Management of Environmental Quality.pdf

7/28/2019 Management of Environmental Quality.pdf

1/14

Management of Environmental Quality: An International JournalEmerald Article: US environmental governance and local climate changemitigation policies: California's story

Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen

Article information:

To cite this document: Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen, (2011),"US environmental governance and local climate change

mitigation policies: California's story", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss: 3 pp. 317 -29

Permanent link to this document:

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777831111122897

Downloaded on: 11-12-2012

References: This document contains references to 16 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 321 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen, (2011),"US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies:

California's story", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss: 3 pp. 317 - 329

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777831111122897

Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen, (2011),"US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies:


ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777831111122897

Lauren C. Heberle, Isabella M. Christensen, (2011),"US environmental governance and local climate change mitigation policies:


ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777831111122897

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH PACIFIC

For Authors:

f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

nformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit

www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

usiness, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as


2/14

US environmental governanceand local climate change

mitigation policiesCalifornias story

Lauren C. Heberle and Isabella M. ChristensenUniversity of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate local climate change mitigation planning inCalifornia with the goal of understanding how the relationships between the state, the local air

agencies, and the localities within their jurisdictions shape the willingness and capacity of localcommunities to plan for climate change mitigation through greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

Design/methodology/approach The research: analyses documents relating to localities climatechange mitigation planning activities, including the production of action plans, general plan elements,emissions inventories, or official resolutions supporting mitigation planning, establishment ofpartnerships with other governmental and non-governmental organizations, and development ofcommunity input processes and planning committee membership and structure. It also involvesmeasurement and descriptive analysis of variables capturing: local air agencies institutionalcharacter, orientation regarding climate change policymaking, and mitigation planning activities andprograms; and localities mitigation planning processes and policies, institutional and demographiccharacteristics, and relationships with other sub-state entities working on climate change mitigation.

Findings Intergovernmental partnerships can powerfully impact localities technical and financialcapacities for pursuing climate change mitigation planning. This exploratory study points to the

potential for strong leadership by air quality control agencies to greatly influence the decision oflocalities within their jurisdictions to engage in voluntary mitigation planning. Furthermore,decentralized collaboration does not prevent, and may encourage, policy harmonization throughlocalities widespread reliance on the technical assistance from specialized non-governmentalorganizations.

Practical implications Findings might enable advocates of local-level climate change mitigationplanning to target their resources for maximal returns in terms of geographic policy coverage andpledged GHG emissions reductions. Theoretically, this study contributes to discussions on therelationship between the quality of policy outputs and various forms of environmental governance.

Originality/value Climate change mitigation planning in the USA is in a formative stage. In fact,the authors found that even the California Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) mustwork continuously and with imperfect data to compile a list of the states local-level mitigationplanning efforts. This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge of local planning policy

innovations in California and highlights the importance of leadership from the regional scale forcity-level engagement with mitigation planning.

Keywords Climate change, Global warming, Governance, United States of America, Economic planning

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe causes of, and the potential solutions to, climate change involve governments onevery level global, national, state and local. In the United States, the lack of a national

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm

USenvironmental

governance

317

Received 21 May 2010Revised 30 October 2010

Accepted 20 December 2010

Management of Environmental

Quality: An International Journal

Vol. 22 No. 3, 2011

pp. 317-329

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1477-7835

DOI 10.1108/14777831111122897


3/14

framework specifying the roles of federal, state and sub-state institutions in addressingclimate change has thrown these institutions and their relationships to one another intoa state of flux and creative disharmony. Complicating the situation further is the factthat the form and function of environmental governance vary across US local

governments depending, in large part, on the scope of state-granted authorities and thecapacities of the city and county governments. These variations permit us to analyzethe impact of inter-governmental relationships and local capacity on the production oflocal climate change policy.

