What drives local communities to engage in climate change mitigation activities? Examining the rural–urban divide

Abstract

The National Climate Initiative (NKI) in Germany provides a strong incentive for local governments to apply for funding to engage in climate protection activities. Yet, the latest evaluation of the NKI confirms that there is a great disparity in the distribution of funding across regions. Taking this regional fragmentation as a starting point, we ask the following: How can we explain disparity in the amount of funding across counties and cities? We draw on climate policy literature pointing to the role of socioeconomic and political determinants and the settlement structure to answer this question. We study all 400 cities and counties to test hypotheses concerning disparity in the likelihood and amount of climate funding, using data from the German Ministry for the Environment and further regional statistics. Running different multilevel regression models, we show that local climate funding is more likely in cities and more urbanized counties than in rural counties with less population and oftentimes also with less young and educated people. We argue that despite the increasing number of local governments getting active in climate protection in Germany, there is important unused potential for climate change mitigation in rural counties. Therefore, we conclude by proposing a new research agenda focusing on climate change mitigation in rural areas.

Tackling climate change on the local level: A growing research agenda

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

“…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).…”

“…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.…”