Tackling climate change on the local level: A growing research agenda

Climate change, as one of the most pressing problems of our time, affects different levels of governance. At the international level, countries negotiate to find common ground on various topics related to climate change, but most importantly on how to share the burden of mitigating global warming and its effects on humankind. At the national level, national governments formulate greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) targets, set out climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, and formulate respective framework policies. But when it comes to the implementation of these targets, strategies, or policies, the protagonists are most often local governments or administrations. This is particularly the case for adaption measures, but also in the traffic, energy, or building sector, i.e., such sectors that concern infrastructural matters. In these areas, local communities have a high problem-solving capacity due to local knowledge and experience and should therefore engage actively in climate protection or adaptation endeavors (Domorenok & Zito, 2021; van der Heijden, 2021). This special issue on “Local Climate Governance” brings together 11 research teams that engage with a wide diversity of topics related to local climate policy, as well as different theoretical and methodological approaches. In this editorial, we summarize the most important findings of this special issue, link it to the most recent research on local climate policy, and make some suggestions for further research. Overall, it can be stated that the findings of this special issue speak well to the recent literature on the drivers of local climate policy. In a nutshell, this literature finds several factors that drive the adoption of climate policies at the local level, such as the wealth and the size of a municipality, as more populated and richer local communities are usually better equipped with financial resources and have higher institutional and staff capacity at their disposal (see for example, Hui et al., 2019; Rhodes et al., 2021). Hence, a city's or municipality's climate protection ambition depends on a beneficial combination of socio-demographic and socio-economic conditions (Haupt & Kern, 2022). Furthermore, researchers link the adoption of mitigation policies with a green, left, or liberal political ideology in the respective municipality, the engagement in transnational city networks, but also geographical proximity to forerunning local communities or the existence of regional leaders (e.g., Abel, 2021; An et al., 2023; Kammerer et al., 2023; Kern et al., 2023). For adaptation policy, the most important drivers seem to be the perceived need to respond, in other words, climate change vulnerability (for example Bausch & Koziol, 2020; Kammerer et al., 2023), but also the possibility of citizens participating (Cattino & Reckien, 2021; Haupt et al., 2022). The findings in this issue show that local communities are actively involved in climate change mitigation under certain circumstances. For example, Nakazawa et al. (2023) show that in Japan between 2019 and 2022 net-zero declarations rapidly diffused across subnational governments. In the beginning, this development was triggered by factors related to the subnational entity, for example, the participation in transnational city networks, endowed human and financial resources, or political leadership. Later, and with a growing number of local communities adopting net-zero policies, this trend spilled over to neighboring cities and affiliated prefectural governments. But while a trend toward local-level engagement in climate protection can be observed, this is also dependent on ideological preferences and socio-economic or demographic patterns. Zeigermann et al. (2023), for example, show, in their analysis of the distribution of climate funding across all 400 cities and counties in Germany, that it is primarily urban and semi-urban areas, which are usually wealthier, denser populated, and better educated, that actively engage in climate protection activities. But also the political orientation is crucial. Political orientation, as a driver of local climate policy is taken up as well by Switzer and Jung (2023). In their study of mitigation policies in U.S. cities, the authors highlight that cities with more liberal residents adopt more mitigation policies than cities with a majority of conservative residents. Harvey-Scholes et al. (2023) analyze the role of citizens' policy entrepreneurship and climate action using empirical data from UK local government climate emergency declarations. They show that citizens can influence local policymakers and suggest that a higher number of citizens “advocating for government action can drive faster decarbonization” (p. 17). When it comes to adaptation policy, Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) identify the wealth and size of a municipality as an important determinant of local adaptation policy. Soni et al. (2023), additionally identify risk awareness, i.e., the existence of local hazards as an important driver of adaptation policymaking. Finally, Gmoser-Daskalakis et