California continues to strengthen its leadership position in the national climatechange mitigation policy arena; having positioned itself as an environmental policyinnovator among the US states, California is now pursuing internal policy coherencyby utilizing increasingly tough legislation as well as generous incentive systems toinfluence the policy agendas of its sub-state governments. One clear example of thisstrategy is the landmark AB 32 and its companion bill, SB 375, that together create agovernance model in which the state air pollution regulatory agency enjoys not onlyconsiderable control over the allocation of state funds for local air pollution controlactivities but also a final say in local land use planning. How do the relationshipsbetween the state, the local air agencies, and the localities within their jurisdictionsshape the local communities willingness and capacity to plan for climate change andgreen house gas reduction or mitigation?

California provides an ideal context for studying local-level variations in mitigationplanning. On one hand, it offers consistency: the state actively supports policyinnovations at the sub-state levels; the localities experience the same larger economicand political context; NGO access is even throughout the state; and the institutionalrelationships are dense, with every locality in the state under the jurisdiction of one ofCalifornias 35 air agencies (see Figure 1). One the other hand, California providesimportant variation: localities have differentiated political and economic characters;

local air agencies and localities have the freedom to opt in or out of climate changeplanning; and local air agencies have varying areas of expertise and capacity.

2. BackgroundThe California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was signed into law byGovernor Schwarzenegger in September, 2006. Known as Assembly Bill 32, or just AB32, the law establishes state greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals (1990levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050) and charges the California AirResources Board (CARB) with identifying and implementing the measures forachieving these reductions within a specified timeframe. CARB can monitor andregulate GHG emissions in several ways: by developing reporting requirements forGHG emissions; by devising rules, regulations, and strategies for achieving GHG

emissions reductions; and by meeting numerous strategy adoption and emissionsreductions interim deadlines. In December, 2008, following a number of publicworkshops and comment periods, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan(Scoping Plan) as its AB 32 compliance framework (CARB, 2008).

CARB monitors the regulatory activity of Californias 35 local air quality agencies(see Figure 1). Each of the air local districts has statutory authority under federal law(the Clean Air Act enables local agencies to regulate local stationary air pollutionsources) and under state law (the Mulford-Carrell Air Resources Act provides local air

MEQ22,3

318


4/14

districts with primary responsibility for controlling non-vehicular sources of airpollution); furthermore, although they are primarily concerned with stationary sources,local districts do have authority to implement control measures which affecttransportation sources, including automobiles (CAPCOA, 2010). The California Air

Figure 1.Location of Californias 35

local air districts

USenvironmental

governance

319


5/14

Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) lists local agencies activities aspermitting, planning and research, rule propagation for emissions control, monitoring,outreach and compliance enforcement (CAPCOA, 2010). The precise program ofactivities varies by agency according to jurisdiction air quality issues (which differ for

rural and urban areas, for example), historical experience of the agency (considerable inthe case of the Butte County Air Quality Management District which dates from 1967and formative in the case of Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District whichsplintered from the South Coast Air Quality Management District in 1997), andtechnical and financial capacities of the district.

None of the agencies is required to monitor or control stationary sources of GHGemissions: neither AB 32 nor the Scoping Plan has (yet) articulated any responsibilitiesof local air agencies in GHG regulation. Given the lack of a defined role for the local airagencies, the extreme variation in the extent to which the individual agencies havevoluntarily developed policies and programs to address GHG emissions, both in theirinternal operations and in their outreach efforts to other agencies and governmentalunits is to be expected. While some do not even mention climate change on their websites, others dispense multi-million dollar loans to encourage and support localgovernments to engage in GHG mitigation planning.

The authors ask how the air agencies policy positions interact with the interestsand efforts of other sub-state entities. California has 58 counties and 480 incorporatedcities, every one of which is located within a local air agency jurisdiction (League ofCalifornia Cities, 2010). Hundreds of these localities have committed to climate changemitigation planning by becoming signatory members of non-binding emissionsreductions agreements such as the US Conference of Mayors Climate ProtectionAgreement (USCMCPA), the Local Governments for Sustainability (or ICLEI, anacronym crafted from the organizations former name, International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives) Cities and Counties for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign,

and the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords. ICLEI (2010a) (AB 32 and LocalGovernments, 2010) claims that local governments are integral to the success of theGlobal Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) because:

Local governments control the day-to-day activities that determine the amount of energyused and waste generated as well as the long-term planning for the community from landuse and zoning decisions to control over building codes and licenses, infrastructureinvestment, municipal service delivery and management of schools, parks and recreationareas. Local government leaders are also uniquely positioned to influence citizen behaviors their transportation options, energy consumption patterns and general consumer decisions(ICLEI, 2010b).

