Citation
Climate planning in Colorado

Material Information

Title:
Climate planning in Colorado
Alternate title:
Community behavior change interventions to mitigate household carbon emissions
Creator:
Scheerer, Ann Margaret ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (215 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Climatic changes -- Public opinion -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Environmental policy -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Local government -- Citizen participation ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
This study explores over a decade of local climate mitigation activity in Colorado. Based on the main premises that climate change impacts are due to human activities and that the local scale is the recommended scale for effective climate mitigation action, this study explores the intersection of local climate mitigation planning practice and applied behavior change strategies employed by municipalities and community non-profit agencies in Colorado to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ( ,,,, )
Review:
Through primarily qualitative methods (interviews of planners, plan content analysis, case typology, case studies) as well as a simple descriptive quantitative analysis to triangulate findings, this study shows that Colorado municipalities involved in climate planning implement mitigation programs, such as home energy programs, outside the formal structure of municipal planning offices and rely upon collaboration with community, regional, utility and federal government partners. Results suggest that climate mitigation action occurs at different levels of involvement depending on four factors that influence municipal levels of involvement: political will, federal funding support, local government capacity, and diffusion of innovations. A case typology emerged, which is based on each municipality's settlement patterns of urban, suburban, and rural types, which categorizes the models of residential energy efficiency programs that are offered to residents in each community: an urban ‘Energy Advisor’ model, suburban ‘Resource Smart’ model, and rural mountain town 'Regional Non-Profit' model. Case studies exploring the implementation pathways of home energy programs are presented to understand behavior change program design and institutional arrangements of each type.
Review:
Communities are hubs of innovation diffusing climate action best practices throughout Colorado and the United States. The results confirm that municipalities are driving climate mitigation efforts, but engage in collaborations across sectors (government, non-governmental organizations, utilities, businesses) and scales to deliver programs, such as home energy efficiency programs. With voluntary home energy services available to homeowners across Colorado, the most difficult behavior to change is getting homeowners to make that first call to inquire about available services and incentives. Results show that once contact is made, approximately 30% of homeowners upgrade the energy efficiency of their home in some way. For deeper carbon reductions, policy instruments should consider including mandates for efficiency upgrades targeted at specific household behaviors.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of Colorado Denver
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
College of Architecture and Planning
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ann Margaret Scheerer.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
945932212 ( OCLC )
ocn945932212

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CLIMATE PLANNING IN COLORADO:
COMMUNITY BEHAVIOR CHANGE INTERVENTIONS
TO MITIGATE HOUSEHOLD CARBON EMISSIONS
by
ANN MARGARET SCHEERER
B.A., Kalamazoo College, 1984
B.S.M.E., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1985
M.P.A., University of Washington, Seattle, 2002
M.Sc., Sustainability Leadership, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2005
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Design and Planning
2015
l


2015
ANN SCHEERER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
11


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by
Ann Margaret S cheerer
has been approved for the
Design and Planning Program
by
Carolyn McAndrews, Chair
Louise Turner Chawla, Advisor
Thomas Clark
Tanya Heikkila
Anu Ramaswami
Date: November 18, 2015
m


Scheerer, Ann Margaret (PhD, Design and Planning)
Climate Planning in Colorado: Community Behavior Change Interventions to
Mitigate Carbon Emissions.
Thesis directed by Professor Emeritus Louise Turner Chawla
ABSTRACT
This study explores over a decade of local climate mitigation activity in
Colorado. Based on the main premises that climate change impacts are due to human
activities and that the local scale is the recommended scale for effective climate
mitigation action, this study explores the intersection of local climate mitigation
planning practice and applied behavior change strategies employed by municipalities
and community non-profit agencies in Colorado to reduce community-wide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Through primarily qualitative methods (interviews of planners, plan
content analysis, case typology, case studies) as well as a simple descriptive
quantitative analysis to triangulate findings, this study shows that Colorado
municipalities involved in climate planning implement mitigation programs, such as
home energy programs, outside the formal structure of municipal planning offices and
rely upon collaboration with community, regional, utility and federal government
partners. Results suggest that climate mitigation action occurs at different levels of
involvement depending on four factors that influence municipal levels of
involvement: political will, federal funding support, local government capacity, and
diffusion of innovations. A case typology emerged, which is based on each
municipality's settlement patterns of urban, suburban, and rural types, which
categorizes the models of residential energy efficiency programs that are offered to


residents in each community: an urban Energy Advisor model, suburban Resource
Smart model, and rural mountain town 'Regional Non-Profit' model. Case studies
exploring the implementation pathways of home energy programs are presented to
understand behavior change program design and institutional arrangements of each
type.
Communities are hubs of innovation diffusing climate action best practices
throughout Colorado and the United States. The results confirm that municipalities
are driving climate mitigation efforts, but engage in collaborations across sectors
(government, non-governmental organizations, utilities, businesses) and scales to
deliver programs, such as home energy efficiency programs. With voluntary home
energy services available to homeowners across Colorado, the most difficult behavior
to change is getting homeowners to make that first call to inquire about available
services and incentives. Results show that once contact is made, approximately 30%
of homeowners upgrade the energy efficiency of their home in some way. For deeper
carbon reductions, policy instruments should consider including mandates for
efficiency upgrades targeted at specific household behaviors.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its
publication.
Approved: Louise Chawla
v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION...............................................1
II LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................10
Historical Development of Climate and Energy Policy.......11
Local Climate and Energy Planning.........................21
Behavior Change Theory and Practice.......................51
Research Gap..............................................79
III METHODS...................................................81
Research Perspective......................................81
Research Design...........................................83
IV MUNICIPAL INVOLVEMENT IN CLIMATE PLANNING................102
Colorado Municipalities Progress & Level of Involvement.104
Factors Influencing Municipalities Level of Involvement.116
V IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE
PROGRAMS.................................................131
Case Typology............................................132
Case Studies: Urban, Suburban, Rural Mountain Town.......135
VI CONCLUSION...............................................169
Discussion of Results....................................170
Policy & Planning Implications...........................178
Strengths & Limitations..................................181
Suggestions for Future Research..........................183
REFERENCES......................................................186
vi


APPENDICES
198
A Interview Protocol................................................199
B Coding Frame......................................................204
C Case Study Protocol...............................................206
vii


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1. Three Applied Behavioral Science Perspectives on Behavior Change......58
2. Behavioral Barriers, CBSM Strategies and Related Psychological
Theories..............................................................60
3. Study Sample and Participants.........................................88
4. Research Questions, Methods, Data Types...............................91
5. Level of Involvement: Climate Mitigation Planning Milestones
Achieved.............................................................106
6. Municipalities with High Level of Involvement in Climate
Planning.............................................................110
7. Municipalities with Medium Level of Involvement in Climate Planning.... 112
8. Climate Policy and Planning Timeline.................................117
9. Factors Influencing High Level of Involvement in Climate Planning....126
10. Factors Influencing Medium Level of Involvement in Climate Planning.... 128
11. Factors Influencing Low Level of Involvement in Climate Planning.....129
12. Case Typology........................................................132
13. Socio-Economic Demographic Data......................................134
14. Urban Energy Advisor Home Energy Behavior Program Design
Elements.............................................................142
15. Suburban Resource Smart Home Energy Behavior Program Design
Elements.............................................................155
16. Rural Regional Non-Profit Home Energy Behavior Program Design
Elements.............................................................166
viii


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
2.1 ICLEI Five Milestone Climate Action Planning Process..................39
2.2 The B ehavioral Wedge.................................................73
3.1 Conceptual Framework..................................................84
4.1 ICLEI Five Milestone Climate Action Planning Process.................104
4.2 Map of Organizations in Colorado Sustainability Collaborative........113
5.1 Institutional Arrangement of Urban Energy Advisor Model............139
5.2 Social Norming Message...............................................146
5.3 Institutional Arrangement of Suburban Resource Smart Model.........151
5.4 Institutional Arrangement of Rural Regional Non-profit Model.......162
IX


