Overcoming collective action barriers to energy sustainability: A longitudinal study of climate protection accord adoption by local governments

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Volumn 79, Issue , 2017, Pages 339-346

  Yi, Hongtao ^a   Feiock, Richard C ^b   Berry, Frances S ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Climate protection; Collective action; Environmental policy; Policy diffusion; Policy tools; Sustainable energy

Indexed keywords

DIFFUSION BARRIERS; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC POLICY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

CLIMATE PROTECTION; COLLECTIVE ACTION; ENERGY; ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GROWTH MANAGEMENT; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; POLICY DIFFUSIONS; POLICY TOOLS; SUSTAINABLE ENERGY;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 85019589771     PISSN: 13640321     EISSN: 18790690     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.071     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Garett, H., The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:13 (1968), 1243–1248.
2. Lubell, M., Feiock, R.C., Handy, S., City adoption of environmentally sustainable policies in California's central valley. J Am Plan Assoc 75:3 (2009), 293–308.
3. Feiock, R.C., Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action. Urban Aff Rev 45:3 (2009), 356–377.
4. Feiock RC, Scholz J. Self-organizing governance of institutional collective action problems. In: Self-organizing federalism: collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. Cambridge University Press; 2009.
5. Berry, F.S., Berry, W.D., Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. Sabatier, P.A., (eds.) Theories of the policy process, 2nd ed., 2007, Westview Press, Boulder.
6. Satterthwaite, D., Cities’ Contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Urban 20 (2008), 539–549.
7. Zahran, S., Himanshu, G., Samuel, D.B., Vedlitz, A., Risk, stress, and capacity. explaining metropolitan commitment to climate protection. Urban Aff Rev 43:4 (2008), 447–474.
8. Burns, N., Formation of American local governments. 1994, Oxford University Press.
9. U.S. Conference of Mayors. U.S. Conferences of Mayors climate protection agreement; 2009. 〈 http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm〉.
10. Feiock, R.C., Audirac-Zazueta, I., Kassekert, A., Energy sustainable florida communities: a state wide survey. 2009, Institute for Energy Systems Economics and Sustainability, Tallahassee.
11. Office of Mayor, Miami. Press Release; 2007. 〈 http://www.miamigov.com/mayor〉.
12. Olson, M., The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. 1965, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
13. Dolsak, N., Mitigating globalclimate change: why are some countries more committed than others?. Policy Stud J 29:3 (2001), 414–436.
14. Dolšak, N., Climate change policy implementation: a cross‐sectional analysis. Rev Policy Res 26:5 (2009), 551–570.
15. Orr, S.K., Policy subsystems and regimes: organized interests and climate change policy. Policy Stud J 34:2 (2006), 147–169.
16. Lyon, T.P., Yin, H., Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards?: an empirical investigation. Energy J 2010:31 (2010), 133–157.
17. Matisoff, D.C., The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards: regional diffusion or internal determinants?. Rev Policy Res 25 (2008), 527–546.
18. Yi, H., Feiock, R.C., Policy tool interactions and the adoption of state renewable portfolio standards. Rev Policy Res 29:2 (2012), 193–206.
19. Stoutenborough, J.W., Beverlin, M., Encouraging pollution-free energy: the diffusion of state net metering policies. Social Sci Q 89 (2008), 1230–1251.
20. Drummond, W.J., Statehouse versus greenhouse: have state-level climate action planners and policy entrepreneurs reduced greenhouse gas emissions?. J Am Plan Assoc 76:4 (2010), 413–433.
21. Rabe, B.G., Statehouse and greenhouse: the emerging politics of American climate change policy. 2004, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
22. Rabe, B.G., Race to the top: the expanding role of U.S. state renewable portfolio standards. 2006, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.
