameworks adequate given the wide-ranging effects to urban economies and communities implicated by effective climate change mitigation policy? An interdisciplinary focus on the politics of urban climate change policy is needed.

Focusing on the United States, and on government-led initiatives,² I briefly outline what governing climate change in the city entails, focusing on mitigation efforts (reducing GHG emissions), and the important contributions that have been made already to our understanding of local policy adoption. I then focus on five specific political features of urban climate change mitigation policy—what I term “political entry points”—that could provide a foundation for a more robust research agenda: the mayoral champion, intersectoral coordination, jurisdictional fragmentation, long-term versus short-term interests, and new revenue demands. While this is not an exhaustive list of the challenges and tensions apparent in urban climate change policy work, the questions raised provide opportunities for theoretically informed, interdisciplinary urban politics research that also contributes to the practice of governing climate change in the city.

Cities, GHG Emissions, and Mitigation Policy: Identifying the Research Needs

Climate change mitigation refers to “human efforts to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014). Globally, cities are responsible for more than 70% of energy-related GHG emissions (International Energy Agency 2009). These emissions come from energy production, the use of natural gas and heating oil in buildings and industrial processes, and fossil fuels used for transportation by cars, trains, trucks, and buses. The particular sources of GHG emissions in cities can vary significantly. Car-dominated cities will have a greater proportion of GHG emissions arising from transportation than densely built cities with robust public transportation systems. Alternatively, cities that rely heavily on fossil fuel-based energy sources, or have a manufacturing-based economy, are likely to have a greater proportion of their GHG emissions attributable to energy use. Cities often distinguish between GHG emissions arising from internal government activities (e.g., city-owned buildings and vehicle fleets) or from activities in the broader community (e.g., energy use in homes and fuels used in private vehicles).

Mitigation policy, therefore, can take a variety of forms (Bulkeley 2013). Introducing more renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, can reduce GHG emissions generated from energy production. Mandating or incentivizing energy efficiency fixtures and cooling systems in buildings reduces demand. Investing in alternative transportation modes, such as mass transit and bicycling, can reduce GHG emissions from gasoline and diesel engines. Decisions about how solid waste is transferred and disposed, and the size and distribution of green space in the city, can also reduce or capture GHG emissions. City governments may opt to focus on behavioral change such as carpooling, recycling, or resource conservation.

Achieving large reductions in GHG emissions in cities—such as the 80% reductions many city governments have pledged to achieve—is likely to require a suite of alterations to urban infrastructures, institutions, and behaviors: Energy systems, the built environment, decision-making processes and partnerships, and consumption patterns are all potential targets for urban climate change mitigation policy. The intersecting and complex demands of climate change are unique from those in other policy areas. Given this challenging, and ultimately global, task, why have some city governments been so ambitious and eager to engage?

Why and How Cities Are Mitigating Climate Change

When climate change first came to policy makers’ attention in the 1980s and early 1990s, mitigation was the initial focus and, given the level of collective action that is required to significantly reduce global GHG emissions, an international response initially seemed most appropriate. The first attempt at crafting a global solution came in the form of the UNFCCC. The UNFCCC was signed in 1992, with 195 signatories committing to the goal of “stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (UNFCCC 1992, p. 4). Binding GHG reduction targets were then developed as part of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997; however, several countries, including the United States, failed to ratify this treaty domestically due to entrenched political interests. As a result, international efforts to reduce GHG emissions have by most accounts been deemed ineffective³ (Hoffmann 2011).

In the face of policy stagnation at the international and, in the case of the United States, national levels, many city governments have been developing plans of their own. A relatively large body of research—led primarily by public policy and public administration scholars—has examined the characteristics and motivations of city governments that are taking action to address climate change. This largely quantitative research has shown fairly consistently that cities that are larger, better educated, wealthier, and home to active environmental groups are more likely to have a climate change plan in place, while cities with a manufacturing base or other source of carbon-intensive activities are less likely to have a climate change plan in place (Krause 2011a, 2011b, 2012b; Sharp, Daley, and Lynch 2011; Zahran et al. 2008). Leadership within city government and institutional mechanisms for interest group and community engagement can also make the adoption of climate change plans more likely (Bae and Feiock 2013; Feiock, Francis, and Kassekert 2010; Sharp, Daley, and Lynch 2011). Cities often tailor their climate change plans to produce benefits beyond GHG reductions such as cost savings, growth management, or political recognition (Betsill 2001).