Unfortunately, despite the interest among local governments in mitigation planning,relatively few of Californias well-intentioned localities have translated voluntary GHG

reduction commitments into comprehensive policy or hard action. This is particularlyvexing since local-level interest in mitigation planning is well-supported byCalifornias leadership. Certainly, Californias state and regional organizations havetaken numerous actions to ease the administrative, technical and financial burdens ofmitigation planning on localities. One example is the Local Government OperationsProtocol, a tool to help local governments inventory and report municipal GHGemissions that was jointly created by the Climate Registry, the California ClimateAction Registry, CARB, and ICLEI (The Climate Registry, 2009).

MEQ22,3

320


6/14

Furthermore, localities that are not independently motivated to pursue mitigationplanning are wooed and even forced into the fold by state actions. Recent history hasdemonstrated that, while California legislation does not mandate local action to reduceGHG emissions, it is possible to use a number of pieces of state legislation to effectively

limit local autonomy where local actions threatens to interfere with the statesemissions reductions goals. In an extreme example, a group of so-called climatechange lawsuits have utilized the reductions targets established by AB 32 in concertwith the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the state environmental reviewstatue, to challenge decisions by sub-state actors that can be expected to increase GHGemissions and therefore require mitigation plans.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed such a suit against San BernardinoCounty, charging that the countys comprehensive land use plan update failed toquantify and mitigate GHG emissions or explain how population growth predictedunder the plan would impact the States ability to attain the GHG reduction targetsestablished by AB 32. As a result, the county must perform an inventory of current and

projected GHG emissions; create and implement a stand-alone GHG Reduction Plan;amend the general plan update to reflect mitigation planning; and establish reductiontargets and mitigation actions to address GHG emissions attributable to the Countysdiscretionary land use decisions and internal government operations (Marten Law,2007). In addition, Attorney General Brown has given other formal comments underCEQA to several other localities (Office of the Attorney General, 2007).

A less litigious yet equally bold strategy for achieving local action in support ofstate emissions reductions goals is Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) which requires some of thestates metropolitan planning organizations to create a so-called SustainableCommunities Strategy (SCS) that will align regional transportation, housing, andland use plans to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled and thus attain theregional GHG reduction target (Garrett et al., 2009). SB 375 further requires that:

funding decisions for regional transportation projects be internally consistent with thestrategy. In essence, SB 375 ties state transportation funding decisions to land use and linksregional planning efforts for transportation and housing. Local governments will play animportant role in designing and meeting these requirements in their land use andtransportation plans (City of Santa Monica, 2009).

Despite the many state-level strategies and the apparent interest of local governments,Californias localities have been slow to generate climate change mitigation policiesand programs. The list of sub-state governments engaged in climate change planningcompiled for and by OPR indicates that, as of October 30, 2009, only 43 localitiesclaimed a GHG reduction policy or program. In fact, as the following discussion makesclear, the situation is even less dynamic than OPRs list might suggest. Similarly, The

Public Policy Institute of California published the results of a 2008 survey of cities andcounties that found that only 7 percent of the responding 280 cities and 30 counties hada completed plan, although 75 percent reported some sort of climate change work inprogress. This report also states that localities cite lack of clarity on the state level as aprincipal reason for delaying the creation of a mitigation plan (Hanak et al., 2008).

The next section closely examines the localities on OPRs October 30, 2009 list. Inaddition to noting the general characteristics of Californias local mitigation policies,this discussion explores whether the localities that are actively creating or executing a

USenvironmental

governance

321


7/14

mitigation plan are anomalies, motivated by internal and unique sets of characteristicsor circumstances, or beneficiaries of an effective and replicable governance model.

