Speaker
Description
Motivation and research question
Cities contribute 70% of total greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2022), with the heat sector as a major, hard-to-decarbonize contributor. Solutions such as transitioning to renewable energy, electrification, and improving building efficiency require coordinated local action involving multiple stakeholders and varying infrastructure needs.
To guide the decarbonization of the heat sector, municipalities must develop heat plans that identify areas with potential heat sources. Germany's Heat Planning Act mandates these plans but, due to the federal government’s inability to directly delegate tasks to municipalities, relies on the Länder for implementation while offering financial support. Progress varies widely across cities—some have finalized their heat plans, while others are yet to begin. This raises critical questions about the factors and challenges shaping the process. This study seeks to answer: Why does progress in heat plan development vary across cities?
Theory
To address this question, we draw on theories of local climate policy implementation, urban governance, and multi-level climate governance. Existing research highlights barriers to stringent climate policy, including private sector influence (Wansleben & Neumann, 2023), political dynamics (Wurster & Hagemann, 2018), and resource constraints (Eckersley et al., 2023).
The first factor we examine is the understudied role of politics (Hughes, 2017; Ryan, 2015), particularly the influence of mayors, city councils, and political parties at both local and state levels. Given the Green Party’s growing presence in government, we anticipate that cities with strong Green Party representation will prioritize heat planning. Thus, we hypothesize that a strong Green Party influence at local and state levels positively affects heat plan progress.
The second factor is the constrained capacity of municipal administrations, which can hinder progress in implementing heat planning (Fernández-I-Marín et al., 2023; Kern, 2019). Complex climate policies introduce coordination-heavy tasks with overlapping responsibilities and limited resources (Christensen et al., 2019). The heat sector’s intricacies demand localized solutions, exacerbating resource strain, which likely varies by capacity (Herreras Martínez et al., 2022). Therefore, our second hypothesis is that higher administrative capacity, including financial resources and staffing, improves heat planning.
Data and methods
To explore our research question, we compile a dataset with information on the progress of heat planning, governing parties, administrative capacity, and ownership of energy infrastructures of all German cities with populations over 100,000. According to federal law, these cities must finalize their plans by June 30, 2026—two years before smaller municipalities, making them more likely to show progress.
The dataset informs the selection of four cities for in-depth case studies, chosen for their high variation in administrative capacity, political leadership, and progress in heat planning. These case studies enable us to evaluate the relative impact of political and administrative factors alongside other indicators. Using process tracing, we investigate the mechanisms driving differences in policy outcomes and effectiveness. Data is collected through semi-structured expert interviews (ten per city) scheduled from January to March, as well as desk research.
Contribution
This study contributes to the limited literature on urban heat transition governance by examining the interplay of political dynamics and administrative capacity in climate policy implementation. It provides valuable insights into the importance of these factors within the framework of multi-level climate governance.
References
Christensen, T., Lægreid, O. M., & Lægreid, P. (2019). Administrative coordination capacity; does the wickedness of policy areas matter? Policy and Society, 38(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1584147
Eckersley, P., Kern, K., Haupt, W., & Müller, H. (2023). Climate Governance and Federalism in Germany. In A. Fenna, S. Jodoin, & J. Setzer (Eds.), Climate Governance and Federalism (1st ed., pp. 150–176). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009249676.009
Fernández-I-Marín, X., Knill, C., Steinbacher, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2023). Bureaucratic Quality and the Gap between Implementation Burden and Administrative Capacities. American Political Science Review, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001090
Hughes, S. (2017). The Politics of Urban Climate Change Policy: Toward a Research Agenda. Urban Affairs Review, 53(2), 362–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416649756
Kern, K. (2019). Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: Embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe. Environmental Politics, 28(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1521979
Wansleben, L., & Neumann, N. (2023). Entrepreneurs beyond neoliberalism: Municipally owned corporations and climate change mitigation in German cities. Urban Studies, 61(5), 799–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231195789
Wurster, S., & Hagemann, C. (2018). Two ways to success expansion of renewable energies in comparison between Germany’s federal states. Energy Policy, 119, 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.059
| Keywords | heat planning; heat transition; urban governance; building sector decarbonization |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
