U.S. cities’ integration and evaluation of equity considerations into climate action plans – npj Urban Sustainability

With growing realization of the harmful and disproportionate impacts of climate change, it is no surprise that the implementation of CAPs by cities has become an increasingly popular tool to grapple with climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts at the local level. The increased consideration of and attention to equity issues in CAPs over time echoes previous findings in the U.S.^21,22,30. Our results reveal that the discourse around equity has considerably evolved in the past decade, from when Schrock et al. found that as of 2012, many large U.S. cities either ignored equity goals or treated them as secondary or tertiary relative to environmental and economic goals²¹.

There are also spatial and sociodemographic reasons why some cities may prioritize equity goals in their CAPs over time. For example, Hess & McKane find that U.S. cities with greater attention to equity as it relates to sustainability in their plans are more likely to lean toward the center-left Democratic Party with higher levels of income and education³⁰. Our correlation analysis suggests similar results about mayor’s political party affiliation. To this end, Schrock et al. argue that while cities with greater proportions of racial minorities may have more motivation to engage with equity in their plans, local officials in high needs cities are less likely to pursue strategies that may be considered anti-business²¹.

Further, our finding of a correlation between climate city network membership and APA Index score points to the significance of national and international coordinating bodies and movements through which cities have collaborated to engage in climate policy – especially in the absence of national-level policy in the U.S.³¹. Some examples include the ‘We Are Still In’ movement after U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, and the ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability network. City networks such as these have been praised for facilitating knowledge exchange and networking³². ICLEI, for example, provides resources for cities to develop and implement CAPs and to act as intermediating actors that contribute to exchange of knowledge and skill development³³. These coordinating bodies enable the diffusion of policies, knowledge, and resources in ways that can facilitate equitable planning efforts. Other studies note, however, that membership in these organizations is often unevenly distributed across the Global North and South, prioritizing highly globalized and higher income cities^34,35. Local, regional, and national environmental justice movements and organizations also likely play a strong role in urging cities to prioritize equity in their climate planning efforts as part of their comprehensive urban planning efforts. Previous studies have illustrated the power of social movements to drive city-level change. For example, Liechenko et al. outline how environmental justice activism can be traced back decades in New York City but has only recently become recognized in formal planning efforts through workgroups that engage activists to collaboratively plan for equitable climate adaptation³⁶.

Many contemporary urban CAPs feature some combination of mitigation (i.e., reducing emissions), adaptation (i.e., reducing risk exposure), and equity (i.e., addressing social justice concerns) strategies to varying degrees. Urban CAP goals thus closely align with the three-pronged discussions of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which continue to actively negotiate mitigation, adaptation, and loss & damage (a global social justice endeavor)³⁷. Furthermore, CAPs link Sustainable Development Goals 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and 13 (Climate Action). By detailing mitigation and adaptation strategies at the local level, CAPs align with the goals of SDG 11.b by developing a holistic disaster risk management framework and implementing integrated resource efficiency, mitigation, adaptation, resilience, and inclusion policies³⁸. It should also be noted that mitigation targets have consistently been prioritized across climate governance scales due to several reasons, including: the urgency of meeting the 1.5–2°C Paris Agreement target²⁵; concerns about the moral hazard effects of adaptive actions³⁹; the relative tangibility of a quantifiable emissions target versus more abstract adaptation and equity targets⁴⁰; and the possibility that mitigation goals are seen as easier hanging fruit (or an avenue to displace attention from systemic fossil fuel extraction onto individual carbon footprints) compared to their adaptation and equity counterparts⁴¹.

Considering the dimensions of equity in climate planning proposed by the American Planning Association, our results reveal interesting trends. While the most frequently targeted APA goal by plans aims to “empower communities through community-based participatory planning”, these goals are not always met in practice or easily measurable with quantifiable metrics. For example, Frick et al. find, in the context of California, that planning for community collaboration is not without challenges, conflict, and unintended consequences⁴². Other scholarship has identified potential adverse outcomes of climate plans including reduction in community sense of security and wellbeing⁴³. We note that more plans explicitly describe efforts toward participatory planning goals than the following, “fund adaptation and mitigation projects identified by communities”, which would presumably be an ideal outcome of community-based participatory planning. Further, the least common APA tool utilized in plans urges planners to “prioritize equitable procurement of planning services.” While this goal also targets notions of procedural justice, it is less commonly noted in U.S. city CAPs.