23. Portney, K.E., Taking sustainable cities seriously: economic development, the environment, and quality of life in American cities. 2004, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
24. Krause, R.M., Yi, H., Feiock, R.C., Applying policy termination theory to the abandonment of climate protection initiatives by US local governments. Policy Stud J, 2015.
25. Yi, H., Feiock, R.C., Renewable energy politics: policy typologies, policy tools, and state deployment of renewables. Policy Stud J 42:3 (2014), 391–415.
26. Yi, H., Clean-energy policies and electricity sector carbon emissions in the US states. Util Policy 34 (2015), 19–29.
27. Lubell, M., Feiock, R.C., Ramirez, E., Political institutions and conservation by local governments. Urban Aff Rev 40 (2005), 706–729.
28. Ramirez de la Cruz, E.E., Local political institutions and smart growth: an empirical study of the politics of compact development. Urban Aff Rev 45 (2009), 218–246.
29. Fitzgerald, J., Emerald cities: urban sustainability and economic development. 2010, Oxford University Press.
30. Betsill, M., Mitigatingclimate change in U.S. cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environ 4 (2001), 393–406.
31. Kousky, C., Schneider, S.H., Global climate policy: will cities lead the way?. Clim Policy 3 (2003), 359–372.
32. Lindseth, G., The cities for climate protection campaign (CCPC) and the framing of local climate policy. Local Environ 9:4 (2004), 325–336.
33. Yi, H., Feiock, R.C., Climate action plan adoptions in the US states. Int J Clim Change Strateg Manag 7:3 (2015), 375–393.
34. Van Liere, K.D., Dunlap, R.E., Environmental concern–does it make a difference how it's measured?. Environ Behav 13 (1981), 651–676.
35. Scott, D., Willits, F.K., Environmental attitudes and behavior. Environ Behav 26:2 (1994), 239–261.
36. Brody, S.D., Godschalk, D.R., Burby, R.J., Mandating citizen participation in plan making: six strategic planning choices. J Am Plan Assoc 69 (2003), 245–264.
37. Tang, Z., Brody, S.D., Link planning theories with factors influencing local environmental plan quality. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 36 (2009), 522–537.
38. Tang, Z., Bright, E., Brody, S.D., Evaluating California local land use plans’ environmental impact reports. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29 (2009), 96–106.
39. Kousky, C., Schneider, S.H., Global climate policy: will cities lead the way?. Clim Policy 3 (2003), 359–372.
40. Yi, H., Clean energy policies and green jobs: an evaluation of green jobs in US metropolitan areas. Energy Policy 56 (2013), 644–652.
41. Engel, K.H., Orbach, B.Y., Micro-motives and state and local climate change initiatives. Harv Law Policy Rev 2 (2008), 119–137.
42. Bassett, E., Shandas, V., Innovation and climate action planning. J Am Plan Assoc 76:4 (2010), 435–450.
43. Berke, P.R., Roenigk, D.J., Kaiser, E.J., Burby, R., Enhancing plan quality: evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. J Environ Plan Manag 39 (1996), 79–96.
44. Brody, S.D., Zahran, S., Himanshu, G., Vedlitz, A., A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the United States: risk, stress, and opportunity. Landsc Urban Plan 87 (2008), 33–41.
45. Tang, Z., Brody, S.D., Quinn, C., Chang, L., Wei, T., Moving from agenda to action: evaluating local climate change action plans. J Environ Plan Manag 53:1 (2010), 41–62.
46. Krause, K.M., Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by U.S. cities. J Urban Aff 33:1 (2011), 45–60.
47. Sharp, E.B., Daley, D.M., Lynch, M.S., Understanding local adoption and implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Aff Rev 47 (2011), 433–457.
48. Krause, R.M., Yi, H., Feiock, R.C., Applying policy termination theory to the abandonment of climate protection initiatives by US local governments. Policy Stud J 44:2 (2016), 176–195.
49. Yi, H., Krause, R.M., Feiock, R.C., Back-pedaling or continuing quietly? Assessing the impact of ICLEI membership termination on cities’ sustainability actions. Environ Polit 26:1 (2017), 138–160.
50. Kwon, M., Jang, H.S., Feiock, R.C., Climate protection and energy sustainability policy in California cities: what have we learned?. J Urban Aff 36:5 (2014), 905–924.
51. Lubell, M., Feiock, R.C., Ramierez, R., Local institutions and the politics of urban growth. Am J Polit Sci 53:3 (2009), 649–665.
