Stakeholder engagement in climate change policymaking in American cities

  • Duran FiackEmail author
  • Sheldon Kamieniecki


In all likelihood, climate change will be the most challenging environmental problem that society will face in the new century. Despite growing scientific evidence that climate change is taking place, skepticism still exists about whether it is actually occurring and, if it is, whether increased greenhouse gas emissions will have a significant adverse impact on the ecosystem. Unless divergent actor groups are able to establish a dialogue on these issues, meaningful discussions about the causes and effects of climate change will not take place, government action will not be forthcoming, and additional harm to the ecosystem will occur. This, in turn, will place an impediment in front of public and private efforts to promote sustainability, making it even that much more difficult to reverse course and adopt needed changes to energy production and consumption in the future. This paper contributes to the emerging scholarly discussion around the dimensions of climate change communication by conducting a stakeholder-focused analysis concerning climate change at the local level. The paper draws upon a theoretical framework developed by Sabatier et al. (2005) to analyze stakeholder involvement in collaborative watershed management, and applies the framework to climate change policymaking in American cities. A major goal of the study is to assess the value of this framework for analyzing the nature and extent of interactions between the major players involved in climate change mitigation and adaptation at the local level. Developing an effective stakeholder framework can help us to understand the multifaceted stakeholder dynamics around climate change communication at the municipal level and can be a critical contribution to theory and, subsequently, to policymaking by helping decision makers become aware and knowledgeable about their constraints and opportunities in addressing climate change within the urban context. Overall, research on climate change policymaking by cities is underdeveloped, and this paper adds to this literature.


Climate change Collaborative management Cities Climate change policy Stakeholder engagement 


