Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

Data-driven urban climate change mitigation is on the rise, as both a normative aim cities are encouraged to pursue and as a component of city governments’ own activities around climate change mitigation. As comparatively new entrants to climate governance, city governments have lacked the necessary data employed by other levels of government. The trend towards data-driven urban climate change mitigation has resulted in data that can act as basic building blocks for effective climate change response measures. However, while typically presented as a technical exercise and part of transparent, good governance, data-driven urban climate change mitigation comes with some important political implications and has the potential to empower and disempower particular agents in urban climate change governance.

We examine these dynamics through the lens of urban governance theory, which argues that the task of governing cities is accomplished through the mobilization of needed participants and resources. We argue that data can be considered a resource central to the task of governing GHG emissions, and therefore information mobilization is necessary to reduce GHG emissions, holders of information are powerful and empowered actors in urban climate change governance, and such mobilization is likely to be politically contested. Transparency of data and data management processes is then also central to urban climate change governance.

We illustrate these arguments using two examples. First is the experience of Los Angeles with producing a comprehensive and publicly available GHG emissions inventory. In 2007 the city set a GHG emissions reduction target, reported some high-level figures describing its GHG emissions, and committed to producing an annual GHG emissions inventory. However, the city did not publicly release updated GHG emissions information until 2016 and again it was partial. Drawing on interviews with decision makers and nongovernmental organizations, we describe the political tensions surrounding GHG emissions inventories in Los Angeles and the implications for transparency, accountability, and effective program design.

Second is the experience of New York City, where a building energy benchmarking program was established in 2009. The city has required building energy and water use data for buildings larger than 50,000 square feet be reported by building owners and released publicly. This program marks a shift in the relationship between city government and the private sector, and one with the potential to increase transparency to the benefit of government, residents, and building occupants. However, while building owners in New York City have been generally supportive of the city’s efforts to improve building energy efficiency, there has also been some negotiation between the city and building owners regarding how information is communicated and interpreted publicly. We describe how benchmarking programs are changing the relationship between city governments and private building owners, and the tensions that arise when negotiating energy use transparency.

Finally, we discuss the implications of cities’ experiences with data-driven climate change policy for democratic goals and equity. While data and monitoring are clearly components of transparent and accountable urban climate change governance, they carry political implications that should be reckoned with in policy and program design.