(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Evaluating local climate policy: Municipal action plans through the lens of resilience and environmental justice [1]
['Graham Diedrich', 'Department Of Statistics', 'Probability', 'Michigan State University', 'East Lansing', 'Michigan', 'United States Of America']
Date: 2024-10
In the US, local governments are increasingly crucial in driving climate action. Drawing upon previous scholarly work, this study assesses nine local climate action plans in the state of Michigan. It introduces a comprehensive framework integrating climate resilience and environmental justice (EJ) indicators to evaluate plan content. Despite recognizing global climate concerns, qualitative content analysis shows that plans lack localized analyses and actions, hampering planning efforts as a result of insufficient data, minimal coordination, limited funds, and finite policy options. Key aspects like equitable resource distribution, environmental burdens, and community engagement are often overlooked. Without addressing these limitations, local governments lack the tools to effectively implement justice-oriented climate policies.
Data Availability: The data supporting the findings of this research are openly available and can be accessed through the public repository on Figshare (
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25321282 ). The dataset is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), allowing for the unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of the data in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This commitment to open data aligns with the principles of transparency and reproducibility, fostering collaboration and enabling researchers, policymakers, and the public to engage with and validate the results presented in the manuscript.
Introduction
Climate change poses severe challenges to the environment, human and non-human health, economic stability, equity, and the organization of society. As described in the latest report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), urgent and robust action must be taken to mitigate the worst effects of global climate change, which is already manifesting disproportionately in marginalized communities around the world [1].
In the last three decades, the global community has come together in an attempt to develop long-term strategies, leading to the establishment of treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Climate Agreement. In addition to collaboration across international borders, increasing attention is being given to scaling efforts across domestic levels of government. In the US, local governments play a crucial role in federal and state climate policies, possessing key decision-making powers over the development of renewable energy projects and investments in sustainable transportation, water, utility, and other energy infrastructure.
Many local governments are pursuing avenues to combat climate change in their communities. Since 2007, more than 1,000 localities have joined the US Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol [2,3]. Moreover, upwards of 750 municipalities have signed onto the Climate Mayors Network, which aims to fulfill the commitments agreed upon in the Paris Climate Agreement [4].
To facilitate policy action, pioneering municipalities have begun developing climate action plans, also referred to as sustainability or environmental action plans. These typically outline specific strategies and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable energy use, improving energy efficiency, and adapting to the impacts of climate change. They are often intended to inform policies that reduce municipal emissions by involving various stakeholders, including businesses, community organizations, and residents. At the local level, their development supports the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient future by guiding political decision-making, financial investments, infrastructure projects, and more.
According to scholars of the policy cycle, evaluation is core to the development and implementation of policies [5–11]. While there is dispute in some academic communities over the extent to which analytics should contribute to this process, the growing emphasis on “evidence-based policymaking” among governments and civil society demands a thorough examination of policy effectiveness and direction through rigorous evaluation frameworks [12–18]. In regards to environmental policies, some studies have shown that evaluation can result in enhanced reflexive learning and adaptability [19–22]. Given the complexity of the social, economic, cultural, and ecological contexts surrounding climate change, multifaceted methods are essential in providing a holistic representation of real-world problems and solutions.