al. (2023) study policy actors actively participating in multiple policy forums and developing initial policy preferences applying item response theory (IRT) models. In their analysis of the nascent subsystem sea level rise in California's San Francisco Bay region, they find that actors actively develop policy preferences that are influenced by their engagement and prior organizational beliefs. While the authors found specialized interests in sea level rise along social and environmental dimensions, they were unable to identify strong coalitions and conclude that these may need to be formed in this emerging subsystem in the future. The literature on policy learning and framing shows that it is important to legitimate local climate policies through success. But the success of climate policies is often hampered by a lack of financial and human resources, or legal authority. Furthermore, local climate policies are often not well integrated into existing policies in other areas (Neij & Heiskanen, 2021). More knowledge about policy instruments through systematic assessments and comparison of their effectiveness can thus contribute to policy learning at the local level and thus the implementation of more successful policies (Domorenok & Zito, 2021; Neij & Heiskanen, 2021; Otto et al., 2021). In this special issue, Kern et al. (2023), Soni et al. (2023), and Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) highlight the importance of policy learning through systematic assessments and comparisons. Kern et al. (2023) study the medium-size forerunner cities Turku, Groningen, Rostock, and Potsdam and compare them regarding climate policy and transformation pathways. Besides the comparative approach of strengths and weaknesses in climate adaptation and mitigation, the authors assume that collaboration between matching cities is a useful tool to develop new solutions that can be applied in other cities. Their study contributes by assessing the scaling potential of local experiments such as institutional and organizational innovations, participatory and integrative approaches, or leadership. Drawing on the climate action and policy mix literature, Soni et al. (2023) study diverse policy actions adopted by cities to adapt to and mitigate climate change effects. The authors contribute by examining cities regarding the interplay between the variety of hazards and the diversity of climate action mixes. The authors develop a modified Shannon diversity index to measure climate action mixes through the breadth across different actions and the depth of these efforts measured by the progress along the policy cycle. They empirically test their approach in 162 cities across the U.S. and find that climate hazards push local climate action in cities. Cities, facing multiple threats, react by a diverse mix of climate actions. These are primarily global climate networks for policy learning opportunities and local networks for a shared understanding of how to deal with environmental threats. Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) recognize the need to evaluate and compare adaptation measures and propose in their paper a new two-dimensional framework to measure public adaptation policy output. Their “Climate Adaptation Policy Index (CAPI)” combines two dimensions: an institutionalized and a measures dimension. Using survey data from a diverse sample of German municipalities, the authors prove with factor analysis that these two dimensions constitute a meaningful measurement of adaptation policy output in municipalities. Cluster analysis is also used to identify different stages of adaptation policy. Potential determinants of local adaptation policy making – such as size and wealth of municipalities – are further examined through regression analysis. The article by Nagel and Schäfer (2023) focuses on powerful stories of local climate action in two medium-sized German cities. The study assumes that local climate action can be improved by narratives to communicate information to achieve climate neutrality and to better adapt to climate impacts. Using the “narrative rate” index” the authors compare the two cities by tracing the different narratives. The paper concludes that besides “hard facts” such as measurable emission reduction values, “soft facts” such as narratives also play an often-underestimated role in the ecological transformation of cities. The current literature reveals that local climate policies are highly dependent on the political system, the embeddedness in a multi-level system, and interventions by the supraordinate level (e.g., Kern et al., 2023; Osthorst, 2021; Schwartz, 2019). So, for example, according to Kern et al. (2023), EU regulation is influenced by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement and provides a strong framework and regulation for environmental policy at the local level. Therefore, based on the EU Green Deal, EU climate policy plans to achieve the zero-emission target by 2050. These ambitions have been translated to different degrees into local climate policy of the member states. Other factors are relevant and covered by articles in this special issue such as characteristics of the energy system and