Cities are taking cues from higher levels of government and transnational networks: Cities in states and counties with supportive frameworks for local climate change action are generally more likely to have adopted a climate change plan (Homsy and Warner 2015; Krause 2011a). Transnational organizations, such as ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection and the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, provide opportunities for cities to gain technical expertise and learn from other cities’ experiences (Bulkeley and Betsill 2003; Lee 2012). Membership in these organizations is often used as a proxy for climate change policy adoption in empirical analyses (e.g., Sharp, Daley, and Lynch 2011), but evidence for whether such networks have a tangible influence on local decision making is mixed (Bulkeley and Betsill 2003; Krause 2012a).

Scholars have also highlighted the challenges cities face when moving from a climate change plan to the implementation of policies and programs necessary to meet the city’s goals (i.e., the “stubborn gap between the rhetoric and reality of local climate policy”; Betsill and Bulkeley 2007, p. 448). Indeed, as Sharp, Daley, and Lynch (2011) pointed out, adopting a climate change plan or pledging to reduce GHG emissions is a relatively low-cost policy action for city governments. In a survey of municipalities in Indiana, Krause (2011b) found that while 20% have a stated GHG reduction goal, only 5% have taken the step of performing a GHG inventory, developed a reduction plan, or given climate change a designated budget. Unclear sources of authority, an inability to agree on objectives, and financial stress have been shown to hinder progress (Bulkeley 2013; Moser and Ekstrom 2010, 2012; Sharp, Daley, and Lynch 2011). As a result, cities may focus on meeting climate change goals by reducing emissions attributable to government activities first before focusing on community-wide emissions (Francis and Feiock 2011). In some cases, civil society groups have played a central role in implementing projects in the city that reduce GHG emissions (Aylett 2013). There is an emerging sense that unique configurations of factors allow cities to effectively implement policies and programs that reduce GHG emissions (Ryan 2015).

The Need for a More Political Perspective

The research described above has generated important insights into the characteristics and motivations of cities that are taking steps to address climate change. However, significant gaps remain. Thus far, analyses of urban climate change policy have typically used quantitative analyses to describe broad patterns in adoption, motivation, and success. These are important foundations, but going forward more in-depth and nuanced examinations of the politics surrounding urban climate change policy and governance are required. We know very little about the political dynamics engaged in the urban climate change policy process, and the form and implications of the resulting governance processes and outcomes (Portney 2013; Ryan 2015). Even our understanding of best practices is generally constrained to the planning stage (e.g., Clean Air Partnership 2007). While a picture is emerging that portrays urban climate change policy as challenging and complex, frameworks and theories for understanding and explaining the political patterns that underpin mitigation policy adoption and implementation are underdeveloped, and it is not immediately obvious that existing theories of urban politics will suffice.

There is a need to better understand—both empirically and theoretically—the political dimensions of urban climate change mitigation policy. To do this, research must identify the important mechanisms and strategies that are employed by various actors to achieve commitment to urban climate change policy and ensure or impede implementation. We need to understand what is at stake and how interests are mobilized, who wins and who loses, and what types of institutional innovations are required to govern climate change in the city. For the remainder of this article, I will highlight five political entry points that scholars are presented with as cities engage with climate change mitigation policy. These entry points provide opportunities for research that is well positioned to contribute to our understanding of both urban politics and climate change policy.

Five Political Entry Points in Urban Climate Change Mitigation Policy

The mayoral champion

Mayors often play an important role in championing climate change plans and policies for their cities. There are a growing number of national and international platforms through which mayors are encouraged to demonstrate their commitment to addressing climate change, highlight the actions their cities are taking, and access technical support and resources (Engel 2006). Forums and intercity networks, such as the C40 Climate Leadership Group, the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, have all helped to promote mayors as climate change policy champions. Mayors can use their commitment to climate change to demonstrate their progressive vision and leadership, and to gain national and international recognition. Such leadership can be crucial for the development of a climate change plan for the city (Bae and Feiock 2013; Center for Clean Air Policy 2009; Sharp, Daley, and Lynch 2011).

However, while executive leadership may be important for adopting a climate change plan for the city, a mayoral champion is not always adequate for successful policy implementation. During implementation, the locus of power can quickly become city council and city administrators who are charged with passing new ordinances (such as energy saving requirements) or providing new services (such as providing additional bus routes or enforcing energy efficiency standards). While mayors provide leadership and can help to establish policy agendas, they often have limited direct influence on city council and city administrators.