Several studies have evaluated municipal climate action plans in the US. Historically, plans have tended to focus on climactic and ecological processes related to climate resiliency, rather than socio-economic factors. Many conceptualizations of climate resiliency exist, with it functioning primarily as a normative goal promoted in policy, development, economics, and other related fields [23–27]. In the context of this paper, climate resiliency refers to the ability of individuals from all generations to maintain and enhance their livelihoods and well-being in spite of environmental, economic, social, or political disruptions [26]. Another commonality amongst municipal climate action plans is the type of operating environment they are situated in. According to Wheeler [28], first-generation climate plans enacted by cities lacked institutional support, long-term planning direction, and adequate progress measures. Others emphasize that first-generation plans were often isolated from other policy areas, limiting their impact on governance [29]. In order to quantify how plans influence local policymaking, Tang et al. [30] outlined a framework conceptualizing plan quality, focusing on local awareness, analysis, and actions (AAA) to mitigate and adapt to climate impacts. Their research shows that while municipalities may be actively conscious of the threats posed by climate change, most have insufficient analytical capacities to elevate these concerns to confront complexities and execute plans that generate substantive changes. Baker et al. [31] supported this claim through an assessment of local plans against a multi-criteria framework, evaluating the content and quality of the plans against measures of climate resiliency. In doing so, they found vital structural, procedural, and contextual constraints influencing local adaptation planning, such as failing to consider climate change across multiple departments.
In addition to the quality of plans themselves, successfully mitigating and adapting to climate change relies upon financial and technical resources. In an analysis of Copenhagen’s climate plan, Damsø et al. [32] determined that the city government was an essential incubator for coordinating efforts between the municipal administration and the local utility provider. Consequently, Copenhagen’s plan receives high marks, particularly for energy supply and emission reduction goals. Furthermore, other studies go beyond qualitative measures, aiming to quantify the impacts of local plans on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For instance, Millard-Ball [33] concluded that cities with plans successfully implemented strategies to reduce emissions. However, there is not substantial evidence that climate plans themselves play a role in this success; instead, it is likely that the environmental preferences of those living in cities are the most significant factor in relatively lower emissions. Additionally, researchers have conducted comparative analyses measuring the emissions impact of policy interventions in cities against business-as-usual (BAU) conditions. Morlet and Keirstead [34] evaluated the carbon abatement costs of London, Berlin, Copenhagen, and Paris, comparing them against a set of urban and energy governance metrics. They ascertained that governmental structure and the elevation of climate-related concerns have a substantial impact on carbon abatement costs and mitigation.
While these studies were critical in assessing the effectiveness and implementation of first-generation plans, they do not touch upon the growing relevance of environmental justice (EJ). Considered to be a wide-ranging discipline that encompasses the fair distribution of environmental burdens and benefits, EJ has become a key climate priority for campaigners, academic researchers, non-profit organizations, and policymakers in recent decades [35–38]. Meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews substantiate the stark environmental and socioeconomic injustices that negatively impact Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities in the US [39–41]. Many believe addressing environmental injustice is essential to achieving an equitable and robust transition to a decarbonized economy [42–45]. Indeed, focusing climate action at all levels of government is essential to uprooting the inequities brought upon by structural and systemic racism [46–48]. As a result, the scope of EJ has evolved to recognize that access to clean water, sanitation, green spaces, housing conditions, and exposure to noise and toxins impact human health greatly [49–52]. This establishes the two key components of EJ, environments and people, with equity as a central tenant [53]. Procedural justice, another crucial aspect, emphasizes the importance of providing minority groups with a voice and legal protection within political and legal systems [54–56]. Meanwhile, distributive justice stresses the need for what is deemed a socially-just allocation of resources, goods, opportunity in a society [57,58].
Under federalism, municipalities have a significant role to play in determining EJ outcomes. Although varying by state, local governments have the authority to enforce local environmental regulations, monitor pollution, and ensure access to clean air and water [59]. In addition, local jurisdictions decide upon industry and energy infrastructure placement, zone properties, and shape communities’ access to sustainable transportation and green spaces. Historically, these powers have marginalized lower-income communities and people of color, perpetuating racial segregation and discrimination [60,61]. Despite this, municipalities can also generate positive outcomes by embracing justice-informed approaches to elevate the concerns and priorities of underserved residents [62–64]. Instead of sitting polluting industries in underserved neighborhoods, localities can prioritize a more equitable distribution of industrial facilities, implement stricter pollution control measures, or avoid sitting high-emitting sources altogether.