The primary contribution of this analysis is to draw existing examples of measurable equity indicators in CAPs to both assess what has been done and call for increased coordination and imagination across cities. Other studies of CAPs and sustainability plans often stop short of assessing implementation as it is not often feasibly measurable. We propose that transparent indicators, here, can help cities and communities evaluate their own plans, as well as facilitate evaluation by researchers. Hess & McKane compile a list of goals and initiatives from city government plans, identifying examples that address GHG mitigation while also benefiting historically marginalized residents³⁰. We build on this analysis by identifying specific indicators, the outcomes they measure, and the type of equity the indicator targets (categorized as gender, income, racial or ethnic, spatial, and general vulnerability indicators).

Our findings raise questions about what cities might do to develop, implement, and measure a diverse and holistic set of equity indicators to use in their climate planning efforts and beyond. We suggest that cities, their networks, and their communities work together to create new frameworks in ways that are feasible to measure and evaluate, especially for less-resourced cities. While city networks have acted as important intermediaries to communicate norms around equity planning to large numbers of cities and facilitate shared learning, we suggest additional room for universities and non-profits with capacity for software development, data collection and analysis, and methodological expertise to engage with cities in their climate planning processes. California provides a unique example of a state with a relatively robust set of equity indicators, many of which are measurable through the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), created by the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on behalf of the California Environmental Protection Agency⁴⁴. Researchers are well positioned to work with additional states and cities on similar tools that aggregate multiple data sources, spatially and temporally.

One significant limitation of our analyses is that we were only able to evaluate published plans as they were publicly presented. In this, we may miss efforts in other city plans, initiatives, or implementation strategies that are not explicitly mentioned in their CAPs. Many cities conduct additional reporting and analysis after the initial publication of a climate action plan to address implementation and outline detailed paths forward. Cleveland, for example, published their Clean and Equitable Energy Report in 2021, 3 years after their CAP, including measurable indicators surrounding equity of energy sustainability goals⁴⁵. Further, as argued by Fitzgerald, Schmitz, and Stephens, the analysis of climate action plans alone can be limiting, as some cities aim to integrate equity, social justice, and climate action throughout various planning documents (like Boston and Seattle)⁴⁶. Future research could take a broader scope to consider follow-up reporting and track city progress over time. Other research efforts might conduct in-depth case studies featuring interviews with planners to explain the development, adoption, and implementation process around equity indicators focused on a variety of stakeholders including but not limited to city planners, political actors, activists, non-profits, and academics (for case study examples, see Leichenko, Foster, & Ngyuen³⁶ and Fitzgerald¹). To ensure accountability and replicability, however, we believe that how equity goals are specifically reported and presented in initial plans is of critical importance. This transparency is necessary not just for researchers, but also for community members to effectively participate in local climate governance efforts. With this limitation in mind, our goal is to provide a snapshot of climate equity awareness and equity considerations that can be measured, quantified, or otherwise evaluated.

As we center the importance of equity in policy design and evaluation in the context of climate change, we recognize that there is no single interpretation of equity or ‘right’ way to design equitable policy. In practice, one policy may be supported for its impact on equity by one group and rejected for inequity by another⁴⁷. For example, in the five types of equity we identified in plan indicators, notions of equity around disability or age are notably absent from plans, a gap noted by other scholarship⁴⁸. It is for this reason that we recommend transparency around equity goals in CAPs and other similar policy documents. We evaluate CAPs for quantifiable equity measures, but caution that additional data and detail do not inherently make policies more or less equitable, and many equity outcomes cannot readily be evaluated through numeric data. Qualitative evaluations of equity outcomes of policies may often be more appropriate in specific contexts, and we suggest that these evaluations are deeply informed by the groups and communities disproportionately impacted by social and environmental pressures in particular places.

To better understand how cities in the United States grapple with inequality in climate planning, we conduct a thematic analysis of CAPs in large cities. Through this analysis, we highlight equity goals as they relate to ten thematic areas, six outcomes, and five dimensions of equity. We suggest cities interested in creating robust climate action plans that address equity adopt measurable indicators to benchmark progress and further involve affected groups in the planning process.