Climate challenges in the 21st century have given rise to re-thinking the role of local governments in confronting larger-than-local challenges. However, anthropogenic climate change has become a weaponized partisan issue, and surveys show a growing partisan tribalization over climate science. Empowering local governments to take broader climate and sustainability actions is one avenue for addressing this. This study tests a localism hypothesis, which holds that citizens will be more supportive of local climate efforts when the benefits are internalized by the community. This deference to locally directed actions springs from the predisposition for decentralization of political authority widely attributed to localism, a directional goal of motivated reasoners which may feed into social identity, cohesion and shared community values. Through three survey experiments, the study finds citizens are more likely to favor continuation of local climate-related programs in the face of high performance and politicization at the federal level.
AchenChristopher H.BartelsLarry M.. 2017. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
BaekgaardM.SerritzlewS.. 2016. “Interpreting Performance Information: Motivated Reasoning or Unbiased Comprehension.” Public Administration Review 76 (1): 73–82.
3.
BaumeisterRoy F.NewmanLeonard S.. 1994. “Self-Regulation of Cognitive Inference and Decision Processes.” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin20 (1): 3–19.
4.
BayesRobinBolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.. 2020. “A Research Agenda for Climate Change Communication and Public Opinion: The Role of Scientific Consensus Messaging and Beyond.” Environmental Communication1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1805343.
5.
BayesRobinDruckmanJames N.. 2021. “Motivated Reasoning and Climate Change.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences42 (December): 27–35.
6.
BayesRobinDruckmanJames N.GoodsAveryMoldenDaniel C.. 2020. “When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning.” Political Psychology41 (5): 1031–52.
7.
BerinskyAdam J.HuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.Com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis: An Annual Publication of the Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association20 (3): 351–68.
8.
BeveridgeRossNaumannMatthias. 2021. “Progressive Urbanism in Small Towns: The Contingencies of Governing From the Left.” Urban Affairs Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874211055834.
9.
BolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.. 2018. “Do Partisanship and Politicization Undermine the Impact of a Scientific Consensus Message About Climate Change?” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations: GPIR21 (3): 389–402.
10.
BolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.CookFay Lomax. 2014. “The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion.” Political Behavior36 (2): 235–62.
11.
BolsenTobyShapiroMatthew A.. 2018. “The US News Media, Polarization on Climate Change, and Pathways to Effective Communication.” Environmental Communication12 (2): 149–63.
12.
BrintonMilward HRaineyHal G.. 1983. “Don’t Blame the Bureaucracy!” Journal of Public Policy3 (2): 149–68.
13.
BuhrmesterMichaelKwangTracyGoslingSamuel D.. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science6 (1): 3–5.
14.
ChenPhilip G.GorenPaul N.. 2016. “Operational Ideology and Party Identification: A Dynamic Model of Individual-Level Change in Partisan and Ideological Predispositions.” Political Research Quarterly69 (4): 703–15.
15.
ChmielewskiMichaelKuckerSarah C.. 2020. “An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results.” Social Psychological and Personality Science11 (4): 464–73.
16.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” The American Political Science Review101 (4): 637–55.
17.
ChristensenJulianDahlmannCasper MondrupMathiasenAsbjørn HovgaardMoynihanDonald PBjørnNielsPetersenGrund. 2018. “How Do Elected Officials Evaluate Performance? Goal Preferences, Governance Preferences, and the Process of Goal Reprioritization.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28 (2): 197–211.
18.
CliffordScottJewellRyan M.WaggonerPhilip D.. 2015. “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?” Research & Politics2 (4): 2053168015622072.
19.
CollinsTom. 2016. “Urban Civic Pride and the New Localism.” Transactions41 (2): 175–86.
20.
ConlanTimothy J.PosnerPaul L.. 2016. “American Federalism in an Era of Partisan Polarization: The Intergovernmental Paradox of Obama’s ‘New Nationalism.’” Publius: The Journal of Federalism46 (3): 281–307.
21.
DeslatteAaron. 2019. “A Bayesian Approach for Behavioral Public Administration: Citizen Assessments of Local Government Sustainability Performance.” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration2 (1): 1–12.
22.
DeslatteAaron. 2020. “Positivity and Negativity Dominance in Citizen Assessments of Intergovernmental Sustainability Performance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory30 (4): 563–78.
