Increasingly, local governments are crafting policy to tackle climate change. This article examines why cities develop and implement climate change programs. The authors consider the impact of interest group pressure, political institutions, and problem severity on a city’s decision to develop and implement climate protection programs. Their results suggest that organized interests influence both adoption and implementation of climate mitigation programs. This effect, however, is contingent on political institutions. In general, organized interests are more effective in mayoral as opposed to city manager forms of governments. Interestingly, while financially strapped cities may adopt climate mitigation programs to advance cobenefits or cost savings, fiscal stress also impedes program implementation.
Betsill, Michele M., and Harriet Bulkeley .2007. Looking back and thinking ahead: A decade of cities and climate change research. Local Environment12 (5): 447-56.
2.
Bulkeley, Harriet, and Michele M. Betsill .2003. Cities and climate change: Urban sustainability and global environmental governance. New York: Routledge.
3.
Clingermayer, James C., and Richard C. Feiock .2001. Institutional constraints and policy choice. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
4.
Donovan, Todd.1993. Community controversy and the adoption of economic development policies. Social Science Quarterly74 (2): 386-402.
5.
Feiock, Richard C., and Gregory Cable.1992. Need, institutional arrangements and economic development policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory2 (4): 378-98.
6.
Feiock, Richard C., and Nathan Francis.2010. Explaining the adoption of climate change policies in local government. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
7.
Hendrick, Rebecca.2004. Assessing and measuring the fiscal health of local governments: Focus on Chicago suburban municipalities. Urban Affairs Review40 (1): 78-114.
8.
ICLEI Global.2008. ICLEI global: Our campaigns and programs. http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-programs.
9.
Koehn, Peter H.2008. Underneath Kyoto: Emerging subnational government initiatives and incipient issue-bundling opportunities in China and the United States . Global Environmental Politics8 (1): 53-77.
10.
Kousky, Carolyn, and Stephen H. Schneider .2003. Global climate policy: Will cities lead the way?Climate Policy3:359-72.
11.
Lubell, Mark, Richard C. Feiock, and Susan Handy.2009. City adoption of environmentally sustainable policies in California’s central valley. Journal of the American Planning Association75 (3): 293-308.
12.
Lubell, Mark, Richard C. Feiock, and Edgar E.Ramirez de la Cruz.2009. Local institutions and the politics of urban growth. American Journal of Political Science53 (3): 649-65.
13.
Portney, Kent E.2003. Taking sustainable cities seriously. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Portney, Kent E.2009. Sustainability in American cities: A comprehensive look at what cities are doing and why? In Toward sustainable communities , edited by Daniel A. Mazmanian and Michael E. Kraft, 227-54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
Portney, Kent E., and Jeffrey M. Berry .2010.Participation and the pursuit of sustainability in U.S. cities. Urban Affairs Review46 (1): 119-39.
16.
Portney, Kent E., Jeffrey M. Berry, Kelli Farrington, and Kathryn Bond.2009. Urban nonprofits, city governance, and the pursuit of sustainability in American cities. Paper prepared for the meeting of the American Political Science Association , Toronto.
17.
Rabe, Barry G.2004. Statehouse and greenhouse: The emerging politics of American climate change policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
Rabe, Barry G.2007. Beyond Kyoto: Climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions20 (3): 423-44.
19.
Ramirez de la Cruz, Edgar E.2009. Local political institutions and smart growth: An empirical study of the politics of compact development . Urban Affairs Review45 (2): 218-46.
20.
Ringquist, Evan J.1993. Environmental protection at the state level: Politics and progress in controlling pollution. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.
21.
Ringquist, Evan J.1995. Is effective regulation always oxymoronic? The states and ambient air quality. Social Science Quarterly76 (1): 69-87.
22.
Rubin, Irene S., and Herbert J. Rubin .1987. Economic development incentives: The poor (cities) pay more. Urban Affairs Review23 (1): 37-62.
23.
Sharp, Elaine B.2002. "Culture, Institutions, and Urban Officials’ Responses to Morality Issues,"Political Research Quarterly55 (4): 861-883.
24.
Sigelman, Lee, and Langche Zeng.1999. Analyzing censored and sampled-selected data with tobit and heckit. Political Analysis8 (2): 167-82.
25.
Toly, Noah J.2008. Transnational municipal networks in climate politics: From global governance to global politics. Globalizations5 (3): 341-56.
26.
Whitford, A.B. ( 2009). Institutional design and information revelation: Evidence from environmental right-to-know. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19 (2): 189-205.
27.
Zahran, Sammy, Grover Himanshu, Samuel D. Brody, and Arnold Vedlitz.2008. Risk, stress, and capacity: Explaining metropolitan commitment to climate protection. Urban Affairs Review43 (4): 447-74.