  1. Austin Energy (2010) Austin energy resource, generation, and climate protection plan to 2020. Austin Energy, AustinGoogle Scholar
  2. Bae J, Feiock R (2013) Forms of government and climate change policies in US cities. Urban Stud 50(4):776–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bulkeley H, Betsill M (2003) Cities and climate change: urban sustainability and global environmental governance. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulkeley H, Kern K (2006) Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and the UK. Urban Stud 43:2237–2259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (2011) Climate action in megacities: C40 cities baseline and opportunities. Accessed 12 Feb 2014
  6. City Council of Las Vegas (2006) Resolution no. 57-2006 (Action to reduce global warming). City Council of Las Vegas, Las VegasGoogle Scholar
  7. City of Philadelphia (2007) Local action plan for climate change. City of Philadelphia, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  8. City Council of Tucson (2011) Resolution no. 21838 (Climate mitigation and adaptation). City Council of Tucson, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  9. City of Denver (2007) City of Denver climate action plan: final recommendations to Mayor Hickenlooper. Mayor’s Greenprint Denver Advisory Council, DenverGoogle Scholar
  10. City of Minneapolis (2013) Minneapolis climate action plan. City of Minneapolis, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  11. City of New Orleans (2009) City of New Orleans carbon footprint report. City of New Orleans, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  12. City of New York (2013a) PlanNYC: New York City local law 84 benchmarking report. City of New York, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  13. City of New York (2013b) PlaNYC: New York City Mayor’s carbon challenge progress report. City of New York, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  14. City of Tallahassee Department of Environmental Policy and Energy Resources (Tallahassee DEPER) (2011) The green report: the city of Tallahassee 2011 green initiatives annual report. City of Tallahassee, TallahasseeGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobb RW, Ross MH (1997a) Agenda setting and the denial of agenda access: key concepts. In: Cobb RW, Ross MH (eds) Cultural strategies of agenda denial: avoidance, attack, and redefinition. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobb RW, Ross MH (1997b) Denying agenda access: strategic considerations. In: Cobb RW, Ross MH (eds) Cultural strategies of agenda denial: avoidance, attack, and redefinition. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  17. Collier D, Mahoney J (1996) Insights and pitfalls: selection bias in qualitative research. World Polit 49(1):56–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colorado Climate Project (2005) The Colorado climate project. Accessed 12 Feb 2014
  19. Daley DM, Sharp EB, Bae J (2013). Understanding city engagement in community-focused sustainability initiatives. Cityscape 15(1):143–161Google Scholar
  20. Deyle RE, Meo M, James TE (1994) State policy innovation and climate change: a coastal erosion analog. In: Feldman DL (ed) Global climate change and public policy. Nelson-Hall, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Feiock RC, Francis N, Kassekert A (2010) Explaining the adoption of climate change policies in local government. In Midwest Political Science Association’s annual meeting, Chicago, IL, USA (pp. 22–25)Google Scholar
  22. George AL, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenprint Denver (2006) Greenprint Denver plan. City of Denver, DenverGoogle Scholar
  24. Guber DL, Bosso CJ (2013) Issue framing, agenda setting, and environmental discourse. In: Kamieniecki S, Kraft ME (eds) The Oxford handbook of U.S. environmental policy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Heikkila T, Gerlak AK (2005) The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions. Policy Stud J 33(4):583–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoffman AJ (2000) Integrating environmental and social issues into corporate practice. Environment (June):22–33Google Scholar
  27. ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) (2009) Sustainable cities & counties blog: Tallahassee hits its greenhouse gas targets. Accessed 20 Feb 2014
  28. ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) (2010) Empowering sustainable communities: annual report. Accessed 12 Feb 2014
  29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Kamieniecki S (2006) Corporate America and environmental policy: does business always get its way? Stanford University Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  31. Kingdon J (1995) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd edn. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kraft ME, Kamieniecki S (eds) (2007) Business and environmental policy: corporate interests in the American political system. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Krause RM (2010) Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by U.S. cities. J Urban Aff 33(1):45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krause RM (2011) An assessment of the greenhouse gas reducing activities being implemented in US cities. Local Environ 16(2):193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krause RM (2013) The motivations behind municipal climate engagement: an empirical assessment of how local objectives shape the production of a public good. Cityscape 15(1):125–141Google Scholar
  36. Leach WD, Sabatier PA (2005) Are trust and social capital the keys to success? Watershed partnerships in California and Washington. In: Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindseth G (2004) The cities for climate protection campaign (CCPC) and the framing of local climate policy. Local Environ 9(4):325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mazmanian DA, Kraft ME (eds) (2009) Toward sustainable communities: transition and transformation in environmental policy, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) (2008) Report 1: assessment and action plan—a report based on the ongoing work of the DEP climate change task force. New York City Department of Environmental Protection Climate Change ProgramGoogle Scholar
  40. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom E (1999) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson D, Matthews E, Weingarden M (2011) Local energy plans in practice: case studies of Austin and Denver. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Polsby NA (1984) Political innovation in America: the politics of policy innovation. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  44. Portney KE (2013) Taking sustainable cities seriously: economic development, the environment and quality of life in American cities, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Portney KE, Berry JM (2010) Participation and the pursuit of sustainability in US cities. Urban Aff Rev 46(1):119–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Posner PL (2010) The politics of vertical diffusion: the states and climate change. In: Rabe BG (ed) Greenhouse governance addressing climate change in America. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Prakash A (2000) Greening the firm: the politics of corporate environmentalism. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rabe BG (ed) (2010) Greenhouse governance: addressing climate change in America. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Robbins PT (2001) Greening the corporation: management strategy and the environmental challenge. Earthscan Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) (2005) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Sharp EB, Daley DM, Lynch MS (2010) Understanding local adoption and implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Aff Rev 1078087410392348Google Scholar
  52. Sierra Club (2006) Sierra Club cool cities campaign: solving global warming one city at a time. Accessed 12 Feb 2014
  53. Southern Nevada Convene for Green (SNCG) (2011) Regional sustainability summit report. Accessed 12 Feb 2014
  54. Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office (2014) A climate action plan for Detroit. Accessed Feb 20 2014
  55. The Trust for Public Land (2010) Park Score Index. Accessed Feb 17 2014
  56. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) Economy at a glance. Accessed 18 Feb 2014
  57. US Census Bureau (2010) State & county quickfacts. Accessed 18 Feb 2014
  58. US Conference of Mayors (2008) About the mayors climate protection center. Accessed 12 Feb 2014
  59. US Conference of Mayors (2009) Climate protection center: list of participating mayors. Accessed 20 Feb 2014
  60. US Department of Energy (2014) Clean cities overview. Accessed 12 Feb 2014
  61. US Environmental Protection Agency (2014) AirCompare. Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  62. Wheeler SM (2008) State and municipal climate change plans: the first generation. J Am Plan Assoc 74(4):481–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Winter G (2002) Timber company reduces cutting of old-growth trees. New York Times, March 27, A14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations