Abstract
In this chapter, we investigate the impact of California’s landmark regional climate planning law Senate Bill (SB) 375 on local climate change planning and policy-making. SB 375 is intended to provide the framework to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as mandated by Assembly Bill 32 by coordinating land use and transportation at the regional level through a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” or SCS. Notably, SB 375 does not carry a mandate for local jurisdictions to develop consistent strategies with the SCS. We find that, in general, mid-size to larger cities are coordinating their policies more than smaller cities. Ultimately, this may negate the negative aspect of the free-rider problem on regional outcomes. However, it still may be too early to tell the ultimate impact of SCS on local initiatives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Estimate as of March 1, 2017 from the Climate Action Planning Database maintained by Michael R. Boswell and Adrienne I. Greve at California Polytechnic State University. The database is regularly updated to include the status of all climate action plans and GHG reduction plans in California and the U.S.
- 2.
SCAG and SACOG updated their SCSs in 2016 when this analysis was being completed and are, therefore, considered in the study.
- 3.
California does not mandate that local governments prepare climate action plans, but there are numerous incentives to do so. California does mandate that all local governments prepare a general plan, though with some exceptions, the frequency that these are comprehensively updated is left to the local governments.
References
California Department of Transportation. (2010). California regional transportation plan guidelines. Retrieved September 29, 2016 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/rtp/index_files/2010%20RTPGuidelines_Jan2011_Technical_Change.pdf.
California Department of Transportation. (N.A.). Statutes and Definitions. Retrieved September 29, 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/list/agencies_files/p1-3.pdf.
Feiock, R., & West, J. (1993). Testing competing explanations for policy adoption: Municipal solid waste recycling. Political Research Quarterly, 46(2), 399–419.
Innes, J. E., & Rogerude, J. (2013). Civic networks for sustainable regions—Innovative practices and emergent theory. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(1), 75–100.
Krause, R. (2011). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by US cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45–60.
Krause, R. (2012). An assessment of the impact that participation in local climate networks has on Cities’ implementation of climate, energy, and transportation policies. Review of policy Research, 29(5), 585–604.
Kwon, M., Jang, H. S., & Feiock, R. (2014). Climate protection and energy sustainability policy in California cities: what have we learned? Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(5), 905–924.
Lackey, S. B., Freshwater, D., & Rupasingha, A. (2002). Factors influencing local government cooperation in rural areas: Evidence from the Tennessee Valley. Economic Development Quarterly, 16(2), 138–154.
Lewis, P. G. (2001). Looking outward or turning inward? Motivations for development decisions in California central cities and suburbs. Urban Affairs Review, 36(5), 696–720.
Mason, S. G., Marker, A., & Mirsky, R. (2011). Primary factors influencing green building in cities in the Pacific Northwest. Public Works Management & Policy, 16(2), 157–185.
Olberding, J. (2002a). Does regionalism beget regionalism? The relationship between norms and regional partnerships for economic development. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 432–443.
Olberding, J. (2002b). Diving into the “Third Waves” of regional governance and economic development strategies: A study of regional partnerships for economic development in U.S. Metropolitan areas. Economic Development Quarterly, 16(3), 251–272.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557.
Ostrom, V. (1962). The political economy of water development. American Economic Review, 52(2), 450–458.
Perkmann, M. (2003). Cross-border regions in Europe: Significance and drivers of regional crossborder co-operation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 153–171.
Pitt, D. (2010). The impact of internal and external characteristics on the adoption of climate mitigation policies by US municipalities. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5), 851–871.
Schnieder, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., & Edwardsen, M. (2003). Building consensual institutions: Networks and the national estuary program. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 143–158.
Zahran, S., Himanshu, G., Brody, S. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Risk, stress, and capacity: Explaining metropolitan commitment to climate protection. Urban Affairs Review, 43(4), 447–474.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boswell, M.R., Mason, S.G. (2018). Regional Climate Planning and Local Outcomes in California. In: Hughes, S., Chu, E., Mason, S. (eds) Climate Change in Cities. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65003-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65003-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65002-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65003-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)