23.
DeslatteAaronStokanEric. 2019. “Hierarchies of Need in Sustainable Development: A Resource Dependence Approach for Local Governance.” Urban Affairs Review55 (4): 1125–52.
24.
DeslatteAaronSwannWilliam L.. 2017. “Context Matters: A Bayesian Analysis of How Organizational Environments Shape the Strategic Management of Sustainable Development.” Public Administration95 (3): 807–24.
25.
DodmanD.HaywardB.PellingMCastan BrotoVChowW.ChuEDawsonRKhirfanL., et al.2022: Cities, Settlements and Key Infrastructure. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. In Press.
26.
DOE, U. S. 2011. “Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and Requirements.”
27.
EganPatrick J.MullinMegan. 2017. “Climate Change: US Public Opinion.” Annual Review of Political Science20 (1): 209–27.
28.
ErderSema. 1999. “Where Do You Hail from? Localism and Networks in Istanbul.” Istanbul, Between the Global and the Local. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing, 161–71.
29.
FarmerJayce L. 2022. “State-Level Influences on Community-Level Municipal Sustainable Energy Policies.” Urban Affairs Review (4): 1065–95.
30.
FeldmanLaurenSol HartP.MilosevicTijana. 2017. “Polarizing News? Representations of Threat and Efficacy in Leading US Newspapers’ Coverage of Climate Change.” Public Understanding of Science26 (4): 481–97.
31.
FiorinoDaniel J. 2010. “Sustainability as a Conceptual Focus for Public Administration.” Public Administration Review70 (December): s78–88.
32.
FitzpatrickSuzannePawsonHalWattsBeth. 2020. “The Limits of Localism: A Decade of Disaster on Homelessness in England.” Policy & Politics48 (4): 541–61.
33.
GelmanAndrew. 2014. “The Connection Between Varying Treatment Effects and the Crisis of Unreplicable Research: A Bayesian Perspective.” Journal of Management41 (2): 632–43.
34.
GillJeffWitkoChristopher. 2013. “Bayesian Analytical Methods: A Methodological Prescription for Public Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory23 (2): 457–94.
35.
GoodsellCharles T.2003. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
GriggsStevenHowarthDavid. 2008. “Populism, Localism and Environmental Politics: The Logic and Rhetoric of the Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign.” Planning Theory7 (2): 123–44.
37.
HallThad E. 2002. “Live Bureaucrats and Dead Public Servants: How People in Government Are Discussed on the Floor of the House.” Public Administration Review62 (2): 242–51.
38.
HallJeremy L.JenningsEdward T.. 2011. “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) a Critical Examination of Accountability and Transparency in the Obama Administration.” Public Performance & Management Review35 (1): 202–26.
39.
HartP. SolFeldmanLauren. 2016. “The Impact of Climate Change–Related Imagery and Text on Public Opinion and Behavior Change.” Science Communication38 (4): 415–41.
40.
HawkinsChristopher V.KrauseRachel M.FeiockRichard C.CurleyCali. 2016. “Making Meaningful Commitments: Accounting for Variation in Cities’ Investments of Staff and Fiscal Resources to Sustainability.” Urban Studies53 (9): 1902–24.
41.
HinkleySaraWeberRachel. 2021. “Incentives and Austerity: How Did the Great Recession Affect Municipal Economic Development Policy?” Urban Affairs Review57 (3): 820–55.
42.
HsuAngelTanJonasNgYi MingTohWayneVandaReginaGoyalNihit. 2020. “Performance Determinants Show European Cities Are Delivering on Climate Mitigation.” Nature Climate Change10 (11): 1015–22.
43.
HvidmanUlrikAndersenSimon Calmar. 2016. “Perceptions of Public and Private Performance: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Public Administration Review76 (1): 111–20.
44.
IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama. Cambridge, UK: Publisher-Name.
45.
JacobsNicholas. 2017. “An Experimental Test of How Americans Think About Federalism.” Publius47 (4): 572–98.
46.
JamesOliverVan RyzinGregg G.. 2017. “Motivated Reasoning About Public Performance: An Experimental Study of How Citizens Judge the Affordable Care Act.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27 (1): 197–209.
47.
JeritJenniferBarabasJason. 2012. “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment.” The Journal of Politics74 (3): 672–84.