3. Data and methodsThe 43 cases in this study include the 37 cities and six counties from the October 30,2009 revision of OPRs list of plans and initiatives adopted by California cities andcounties to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (see Figure 2) (CaliforniaGovernors Office of Planning and Research, 2009). Using the websites of the 43localities, the 35 air agencies, and other state and federal agencies as needed, theauthors examine the localities mitigation planning documents, GHG inventories,various institutional characteristics of the localities, and the relationship of thelocalities to their local air agencies.

There are several data and methodological limitations that merit discussion. First,the non-random sample is drawn from a list of cities and counties that is conservative;only those localities that responded to OPRs request for information are included inthe sample. The authors are aware of several more, like San Luis Obispo which hadcompleted and publicly presented a GHG inventory draft that apparently did not ask tobe named on OPRs list despite meeting the requirements for inclusion (City of San LuisObispo, 2009). The authors did not randomly survey Californias 480 cities and 58counties to determine the prevalence of climate change planning since the responsewas anticipated to be similar to that obtained by the OPR, which described its list asrepresentative of local government plans, but is not comprehensive. (CaliforniaGovernors Office of Planning and Research, 2009).

Additionally, all of the data for this study were collected from a locality or agencyweb site. The data are therefore limited to those localities that have a web presence andreflect the extent to which relevant information was made available to the online

public. Finally, there are several, varying data collection timeframes. Except whereotherwise noted, air agency data were current as of October 2009, when the OPRpublished its list revision, while locality information (including plans and policiesdetails and demographic and political information) was compiled as of January 1, 2010in order to capture the last full month preceding the change of administrationaccompanying President Obamas inauguration.

4. Locality characteristicsOf the 43 local governments that reported climate change planning activities andpolicies, 72.1 percent have a city council city manager form of government. Amajority (60 percent) of the cities operates under a charter while the remainder formed

under general law; in other words, the majority of the cities in the dataset wereincorporated under their own charter rather than under state laws. All of Californiaslargest cities are charter cities and, more importantly, charter cities have broaderpowers to enact land use regulations than do general law cities (California GovernorsOffice of Planning and Research, 2005). Most of the localities (53.5 percent) are urbanareas that meet the US Census classification for a Metropolitan Statistical Area (havinga population of more than 50,000) (State of California, 2009; US Census Bureau,Population Division, 2010).

MEQ22,3

322


8/14

5. Network characteristicsThe authors are interested in the context in which these plans have developed andwhether localities accessed external resources in the form of technical or financialassistance during the mitigation planning process. (Herein, technical assistance meansknowledge of climate change science and policy or expertise with emissions

Figure 2.Spatial distribution of

studied localities and localair districts

USenvironmental

governance

323


9/14

quantification or other planning software.) Therefore, the following discussionexamines localities connections to their state and sub-state air agencies, externalNGOs and, in the case of cities, their counties.

5.1 Connections to air agenciesA total of 12 of Californias 35 air agency jurisdictions are represented in this data set.Two of our 43 cases are counties that each straddles two air agency districts: SanBernardino County crosses the Mohave and South Coast Air Districts and SonomaCounty crosses the Bay Area and Northern Sonoma Air Districts. While it is possiblethat the more proactive air districts (South Coast in the case of San Bernardino Countyand Bay Area in the case of Sonoma County) influenced these counties to engage inmitigation planning, there is no evidence to support this idea. Thus, the authorsclassify these counties and their plans as belonging to air district jurisdictions that aredistinct from the South Coast and Bay Area districts.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) contains the majorityof the studied localities (22). The remaining 21 localities are distributed among theother 11 air agency jurisdictions, with the South Coast Air Quality ManagementDistrict (SCAQMD) containing the next highest number of localities with plans (seven).This clustering effect presents a problem for analyzing variation across air agency

jurisdictions, though there is significant variation across plans produced within theBAAQMD jurisdiction. Importantly, the clustering indicates that special attentionshould be paid to BAAQMD and SCAQMD (see Figure 2 and Table I).