Explanations of mayoral success have focused on personality, institutional and political environments, and historical development (Greasley and Stoker 2009). Yates (1977) argued that mayors have very little control over municipal administrations generally, but that the influence of mayors is determined by a combination of their personal leadership style and their political environment. Indeed, the formal powers granted to a city’s mayor have been shown to influence whether he or she succeeds in forwarding and implementing his or her personal goals (Mullin, Peele, and Cain 2004). Similarly, Ferman (1985) found that mayors must be able to strategically align their actions to the city’s political environment to be effective. Others see historical development and the opportunities it presents to mayors as the determination of mayoral success (Flanagan 2004). Ultimately, however, theoretical explanations of the role of mayoral leadership (and of leadership in general) in urban politics, and its relationship to various institutional structures in city governance, remain underdeveloped (Greasley and Stoker 2009).

The championing of climate change by mayors provides an opportunity to answer questions about the ability of mayors to spearhead major changes to urban systems and steer cities in new directions. However, we may expect that cities with more powerful mayors, who have demonstrated a commitment to climate change, are able to more effectively pursue mitigation policies. This relationship, however, may be contingent on a number of factors such as the presence of competing economic priorities, the types of resources a mayor has access to (financial or institutional), and state and federal policies and priorities (Gerber and Hopkins 2011). We may also expect the relationship between mayoral powers and climate change policy effectiveness to be rather weak. Reducing GHG emissions requires a significant commitment from private sector and community actors in cities. Successful mayoral climate change agendas may be determined more by the potential and strategies for collaboration than on the use of formal powers. Similarly, a relatively weak mayor who is actively engaged in global city networks and has access to greater technical and political expertise may subsequently be more effective at pursuing climate change policy than a mayor with more formal powers who is not engaged in such networks.

Intersectoral coordination

Meeting urban climate change mitigation goals requires coordination within city governments and between city governments and outside actors (Cutter et al. 2014). For example, reducing GHG emissions attributable to water management practices may require coordination between the water utility and the sanitation department; increasing public transportation ridership numbers may require coordination between transportation and zoning; implementing energy efficiency upgrades may require coordination between city engineers, housing authorities, and developers.

This need for coordination is often explicitly acknowledged in urban climate change plans (Hughes 2015). However, achieving coordination among sectors and departments can be a daunting task for local governments. City governments are highly fragmented internally in ways that can shape and constrain their efforts to reduce GHG emissions (Aylett 2014). Indeed, the development of an Integrated Resources Plan in Los Angeles to coordinate water supply and wastewater management functions was innovative enough to win a prize from the U.S. Water Alliance in 2011.⁴ The challenges of coordination extend beyond urban bureaucracies, however. A broader set of actors—from the private sector, civil society, and other levels of government—participate in urban governance and shape outcomes in the city (Pierre 2011; Sellers 2002a; Stone 2015). Coordinating mechanisms—formal or informal—are required if the public and private sectors are to move in the same direction and contribute to the implementation of climate change policies and programs.

Cities are experimenting with different models of such coordination. For example, New York City established the Green Codes Task Force in implementing the city’s climate change goals, which is composed of representatives from government, industry, and civil society. The Green Codes Task Force identified opportunities to amend the city’s building and construction codes in ways that would reduce energy use.⁵ However, questions remain about how and where such coordination arises in cities pursuing climate change solutions, which actors are engaged, and to what purpose.

Regime theory has struggled to explain the emergence and dynamics of the types of public–private coalitions that could sustain a progressive urban agenda such as addressing climate change (Mossberger 2009). Urban governance scholars have demonstrated the tangible implementation gains that come with good local governance through collaboration (Rich and Stoker 2015; Scholz and Wang 2006), but many predict that such collaborations will be increasingly task-specific and, critically, will include actors from other levels of government (Bramwell 2012; Bramwell and Pierre 2013; Pierre and Peters 2012). Scholars continue to emphasize the “iron law” of resource mobilization: “for any governing arrangement to sustain itself, resources must be commensurate with the agenda being pursued” (Stoker 1995; Stone 1993, in Stone 2015, p. 103). The resources required to address climate change are likely to be city-specific, and their mobilization may require new skills and expertise on the part of city governments.

The emergence of urban climate change mitigation policy and political action presents an opportunity to gain deeper insight into how—and by whom—resources for progressive urban policy agendas are mobilized and sustained. Are coalitions organized specifically around climate change or is the landscape more fragmented? If the latter, city governments may need to engage in “meta-governance” (Pierre and Peters 2012, p. 81), or the “organization of the conditions for governance” (Jessop 2002, p. 49), though it is not immediately clear that they are experienced in such domains (McGuirk 2000). Indeed, this may be a reason why city governments have generally been more successful when targeting city operations rather than the community at large. Understanding the ability and strategies of city governments to actively construct or influence governing coalitions for climate change mitigation—ones that are able to mobilize the necessary resources—would provide important insights for scholars and practitioners.

