Search

The United States is experiencing growing impacts of climate change but currently receives a limited policy response from its national leadership. Within this policy void, many state governments are stepping up and taking action on adaptation planning. Yet we know little about why some states adopt State Adaptation Plans (SAPs), while others do not. This article investigates factors that predict the emergence of SAPs, both in terms of policy adoption and policy intensity (goal ambitiousness). Applying the diffusion of innovation theory, I consider the relative influence of internal state characteristics, regional pressures, and test for conditional effects between government ideologies and severity of the problem. The results show interesting differences between predictors that influence policy adoption and ambitiousness. States are more motivated to adopt a policy when faced with greater climate vulnerability, have more liberal citizenry, and where governments have crossed policy hurdles by previously passing mitigation plans. The intensity of policies and goal setting, moreover, is more likely to be driven by interest group politics and diffuse through policy learning or sharing information among neighboring states in Environmental Protection Agency regions. These findings support an emerging scholarship that uses more complex dependent variables in policy analysis. These variables have the potential to differentiate symbolic from substantive policies and capture finer information about predictors of importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of cities in the United States have devised climate action plans (CAPs) to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, few of these plans address strategies to adapt to the long term effects of climate change that will occur in the near and distant future. The research presented in this article examines why cities choose to embed adaptation provisions in their CAPs. Our study codes the content of CAPs for all cities ( N = 98) in the United States with populations greater than 50,000. We find cities that frame problems associated with climate change in the language of hazards are more likely to include adaptation strategies in their CAPs than cities that focus on other types of environmental harm. Our findings suggest that more robust efforts to plan for climate change will require the activation of communities of interest beyond those that have been instrumental in setting the current climate agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]