The 12 air agencies included in this data set are all independent, stand-aloneagencies that are not located within a larger municipal department or agency;therefore, they enjoy a certain amount of political, economic, and programmaticautonomy. (Of the remaining 23 air agencies not included in this analysis, nine arelocated within a municipal department and 14 are independent.) The majority of the 12

air agencies had (as of February 2010) established internal policies to mitigateemissions from their own operations and facilities. In addition, 86 percent (37) of the 43localities fall within the jurisdiction of an air agency that advertised a formal policy orprogram providing outreach and support to localities engaged in mitigation planning.Interestingly, only 9.3 percent (four) of the localities received technical assistance from

Air district jurisdiction F %

Bay area 22 51.2Mendocino County 1 2.3Monterey Bay unified 2 4.7North Coast unified 1 2.3

Sacramento Metro 2 4.7San Diego County 2 4.7San Joaquin Valley unified 2 4.7Santa Barbara County 1 2.3South Coast 7 16.3Yolo-Solano 1 2.3Mojave/South Coast 1 2.3Bay Area/Northern Sonoma 1 2.3Total 43 100.0

Table I.Local or county planswithin air district

jurisdictions

MEQ22,3

324


10/14

their air agencies, including three within the BAAQMD jurisdiction, and only 23.3percent (ten) of the localities received financial assistance from their air agencies, with6 of these in the BAAQMD jurisdiction (see Table II). The contradiction here is that,while the air agencies seemingly have good experience with establishing internal

policies, it does not appear that localities are receiving technical assistance from theirair agencies, with the exception of those in the BAAQMD.

5.2 Connections to other sub-state entitiesThe data used for this study do not indicate whether localities made use of countyclimate change outreach programs. Even so, the authors note that 21 of the 37 citieswith climate programs or plans in the sample were located in counties with a climatechange outreach program and five of the six counties in the sample offered outreach tothe cities within their boundaries. Furthermore, of those cities that completed plans asof January 2010, 75 percent were located in counties with a climate change outreach

program (see Table III).The majority of the localities are signatory members of GHG reduction programssponsored by organizations like ICLEI, the USCMCPA, and the UN UrbanEnvironmental Agenda. Most (81.4 percent) have connections to ICLEI and 67.4

Home air district has formalmitigation outreach program

Technicalassistance

received

Financialassistance

receivedReceived by locality % % %

No 14.0 65.1 58.1Yes 86.0 9.3 23.3NA 0.0 25.6 18.6Total (n 43) 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table II.Air district climate

change planningresources

Plan statusNot complete Complete N/A Total

Home county offers a climate change mitigation program?No

Count 8 4 3 15% within plan status 44.4 25.0 100.0 40.5

In process

Count 1 0 0 1% within plan status 5.6 0.0 0.0 2.7

YesCount 9 12 0 21% within plan status 50.0 75.0 0.0 56.8

TotalCount 18 16 3 37% within plan status 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table III.Status of plan by

existence of climatechange outreach program

in Home County

USenvironmental

governance

325


11/14

percent received technical assistance from ICLEI during the mitigation planningprocess.

The fact that cities with completed plans are likely to be located in counties with aclimate program and to have received technical assistance from ICLEI suggests that

external resources and support matter for local mitigation planning decisions.Furthermore, the influence of external organizations that, like ICLEI, offer localities aset of templates and best practices can be expected to contribute to the degree of policyharmonization among Californias sub-state plans. For example, about 79 percent usedICLEIs format for reporting GHG emissions by activity sector (i.e. waste, water,utilities, transportation, etc.) and only 16.3 percent discussed climate changeadaptation planning.

Finally, only 23.3 percent of the localities began mitigation planning efforts prior tothe passage of AB 32, a fact that suggests that most localities began mitigationplanning efforts in response to perceived state pressure or in anticipation of state orfederal policy changes. The 23 percent that did begin planning prior to AB 32 passagecan be considered innovators.

5.3 Community involvementThe authors examined localities web sites and plans for references to any sort ofplanning activity, precursor campaign, or other efforts to mobilize or involve thecommunity in the mitigation planning. Nearly half of the localities (46.5 percent) didnot document any community involvement efforts, although a sizeable percentage(32.6 percent) did. Additionally, 48.8 percent of localities posted process documents onthe web, fulfilling basic requirements of public disclosure.