Jurisdictional fragmentation

One reason for the prominent role of cities in climate change governance is the perception that cities have jurisdiction over a large portion of global GHG emissions due to their ability to influence energy use, transportation and commuting patterns, land-use planning, building design, and waste management. Indeed, urban climate change plans typically specify and highlight the actions and commitments to be taken by the city government in these areas.

However, while cities may have jurisdiction over important sources of GHG emissions, this does not mean they have the capacity to act autonomously or that their incentives or opportunities for doing so are entirely locally determined. State and federal policies and funding programs can significantly shape the opportunities local governments have to innovate and implement new initiatives (Frug and Barron 2008; Sellers 2002b). Metropolitan or regional fragmentation can also inhibit effective local action on issues, such as transportation, energy sourcing, and land use, due to conflicting aims and resources held by other cities (Feiock 2004; Judd and Swanstrom 2012).

The tensions that arise when climate change plans are developed by cities but implemented in a fragmented metropolitan landscape raise questions about how cities interpret and exercise jurisdiction, how jurisdictional conflicts are resolved, and what strategies cities may develop for wielding influence beyond their formal jurisdiction. Regional approaches to addressing climate change are emerging such as the Los Angeles Regional Collaborative,⁶ which includes not just city governments but also universities and environmental organizations. In the case of watershed management, this type of collaborative institution, designed to facilitate collective action, is most likely to emerge when the benefits of collaboration outweigh the costs (Lubell et al. 2002). Research is needed to better characterize what the costs and benefits to action on climate change are for cities—or are perceived to be—to understand whether these conditions similarly influence the emergence of regional, intermunicipal cooperation on climate change.

Collaborative intermunicipal climate change institutions are likely to interact with existing regional bodies, such as the federally funded and mandated metropolitan planning organizations, which have responsibility for transportation planning in the United States. As the institutional “ecology” governing urban GHG emissions becomes more complex, actors may adopt new strategies to maximize benefits and minimize costs (Lubell, Henry, and McCoy 2010). A better understanding of the political drivers and consequences of intermunicipal cooperation, and regional scale solutions to pressing urban policy problems, is needed (Savitch and Vogel 2009; Swanstrom 2001).

Long-term outcomes and short-term preferences

The benefits of reducing GHG emissions (a more stable climate) will take years to realize and may not even be perceptible. Ambitious GHG emissions reduction projects that require new or reconfigured infrastructure, retrofitted buildings, or accumulated behavioral changes can take years or decades to complete. In some cases, it may be future generations that benefit from a city’s efforts to reduce emissions. Problems, such as climate change with longtime horizons and, at times, controversial politics, can be particularly subject to the short-term and reactive tendencies of urban policy making. Addressing climate change requires that city decision makers give priority to projects that not only have long-term implications but also are likely to have long payoff times. Ideas around policy learning and adaptation, and the formation of a policy agenda, have been slow to be tested in, or adapted to, the urban context (Sapotichne and Jones 2011; Sapotichne, Jones, and Wolfe 2007).

Intertemporal decision-making trade-offs in particular are not well studied in cities, and climate change governance provides an important avenue for greater insight into how and when cities prioritize the long-term payoffs of addressing climate change. Jacobs (2011) argued there are three hurdles to future-oriented policy making: problems of electoral risk, problems of predicting long-term policy effects, and problems of institutional capacity. For cities, the level and source of electoral risk faced by officials, a given agency’s ability to predict long-term policy effects, and sources of institutional capacity in city governments are rarely static. A city’s initial mission to reduce GHG emissions is likely to be reframed and adapted over time as political conditions and leadership shift. For example, when New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio took office in 2014, he adapted the city’s existing climate change efforts to his political agenda (affordable housing) rather than the other way around.⁷ Institutional differences between cities, beyond just capacity, may also play an important role in determining the balance between short-term and long-term orientation of policy making. For example, the institutional structures of city governments have been shown to shape the degree to which elected officials are accessible and responsive to interest groups and public opinion (Gerber 2013; Gerber and Phillips 2003; Lubell et al. 2009; Portney and Cuttler 2010).