Across the country, cities are beginning to acknowledge their vital role in advancing EJ. According to a study published by Diezmartínez and Gianotti [65], 69% of the 100 largest cities in the US with climate action plans have incorporated themes of justice and equity into their policy processes. Other entities, including the Biden-Harris Administration, further recognize the interplay between federal EJ initiatives and municipal implementation. Both the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 pledged billions of dollars to local and tribal governments to expand clean drinking water, remediate polluted sites, and provide localities with financial resources to combat injustices [66,67].
Building upon the critical assessments of first-generation plans and the alignment between climate action and social justice at a practical level, a new wave of literature has emerged to evaluate climate action plans and their integration with EJ considerations. To evaluate the prevalence of equity in local climate action plans, Caggiano et al. [68] compared equity measures developed by the American Planning Association against indicators ranging across ten thematic areas including transportation, air quality, energy, and green space. They found that less than one third of large US cities with climate action plans include measurable progress indicators, reflecting an incomplete integration of equity into implementation apparatuses [68].
This relates to findings published by Chu and Cannon [69], who conducted a narrative review of key planning documents from the ten largest cities in the US using equity, inclusion, and justice indicators. The study revealed that cities exhibit variable approaches to operationalizing these criteria across four crucial decision-making stages: designing institutional arrangements, participatory practices, policy integration, and strategic implementation processes [69]. Equity was discussed in most plans, generally in the form of income inequality rather than other inequalities (e.g., race and gender). While all surveyed plans provided evidence of inclusion in decision-making processes (e.g., collecting resident feedback), there was little evidence of socially accountable decision-making [69]. When justice was mentioned, it was often framed as race and wealth-based vulnerabilities, whereas transformative strategies to address these underlying conditions were not as commonly discussed.
Similarly, Cannon et al. [70] identified two distinct pathways in which equity-thinking is embedded in the climate adaptation plans of the largest twenty-five US cities. The first is referred to as the ideology-driven pathway, where shared beliefs within local actors and public agencies drive adaptation efforts, shaping the definition and implementation of social equity [70]. Meanwhile, the recognition-driven pathway involves cities adopting equitable climate strategies early on, normalizing and reflecting climate equity rhetoric in their adaptation planning procedures.
While there is a growing body of literature examining equity and justice in climate action plans, to the best of the authors’ knowledge there has not been an attempt to develop a framework that blends well-established themes concerning adaptation and mitigation planning–such as renewable energy, water quality, and municipal solid waste–with EJ considerations. In doing so, it is possible to engage with more holistic and effective strategies that minimize the disparate effects of climate change on marginalized populations [71,72]. From an evaluatory perspective, a joint framework is essential for assessing the effectiveness and fairness of strategies employed by local governments, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of how well climate action plans address the needs and vulnerabilities of marginalized communities. This should enable decision-makers to identify areas for improvement and prioritize interventions that promote equity and resilience. Moreover, evaluating the integration of equity into climate planning helps ensure accountability and transparency in decision-making, facilitating ongoing learning and improvement in addressing the intersecting challenges of climate change and social injustice [73–75].
Serving as the inaugural article in a series that explores the intersection of local environmental governance and EJ, I outline a combined evaluatory approach which considers climate resilience and EJ indicators. I aim to bridge the gap between traditional climate action plans and EJ, thereby fostering more inclusive mechanisms for addressing climate change at the municipal level. Local governments often grapple with limited resources, expertise, and capacity, which can hinder their ability to effectively incorporate equity considerations into their climate policies and programs. Additionally, competing priorities and bureaucratic constraints may further complicate efforts to prioritize EJ in decision-making processes. By providing an evaluatory framework that integrates EJ considerations with resiliency planning, this research offers a valuable resource for localities seeking to navigate these challenges. I begin by defining the regional area of interest to contextualize the state of Michigan and its policy environment. Then, I outline the data collection and methodological components underpinning my evaluation. I conclude with my findings and assess the challenges in integrating EJ into local climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000395
Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/
