Building Green: Local Political Leadership Addressing Climate Change

Abstract

Municipal agreements have been instrumental in communicating commitment to addressing climate change at the local level. However, what is the practical implication of this potentially symbolic decision? This study examines the power of mayoral participation in climate change agreements in driving the proliferation of sustainable or “green” building in a city as a mechanism to reach its climate change goals. In addition, mayors can localize what is otherwise a public good by framing green buildings as having other tangible impacts on a community. We analyze the impact of political leadership on green building projects in 591 cities in 50 U.S. states, controlling for a variety of city‐ and state‐level variables. Hierarchical models indicate that mayoral leadership in climate change policy fosters green building, while state‐level predictors are not as important as city policy in creating green buildings. Our research concludes that local governments can be a very effective venue in addressing broad climate change goals.

Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance

“…However, alternative case selection methods allowing for systematic variation on these variables might produce more conclusive results. We have not explored in detail the importance of leadership from the mayor's office (Lee and Koski, 2012). Our two most active cities -Seoul and Seattle -clearly enjoyed strong leadership and proactive governments in the climate change policy sector at key points in their history.…”

“…Table 3 both provides stylized data on the dependent variable (comprehensive climate change policies) and also indicates the level of development of urban governance arrangements. Control variables aside from national context include population; partisanship of the city government (Lee and Koski, 2012); and the strength of the environmental planning bureaucracy (Rabe, 2004). We choose the two most populous cities in Korea (Seoul and Busan) and two medium-sized American cities (Seattle and Anaheim).…”

“…In previous research seeking to explain this variation, institutional or process variables have received considerable attention, for example the role of policy entrepreneurship (Rabe, 2004); institutional and policy capacities of local governments (for example, the number of staff and the amount of budget) (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003); and political leadership (Lee and Koski, 2012). 'Background conditions' have also been explored as a variable in stimulating policy responses, for example geographic locations vulnerable to climate risk (Zahran et al, 2008).…”

Perceptions of urban climate hazards and their effects on adaptation agendas

“…For example, a city's institutional and civic capacity (Bulkeley and Betsill 2013;Zahran et al 2008), political leadership (Lee and Koski 2012), and exposure to interest group pressure (Sharp et al 2011) have all been shown to influence whether a city adopts policies related to climate change. A growing number of quantitative studies have focused on explaining variations in the adoption of urban climate change mitigation strategies (Bart 2011;Krause 2012;Lee and Koski 2014).…”

“…Participating in a translocal climate network can provide opportunities for learning and sharing ideas between cities around the world. Joining a translocal climate network is also a proxy for political leadership's commitment on the issue of local climate policies (Lee and Koski 2012). Without political leadership, a city government is not likely to participate in the network.…”