48.
JilkeSebastian. 2018. “Citizen Satisfaction Under Changing Political Leadership: The Role of Partisan Motivated Reasoning.” Governance31 (3): 515–33.
49.
JostJohn T.AmodioDavid M.. 2012. “Political Ideology as Motivated Social Cognition: Behavioral and Neuroscientific Evidence.” Motivation and Emotion36 (1): 55–64.
50.
JulnesPatria de LancerHolzerMarc. 2001. “Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation.” Public Administration Review61 (6): 693–708.
51.
KahanDan M. 2015. “Climate-Science Communication and TheMeasurement Problem.” Political Psychology36 (February): 1–43.
52.
KatzBruceNowakJeremy. 2018. The New Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
53.
KellyJanet M.SwindellDavid. 2002. “A Multiple-Indicator Approach to Municipal Service Evaluation: Correlating Performance Measurement and Citizen Satisfaction Across Jurisdictions.” Public Administration Review62 (5): 610–21.
54.
KettlDonald F.2016. Escaping Jurassic Government: How to Recover America S Lost Commitment to Competence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
55.
KimY.WarnerM. E.. 2016. “Pragmatic Municipalism: Local Government Service Delivery After the Great Recession.” Public Administration94 (3): 789–805.
56.
KobayashiKeiichi. 2018. “The Impact of Perceived Scientific and Social Consensus on Scientific Beliefs.” Science Communication40 (1): 63–88.
57.
KonaAlbanaBertoldiPaoloMonforti-FerrarioFabioRivasSilviaDallemandJean François. 2018. “Covenant of Mayors Signatories Leading the Way Towards 1.5 Degree Global Warming Pathway.” Sustainable Cities and Society41 (August): 568–75.
KouskyCarolynSchneiderStephen H.. 2003. “Global Climate Policy: Will Cities Lead the Way?” Climate Policy3 (4): 359–72.
60.
KrauseRachel M. 2011. “Symbolic or Substantive Policy? Measuring the Extent of Local Commitment to Climate Protection.” Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy29 (1): 46–62.
61.
KundaZ. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin108 (3): 480–98.
LeeDanbeeVan RyzinGregg G.. 2018. “Bureaucratic Reputation in the Eyes of Citizens: An Analysis of US Federal Agencies.” International Review of Administrative Sciences86 (1): 183–200.
64.
LodgeMiltonTaberCharles S.. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65.
LucasJack. 2022. “Do ‘Non-Partisan’ Municipal Politicians Match the Partisanship of Their Constituents?” Urban Affairs Review58 (1): 103–28.
66.
MarvelJohn D. 2016. “Unconscious Bias in Citizens’ Evaluations of Public Sector Performance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26 (1): 143–58.
67.
MaxwellScott E.LauMichael Y.HowardGeorge S.. 2015. “Is Psychology Suffering from a Replication Crisis? What Does ‘Failure to Replicate’ Really Mean?” The American Psychologist70 (6): 487.
MoynihanDonald P. 2005. “What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Performance? Dialogue Theory and Performance Budgeting.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16 (2): 151–68.
70.
MoynihanDonald P.2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
71.
Nadel-KleinJane. 1991. “Reweaving the Fringe: Localism, Tradition, and Representation in British Ethnography.” American Ethnologist18 (3): 500–17.
72.
NielsenPoul A.MoynihanDonald P.. 2017. “How Do Politicians Attribute Bureaucratic Responsibility for Performance? Negativity Bias and Interest Group Advocacy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27 (2): 269–83.
73.
NisbetMatthew C.FahyDeclan. 2015. “The Need for Knowledge-Based Journalism in Politicized Science Debates.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658 (1): 223–34.
74.
OlsenAsmus Leth. 2018. “Precise Performance: Do Citizens Rely on Numerical Precision as a Cue of Confidence?” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration1 (1). https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.11.19.
75.
OlsenAsmus Leth. 2017a. “Citizens and Public Performance Measures: Making Sense of Performance Information.” In Experiments in Public Management Research: Challenges and Contributions, 270–90. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76.
OlsenAsmus Leth. 2017b. “Human Interest or Hard Numbers? Experiments on Citizens’ Selection, Exposure, and Recall of Performance Information.” Public Administration Review77 (3): 408–20.
77.