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The warming of the planet is a result of human activities. Excessive amounts
of heat trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emitted into the atmosphere due to
human consumption of energy derived from carbon-based fossil fuels (IPCC, 1990,
1995, 2001, 2007, 2014). Emissions are especially pervasive in highly populated
industrialized regions. In response to climate change, hundreds of cities and regions
across the United States are taking on the challenge of local climate and energy action
planning. It is logical to address climate and energy at the local scale because cities
comprise over half of the worlds population and are where the majority of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emitted. Cities produce more than 60% of the worlds
carbon dioxide emissions and consume 80% of the worlds energy. Cities are
important places for action on GHG mitigation and are an important part of the
solution to addressing climate change. Also, municipalities are responsible for many
of the infrastructure systems that generate GHG emissions at the local level.
Municipalities may also act as a laboratory for trying out new approaches to climate
mitigation and adaptation and are leading the way in developing innovative best
practices to curb GHG emissions. Local context of climate impacts requires different
solutions that are locally appropriate (U.N. Habitat, 2011).
Household energy consumption accounts for 38 percent of GHG emissions in
the United States and 8 percent of world emissions (Dietz, 2009). In local climate and
energy action plans, local governments are working to mitigate GHG emissions by
implementing a variety of mitigation actions. Mitigation strategies to reduce GHG
emissions include both technological solutions and social solutions achieved through
1


engaging communities in climate mitigation actions (US Conference of Mayors,
2014). Cities represent high concentrations of private-sector actors with a growing
commitment to act on climate change and provide arenas within which civil society is
mobilizing to address climate change.
This research explores the intersection of climate change, cities and human
behavior. It integrates an evaluation of local climate and energy planning practice in
Colorado with academic conversations in the fields of local climate and energy action
planning (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2010; Millard-Ball, 2012), and
behavioral science theory and practice, such as community-based social marketing
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2011) and the behavioral wedge (Dietz, Gardner, Gilligan, Stern,
& Vandenbergh, 2009; Ehrhardt-Martinez & Meier, 2013). This dissertation uses the
broad term municipalities to refer to a number of forms of local governments, such
as an incorporated town, city or county that seeks to govern at the local level and
which are represented in this study. Climate and energy action planning (CEAP) is
also referred to as climate planning throughout this paper.
This study builds upon previous work of UC Denver and the municipalities
being studied. UC Denver Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Systems (UCD CSIS)
conducted GHG emissions inventory work with over 20 municipalities from 2005 to
2011. My association with UCD CSIS stems from my time as a National Science
Foundation IGERT Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Fellow (2009-2012), which was
coordinated by UCD CSIS. As an IGERT research fellow and PhD student, I was
engaged in conducting GHG emissions inventories of two of the cities in the sample
(Golden, Westminster). The sample consists of all of the municipalities that partnered
2


with UCD CSIS. It is a pre-specified sample based on the municipalitys prior work
with UCD CSIS.
Local climate and energy action plans have helped cities and local
stakeholders focus on the goal of GHG emissions reduction, but qualitative studies by
planners suggest that local climate and energy action plans have generally not been
successful in achieving actual GHG reductions (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al., 2010;
Bassett & Shandas, 2010). Climate and energy action plans are designed to reduce
GHG emissions primarily through voluntary programs targeted at households and
businesses.
However, political consensus is far from being achieved at the U.S. federal
and state government scales. International agencies, such as the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), have instituted initiatives to
encourage national governments to take action on climate change, but for many
nations, such as the United States, there is a lack of political will to institute climate
change policy, which stems from concerns that it will decrease economic growth and
threaten the American lifestyle. In addition, the uncertainties and complexities of
climate change make decision-making extremely difficult, especially in the short-term
context of politics and capitalism.
Despite the lack of United States federal government leadership on climate
change over the last two decades, several U.S. state and city governments have
assumed leadership roles by adopting policies and plans and implementing programs
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation initiatives) as well as preparing local
communities for impending climate change impacts (adaptation initiatives). The
3


saying think globally, act locally expresses how many state and local governments
view the importance of taking action within their local context of potential climate
change impacts, such as floods, droughts, fires, air quality.
Some researchers (Betsill et al., 2007) suggest that the most effective policy
responses to climate change emerge from multi-level, multi-sector collaborative
governance. Collaborative governance implies that local, state, regional, federal and
international policy responses are intertwined and connected. The process of
collaboration for mitigating climate impacts is in itself a change in human behavior at
the policy level.
If planners were able to master behavior change program design as studies
suggest (Dietz et al., 2009), then significant GHG reductions should be realized. This
study explores behavior change strategies and programs that local climate planners
actually implement that are targeted at household energy consumption, how they are
designed in terms of behavioral strategies, how effective they are, and how they are
evaluated. This study addresses the gap between the rhetoric of what could be
achieved in local climate and energy action planning (e.g. top-down analysis per
Dietz et al, 2009) and the reality of what is actually being achieved (e.g. bottom-up
analysis per Ramaswami et al., 2012), related to household energy (natural gas and
electricity) consumption behaviors.
Climate planners are seeking proven ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by influencing their communities to foster more sustainable and less energy
consumptive behaviors. With GHG reductions a high priority for many cities with
climate plans, the household energy sector has the potential for significant reductions.
4


However, there is very little research addressing behavior change theory and practice
in the emerging CEAP literature.
Recent academic conversations on household energy consumption behavior
and climate mitigation actions fall into two areas: community-based social marketing
(an applied process) and the behavioral wedge (a research framework).
A popular approach used by local planners to foster community-wide behavior
change is community based social marketing (CBSM). Whereas the behavioral wedge
highlights the potential of simple household behavior changes to mitigate carbon,
based on behavioral studies, CBSM focuses on approaches to community-wide
influence by integrating the principles of social marketing with theories from
behavioral science and environmental psychology in a practical framework. CBSM
framework guides program planners to put into practice behavior change strategies
recommended in behavioral science studies (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). CBSM bridges
the theory to practice in terms of encouraging pro-environmental behavior changes.
Behavioral wedge researchers (Dietz et al., 2009) claim that activities such
as home weatherization, routine vehicle maintenance and opting for the clothesline
instead of the dryer could cut total U.S. carbon emissions by 5 percent over just five
years and 7.4 percent in 10 years. Thats the equivalent of Frances total carbon
output, or of total emissions by the U.S. petroleum refining, steel and aluminum
industries (p. 18452). The behavioral wedge researchers argue that barriers to
behavior change and principles for designing programs and policies to overcome
barriers to change are well known from past research, but they are rarely implemented
as an integrated package. They argue that programs and policies could have greater
5


impact if they adopt the best principles of program design and target the most
impactful carbon emitting behaviors. Ehrhardt-Martinez et al. (2013) have developed
a tool to help cities identify which community behaviors included in the behavioral
wedge argument should be targeted based on the amount of emissions in comparison
to other behaviors.
This study explores the progress of local government climate and energy
action planning in Colorado in terms of milestones achieved. Of the cities fully
engaged in climate and energy action planning, household energy programs are
identified and analyzed through the lens of community-based social marketing.
The research questions guiding this study are:
(1) How far have Colorado municipalities progressed in local climate and energy
action planning?
(2) What factors influence Colorado municipalities level of involvement in
climate and energy action planning?
(3) How are home energy programs designed to reduce community-wide GHG
emissions?
(4) How do cities evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral interventions targeted
at household energy use?
This exploratory study of local climate and energy action planning in
Colorado is designed to answer these research questions through semi-structured
interviews of sustainability coordinators from a diverse group of 22 Colorado
municipalities, as well as a content review of local climate and energy action plans
and municipal home energy program websites. Comparative case studies of home
6


energy behavior change program pathways of urban, suburban and rural
municipalities were conducted to better understand the design and implementation of
home energy programs.
If the potential to reduce GHG emissions is achievable through household
level behavior change (Dietz et al., 2009; Ramaswami et al., 2012; McKenzie-Mohr,
2011) and climate and energy action plans are in place to do just that, reduce GHGs
(Wheeler, 2008; Boswell, 2010), it is important to understand how municipalities are
designing, implementing and evaluating behavior change programs designed to
reduce GHG emissions in line with local climate and energy action plans. This
research provides an opportunity to do this by integrating behavioral science, policy
and planning literature in the domain of local climate and energy action planning.
By exploring a specific local climate mitigation strategy operating in most
communities household energy efficiency programs -1 am able to draw from past
research and community experience to support this study. I have chosen to focus on
residential energy programs because:
The household energy sector is a significant source of a citys GHG
emissions profile and municipalities include mitigation actions targeting
such high impact emissions in their local climate action planning even
though different cities have different relationships with the energy utilities
serving their residents (Millard-Ball, 2012).
Energy consumption concerns at city hall typically fall under the
responsibility of the building department, but climate and energy action
planning is requiring a broader scope of activities to reduce carbon
7


emissions and is being handled in offices with a broader range of
responsibility: mayors office, city managers office, facilities department,
public works department, planning department.
Electricity is a service that is offered by both municipally-owned utilities
as well as investor-owned utilities which creates an interesting dynamic,
which requires strong collaborations to overcome outdated institutional
ways, business as usual and the industrial growth mindset.
A recent article in Wired magazine (2014) entitled The Hot New Frontier
of Energy Research is Human Behavior states that utility energy
engineers and planners are drawing on lessons from the social sciences,
trying to understand the behaviors that shape energy use and how people
can be persuaded to use less energy in the first place (para. 1). This
article articulates the importance of designing technologies and
infrastructure with human behavior principles in mind.
The non-profit organization, ICLEI Local Governments for
Sustainability, has set the tone for local government climate planning in the U.S. and
around the world. Through their work with local government greenhouse gas
emissions reporting, ICLEI has been instrumental in the local climate planning trend.
ICLEI provides a solid justification:
Energy efficiency in the building sector is touted as a low-hanging fruit
for cities to take hold of, in order to lower overall carbon emissions.
Indeed, energy efficiency opportunities are well understood and
implemented in a variety of settings. And yet, energy efficiency as a
strategy is still underutilized (ICLEI website, 2015).
8


This dissertation is organized as follows. The literature review of Chapter II
addresses the broader historical development of climate policy and planning,
literature specific to local climate and energy action planning at the municipal level,
and concludes with behavior change theory and practical applications (community-
based social marketing, behavioral wedge profile tool). Chapter III discusses the
methods used to answer the research questions. Chapters IV and V discuss the results.
Chapter VI concludes with main points gleaned from this research that may affect
policy, strengths and limitations of this study as well as areas for further research.
9


CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research confirms over and over again that climate change is due to
anthropogenic factors and that local context is where social change to reduce GHG
emissions happens most effectively. Cities are where the majority of GHG emissions
are generated and where impactful actions can be taken to reduce GHG emissions.
Since the local scale is where effective behavior change action takes place, I explore
local climate and energy planning efforts and how these plans and programs address
individual and community wide behavior change. I begin this literature review by
setting context with an overview of the development of climate policy and
governance. I start with a brief overview of international initiatives that influence
local planning. I then explore the development of United States (U.S.) federal climate
and energy policy, and review briefly state involvement in climate and energy policy.
After discussing the historical development of climate and energy policy at
multiple scales, I review extensively policy and planning literature related to the
emerging body of interdisciplinary knowledge related to the theory and practice of
local climate and energy action planning. Several terms are used interchangeably for
this term. For simplicitys sake, I will refer to local climate and energy action
planning as climate planning throughout this dissertation. My review of the local
climate and energy planning literature starts with a review of what compels cities to
voluntarily engage in local climate planning and moves into climate plan evaluation
studies.
10


After reviewing the CEAP literature for how or if cities deliver behavior
change programs, I review literature on the theories underlying the practice of
household energy behavior change. With a focus on the effectiveness of applying
behavior change theory to practice, I explore academic literature and professional
reports from the fields of local CEAP and behavior change. At the end of this chapter,
I discuss the research gaps identified in the review of this literature as well as
introduce the research questions guiding this study.
Historical Development of Climate and Energy Policy and Planning
Scientists from around the world agree that warming of the climate is
unequivocal and is due primarily to human activities that emit an excessive amount of
heat trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (IPCC, 2014). However, political
consensus is far from being achieved. International agencies, such as the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), have instituted
initiatives to encourage national governments to take action on climate change, but
for many nations, there is a lack of political will to institute climate change policies.
Political concerns over negative impacts of climate policy to the economy have stifled
efforts to develop climate policy in many developed countries, such as the United
States. The uncertainties and complexities of climate change make decision-making
extremely difficult, internationally and especially in the short-term context of U.S.
politics.
International climate policy talks began in the late 1980s through the United
Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (UNWCED). Up until
recently, the U.S. has not participated in international climate agreements through the
11


U.N. The lack of U.S. federal government leadership on climate change policy since
it emerged in the late 1980s did not keep U.S. state governments or local governments
from taking action. Several U.S. state and city governments have assumed leadership
roles by adopting policies and plans to address climate change mitigation and
adaptation. They have implemented policies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (mitigation initiatives) as well as to prepare local communities for
impending climate change impacts (adaptation initiatives). The saying think
globally, act locally expresses how many state and local governments view the
importance of taking action within their local context.
The focus of this research is climate change mitigation policy and planning.
Focusing on climate change mitigation responses, I first review literature related to
international climate policy over the past twenty years, then provide an overview of
U.S. climate policy and governance. Then I provide an overview of U.S. state and
local climate change policy and planning research, providing background on sub-
national climate change responses in the absence of federal climate policy. I analyze
and critique recent evaluation research focused on U.S. local climate action plans,
which is at the core of this research and where this project will contribute knowledge.
I conclude with an identification of gaps in the reviewed literature.
International Climate Policy
One of the first international initiatives that brought attention to the
importance of local action in addressing sustainable development issues, such as
climate change, was the creation of the Brundtland Commission in 1983, named in
recognition of former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, Chair of
12


the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. In 1987,
the Brundtland Commission published Our Common Future, also known as the
Brundtland Report (UNWCED, 1987). The Brundtland Report includes a chapter on
the important role of cities in the pursuit of sustainable development goals and
embraces the concept of thinking globally and acting locally. Even though climate
change was one of many issues addressed in the Brundtland Report and it received
brief attention, the report is often given credit for planting the seeds for local climate
action planning (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006; Boswell et al., 2012).
Even though international climate change policy emerged in the 1980s from
United Nations sustainable development initiatives, the previous decades 1973 U.S.
oil crisis resulted in the establishment of the first generation of U.S. energy policy.
Under President Jimmy Carter, the Department of Energy was established in 1977
and The National Energy Act was instituted in 1978. These initiatives resulted in
more renewable forms of energy and more diversified supplies of oil. However, U.S.
energy policy lost political momentum in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan
who developed agreements with oil rich countries to import cheap oil to the U.S. and
diverted attention away from energy conservation and renewable energy technologies
(Randolph & Masters, 2008).
In 1988, the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN
Environment Program (UNEP) formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), a scientific intergovernmental body who provides comprehensive
scientific assessments of current scientific, technical, and socio-economic information
worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential
13


environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting
to these consequences or mitigating the effects (IPCC website, 2012). The IPCC is
considered the authority on climate change science (Wheeler, Randolph, & London,
2009).
Since 1988, the IPCC has gained international peer-reviewed scientific
consensus on climate change, bringing attention to the effects of climate change, and
to options for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC recently released their fifth and
latest assessment report (IPCC, 2014). In it they conclude that it is evident that human
influence on the climate system is clear due to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere, increased radiative forcing, and recorded warming
trends (IPCC, 2014). The first assessment report, AR 1 (IPCC, 1990), addressed
climate change as a distinct issue of sustainable development. This first IPCC report
was published in sync with the planning of the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit held in Rio
de Janeiro where policy and planning responses to this crisis were discussed by
international policy makers.
The first IPCC assessment report and the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro influenced the development of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992). The UNFCCC seeks to reach a comprehensive
international climate change agreement applicable to all countries with the aim of
keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. The UNFCCC is a universal
convention of principle, acknowledging the existence of anthropogenic climate
change and giving industrialized countries the major responsibility for combatting it
(COP 21 website, 2015). The UNFCCC has been ratified by 196 nation states, which
14


constitute the Conference of Parties (COP) and is the decision making body regarding
international strategies and goals for combatting climate change. In December 2015,
the 21st meeting of UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP21) will be held in Paris
(COP21,2015).
International decision makers at the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit held in Rio de
Janeiro agreed that acting locally was critical. In Rio, 178 nations adopted Local
Agenda 21 (LA 21). The United States was not one of these nations. LA 21 is
essentially a planning document to help guide localities in sustainable development
actions (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [UNCED],
1992). This was a key turning point in international sustainable development policy
discussions. LA 21 committed the signatory nations to develop local sustainable
development plans.
LA 21 inspired the formation of a highly influential non-profit consultancy
and transnational network, ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives Local Governments for Sustainability). ICLEI supports local
governments in developing sustainability and resilience policies and programs to
reduce GHG emissions and prepare communities for potential climate change
impacts. In 1998, ICLEI introduced the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Program
based on the Local Agenda 21 planning model (ICLEI, 2008). ICLEIs CCP was
highly influential in getting local governments to conduct GHG emissions inventories
and develop climate and energy action plans. ICLEI will be discussed in greater detail
later in this literature review in the section on local climate and energy action
planning.
15


The establishment of the UNFCCC led to the creation of the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is considered to be one of the most far-reaching global
agreements to regulate environmental protection by controlling nations GHG
emissions. In 1997, it urged nations to reduce their GHG emissions by 7% of their
1990 baseline GHG levels by 2012. U.S. federal government did not commit to the
Kyoto Protocol goals at that time. Under President George W. Bushs administration
(when the Kyoto Protocol was established), economic concerns as well as
reservations regarding developing nations (such as China) not taking part, were
reasons why the U.S. refused to agree to Kyoto Protocol GHG emissions reduction
goals. In response to U.S. federal inactivity, state and local governments have
assumed leadership and established climate change policies and plans in the United
States.
United States Federal Climate and Energy Policy
Since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, several political moves
have been made to address climate change and energy policy at the federal level
(Rabe, 2010; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] website, 2015). These
moves include: revisions to the Clean Air Act to include GHGs as air pollutants; the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funds; proposed carbon
standards for new power plants; and most recently, a Clean Power Plan administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2013, President Obama initiated a
climate action plan for the U.S. In November 2014, Obama announced GHG
reduction goals for the U.S. Obama stated that the U.S. would emit 26%-28% less
16


GHG emissions in 2025 than it did in 2005. This is double the pace of reduction
previously set.
According to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and ICLEI in a recent report
(2015), the U.S. has doubled its wind and solar electricity generation, adopted the
toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in US history, and increased
the energy efficiency of homes, industries and businesses (p.5). The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) has enacted appliance efficiency standards that will
save Americans nearly 480 billion on their utility bills through 2030. The EPAs
Energy Star Program, which endorses energy efficient appliances, will help
consumers save more than $34 billion per year. The White House website states that
President Obamas climate and energy policies will continue to promote the use
and development of smart, simple, low-cost technologies to help households save
on their energy bills and help America transition to cleaner, and more distributed
energy resources (U.S. White House website 1, 2015).
A key federal policy instrumental to state and local climate and energy actions
is the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA instituted
energy efficiency and renewable energy projects throughout the United States. The
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invested over $90 billion in programs and tax
incentives to create a foundation for a clean energy economy (US DOE, 2012). From
2009 through 2013, DOE invested its Recovery Act funds into several key areas to
ensure Americas long term competitiveness: increasing energy efficiency;
restructuring the transportation system; doubling renewable energy generation;
17


investing in smart grid infrastructure; expanding innovative research; and cleaning up
our nations nuclear waste (US DOE, 2012).
The focus of this research is home energy efficiency programs of which The
Recovery Act was a major influence. Financial incentives for home weatherization
were a primary focus of The Recovery Acts Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grants (EECBG) program, which helped to insulate more than 650,000 low
income homes across the U.S. The Recovery Act spurred weatherization upgrades
throughout Colorado as well.
In June 2014, President Obama introduced his climate action plan: Climate
Change and President Obamas Action Plan (U. S. White House website 2, 2015),
which includes The Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan "sets achievable
standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by
2030 (The White House website 1, 2015). The main objectives of The Clean Power
Plan are to reduce carbon pollution from power plants; expand the clean energy
economy; build clean energy infrastructure; cut energy waste in homes, businesses
and factories; reduce other GHG emissions; and take federal leadership in reducing
carbon emissions (EPA, 2015). By setting these goals and enabling states to create
tailored plans to meet them, the EPA claims that the average American family will
save nearly $85 a year on their energy bills in 2030 and overall save enough energy
to power 30 million homes in 2030 and save $155 billion from 2020-2030 (The
White House website 1, 2015). The DOE estimates that families can save an average
of $437 a year on their energy bills as a result of weatherizing their home (DOE,
2012).
18


U.S. State Climate and Energy Policy
State level policy researchers claim that even though many states are actively
involved in climate policy development, climate mitigation efforts are fragmented
across the U.S. states and GHG emissions continue to increase. Some scholars argue
that federal policy that is consistently applied to all states is what is needed for better
policy integration across the country (Rabe, 2010; Crane & Landis, 2011). ICLEI
calculates the total GHG emissions that states and cities commit to reducing, and
claims that significant GHGs will be reduced if states and cities are achieving the
GHG reduction targets they set (WWF & ICLEI, 2015).
In the past two decades, climate change has emerged as one of the main
challenges facing U.S. state and local governments. It is one of the core obstacles to
sustainable development (IPCC, 2014). Scholars from a variety of disciplines (e.g.
political science, behavioral science, energy planning, infrastructure engineering) are
primary contributors examining the challenges and opportunities of climate and
energy policy and planning. Prominent political scientist, Barry Rabe, has approached
his research of state-level climate policy from the viewpoint of national and state
political dynamics in his books, Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Stealth Politics of
American Climate Change Policy (2004) and Greenhouse Governance: Addressing
Climate Change in America (2010), both published by The Brookings Institution.
At the level of U.S. state government, the majority of states have actively adopted
climate and energy policies and programs. States leading the charge, the early
adopters of state climate and energy plans and policies, are California and
Massachusetts (Alliance to Save Energy [ASE], 2015). In California, state mandates
19


require that every city develop a climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions and
prepare for climate impacts (Millard Ball, 2012). Colorado adopted a climate action
plan under Governor Bill Ritter in 2007.
State level climate and energy policies are diverse and numerous. Types of state
level climate and energy policies include renewable portfolio standards (RPS), carbon
offset programs, and cap and trade systems. Mandates as well as voluntary climate
protection policies have been initiated in the majority of U.S. states (EPA, 2012). To
increase the level of renewable energy sources in operation in states, mandated
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) provide a mechanism to increase renewable
energy generation and make renewable energy economically competitive with
conventional forms of electric power. RPSs were first developed in Iowa, and as of
2011, 33 states had operational RPSs (Rabe, 2004, 2010; EPA, 2011). States have
also developed voluntary market-based policy initiatives, such as cap and trade
systems and carbon offset programs.
Rabe (2004) examined state governments and found that states with climate plans
had a strong presence of policy entrepreneurs who heavily influence state
involvement in climate policy. However, even with strong policy entrepreneurs,
Drummond (2010) found state climate actions have resulted in modest but
measurable reductions in GHG emissions, where approximately half the GHG
reductions come from the commercial sector and half from the transportation sector,
with negligible reductions coming from the residential sector.
Brody et al (2008, 2010) examined the degree to which federal agency and state
decision-makers consider climate change in their overall policy-making activities.
20


They found that state agencies exhibit a variation in type of solution depending on the
type of agency and their locale. For example, energy-related agencies focused on
mitigation responses whereas natural hazard-related agencies focused on adaptation
responses. Brody suggests that U.S. state agencies as a whole demonstrate weak
engagement in climate policy interventions when compared to other issues on their
agendas.
According to the think tank, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
(ACEEE, 2014), many innovative policies and programs that promote energy
efficiency originated in states. ACEEE ranks states on their policy and program
efforts, and recommends ways that states can improve their energy efficiency
performance in various policy areas. ACEEE ranked the State of Colorado thirteenth
of the 50 states with their Energy Efficiency Scorecard tool. There is room for
improvement in Colorado climate and energy policy (ACEEE, 2014).
In a recent report released by the World Wildlife Fund and ICLEI (2015):
From observing recent experiences in states with climate mitigation
frameworks, such as California and New York, it is apparent that there are
substantially more communities that will act when supported and aligned
within their state and federal frameworks. Bold commitments from federal
and state governments can unleash a wave of local innovation as more
cities include climate as a key performance metric, linked to the
competitiveness of their businesses, health of their citizens, and efficiency
of government services (p. 15).
Local Climate and Energy Action Planning
Since local context is a key consideration in applying appropriate climate
change strategies, local municipalities have a great opportunity and enormous
potential to reduce GHG emissions and help local residents prepare for climate
change impacts through innovative local climate and energy action plans (CEAP). To
21


reiterate, this study examines climate mitigation strategies aimed at reducing
household GHG emissions. Adaptation strategies are extremely important in CEAPs,
especially those adaptation strategies that complement mitigation strategies rather
than undermine, but are not the focus of this study. Mitigation efforts are present in
most local climate and energy plans, but adaptation efforts are addressed in a limited
way (Bryan, 2015; Jabareen, 2015).
Planning scholars, such as Sammy Zahran (2008), Samuel Brody (2008,
2010), and Himanshu Grover (2008, 2010), quantitatively analyze regional and local
climate planning from a U.S. spatial perspective using geographic information
systems and U.S. census data to identify geographic and demographic patterns in
locales that have adopted climate protection policies and plans. Other leading climate
action planning scholars, such as Stephen Wheeler (2008, 2009) and Michael Boswell
(2010, 2012), qualitatively analyze the content and quality of state and local climate
plans. Political science researchers, such as Michele Betsill (2001, 2006, 2007) and
Harriet Bulkeley (2005, 2006, 2007, 2013, 2015) study governance dynamics of local
climate planning efforts. Infrastructure engineering and energy planning scholars,
such as Gilbert Masters (2008), Anu Ramaswami (2008, 2012), and John Randolph
(2008) approach climate policy research from a technological perspective. These
multiple perspectives are briefly reviewed in the following review of local climate
change policy and planning research.
Cities have emerged as climate leaders in the U.S. by voluntarily developing
and adopting local climate plans and policies (Betsill, 2001; Wheeler, 2008; Resilient
Communities for America, 2015). Cities are providing leadership regardless of
22


incentives and support from higher levels of government (ICLEI, 2015). The
emergence of U.S. local government climate policy and planning in the 1990s and
2000s is reflected in several studies of local climate protection published in premier
policy and planning academic journals (e.g. Journal of the American Planning
Association, Local Environment, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, Landscape and Urban Planning, Journal of Urban Affairs, Climate
Policy).
Four main research designs have been used to study local climate policy and
planning: (1) small -n in-depth case studies that describe the governance dynamics of
best practice cities (e.g. Betsill, 2001; Lindseth, 2004; ); (2) quantitative large-n
studies that examine the factors that influence cities to make climate protection
commitments (e.g. Brody et al., 2008; Zahran et al., 2008; Krause, 2010; Castan
Broto & Bulkeley, 2013; Jabareen, 2015); (3) write-ups by climate protection
networks on member cities activities (ICLEI, Sierra Club Cool Cities, C40 Cities);
and (4) small-n studies that qualitatively assess small samples of cities climate
planning processes and the resultant quality of their plans (e.g. Kousky & Schneider,
2003; Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell, 2010; Pitt,
2010; Tang et al., 2010; Finn & McCormick, 2011; Krause, 2011; Fenton et al.,
2015).
Four broad themes addressed in early local climate and energy action planning
studies (2000-2008) are: (1) policy and planning theories underlying local climate and
energy action planning; (2) emergent climate governance dynamics; (3) factors
influencing local governments to pursue climate and energy action planning; and (4)
23