Finally, it is increasingly clear that a shift is underway: Where environmental policies, such as reducing GHG emissions, were once thought of as a liability to cities operating in highly competitive environments (e.g., Peterson 1981), there is growing evidence that such “extra-economic” factors (i.e., being a “sustainable city”) are helping to brand cities and urban spaces in ways that are advantageous in a global marketplace (Jessop and Sum 2000) and thus provide a link between short-term and long-term interests.

New revenue demands

Perhaps the most straightforward political entry point is produced by the fact that reducing GHG emissions, on the whole, costs money. While efficiency gains can reduce energy and transportation costs, new revenue streams must be identified, or existing revenue redirected, to fund the programs and investments needed to reduce GHG emissions. Indeed, identifying revenue sources for climate change programs has emerged as a central challenge for cities that have tried to make progress in this area (Clean Air Partnership 2007; Moser and Ekstrom 2012). The search for climate change funding is taking place in the context of a rapidly shifting fiscal environment, in terms of both revenue quantities and sources. Cities are increasingly reliant on user fees for funding new infrastructure projects (Pagano and Perry 2008); intergovernmental grants can be particularly important for large cities in the United States (Buettner and Wildasin 2006) but are an uncertain and often conditional revenue source. Efforts to redirect existing funds can be hindered by those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

Funding new programs and mobilizing resources in pursuit of pressing problems is a perennial challenge for cities. As climate change rises on urban policy agendas, there are important questions to ask about how programs are funded, who bears the cost, and whether funding strategies ultimately shape the outcomes. At the international level, normative issues surrounding who should pay often dominate (and stall) negotiations. As cities seek federal, state, or private-sector funding for their climate change programs, what implications does this carry for the outcomes? Further research is required to identify the financial innovations that are necessary, or being piloted, by cities as they address climate change, and the varying and dynamic fiscal relationships between levels of government this engenders. In addition to identifying promising practices for funding climate change programs, the answers could provide broader insights into how cities are grappling with their changing fiscal and political environments and the implications of these efforts for various interest groups.

Going Forward

As stated previously, climate change is likely to become more—rather than less—common to urban policy agendas, and it is imperative that the politics and political implications be better understood. While previous research has identified the broad patterns of climate change policy adoption by U.S. cities, we lack insight into the nuanced ways in which sources of authority, institutional constraints and opportunities, and political interests shape the investments and trade-offs cities are willing to make as they pursue their climate change goals.

The five political entry points identified in this article present important governing spaces where urban climate change politics are likely to be apparent, and where urban politics research is likely to provide transferable insights. The mayoral champion, need for collaboration, jurisdictional fragmentation, long-term orientation, and additional revenue demands of climate change raise challenging and important questions for the study and practice of urban politics. History tells us that it is possible for actors to navigate and overcome such challenges to successfully implement policy, though the particular strategies chosen may differ. Mayors can be successful in implementing policy priorities, coordination can be achieved among sectors and governments, cities can implement long-term programs and find ways to fund new initiatives. Following the successful engagement of city governments in COP 21, they may be increasingly likely to look to international actors (and cities) for guidance and support (see also Barber 2013). However, our understanding of how these processes play out in the complex policy terrain of climate change is incomplete.

Further research is required to understand how likely cities are to resolve these tensions and with what consequences. We may ask whether the five political entry points are equally applicable or important, whether some are more challenging to navigate than others, who experiences the political tensions that arise and how they overcome them, and who wins and loses as these tensions are resolved. It is also likely that the politics of mayoral agendas, collaboration, long-term commitment, and financing are highly intertwined, as cities must decide how and where to prioritize climate change actions within a broader policy agenda.

Examining the politics of urban climate change policy ultimately raises questions about the conditions under which cities are—or could be—the appropriate political venues for climate change mitigation policy and how cities could be most successful in these endeavors (by various metrics). It can also provide new answers to long-standing questions in urban politics about the source and nature of power in the policy process, steering agents and mechanisms in the city, and evolving municipal revenue strategies. Progress on such an agenda requires greater interdisciplinary collaboration: Insights from urban governance, urban economics, and community development must be combined with those from public policy, public administration, and environmental studies. Scholars of urban politics have much to gain from a closer examination of the politics of urban climate change governance.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2015 annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association and the Urban Affairs Association. This article benefited greatly from presentation at the University of Toronto Environmental Governance Lab, and the useful feedback from three anonymous referees and the Urban Affairs Review editors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Sara Hughes is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto. Her research focuses on urban politics, the institutions of local government, urban environmental policy, and the politics of local climate change response. Current projects examine the implementation of climate change policy in large cities; transitions in urban waste management; the determinants of policy attention in local governments; and building capacity for adaptation in cities. Recent publications include “A Meta-analysis of Urban Climate Change Adaptation Planning in the U.S.” in Urban Climate and “Science and Institution Building in Urban Climate Change Policy Making” in Environmental Politics. She holds a PhD in environmental science and management from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

References

Arup. 2014. “Climate Action in Megacities: C40 Cities Baseline and Opportunities Volume 2.0.” London. Accessed April 29, 2016. http://c40.org/blog_posts/CAM2.