O’NeillSaffronWilliamsHywel T. PKurzTimWiersmaBoukeBoykoffMaxwell. 2015. “Dominant Frames in Legacy and Social Media Coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.” Nature Climate Change5 (4): 380–85.
78.
PaolacciGabrieleChandlerJesse. 2014. “Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool.” Current Directions in Psychological Science23 (3): 184–88.
79.
ParkAngela Y. S.KrauseRachel M.. 2020. “Exploring the Landscape of Sustainability Performance Management Systems in U.S. Local Governments.” Journal of Environmental Management279 (December): 111764.
80.
PiotrowskiSuzanneGrimmelikhuijsenStephanDeatFelix. 2017. “Numbers Over Narratives? How Government Message Strategies Affect Citizens’ Attitudes.” Public Performance & Management Review42 (5): 1005–28.
81.
PortneyKent E. 2013. “Local Sustainability Policies and Programs As Economic Development: Is the New Economic Development Sustainable Development?” Cityscape (Washington, D C )15 (1): 45–62.
82.
RedlawskDavid P. 2002. “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making.” The Journal of Politics64 (4): 1021–44.
StefanAngelika M.GronauQuentin F.SchönbrodtFelix D.WagenmakersEric-Jan. 2019. “A Tutorial on Bayes Factor Design Analysis Using an Informed Prior.” Behavior Research Methods51 (3): 1042–58.
86.
StokanEricDeslatteAaronHatchMegan E.. 2021. “Exploring the Trade-Offs Local Governments Make in the Pursuit of Economic Growth and Equity.” Urban Affairs Review57 (4): 1084–114.
SweenyKateMelnykDaryaMillerWendiShepperdJames A.. 2010. “Information Avoidance: Who, What, When, and Why.” Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association14 (4): 340.
89.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 755–69.
90.
TermanJessica N. 2015. “Performance Goal Achievement in Fiscal Federalism: The Influence of State Partisan Environments and Regulatory Regimes.” Policy Studies Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization43 (3): 333–54.
91.
TrounstineJessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
92.
TrounstineJessica. 2020. “The Geography of Inequality: How Land Use Regulation Produces Segregation.” The American Political Science Review114 (2): 443–55.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2011. “Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and Requirements.” GAO-11-379. Washington, DC. Accessed June 21, 2022. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-379
95.
Van BavelJay JPereiraAndrea. 2018. “The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences22 (3): 213–24.
96.
VegSebastian. 2017. “The Rise of ‘Localism’ and Civic Identity in Post-Handover Hong Kong: Questioning the Chinese Nation-State.” The China Quarterly230 (June): 323–47.
97.
WelchSusanBledsoeTimothy. 1988. Urban Reform and Its Consequences: A Study in Representation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
98.
WestenDrewBlagovPavel S.HarenskiKeithKiltsClintHamannStephan. 2006. “Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 US Presidential Election.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience18 (11): 1947–58.
99.
WiestSara L.RaymondLeighClawsonRosalee A.. 2015. “Framing, Partisan Predispositions, and Public Opinion on Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions31 (March): 187–98.
100.
WolskoChristopherAriceagaHectorSeidenJesse. 2016. “Red, White, and Blue Enough to Be Green: Effects of Moral Framing on Climate Change Attitudes and Conservation Behaviors.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology65 (July): 7–19.
101.
WoodruffSierra C.MeerowSaraStultsMissyWilkinsChandler. 2022. “Adaptation to Resilience Planning: Alternative Pathways to Prepare for Climate Change.” Journal of Planning Education and Research42 (1): 64–75.
102.
XiaoY. JennyCoppinGéraldineVan BavelJay J.. 2016. “Perceiving the World Through Group-Colored Glasses: A Perceptual Model of Intergroup Relations.” Psychological Inquiry27 (4): 255–74.
103.
YangKaifengHolzerMarc. 2006. “The Performance-Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement.” Public Administration Review66 (1): 114–26.
104.
ZahranSammyBrodySamuel D.VedlitzArnoldGroverHimanshuMillerCaitlyn. 2008. “Vulnerability and Capacity: Explaining Local Commitment to Climate-Change Policy.” Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy26 (3): 544–62.
105.
ZeemeringEric S. 2009. “What Does Sustainability Mean to City Officials?” Urban Affairs Review45 (2): 247–73.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