6. Plan and policy characteristicsWith an eye to understanding what process factors determine the form of a final policy,

the authors focus on the status of the plans, whether they utilized a best practice ortemplate, and whether they specified institutional changes, implementation plans, orfunding sources.

Only 44.2 percent of localities indicated that their mitigation plans were completedand adopted, while another 11.6 percent posted completed plans to the web withoutindicating whether the plans had been adopted. A sizable number (30.2 percent) wereunder development. Interestingly, 4.7 percent of the localities stated that theirmitigation planning processes were meant to yield guidance documents or general planelements rather than a stand-alone policy. The remaining 9.3 percent had not yet begunthe planning process and thus did not discuss the intended form of any policy output(see Table IV).

Plan status F %

Incomplete/intended only as a guideline 2 4.7Incomplete/in process 13 30.2Completed but not adopted/stalled 5 11.6Completed and adopted 19 44.2NA 4 9.3Total 43 100.0

Table IV.Status of plan

MEQ22,3

326


12/14

A second set of questions regarding public involvement in mitigation planningconsiders whether public participation levels might impact the rate of completion or

adoption. The openness of the processes varied among the localities, with 23.3 percent

of planning processes involving only municipal officials and experts, 32.6 percent of

the processes open to the public, and 23.3 percent requiring some level of publicinvolvement. As illustrated in Table V, there is a relationship between the degree ofpublic participation in the planning process and the status of the plans, with

completion rates of 40 percent for plans associated with planning processes requiring

public involvement; 50 percent for those that were simply open to the public; and 80percent for those that were closed to the public.

There is evidence of policy diffusion and innovation. A large percentage of localities(46.3 percent) explicitly acknowledged borrowing some combination of templates and

best practices from another locality or NGO; this percentage is sufficiently large to

suggest that it is common practice in local policy development to examine and adaptexisting policy forms and information to local needs. In terms of process and outputs,

this borrowing approach is distinct from defensive planning strategies whichevidence an anticipation or perception of state or federal policy changes.

Climate change mitigation involves multiple policy arenas and cross-mediaconsiderations. This kind of policy making is not readily suited to the structure of most

municipal governments since municipal agencies and departments are oftenstove-piped, so that policy areas are isolated within distinct bureaucratic structures

by ordinance, law, or tradition. Therefore, local institutional structural change is

sometimes necessary: 34.9 percent of the localities completed plans recommendedsome level of institutional change and 16.3 percent required or enacted the change.

Additionally, close to 63 percent of the plans specified implementation procedures andabout 42 percent discussed funding allocations (and one plan actually allocated

funding).

Type of public inclusion

Status of planOfficials/

experts onlyOpen topublic

Publicinvolvement

required NA Total

Not completeCount 2 7 6 5 20% within type of inclusion 20.0 50.0 60.0 55.6 46.5

CompleteCount 8 7 4 0 19% within type of inclusion 80.0 50.0 40.0 0.0 44.2

NACount 0 0 0 4 4% within type of inclusion 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 9.3

TotalCount 10 14 10 9 43% within type of inclusion 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table V.Status of plan by public

inclusion in planningprocess

USenvironmental

governance

327


13/14

7. ConclusionsWhile this exploratory study did not aim to demonstrate causal relationships, a fewpatterns and ideas have emerged that merit particular attention. First, municipalitiesthat completed plans were more likely to have access to external resources (such as

technical information, plan templates, and GHG estimation tools) from a countygovernment, air agency, or organization like ICLEI. While innovators are important forestablishing a path, real momentum towards broad policy diffusion comes from thoselocalities that build resources by borrowing best practices from one another andutilizing outside knowledge resources. This will be important to acknowledge asfederal and perhaps international policies filter down to US localities. Templates,technical assistance, and access to best practice information will be crucial tools aslocalities develop their own capacity to create and implement plans.

Furthermore, many municipalities recognize that institutional changes arenecessary for implementing plans. There is a growing movement to undo the policystove-piping that occurs at the federal level; such change could impact how states and

localities access federal resources and create or adjust their own structures to deal withclimate change. The fact that municipalities formally recognize this in their plansbodes well for future implementation.