Aylett

Alex

. 2013. “Networked Urban Climate Governance: Neighborhood-Scale Residential Solar Energy Systems and the Example of Solarize Portland.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31 (5): 858–75.

Aylett

Alex

. 2014. “Progress and Challenges in the Urban Governance of Climate Change: Results of a Global Survey.” Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Bae

Jungah

Feiock

Richard

. 2013. “Forms of Government and Climate Change Policies in US Cities.” Urban Studies 50 (4): 776–88.

Barber

Benjamin R.

2013. If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Betsill

Michele M.

2001. “Mitigating Climate Change in US Cities: Opportunities and Obstacles.” Local Environment 6 (4): 393–406. doi:10.1080/13549830120091699.

Betsill

Michele M.

Bulkeley

Harriet

. 2007. “Looking Back and Thinking Ahead: A Decade of Cities and Climate Change Research.” Local Environment 12 (5): 447–56. doi:10.1080/13549830701659683.

Bramwell

Allison

. 2012. “Networks Are Not Enough . . . But They Do Matter: Urban Governance and Workforce Development in Three Ontario Cities.” Urban Affairs Review 48 (3): 295–321. doi:10.1177/1078087411428051.

Bramwell

Allison

Pierre

Jon

. 2013(August). “The Collaborative City: A New Mode of Urban Governance?” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

10.

Buettner

Thiess

Wildasin

David E.

2006. “The Dynamics of Municipal Fiscal Adjustment.” Journal of Public Economics 90 (6–7): 1115–32. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.002.

11.

Bulkeley

Harriet

. 2013. Cities and Climate Change. New York: Routledge.

12.

Bulkeley

Harriet

Betsill

Michele M.

2003. Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance. London: Routledge.

13.

Bulkeley

Harriet

Broto

Vanesa Castán

Edwards

Gareth A. S.

2014. An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-technical Transitions. Routledge. Accessed April 29, 2016. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TofZBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=An+Urban+Politics+of+Climate+Change:+Experimentation+and+the+governing+of+socio-technical+transitions&ots=Y_x9jJYiLf&sig=KuTX4gIoDSL5Je3SDNFDmFWwgj0.

14.

Carmin

Joann

Nadkarni

Nikhil

Rhie

Christopher

. 2012. “Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey.” MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

15.

Center for Clean Air Policy. 2009. “Ask the Climate Question: Adapting to Climate Change Impacts in Urban Regions.” Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiative, Washington, DC.

16.

Clean Air Partnership. 2007. “Cities Preparing for Climate Change: A Study of Six Urban Regions.” Toronto. Published by The Clean Air Partnership. http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/cities_climate_change.pdf

17.

Cutter

Susan L.

Solecki

William

Bragado

Nancy

Carmin

JoAnn

Fragkias

Michail

Ruth

Matthias

Wilbanks

Thomas J.

2014. “Urban Systems, Infrastructure, and Vulnerability.” In Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, edited by Melillo

Jerry M.

Richmond

Terese C.

Yohe

Gary

, 282–96. U.S. Global Change Research Program.( http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/urban)

18.

Davenport

Coral

. 2015. “U.S. and Chinese Climate Change Negotiators to Meet in Los Angeles.” The New York Times, September 15. Accessed April 29, 2016. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/us/us-and-chinese-climate-change-negotiators-to-meet-in-los-angeles.html.

19.

Engel

Kristen H.

2006. “State and Local Climate Change Initiatives: What Is Motivating State and Local Governments to Address a Global Problem and What Does This Say About Federalism and Environmental Law?” Urban Lawyer 38 (4): 1015–29.

20.

Feiock

Richard C.

, ed. 2004. Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.

21.

Feiock

Richard C.

Francis

Nathan

Kassekert

Tony

. 2010. “Explaining the Adoption of Climate Change Policies in Local Government.” Presented at the Pathways to Low Carbon Cities Workshop, Hong Kong, China, December.

22.

Ferman

Barbara

. 1985. Governing the Ungovernable City: Political Skill, Leadership, and the Modern Mayor. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.

23.