climate plan evaluation studies of process, content, and quality of local climate and
energy action planning. The majority of these climate plan evaluation studies use
qualitative content analysis and interview research methods to explore small samples
of best practice city climate and energy action plans (Wheeler, 2008; Pitt &
Randolph, 2009; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell et al., 2010). There are also
several in-depth case studies of specific climate and energy action planning cases
(Willson & Brown, 2008; Ramaswami et al., 2012; Barbour & Deakin, 2012). Recent
(2011-2015) quantitative survey research builds on qualitative research and develops
empirical generalizations about local climate and energy action plan quality across
broad populations (Krause, 2010, 2011; Tang et al., 2010; Millard-Ball, 2012).
Whereas early research focused on the emergence of local climate and energy
action planning as a viable planning process, more recent climate and energy action
planning research focuses on evaluating effectiveness, drawing from over ten years of
city climate and energy action planning experience. Research suggests that U.S. local
climate and energy action plans are strong in conducting GHG emissions inventories
and setting GHG reduction targets through extensive stakeholder processes,
establishing detailed emissions inventories with quantified emissions benefits, and
greening local government but are weak in quantification of outcomes (Wheeler,
2008; Bulkeley & Castan Broto, 2013).
Also, climate and energy action planning has proven to positively influence
both the degree to which municipalities understand the concept of climate change as
well as the degree of public awareness of climate change. Municipalities with climate
24


and energy action plans generally receive strong public support for their efforts
(Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2010).
However, a number of researchers claim that local climate and energy action
plans are weak in achieving their main purpose: reducing GHG emissions (Wheeler,
2008; Boswell et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2010; Krause, 2011). This is attributed to a
variety of factors: GHG reduction goals vary widely across sectors and agencies,
resulting in fragmented policies, messages, and programs; political and institutional
commitment needed to mitigate emissions is lacking; mitigation actions are primarily
voluntary and participation is low; and individuals are reluctant to change behaviors.
All of these weaknesses have a common denominator: behavior change.
Policy and Planning Theory Underlying Local Climate Planning
Political scientists and public affairs scholars (e.g. Lindseth, 2004; Betsill &
Bulkeley, 2001, 2005, 2006; Kousky & Schneider, 2003; Krause, 2010, 2011; Bassett
& Shandas, 2010; Bulkeley & Castan Broto, 2013) examine climate change policy
through a variety of theoretical lenses, such as rational planning theory,
communicative planning theory, and diffusion of policy innovation theory.
Early climate change policy research grapples with classic rational choice
political economic theory due to the phenomenon of hundreds of cities adopting
climate protection policies and plans and receiving minimal direct benefit from their
GHG reduction efforts, yet bearing the full burden of the cost. Brody et al. (2008)
explain: From a pure rational choice perspective, it is unreasonable for a local
government to assume the costs of climate protection because (1) reducing emissions
will not fully insulate a locality from the global risks of climate change, (2) the costs
of mitigation are higher than the expected benefits when participation is both
25


voluntary and relatively low, (3) the collective benefits of climate protection if
achieved are non-excludable and non-rival because climate outcomes are shared, and
(4) there is no federal assistance to offset production efforts (p. 34).
Rational planning is often described as a linear process, in which a clearly
defined series of steps are taken from problem formation through analysis, selection
and implementation to evaluation and feedback (Fenton et al., 21015). From a
rational planning perspective, it is expected that with this type of global good, the
climate, most decision-makers would free-ride and rely on other agencies to solve
the problem and avoid the costs themselves. The large number of cities involved in
local climate action planning demonstrates that at the local level, free riding has been
much less of an obstacle than theorized (Kousky & Schneider, 2003; Brody et al.,
2008; Krause, 2010, 2011). Because voluntary municipal involvement in climate
protection seemingly contradicts rational choice theory, much of the academic
research on the topic focuses on why a local government would voluntarily
participate in climate change mitigation efforts and examines emergent dynamics of
climate change governance.
Through a survey of 20 global cities, Jabareen (2015) found that:
the vast majority of contemporary cities continue to employ traditional
planning approaches (when planning for climate change and) are not doing all
they can to fortify themselves against uncertainties, climate change, and
natural environmental hazards.... (and) have ignored anticipated threats,
vulnerabilities and uncertainties stemming from climate change. The
fundamental premise is that urban plans possess an unrivaled potential to
contend with the impacts of climate change (p. 40).
In recent years many cities have been grappling with climate change using
master, strategic, and action plans aimed at mitigating GHG emissions and adapting
26


to the anticipated, and uncertain, impacts of climate change. Local climate plans have
yet to be assessed for their impact at national levels. Assessments have gone no
further than reports on the climate change related activities of cities, which tend to
pertain to general activities and experiments conducted at the local level. It is found,
however, that cities that take climate change seriously have applied a broad range of
mitigation measures aimed at GHG emissions reduction. Thus, mitigation actions,
experiments and innovations appear to be feasible for many cities and can be
attributed to local climate plans (Jabareen, 2015).
In contrast to the rational planning perspective, which the ICLEI five
milestone planning model adheres, the communicative planning model suggests that
all stakeholders affected or influenced by a planning strategy should participate in
dialogue to clarify pre-conditions, interests and reach consensus on proposed actions
(Innes & Booher, 2004). Climate planning is being examined by some scholars to
determine if the rational planning model is appropriate for climate change as it does
not make increasing the role of citizens and private stakeholders a priority. Ideally,
climate change calls for a change from government to governance. This is an apt
metaphor for the transition from rational to communicative models of planning,
which imply increasing plurality, in terms of both the actors involved and the levels
of awareness about the complexity and interdependency of climate change issues
(Innes & Booher, 2004; Fenton et al., 2015). Climate mitigation actions clearly
involve multiple stakeholders not solely government, many of whom are in the
private and non-profit sectors, which provides evidence of a shift to more
communicative forms of planning.
27


Diffusion of innovation theory is addressed in the policy research on local
adoption of climate change plans (Pitt 2009, 2010; Krause, 2010; Bassett & Shandas,
2010; Brody et al, 2010; Bulkeley, Castan Broto & Edwards, 2015). Everett Rogers
(1962) initiated research on the diffusion of innovation in his seminal book Diffusion
of Innovations. Rogers defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is
communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social
system (p. 11). He defines innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is
perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption (p. 12). Everett classified
adopters of innovations as: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, or
laggards. He refers to individual adoption of innovations, not government adoption of
innovation as this thesis explores.
Everett argues that at the heart of the diffusion process is the modeling and
imitation by potential adopters of their near peers experiences with the new idea. In
deciding whether or not to adopt an innovation, individuals depend mainly on the
communicate experience of others much like themselves who have already adopted a
new idea. These subjective evaluations of an innovation flow mainly through
interpersonal networks. So we must understand the nature of networks in order to
understand the diffusion process (p.331).
Berry and Berry (1999) address Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy
Research in regards to government adoption of innovative new policies, plans or
programs. The dominant practice in the policy innovation literature is to define an
innovation as a program that is new to the government adopting it. Thus a
government jurisdiction can innovate by adopting a program that numerous other
28


jurisdictions established many years ago (p. 171). Although some research has been
conducted on local government adoption of new policies, the vast majority of the
innovation policy research focuses on state governments. States emulate each other
for three reasons: learning, competition, public pressure. This theory could be
extended to local government:
1. States learn from each other... cities learn from each other
2. States compete with each other... cities compete with each other to
achieve a competitive advantage or to avoid being disadvantaged.
3. City officials can feel public pressure from their own citizens to adopt
policies initiated in other states
There are three models from the diffusion of innovation theory that may apply
to the diffusion of local climate planning phenomenon: interaction model, which is
based on the idea that social networks diffuse innovations; and regional diffusion
model, where cities emulate neighboring cities; and the leader-laggard model where
it is assumed that states (cities) emulate other states in a learning process rather than
because of interstate competition or public pressure. Coordination and collaboration
with nearby jurisdictions as well as involvement in transnational networks (e.g.
ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection, U.S. Mayors Climate Agreement) have
influenced the diffusion of adoption of local climate plans and policies. Cities are
influenced by neighboring cities to adopt climate plans as well as by ICLEI who
shares stories of member cities, which often inspires climate action.
Castan Broto & Bulkeley (2013) investigate a variety of climate change
responses that emerge outside of formal contexts and are led by stakeholders other
29


than municipal governments. They argue that urban climate change governance is a
process of experimentation where climate change experiments are presented as
interventions to try out new ideas and methods in the context of future uncertainties.
This study suggests that climate experimentation at the local level tends to focus on
both social and technical forms, but technical experimentation is more common in
urban infrastructure systems. While municipal governments have a critical role in
climate change experimentation, they often act alongside other actors in a variety of
forms of partnership and are a key tool to open up new political spaces for governing
climate change in the city. So while local governments lead the majority of climate
change experiments, many other actors are involved either leading experiments or in
partnerships (Castan Broto & Bulkeley, 2013).
Early climate governance research primarily examines the case of ICLEIs
Cities for Climate Protection program and its influence on cities to adopt climate
action plans as this is the primary arena in which cities initially committed to climate
policy and planning. (Lindseth, 2004; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2001, 2005, 2006; Kousky
& Schneider, 2003). An important finding to come out of this research is the
dispersed nature of bottom up climate change governance, which reflects the
complexity of governing such an uncertain and dispersed phenomenon. A multi-
level governance dynamic, where city, utility, and non-governmental agencies are
critical actors in the governance of climate change, is dominated by networks
between public and private actors across levels and sectors of social organizations.
Within these complex networks, climate change is constructed and contested at a
variety of scales and scales of governance and through multiple political spaces
30


(Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007, p. 58). It is increasingly recognized that the top down
approach traditionally used to address global public goods problems, like climate, is
floundering in regard to climate protection, and efforts would benefit by shifting to
multi-level, multi-pronged strategies (Krause, 2011, p. 193).
Three highly influential transnational networks, are connecting city staff and
Mayors around the world to local CEAP best practices: ICLEI Local Governments
for the Environment, the U.S. Mayors for Climate Protection (USMCP), and the C40
Cities Climate Leadership Group. These networks encourage local government
adoption of climate policies and plans to reduce local GHG emissions, increase
energy efficiency and prepare for climate impacts.
In 1993, ICLEI initiated their Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program
after UN Agenda 21 discussions at the 1992 UN Earth Summit. ICLEI provides
climate action planning technical assistance to local jurisdictions worldwide who
pledge to reduce GHG emissions by a locally determined amount and to develop a
local climate action plan (ICLEI, 2008; Wheeler, 2008).
In 2005, Seattle Mayor Gregg Nickels initiated the U.S. Conference of
Mayors for Climate Protection Network and Agreement to encourage city mayors to
support the Kyoto Protocol by committing to reducing GHG emissions to 7% below
1990 levels by 2012 as well as to urge state and federal governments to take action on
climate change. In June of 2013, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution
to support the non-profit advocacy group, the Alliance to Save Energys Energy 2030
goal of doubling the nations energy productivity by 2030 (ASE, 2014).
31


Also in 2005, President Bill Clintons Global Climate Initiative formed the
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which includes mayors of large cities from
across the world and is currently chaired by Rio de Janeiro Mayor Eduardo Paes. As
of 2011, more than 120 U.S. cities and counties have prepared climate change action
plans of varying types, more than 1,000 U.S. mayors have signed the U.S. Conference
of Mayors for Climate Protection Agreement, and 58 mayors from around the world
have joined the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (Boswell et al., 2012).
At the 2014 U.N. Climate Summit, another transnational network of city
leaders, the Compact of Mayors, was launched by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon with support of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40), ICLEI Local
Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the United Cities and Local
Governments (UCLG) with strong support from UN Habitat, the UNs lead agency
on urban sustainability issues. The Compact of Mayors establishes a common
foundation to measure cities collective impact of GHG emissions reductions as well
as assessment of risks. Ultimately, the Compact of Mayors provides hard evidence
that cities are leaders in the fight against climate change and that local action can
have a significant global impact (Compact of Mayors, 2014). The strategy is to
establish a cooperation framework to collect and aggregate new and existing city
commitments and climate data and to quantify the impact of city commitments made
to date (C40 website, 2015).
On August 25, 2015 President Obama challenged all U.S. Mayors to commit
to climate and energy action planning before the December 2015 COP21 meeting.
Obama set a goal of getting at least 100 U.S. city mayors to sign the Compact of
32


Mayors agreement by the end of November 2015. There is a group of twelve U.S.
mayors that has recently formed the Local Climate Leaders Circle, which will
represent U.S. Mayors at the COP21 meeting. It is interesting to note that Matt
Applebaum, the Mayor of Boulder, Colorado, is in the Local Climate Leaders Circle
and is the only Colorado representative (ICLEI, 2015).
Transnational networks of cities continue to emerge to address climate
change. The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance (CNSA), formed in 2014 at an organizing
meeting in Copenhagen, is a collaboration of international cities committed to
achieving aggressive long term carbon reduction goals. Boulder, CO is the only
Colorado city participating in this network (CNSA, 2015).
Through a survey of 25 regional councils in the US, the extent to which
metropolitan regional councils have adopted climate change plans was measured and
the factors that influence their ability to implement climate change initiatives were
identified. The findings revealed that a majority of regional councils are involved in
planning for climate change primarily because existing efforts in complementary
policy domains make this involvement possible (Bryan, 2015).
Factors Influencing Local Governments to Adopt Climate Plans
Much of the research on climate policy and planning examines what
motivates cities to engage in climate protection and what opportunities and obstacles
are present in pursuing local climate plans and policies. This body of research
includes several qualitative case studies, which examine ICLEIs CCP program with
small n samples of best practice cities that joined the CCP program and commit to
the five milestone planning process. These qualitative studies use content analysis of
local climate action plan documents and interviews of city officials to determine
33


factors that influence local adoption of climate action plans (Betsill, 2001; Kousky &
Schneider, 2003; Lindseth, 2004; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004; Wheeler, 2008; Bassett &
Shandas, 2010; Pitt, 2010; Fenton et al., 2015). Other studies seek generalizations and
quantitatively assess broader patterns of the populations of cities, counties, and
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) through large-n survey research using primary
survey data, secondary census data, and some using geographic information systems
(GIS) to understand spatial patterns of climate plan adoption (Brody et al., 2008;
Zahran et al., 2008; Krause, 2010).
The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy developed a report entitled Planning for
Climate Change in the West, which provides context for the climate impacts that may
affect Colorado and other states in the intermountain west (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) and the responses of federal,
regional, state and localities (Carter & Culp, 2010). They found the barriers to
implementing local climate change policies in the western U.S. states are: lack of
political support, discounting the impact of local action, perceived lack of peer
communities in the region, lack of resources and options, lack of appropriate climate
science for planners. They recommend that local planners and communities: mobilize
political will; recognize local action and citizen participation; establish peer
community networks on a regional scale; identify resources and a variety of options;
and adapt climate science to local planning needs.
Research suggests that the main factors influencing cities to adopt climate
action plans are the presence of: political champions (e.g. political leaders, policy
entrepreneurs); local government competencies in climate-related policy sectors (e.g.
34


energy, transportation, building codes, solid waste and recycling); more staff assigned
to energy or climate planning; adequate financial resources; higher risks of climate-
related natural hazards; higher proportions of registered voters in the Democratic
Party; a large number of local environmental non-profit organizations; and higher
levels of community environmental activism (Betsill, 2001; Rabe, 2004; Betsill &
Bulkeley, 2007; Zahran et al., 2008; Brody et al., 2008; Pitt & Randolph, 2009; Pitt,
2010).
Local governments are also motivated to pursue climate change mitigation
interventions when city officials recognize that actions to control GHG emissions also
address other local concerns already on their agendas. Cities are tying climate
mitigation activities to the many co-benefits stemming from mitigation projects (e.g.
air quality, smart growth, compact mixed-use development, green building, light rail
transit, cost savings) in order to further develop climate mitigation strategies (Betsill,
2001; Kousky & Schneider, 2003; Lindseth, 2004; Randolph & Masters, 2008;
Wheeler et al., 2009; Boswell et al., 2012). Since local governments have control over
many decisions related to land use, building construction, public transportation, road
construction, urban forests, and solid waste management, they are best suited to
establish planning processes and policies that are relevant to local contexts. Climate
change policy and planning are important at the local level because it is the level
closest to the people who are consuming energy in buildings and transport that emit
greenhouse gases.
In a study of five Swedish municipalities, it was found that municipalities
used both a rational approach to planning as well as a communicative approach and
35


the choice of rational or communicative approaches had significant implications on
both the organizational form of a municipalitys process for developing energy and
climate strategies and the scope and content of the output (Fenton et al., 2015).
According to this study, factors influencing the development of municipal climate and
energy plans are:
a clear, shared vision and engaged politicians; the size and the organizational
structure of the municipality and its willingness and capability to act; the
organization or the process and extent to which stakeholders have been
involved; the need for clarity about financial aspects; and the need for greater
clarity concerning collection of targets and their relevance to global climate
and energy trends (Fenton et al., 2015, p. 213).
There are several institutional barriers that need to be addressed by cities
pursuing climate action (Betsill, 2001; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007; Wheeler, 2008;
Brody et al., 2008; Krause, 2010). Barriers include bureaucratic structure, lack of
administrative capacity, budgetary constraints, and economic dependence on carbon
intensive manufacturing industries, which often prevent municipalities from pursuing
local climate action. Local climate policy is often fragmented at the local scale: the
crosscutting nature of climate change governance poses challenges for the
institutional make-up of local government. This may result in a lack of fit between the
nature of the problem to be governed and the institutions undertaking governance. In
addition, the lack of national climate policy support in terms of funding for research
on energy conservation and renewable energy technologies can hinder local
interventions to reduce GHGs. Nevertheless, cities take the climate challenge
seriously as there are numerous examples worldwide of local climate action
initiatives.
36