the national energy mix, financial autonomy of municipalities, or national funding programs. For example, in Germany, there is the National Climate Initiative (NKI) that has an influence on local climate policy (see Zeigermann et al., 2023). Kern et al. (2023) compare the EU cities Turku, Groningen with the German cities Rostock and Potsdam to analyze drivers of transformation toward climate neutrality and resilience. In this context, Corcaci and Kemmerzell (2023) investigate trans-local activities within the European multilevel system for four German cities (Darmstadt, Hagen, Offenbach, and Oldenburg). They conclude that favorable context conditions, like the socio-economic, socio-demographic, or ideological factors presented above, can enable strong engagement in the multilevel system, which in turn may accelerate climate innovations. It is thus a combination of beneficial conditions and a strong involvement in respective governance structures that is linked to successful local climate policy. A somewhat different, but also insightful perspective is shed by Stoddart and Yang (2023) on local climate policy. In their article, they investigate the role of provincial governments and municipalities in the Canadian multilevel system drawing on media data. They come to the conclusion that the media visibility of local governments in regional or national newspapers is very low. Hence, the increasing interest in local-level actors in the scientific literature is not reflected in the media, which implies that the public is not made aware of the important role that local governments could or should play in combating climate change. While the articles in this special issue cover a wide range of topics and case studies, they are particularly diverse regarding the theoretical perspectives. They cover a wide range of different conceptual approaches and frameworks, demonstrating the diversity of theoretical perspectives that can be applied to the study of local climate policy. The first group of theoretical approaches is actor-centered. Thus, these articles focus on actors' constellations and the role of specific actors: To this end, Gmoser-Daskalakis et al. (2023) activate the Advocacy coalitions framework (ACF) by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) to study actor preferences on sea level rise, which is a “nascent subsystem” closely related to climate policy. Harvey-Scholes et al. (2023) focus on the role of citizens in the process of climate emergency declarations and to do so draw on the policy entrepreneurship theory (see, e.g., Mintrom, 2019) to demonstrate how citizen entrepreneurs drive local climate policy by collaborating actively with traditional political elites. Nagel and Schäfer (2023) use the narrative policy framework (see, e.g., Shanahan et al., 2013) which involves a constructivist view on the policy processes to trace climate policy narratives in two German cities. Finally, Stoddart and Yang (2023) apply framing theory (see, e.g., Boykoff, 2011) with a specific view on regional and local political arenas and actors to investigate the media visibility of local-level climate action. The second cluster of theoretical frameworks focuses more on climate action and policy measures of the examined cities. Soni et al. (2023) place their study within the conceptual literature developed by the climate action and policy mix scholars. Corcaci and Kemmerzell (2023) apply a concept structural framework with a focus on multi-level governance (MLG) and trans-local action (see, e.g., Benz, 2012). The third cluster of frameworks deals with the context of the cities – that is often used in a comparative perspective. With a focus on network effects between the cities and regions, the empirical study by Nakazawa et al. (2023) contributes to the literature on policy diffusion (see e.g., Berry & Berry, 2018). Kern et al. (2023) draw in their work on the matching cities and scaling approach (see e.g., Kern et al., 2023; van der Heijden, 2022). The theory of socioeconomic determination (Schneider & Janning, 2006) offers a framework for the study of the disparity of funding structures across urban and rural regions and cities conducted by Zeigermann et al. (2023). Switzer and Jung (2023) apply the contextual responsiveness theory (see Mullin, 2008; Switzer & Jung, 2023). Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) more specifically build on the concept of institutional adaptation that captures adaptation governance including policy, instrumental, organizational, and coordination aspects (see also Patterson, 2021). The concepts of adaptation capacity and adaptation readiness also include multiple dimensions and, to some extent, policy indicators (Schulze & Schoenefeld, 2023). The wide diversity of theoretical, methodological, and empirical perspectives taken in this special issue demonstrates the heterogeneity of the research field. Local contexts are highly diverse and so are the scientific approaches. While this allows innovative perspectives and valuable insights into very specific contexts that have high policy implications for the respective case, the sheer vastness of the field also makes it confusing. It is thus difficult to deduct