Flanagan

Richard Michael

. 2004. Mayors and the Challenge of Urban Leadership. Lanham: Univ. Press of America.

24.

Francis

Nathan

Feiock

Richard C.

2011. “A Guide for Local Government Executives on Sustainable Energy Management.” IBM Institute for the Business of Government, Washington, DC.

25.

Frug

Gerald E.

Barron

David J.

2008. City Bound: How States Stifle Urban Innovation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.

26.

Gerber

Elisabeth R.

2013. “Partisanship and Local Climate Policy.” Cityscape 15 (1): 107–24.

27.

Gerber

Elisabeth R.

Hopkins

Daniel J.

2011. “When Mayors Matter: Estimating the Impact of Mayoral Partisanship on City Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 326–39. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00499.x.

28.

Gerber

Elisabeth R.

Phillips

Justin H.

2003. “Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 625–39. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00044.

29.

Greasley

Stephen

Stoker

Gerry

. 2009. “Urban Political Leadership.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by Davies

Jonathan S.

Imbroscio

David L.

, 2nd ed., 125–36. London: SAGE.

30.

Hoffmann

Matthew J.

2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

31.

Homsy

George

Warner

Mildred E.

2015. “Cities and Sustainability: Polycentric Action and Multilevel Governance.” Urban Affairs Review 51 (1): 46–73.

32.

Hughes

Sara

. 2015. “A Meta-analysis of Urban Climate Change Adaptation Planning in the U.S.” Urban Climate 14:17–29. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.003.

33.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. “Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Accessed April 29, 2016. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/.

34.

International Energy Agency. 2009. “Cities, Towns and Renewable Energy: Yes in My Front Yard.” International Energy Agency, Paris.

35.

Jacobs

Alan

. 2011. Governing for the Long Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

36.

Jessop

Bob

Sum

Ngai-Ling

. 2000. “An Entrepreneurial City in Action: Hong Kong’s Emerging Strategies in and for (Inter)Urban Competition.” Urban Studies 37 (12): 2287–2313. doi:10.1080/00420980020002814.

37.

Jessop

Bob

. 2002. “Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety, and Requisite Irony.” In Participatory Governance in Multi-Level Context: Concepts and Experience, by Hubert Heinelt Getimis

Panagiotis

Kafkalas

Grigoris

Smith

Randall

Swyngedouw

Erik

, 33–58. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

38.

Judd

Dennis R.

Swanstrom

Todd

. 2012. City Politics. 8th ed. Glenview: Pearson Education.

39.

Krause

Rachel M.

2011a. “Policy Innovation, Intergovernmental Relations, and the Adoption of Climate Protection Initiatives by U.S. Cities.” Journal of Urban Affairs 33 (1): 45–60.

40.

Krause

Rachel M.

2011b. “Symbolic or Substantive Policy? Measuring the Extent of Local Commitment to Climate Protection.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29 (1): 46–62.

41.

Krause

Rachel M.

2012a. “An Assessment of the Impact that Participation in Local Climate Networks Has on Cities’ Implementation of Climate, Energy, and Transportation Policies.” Review of Policy Research 29 (5): 585–604. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00582.x.

42.

Krause

Rachel M.

2012b. “Political Decision-Making and the Local Provision of Public Goods: The Case of Municipal Climate Protection in the US.” Urban Studies 49 (11): 2399–2417. doi:10.1177/0042098011427183.

43.

Lee

Taedong

. 2012. “Global Cities and Transnational Climate Change Networks.” Global Environmental Politics 13 (1): 108–27. doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00156.

44.

Lubell

Mark

Feiock

Richard C.

Cruz

De La

Ramirez

Edgar E.

2009. “Local Institutions and the Politics of Urban Growth.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (3): 649–65.

45.

Lubell

Mark

Henry

Adam Douglas

McCoy

Mike

. 2010. “Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 287–300.

46.

Lubell

Mark

Schneider

Mark

Scholz

John T.

Mete

Mihriye

. 2002. “Watershed Partnerships and the Emergence of Collective Action Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 148–63. doi:10.2307/3088419.

47.

McGuirk

Pauline

. 2000. “Power and Policy Networks in Urban Governance: Local Government and Property-Led Regeneration in Dublin.” Urban Studies 37 (4): 651–72. doi:10.1080/00420980050003955.

48.

Moser

Susanne C.

Ekstrom

Julia A.

2010. “A Framework to Diagnose Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation.”

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

107 (51): 22026–31.

49.

Moser

Susanne C.

Ekstrom

Julia A.

2012. “Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in San Francisco Bay: Results from Case Studies.” CEC-500-2012-034. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.