Pitt (2010) suggests the keys to success of municipalities who have adopted
climate change mitigation plans. He found that municipalities that had the greatest
success did so by engaging in multi-level governance processes in which the efforts
of city staff and elected officials were complemented by contributions from a variety
of private actors and various forms of regional collaboration (e.g. advisory
committees, green ribbon task forces). As well, community input and activism helped
to bring climate change mitigation to the political agenda in many of the
municipalities who adopted climate plans.
Climate Plan Evaluation Research
With many city climate plans adopted, researchers assess the strengths and
weaknesses of a first generation of climate plans adopted in the late 1990s and early
2000s. I review these studies, which focus on the effectiveness of local climate
planning processes and plan content and quality. Studies evaluating the processes,
content, and quality of local climate planning were first published in policy and
planning journals in 2007. The majority of these plan evaluation studies use
qualitative content analysis and interview research methods to explore small samples
of best practice city climate plans (Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Pitt & Randolph,
2009; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell et al., 2010). There are also in-depth studies
of specific climate planning cases, such as the City and County of Denver
(Ramaswami et al., 2012), Californias Smart Growth Bill (Barbour & Deakin, 2012),
Cal Poly State University at Pomona (Willson & Brown, 2008), and five Swedish
municipalities that implemented climate and energy plans (Fenton et al, 2015).
Quantitative survey research is emerging that builds on the qualitative research and
37


develops empirical generalizations about local climate planning quality across broad
populations (Krause, 2010, 2011; Tang et al., 2010)
Climate plan evaluation research generally finds that U.S. local climate action
plans are strong in conducting GHG emissions inventories and reduction goals
through extensive stakeholder processes, establishing detailed emissions inventories
with quantified emissions benefits, and greening local government operations
(Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2010). Also, climate action plans
positively influence the degree to which local jurisdictions understand the concepts of
climate change and public awareness of climate change. Municipalities with climate
plans generally receive strong public support for climate planning.
ICLEI, in collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund, recently published a
report, Measuring Up 2015, which states:
Data and city profiles have clearly demonstrated that local governments can
cut local GHG emissions, reduce climate threats, and achieve multiple
community goals, such as lower energy costs, better air quality, improved
health and enhanced economic development. Success depends on strong
leadership, the close involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders, funding
and technical support from the federal level, as well as well-rounded planning
and execution processes... the year 2015 will be pivotal for addressing
climate change. A new global climate treaty is due to be completed and the
US will finalize its power plant regulations (WWF & ICLEI, 2015, p. 8).
However, a number of researchers claim that local climate plans are weak in
achieving their main purpose: reducing GHG emissions (Bailey, 2007; Wheeler,
2008; Boswell et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2010; Krause, 2011; Ramaswami et al., 2012).
This is attributed to a variety of factors: GHG reduction goals vary widely across
sectors and agencies; political and institutional commitment needed to mitigate
emissions is lacking; mitigation actions are primarily voluntary and participation is
38


low; and individuals are reluctant to change behaviors. In this section, I assess climate
plans through a review of recent climate plan evaluation research. I organize this
section with sub-sections reflecting the ICLEI five-milestone climate action planning
process, which reflects the rational planning process familiar to planners, but is
unique in that it begins with conducting a GHG emissions inventory, the basis of
climate action planning. As part of their Cities for Climate Protection campaign,
ICLEI encouraged municipalities to develop plans and actions to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions based on a five milestone climate action planning (CAP)
process to effectively reduce carbon emissions illustrated in Figure 2.1:
Milestone 1
Imentorv Emissions
Milestone 5
Milestone 2
Monitor'Evaluate
Progress
\
Leadership
Commitment
Establish Target
i
Milestone 4 Milestone 3
Implement Climate
Action Plan
Develop ('lunate
Action Plan
Figure 2.1. ICLEI Climate Action Planning Process
Source: ICLEI (2008)
Even though this is rational approach to planning which tends to be linear and
should be more communicative and strategic, it is helpful in organizing climate plan
evaluation research in this literature review as well as structuring my analysis of
39


climate planning in Chapter IV. Based on the ICLEI five-milestone planning
framework, cities with climate action plans use GHG emissions inventory protocols
(Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories, 2014)
as the first step in climate action planning. Cities join ICLEI out of concern over
climate change, but also to gain access to ICLEI data and modeling software for
emissions inventories. Cities in the CCP program also benefit from gaining and
sharing knowledge and information with other cities. Developing an emissions
inventory is an essential part of a climate and energy action plan because it is the
means by which GHG reduction efforts are designed and evaluated. A quantitative
GHG emissions baseline is to be used to measure progress on climate action plan
implementation and is not common to other types of local planning processes (ICLEI,
2003; APA, 2011; Boswell etal., 2012).
However, even though GHG emissions protocols and modeling software have
become standardized (e.g. ICLEIs International Local Government GHG Emissions
Analysis Protocol, IEAP), they fall short in reflecting actual carbon emitted in cities
(Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al., 2010; Pitt, 2010). Research suggests
that documentation of data and assumptions should be improved, GHG reduction
targets should be better justified to reflect actual carbon emitted, and more
complexity and uncertainty issues should be incorporated in order to produce more
accurate scenarios of actual community-wide carbon emissions. The effect of future
changes that are beyond the direct control of the community should be accounted for
in GHG emissions forecasts and reduction targets as exogenous change and
uncertainty are generally left unaddressed. It appears that most communities find this
40


too challenging to address in their forecasts. However, in some advanced local
climate plans (e.g. Boulder, Denver, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle), four forms of
exogenous change are generally addressed: population growth, technological
innovation, legislative and regulatory initiatives, and economic change. In almost all
climate plans studied, social and behavioral change and demographic changes (other
than population growth) are not addressed. This implies that there is considerable
uncertainty in forecasting future levels of GHG emissions particularly at the
community level. No standardized approach for including these uncertainties has
been developed for community level emissions inventories. However, university
researchers (e.g. University of Colorado Denvers Chavez and University of
Minnesotas Ramaswami) are developing more comprehensive GHG protocols to
address the shortcomings of current standardized approaches.
Boswell et al. (2010) aim to expand on Wheelers (2008) assessment of the
first generation of climate plans by examining more closely the series of choices
embedded in the process of developing a GHG inventory, which they argue must be
based on technical requirements, local context, and political climate (p. 453). Some
cities complain that current GHG emissions inventory protocols are not designed to
include local political and cultural context. For example, popular community
programs, such as local food systems and the degree to which eating local food
reduces GHG emissions, are not able to be accounted for in current protocols because
of insufficient data and technical capabilities (Bassett & Shandas, 2010).
In regards to process, planning researchers suggest that traditional land use
and economic development planners have not generally been included in the
41


development of GHG emissions inventories (Crane & Landis, 2011). Rather, software
modelers, public works engineers, environmental services coordinators, sustainability
program managers, and facilities managers have been the primary local government
actors in conducting GHG emissions inventories. Planning researchers suggest that
these actors may be less likely to provide an understanding of more general planning
issues that could inform a GHG emissions inventory (Bassett & Shandas, 2010).
Setting a GHG reduction target is a key step in the climate and energy action
planning process. Without a target, cities may not target their mitigation efforts
effectively. When municipalities conduct GHG emissions inventories, they analyze
data on human activities that generate GHG emissions. These activities are typically
lumped into three categories: transportation, waste and energy. GHG emissions data
is also segmented by the economic sectors where the activity is taking place, such as
residential, commercial, or industrial. In this study, I focus on the residential energy
sector. The main reasons I focus on this sector are: it is responsible for 38% of US
GHG emissions (EPA, 2014) and there is ample data available on energy
conservation behavior change research.
Since this study commenced in 2012, research finds that cities are setting
more aggressive GHG reduction targets.
Emissions target setting and other types of climate action have been
significant component of local sustainability efforts for a number of years. In
2005, as part of the US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,
more than 1,000 mayors pledged to support GHG emissions reduction targets
for 2012 in terms set by the Kyoto Protocol. Instead of waiting for the next
global accord, an increasing number of communities are setting aggressive,
long term reduction targets ahead of the international negotiation process.
Recently pledged targets are commonly looking to the year 2050 to meet the
scientific imperative of reducing global emissions by at least 80%, as
established by the IPCC (ICLEI website, 2015).
42


Decision-makers may pursue two avenues to target the reduction of GHG
emissions: (1) regulate large polluters usually associated with energy and
manufacturing industries or (2) influence the residential sector and individual
behavior patterns (Brody et al., 2010; Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al., 2010; Tang et
al., 2010). This research is focused on the latter, individual and community-wide
behavior change. In general, city reduction targets have fallen short of international
targets. As local climate plans develop, cities aimed for rather modest GHG
reductions and generally did not set goals to adequately address the problem.
Although most communities preparing climate plans do begin with a GHG emissions
inventory, many fail to follow through on conducting adequate emissions forecasts,
setting meaningful reduction targets, or linking their mitigation measures to these
forecasts and targets. Since potentially flawed choices and assumptions are made in
GHG emissions inventories and forecasts, reduction targets, which influence selection
and implementation of climate strategies, may not effectively address the climate
change problem (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al.).
In a recent report analyzing the GHG reduction targets of U.S. cities engaged
in the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Program, WWF & ICLEI (2015)
calculated that:
the current (GHG) emissions reduction targets in 116 US communities would
have the same effect as closing 86 coal-fired power plants each year.
Hundreds of communities representing at least 14% of the U.S. population are
already taking responsibility for their GHG pollution by performing emissions
inventories and establishing reduction goals (p. 7).
Their point is that the potential in GHG reductions is great. Assessing climate
stabilization wedges has been effective in the development of city climate plans in
43