52. Kwon, M., Berry, F.S., Feiock, R.C., Understanding the adoption and timing of economic development strategies in US cities using innovation and institutional analysis. J Public Adm Res Theory 19:4 (2009), 967–988.
53. Feiock, R.C., Jeong, M., Kim, J., Credible commitment and council-manager government: implications for policy instrument choices. Public Adm Rev 63:5 (2003), 616–625.
54. Kassekert A. Policy tool selection: predicting the bundling of economic development policy instruments using a multivariate probit analysis. In: Proceedings of the paper presented at the American Political Sci Association meeting. Toronto; 2009 September. p. 6–9.
55. Lubell, M., Schneider, M., Scholz, J.T., Mete, M., Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. Am J Political Sci 46:1 (2002), 148–163.
56. Pew Charitable Trusts, The clean energy economy: repowering jobs, business and investments across America. 2009, Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington D.C.
57. Feiock, R.C., Simmons, M., Smart growth and smart grids: a research agenda. 2009, Institute for Energy Systems Economics and Sustainability http://www.IESES.fsu.edu.
58. Fleshler D. South Florida sun-sentinel; 2007. 〈 http://www.sun-sentinel.com〉; [Accessed 2 February 2007].
59. Lubell, M., Collaborative environmental institutions: all talk and no action?. J Policy Anal Manag 23:3 (2004), 549–573.
60. Frederickson, H.G., The repositioning of American public administration. Political Sci Polit 32:4 (1999), 701–711.
61. International City/County Management Association. Sustainability, ICMA management perspective. Washington D.C. ICMA; October 2007.
62. Feiock, R.C., Rational choice and regional governance. J Urban Aff 29:1 (2009), 47–63.
63. Gray, V., Innovation in the states: a diffusion study. Am Political Sci Rev 67:4 (1973), 1174–1185.
64. Walker, J.L., The diffusion of innovations among the American states. Am Political Sci Rev 63:3 (1969), 880–899.
65. Berry, F.S., Berry, W.D., State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: an event history analysis. Am Political Sci Rev 84:2 (1990), 395–415.
66. Berry, F.S., Berry, W.D., Tax innovation in the states: capitalizing on political opportunity. Am J Political Sci 36:3 (1992), 715–742.
67. Mooney, C.Z., Lee, M.-H., Legislative morality in the American states: the case of pre-roe abortion regulation reform. Am J Political Sci 39:3 (1995), 599–627.
68. Mintrom, M., Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. Am J Political Sci 41:3 (1997), 738–770.
69. Mintrom, M., Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. 2000, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
70. Volden, C., States as policy laboratories: emulating success in the children's health insurance program. Am J Political Sci 50:2 (2006), 294–312.
71. Feiock RC, Stream C. Explaining the choice of policy instruments for state environmental protection: a political economy approach. In: Proceedings of the paper presented at the annual meeting of the western political science association; 1998.
72. Frederickson, H.G., Logan, B., Wood, C., Municipal reform in mayor-council cities: a well-keptsecret. State Local Gov Rev 35:1 (2003), 7–14.
73. Franzel, J.M., Urban government innovation: identifying current innovations and factors that contribute to their adoption. Rev Policy Res 25 (2008), 253–277.
74. Agresti, A., Categorical data analysis, 2nd ed., 2002, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
75. Liang, K.Y., Zeger, S.L., Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73:1 (1986), 13–22.
76. Zorn, C.J.W., Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: a review with applications. Am J Political Sci 45:2 (2001), 470–490.
77. York A, Feiock RC, Steinacker A. Two sides of the same coin? Economic development and growth management policy choices. In: Proceedings of the paper presented at the annual meeting of the urban affairs association. Chicago; March 2009.
78. Berry, W.D., Baybeck, B., Using geographic information systems to study interstate competition. Am Political Sci Rev 99:4 (2005), 505–519.
79. Berardo, R., Scholz, J.T., Self‐organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. Am J Political Sci 54:3 (2010), 632–649.