50.

Mossberger

Karen

. 2009. “Urban Regime Analysis.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by Davies

Jonathan B.

Imbroscio

David L.

2nd ed. London: Sage, pp. 40–54.

51.

Mullin

Megan

Peele

Gillian

Cain

Bruce E.

2004. “City Caesars? Institutional Structure and Mayoral Success in Three California Cities.” Urban Affairs Review 40 (1): 19–43. doi:10.1177/1078087404265391.

52.

Pagano

Michael A.

Perry

David

. 2008. “Financing Infrastructure in the 21st Century City.” Public Works Management & Policy 13 (1): 22–38. doi:10.1177/1087724X08321015.

53.

Peterson

Paul E.

1981. City Limits. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.

54.

Pierre

Jon

. 2011. The Politics of Urban Governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

55.

Pierre

Jon

Peters

B. Guy

. 2012. “Urban Governance.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics, edited by Mossberger

Karen

Clarke

Susan E.

John

Peter

, 71–86. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

56.

Portney

Kent E.

2013. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.1080/0811114032000113680.

57.

Portney

Kent E.

Cuttler

Zachary

. 2010. “The Local Nonprofit Sector and the Pursuit of Sustainability in American Cities: A Preliminary Exploration.” Local Environment 15 (4): 323–39.

58.

Rich

Michael J.

Stoker

Robert P.

2015. Collaborative Governance for Urban Revitalization: Lessons from Empowerment Zones. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.

59.

Ryan

Daniel

. 2015. “From Commitment to Action: A Literature Review on Climate Policy Implementation at City Level.” Climatic Change 131:519–29.

60.

Sapotichne

Joshua

Jones

Bryan D.

2011. “Setting City Agendas: Power and Policy Change.” In Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics, edited by Mossberger

Karen

Clarke

Susan

John

Peter

. Accessed April 29, 2016. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VUsWTwPe3fIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA442&dq=sapotichne+oxford+handbook&ots=b0fix_xDYj&sig=UHhEeazAxw3MFN31OmeuB5WV9gc.

61.

Sapotichne

Joshua

Jones

Bryan D.

Wolfe

Michelle

. 2007. “Is Urban Politics a Black Hole? Analyzing the Boundary Between Political Science and Urban Politics.” Urban Affairs Review 43 (1): 76–106. doi:10.1177/1078087407302901.

62.

Savitch

Hank

Vogel

Ronald K.

2009. “Regionalism and Urban Politics.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by Davies

Jonathan S.

Imbroscio

David L.

, 2nd ed. London: Sage. Pp. 106–124.

63.

Scholz

John T.

Wang

Cheng-Lung

. 2006. “Cooptation or Transformation? Local Policy Networks and Federal Regulatory Enforcement.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 81–97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00171.x.

64.

Sellers

Jefferey M.

2002a. Governing from Below: Urban Regions and the Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

65.

Sellers

Jefferey M.

2002b. “The Nation-State and Urban Governance.” Urban Affairs Review 37 (5): 611–41. doi:10.1177/107808740203700501.

66.

Sharp

Elaine

Daley

Dorothy

Lynch

Michael

. 2011. “Understanding Local Adoption and Implementation of Climate Change Mitigation Policy.” Urban Affairs Review 47 (3): 433–57.

67.

Stoker

Gerry

. 1995. “Regime Theory and Urban Politics.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by Judge

David

Stoker

Gerry

Wolman

Harold

, 1st ed., 54–71. London: SAGE.

68.

Stone

Clarence N.

1993. “Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern: A Political Economy Approach.” Journal of Urban Affairs 15 (1): 1–28.

69.

Stone

Clarence N.

2015. “Reflections on Regime Politics from Governing Coalition to Urban Political Order.” Urban Affairs Review 51 (1): 101–37.

70.

Swanstrom

Todd

. 2001. “What We Argue About When We Argue About Regionalism.” Journal of Urban Affairs 23 (5): 479–96. doi:10.1111/0735-2166.00102.

71.

The City of New York. 2007. “plaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York.” http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/downloads/pdf/publications/full_report_2007.pdf

72.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1992. “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” United Nations, New York.

73.

Yates

Douglas T.

1977. The Ungovernable City: The Politics of Urban Problems and Policy Making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

74.

Zahran

Sammy

Grover

Himanshu

Brody

Samuel D.

Vedlitz

Arnold

. 2008. “Risk, Stress, and Capacity: Explaining Metropolitan Commitment to Climate Protection.” Urban Affairs Review 43 (4): 447–74.