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)。 至于气候适应政策,Schulze和Schoenefeld(2023)将城市的财富和规模视为地方适应政策的重要决定因素之一。Soni等人(2023)还将风险意识(即地方灾害的存在)识别为适应决策的重要驱动力。 最后,Gmoser-Daskalakis等人(2023)应用项目反应理论(IRT)模型,研究了积极参与多个政策论坛并制定初步政策偏好的政策行动者。在对加利福尼亚州旧金山湾区新生子系统——海平面上升——的分析中,他们发现,行动者积极制定政策偏好,而政策偏好受行动者参与和先前的组织信念的影响。虽然作者发现社会和环境方面关注海平面上升,但作者无法确定强有力的联盟,并得出结论认为,未来可能需要在该新兴子系统中形成这些联盟。 有关政策学习和政策建构的文献表明,通过地方气候政策成功进而对政策进行合法化非常重要。但气候政策的成功往往因缺乏财力和人力资源或法律权威而受到阻碍。此外,地方气候政策往往没有很好地融入其他地区的现有政策(Neij & Heiskanen, 2021)。通过系统评估政策工具和比较政策工具的有效性,进而更多地了解政策工具,有助于地方层面的政策学习,从而为"实施更成功的政策"一事作贡献(Domorenok & Zito, 2021; Neij & Heiskanen, 2021; Otto et al., 2021)。本期特刊中,Kern等人(2023)、Soni等人(2023)以及Schulze和Schoenefeld(2023)都强调了通过"系统评估和比较"来进行政策学习的重要性。 Kern等人(2023)研究了中等规模的领先城市——图尔库、格罗宁根、罗斯托克和波茨坦,并对其气候政策和转型路径进行了比较。除了对气候适应及减缓方面的优劣势进行比较,作者认为,匹配城市之间的协作是一项有用工具,以期发展可应用于其他城市的新解决方案。他们的研究贡献在于评估了一系列地方实验的扩展潜力,例如制度及组织创新、参与式和综合性方法或领导力。 Soni等人(2023)基于有关气候行动和政策组合的文献,研究了城市为适应和减轻气候变化影响而采取的不同政策行动。通过分析城市情境下各种灾害与气候行动组合的多样性之间的相互作用,作者作出了贡献。作者提出一项经修改的香农多样性指数,以不同行动的广度来衡量气候行动组合,并以政策周期的进展来衡量行动深度。作者使用该方法对美国162个城市进行了实证检验,发现气候灾害推动了城市的地方气候行动。面临多重威胁的城市会采取不同气候行动组合来应对威胁。这些主要是全球气候网络和地方网络,前者提供政策学习机会,后者就如何应对环境威胁提供共同理解。 Schulze和Schoenefeld(2023)认识到评价和比较适应措施的必要性,并在其论文中提出一项新的二维框架来衡量公共适应政策产出。他们提出的"气候适应政策指数(CAPI)"结合了两个维度:制度化维度和衡量维度。通过使用多样化的德国城市样本调查数据,作者以因素分析证明,这两个维度为城市适应政策产出提供了有意义的衡量标准。还使用了聚类分析以识别适应政策的不同阶段。通过回归分析进一步研究了地方适应决策的潜在决定因素,例如城市的规模和财富。 Nagel和Schäfer(2023)的文章聚焦于德国两个中等城市的地方气候行动的强大叙事。该研究假设,可以通过叙事来改善地方气候行动,以期传播信息,进而实现气候中和并更好地适应气候影响。通过使用"叙事率"指数,作者以追踪不同叙事的方式来比较这两个城市。文章的结论认为,除了可衡量的减排值等"硬事实"以外,叙事等"软事实"也在城市生态转型中发挥作用,但这种作用经常被低估。 现有文献表明,地方气候政策高度依赖于政治系统、在多层次系统中的嵌入性、以及上级干预(Osthorst, 2021, Kern et al., 2023, Schwartz, 2019)。例如,根据Kern等人(2023)的研究,欧盟监管受到《巴黎协定》等国际协议的影响,并为地方层面的环境政策提供了强有力的框架和监管。因此,基于《欧盟绿色新政》,欧盟气候政策计划在2050年实现零排放目标。这些目标已不同程度地转化为欧盟成员国的地方气候政策。 本期特刊文章涉及了其他相关因素,例如能源系统和国家能源组合的特征、城市的财政自主权、或国家资助项目。例如,德国的国家气候倡议(NKI)能影响地方气候政策(Zeigermann et al., 2023)。Kern等人(2023)将欧盟城市——图尔库、格罗宁根,与德国城市——罗斯托克和波茨坦进行比较,以分析一系列驱动气候中和与复原力转型的因素。 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