clear theoretical, empirical, or practical conclusions that are generalizable. Hence, an important task for the scholarship on local-level climate policy is to systematize the already gained knowledge. To this end, we are calling for more meta-studies, as well as larger-scale research projects and/or collaborations that include more than one geographical region, enable mutual learning, and allow for generalizable theories on local-level climate policy. On the other hand, findings cannot always be transferred from one entity to another. In particular, our issue shows that remote areas are understudied (Zeigermann et al., 2023). Research about big cities or forerunner municipalities is vital, due to their great potential to mitigate GHG emissions and climate vulnerability. Also, the respective literature has gathered highly valuable knowledge about best practice examples. However, remote areas represent the typical case for many European countries, but also worldwide, as a large percentage of the global population still lives in rural areas. Hence, we need more knowledge to help the local population adapt to the unequivocal climate change impacts and to learn how to unravel the unused potential in these areas. 作者: Melanie Nagel and Marlene Kammerer 作为当今时代最紧迫的问题之一，气候变化影响着不同层面的治理。在国际层面，各国通过谈判寻找不同气候变化议题的共同点，而最重要的则是在“如何分担全球变暖减轻工作及其对人类影响”一事上达成一致。在国家层面，各国政府制定温室气体减排(GHG)目标，制定气候变化减缓及适应战略，并制定各自的框架政策。但当涉及到这些目标、战略或政策的实施时，主角往往是地方政府或行政部门。这对气候变化适应措施而言尤为如此，交通、能源或建筑部门(即涉及基础设施问题的部门)也一样。在这些领域，地方社区由于拥有地方知识和经验而具备很强的问题解决能力，因此应该积极参与气候保护或适应工作(Domorenko & Zito, 2021; van der Heijden, 2021)。 本期特刊主题为“地方气候治理”，汇集了11个研究团队，后者研究了与地方气候政策相关的不同主题，使用了不同的理论和方法。本篇社论中，我们总结了本期特刊最重要的研究发现，将其与地方气候政策的最新研究相联系，并为进一步研究提出建议。 总体而言，本期特刊的研究发现很好地阐明了有关地方气候政策驱动因素的最新文献。 简而言之，该文献发现了“推动地方层面采纳气候政策”的几个因素，例如城市的财富和规模，因为人口越多、越富裕的地方社区通常拥有更好的财政资源、以及可供使用的、更强的制度及员工能力(Hui et al., 2019, Rhodes et al., 2021)。因此，一个城市或市政的气候保护目标取决于社会人口条件和社会经济条件的有益组合(Haupt & Kern, 2022)。此外，研究人员将气候缓解政策的采纳与以下方面相联系:城市的绿色、左翼或自由主义政治意识形态、跨国城市网络的参与、与领先的地方社区的地理邻近性、或区域领导人的存在(An et al., 2023, Abel, 2021, Kammerer et al., 2023, Kern et al., 2023)。对于适应政策，最重要的驱动因素似乎是感知的响应需求，换句话说，气候变化脆弱性(Bausch & Koziol, 2020, Kammerer et al., 2023)，但也包括公民参与的可能性(Cattino & Reckien, 2021, Haupt et al., 2022)。 本期文章的研究结果表明，地方社区在某些情况下积极参与气候变化缓解工作。例如，Nakazawa等人(2023)表明，2019年至2022年间，日本的净零排放声明在地方政府中迅速传播。最初，这一扩散是由与地方实体相关的因素引发的，例如参与跨国城市网络、赋予的人力及财政资源、或政治领导力。后来，随着越来越多的地方社区采纳净零排放政策，这种趋势蔓延到邻近城市和隶属的县政府。 然而，虽然能观察到地方层面的气候保护参与趋势，但这也取决于意识形态偏好和社会经济模式或人口模式。例如，Zeigermann等人(2023)在对德国400个城市和县的气候资金分配的分析中表明，积极参与气候保护活动的主要是城市和半城市地区，这些地区通常更富裕、人口更密集、受教育程度更高。但政治取向也至关重要。Switzer和 Jung(2023)也将政治取向视为地方气候政策的驱动力。在对美国城市气候缓解政策的研究中，作者强调，自由派居民较多的城市比保守派居民较多的城市采取更多的气候缓解政策。 Harvey-Scholes等人(2023)使用英国地方政府气候紧急声明的实证数据，分析了公民政策创业和气候行动的作用。他们表明，公民能影响地方决策者，并暗示更多的公民“倡导政府行动能推动更快的低碳化”(p. 17)。 & Heiskanen, & Zito, 2021; Neij & Heiskanen, 2021; Otto et al., 2021, Kern et al., 2023, Schwartz, et al., et al., & Berry, et al., 2023, van der Heijden, & Janning, Switzer & Jung, & Schoenefeld, et al., Melanie Nagel Marlene Kammerer a A global A a & Zito, 2021; van der Heijden, 2021). a 11 editorial, a a Hui et al., 2019, Rhodes et al., 2021). (Haupt & Kern, 2022). liberal a An et al. al., 2023, Abel, 2021, Kammerer et al., 2023, Kern et al., 2023). Bausch & Koziol, 2020, Kammerer et al., 2023), (Cattino & Reckien, 2021, Haupt et al., 2022). Nakazawa et al. (2023) 2019 a a a local Zeigermann et al. (2023), 400 crucial. Switzer Jung (2023) Harvey-Scholes et al. (2023) (p. 17). Schulze Schoenefeld (2023) Soni et al. (2023), Gmoser-Daskalakis et al. (2023) a San Francisco a social sea a a a (Neij & Heiskanen, 2021). a a local a (Domorenok & Zito, 2021; Neij & Heiskanen, 2021; Otto et al., 2021). Kern et al. (2023), Soni et al. (2023) Schulze Schoenefeld (2023) a Kern et al. (2023) Turku, Groningen, Rostock Potsdam a a Soni et al. (2023) Shannon a a 162 local Schulze Schoenefeld (2023) (CAPI)” a Nagel Schäfer (2023) local local a a (p. Osthorst, 2021, Kern et al., 2023, Schwartz, 2019). Kern et al. (2023) a 2050. local mix (NKI) local Zeigermann et al., 2023). Kern et al. (2023) Groningen Rostock Potsdam Corcaci Kemmerzell (2023) (Darmstadt, Hagen, Oldenburg). a a local Stoddart Yang (2023) a While the articles in this special issue cover a wide range of topics and case studies, they are particularly diverse regarding the theoretical perspectives. They cover a wide range of different conceptual approaches and frameworks, demonstrating the diversity of theoretical perspectives that can be applied to the study of local climate policy. Gmoser-Daskalakis et al. (2023) (ACF) Sabatier Jenkins-Smith (1993) Harvey-Scholes et al. (2023) Mintrom, 2019) local Nagel Schäfer (2023) Shanahan et al., Stoddart Yang (2023) Boykoff, 2011) a Soni et al. (2023) conceptual Corcaci Kemmerzell (2023) conceptual (MLG) Benz, 2012). a Nakazawa et al. (2023) a Berry & Berry, 2018). Kern et al. (2023) Kern et al., 2023, van der Heijden, 2022). (Schneider Janning, 2006) Zeigermann et al. (2023). Switzer Jung (2023) contextual Mullin, Switzer & Jung, 2023). Schulze Schoenefeld (2023) Patterson, 2021). (Schulze & Schoenefeld, 2023). a local a a a particular, (Zeigermann et al., 2023). vital, a local a a

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.