Municipal climate leadership in Canada: the role of leadership in the expansion of municipal climate action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this empirical case study is to study and explain the role of public leadership in the expansion of municipal climate action in Canada. Design/methodology/approach In 2017 and 2018, the authors conducted13 semi-directed interviews with municipal staff and elected officials from three municipalities, a documentary analysis of primary and secondary sources. Interviews and documentation collected were also coded using the software NVIVO 12. The authors compared three municipal case studies: the City of Toronto (Ontario), the City of Guelph (Ontario), and the Town of Bridgewater (Nova Scotia). Findings The authors found that leadership is a prominent factor explaining the expansion of municipal climate action in Canada. Municipal climate action is initiated and championed by an individual, elected officials or municipal staff, who lead and engage in the development of policy instruments to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. These leaders facilitate the formulation and implementation of instruments, encourage a paradigm shift within the municipality, overcome structural and behavioural barriers, and foster collaboration around a common vision. Optimal municipal climate leadership occurs when the leadership of elected officials and municipal is congruent, though networks play a significant role by amplifying municipal sustainability leadership. They support staff and elected officials leadership within municipalities, provide more information and funding to grow the capacity of municipalities to develop instruments, to the point that conditions under which municipalities are driving climate action are changing. Research limitations/implications This paper hopes to contribute to better understand under what conditions municipalities drive change. Originality/value There is an international scholarly recognition that municipalities should be further explored and considered important actors in the Canadian and international climate change governance. Gore (2010) and Robinson and Gore (2015) highlighted that we are yet to understand the extent to which municipalities are involved in climate governance in Canada. This article directly addresses this gap in the current scholarly literature and explores the expansion of climate municipal leadership with the aspects of interviews.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".