Improved understanding of existing organizational or institutional relationships,and the lack thereof, will also be important as higher-level policies are put into place.Intergovernmental partnerships can powerfully impact localities technical andfinancial capacities for pursuing climate change mitigation planning. This exploratorystudy points to the potential for strong leadership by air quality control agencies togreatly influence the willingness of localities within their jurisdictions to engage involuntary mitigation planning. Furthermore, decentralized collaboration does notprevent, and might encourage, policy harmonization through localities widespreadreliance on the technical assistance from specialized non-governmental organizations

like ICLEI.This study is an initial step in summarizing the state of local climate change

planning efforts in a state that is commonly considered an environmental policyinnovator. More systematic information should be collected from a comprehensive listof localities to provide a better picture of the actual content of the local plans andempirical, grounded studies like this one should be used to inform a larger dialogueabout environmental governance of climate change at the local level.

References

California Governors Office of Planning and Research (2005), California Planning Guide: An

Introduction to Planning in California, available at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/publications/California_Planning_Guide_2005.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).

California Governors Office of Planning and Research (2009), List of Local Plans and PoliciesAddressing Cli mate Change, 30 October, available at: www.opr.ca.gov/index.php?aceqa/index.html (accessed 1 December 2009).

CAPCOA (2010), About Us, available at: www.capcoa.org/about (accessed 15 April 2010).

CARB (2008), Climate change scoping plan: a framework for change, available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm (accessed 25 April 2010).

MEQ22,3

328


14/14

City of San Luis Obispo (2009), Community and Municipal Operations 2005 Baseline GreenhouseGas Emissions Inventory, available at: www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/communitydevelopment/download/GHGInventory.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).

City of Santa Monica (2009), Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), Chapter 3.1:

Sustainability and Climate Change, available at: www.shapethefuture2025.net/PDF/luce_2009_documents/3.1_sustainability_and_climate_change.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).

(The) Climate Registry (2009), press release, available at: www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2009/05/LGO_Protocol_provides_valuable_guidance_to_local_govs_063009.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).

Garrett, C., Collins-Burgard, B., Waterman, R. and Klopf, A. (2009), Addressing climate changethrough land use and transportation planning: Californias SB 375 and SB 732 alegislative trend? Bloomberg Finance LP, available at: www.lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub2554_1.pdf (accessed 25 April 2010).

Hanak, E., Bedsworth, L., Swanbeck, S. and Malaczynski, J. (2008), Climate policy at the locallevel: a survey of Californias cities and counties, Public Policy Institute of California,November, available at: www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i849 (accessed 28 April

2010).ICLEI (2010a), AB32 and Local Governments, available at: www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/iclei-by_

region/california-region/ab-32-and-local-governments (accessed 25 April 2010).

ICLEI (2010b), Programs: Climate, available at: www.icleiusa.org/programs/climate (accessed 25April 2010).

League of California Cities (2010), Facts at a glance, available at: www.cacities.org/index.jsp?zonelocc&previewStory53 (accessed 25 April 2010).

Marten Law (2007), Settlement requires California County to inventory and mitigate greenhousegases, available at: www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20070905-ghg-settlement (accessed25 April 2010).

Office of the Attorney General (2007), Brown Announces Landmark Global Warming Settlement,available at: http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id1453& (accessed 25 April 2010).

State of California, Department of Finance (2009), E-5 Population and Housing Estimates forCities, Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark, May, available at: www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2009/ (accessed 25 April 2010).

US Census Bureau, Population Division (2010), Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas,available at: www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metroarea.html (accessed 25April 2010).

About the authorsLauren C. Heberle is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University ofLouisville, Louisville, KY. She is also Director of the US EPA Region 4 Environmental FinanceCenter at the University of Louisville. Lauren C. Heberle is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: [email protected]

Isabella M. Christensen is a PhD candidate in the Louisville School of Urban and PublicAffairs, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

USenvironmental

governance

329

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Management of Environmental Quality.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Management of Environmental Quality.pdf