Colorado. Carbon stabilization wedges are helpful in linking GHG emissions
inventories to a portfolio of strategies that municipalities can use to target the sources
and amounts of local carbon emissions (University of Colorado Denver Center for
Sustainable Infrastructure Systems, personal communications, 2010).
Once cities have inventoried their GHG emissions and set targets to reduce
them, they set out to develop a climate and energy action plan. Processes used for
preparing climate plans vary across cities with most convening citizen or technical
committees and others using small, less visible technical work groups. Climate plans
based on participatory planning processes generally reflect the atmosphere and
polOtical context of the locality, but do not consistently include implementation
strategies that include outside agencies and non-governmental organizations. This is
attributed to the lack of local government authority in enforcing implementation
actions assigned to outside agencies, such as electrical utilities or regional
transportation authorities. Also, since many climate action strategies are voluntary
and cannot be enforced, they may not be highly prioritized and strongly pursued if
competing with other issues on the local governments agenda.
Climate policy and planning scholars urge policy makers to consider the
importance of multilevel governance networks when dealing with the climate change
issue (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell et al, 2010).
Researchers claim that state, regional, and local governments are not collaborating
effectively in climate change policy and plan making (Willson & Brown, 2008;
Barbour & Deakin, 2012). Studies of local climate plans reveal that state and regional
policies are generally not well integrated into local climate action plans. This is
44


attributed to factors such as local governments inability to enforce state and regional
policies as well as a lack of support, funding, and local capacity to work with state
and regional governments and other climate change stakeholders.
A few studies examine how state and regional climate policies are recognized
at the local level (Barbour & Deakin, 2012) and how local governments view state
and regional policies (Willson & Brown 2008). Barbour & Deakin (2012) studied
Californias Smart Growth Policy, which was diffused throughout the state to
regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) who were then charged to
diffuse it to local governments. They found that regional smart growth climate
policy can be built on existing local planning processes, particularly for transportation
and associated air quality requirements; however, regional and local planners express
concerns about inadequate resources for implementation (p. 70). Without strong
state or federal mandates or incentives that favor the anticipated local policy
outcomes, the state smart growth law expects more from MPOs and local
governments than they can easily accomplish.
Willson & Brown (2008) found in their study of California State Polytechnic
University that carbon neutrality in suburban areas is a fantasy unless there are
supportive energy, transportation, and carbon sequestration initiatives at the state,
national, and international level (p. 497).
There is great diversity in what types of intervention strategies are included in
climate action plans. Some plans are motivational documents, while others are
extremely detailed implementation plans with concrete goals, clear objectives, and
well-reasoned methods (Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Krause, 2010,
45


2011). Climate action plan strategies cover a broad range of areas such as energy,
transportation, land use, buildings, industry, solid waste and recycling, and water. The
number of potential actions included in local climate action plans is large, averaging
about 50 actions per climate plan (Wheeler, 2008). The number of actions as well as
the diverse actors involved in climate action planning make the complexities of
moving from a climate action plan to implementation a daunting task. Part of
plannings commitment to rationality and comprehensiveness is to ensure that
decision-makers consider the full range of alternatives (Willson & Brown, 2008). The
most recent evaluation studies of climate plans examine how cities use various types
of regulatory, voluntary, and market-based policy interventions to achieve GHG
reductions. The majority of community-wide climate plan interventions are voluntary.
Krause (2011) found that there is considerable variation in the frequency
with which the different (policy and planning interventions) are implemented, when
considered across policy intervention type (p. 193). She found that voluntary
interventions (e.g. information, services) are employed over twice as frequently as
incentives, and that local governments appear to be reluctant to utilize incentives. The
use of regulatory authority is more varied and seems quite subject specific (e.g. tree
planting, zoning to limit sprawl).
Purely voluntary strategic interventions are not proving successful in local
climate planning (Wheeler, 2008; Willson & Brown, 2008; Krause, 2011;
Ramaswami et al., 2012). Wheeler (2008) examined the basic policy mechanisms
used by cities that may reduce GHGs: regulating emissions, carbon taxes, cap and
trade systems, rationing of emissions allowances given to consumers, and voluntary
46


approaches. Of these, he found that most states and cities opt for voluntary
approaches offering rebates or tax credits as incentives to encourage voluntary
reductions, yet voluntary reductions have done little to reduce overall GHG
emissions to date (p. 487). Ramaswami et al. (2012), conducted a portfolio analysis
of 55 U.S. local climate action plans, which revealed a predominance of voluntary
outreach programs that have low societal participation rates and hence low GHG
impact, while innovative higher impact behavioral, technological, and
policy/regulatory strategies are under-utilized (p. 3629).
Wheeler (2008) found that municipalities developed weak strategies to
deepen public awareness of the need for fundamental changes in behavior. He
suggests that local climate planners implement more strategic social marketing
strategies that are backed by necessary financial resources. In order to foster
community-wide behavior change that will reduce GHG emissions, climate planners
need to help the public make connections between their personal lifestyle and climate
impacts.
Willson & Brown (2008) also found that behavior change programs have
received somewhat less research and policy attention within planning and design, as
well as within broader energy policy (p. 497). They observed that behavior change
policies and programs may be politically challenging, may require changes in
standard operating practices, and may not be easily accessible to outside researchers.
However, they argue that such strategies can be quickly implemented, easily
modified, and do not require capital up front.
47


Ramaswami et al. (2012) suggest cities design climate intervention strategies
that encourage high levels of individual participation using technology to influence
human behavior (e.g. feedback metering, social norming billing software; social
marketing techniques) as well as employ optimal policy combinations of high impact
voluntary and mandatory approaches across spatial scales and social sectors in order
to achieve rapid GHG mitigation. Less than 30% of US cities are pursuing such
policy combinations. They found that relying solely on voluntary actions reduces
mitigation rates more than fivefold.
Local climate and energy plan strategies range from those narrowly defined
to emphasize energy and cost savings giving little attention to the carbon problem, to
those that include a broad aspirational call to build more progressive carbon neutral
cities (Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Finn & McCormick,
2011). Researchers argue that local governments need to include more innovative
strategies and actions to respond more effectively to climate change and overall
sustainable development (e.g. environment, equity, economy) issues. Local climate
plans largely fail to substantively engage a holistic sustainability approach in that they
do not address issues of equitable economic development and environmental, or
climate, justice.
Early climate planning research indicates that climate action plans
generally lack strong actions and the political and institutional commitment needed to
mitigate emissions (Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Tang et al., 2010).
However, more recent research (Caston Broto & Bulkeley, 2013) focusing on climate
mitigation actions of 100 global cities suggests that there is an increase in activity in
48


city climate mitigation projects. They found that experimentation within partnerships
are where new mitigation ideas may be tested. These partnerships of formal and
informal actors were common in their database of 627 climate change experiments in
a sample of 100 global cities. They conclude that local municipalities are not solely
responsible for climate mitigation at the local level.
Planned mitigation interventions included changes in the built and natural
environment (e.g. expanding bike lanes, increasing mixed use development, adding
tree canopy) and programmatic efforts (e.g. educational and outreach efforts,
expanded weatherization programs) that might be considered innovative; however,
many climate plan interventions are traditional planning strategies already tied
directly to the long range and current planning operations of municipalities.
Tang et al. (2010) evaluated the implementation component in climate
plans to learn how local jurisdictions plan to reduce GHG emissions. They found that
local climate plans have relatively limited action approaches for climate change
mitigation. Climate plans may include appropriate policies for communication and
coordination, however they employ relatively few strategies for implementation.
They note that research on the effectiveness of local climate actions is lagging behind
research on climate impact assessment.
The implementation milestone is tightly linked to the previous plan
development milestone and reinforces findings that policy actors do not include
prioritized, high impact, strategic intervention combinations that are necessary to
reduce GHGs to meet climate plan goals.
49


Several climate plan evaluation studies conclude that more effective and
timely monitoring and feedback need to be addressed in local climate action planning
(Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al., 2010; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Krause, 2011;
Ramaswami, 2012). Measurement is regarded to be time intensive and costly for
municipalities. This is an area where cities are striving for better approaches. Long-
term planning frameworks are needed, which monitor progress toward GHG
reduction goals on a regular basis. Actions are not being revised on a regular basis
and new plan recommendations are not being implemented effectively through
commitment of resources, revised regulations, and incentives for reducing emissions.
Cities do not systematically measure results of GHG reduction programs or record
participation rates that influence GHG emissions reduction outcomes. When
participation in climate programs is low, significant administrative resources are
wasted. Intervention programs must be assessed and redesigned to enhance strategic
effectiveness and increase public participation.
To conclude this section and to segue into the behavior change literature, I
reiterate some key points from local climate planning research related to behavior
change strategies. Wheeler (2008) suggests that local climate planners implement
more strategic social marketing strategies in order to help the public make
connections between their personal lifestyle and climate impacts. Willson & Brown
(2008) found that behavior change programs have received somewhat less research
and policy attention within planning and design, as well as within broader energy
policy (p. 497). They observed that behavior change policies and programs may be
politically challenging, may require changes in standard operating practices, and may
50


not be easily accessible to outside researchers. However, they argue that such
strategies can be quickly implemented, easily modified, and do not require capital up
front. Ramaswami et al. (2012) suggest cities design climate intervention strategies
that encourage high levels of individual participation using technology to influence
human behavior (e.g. feedback metering, social norming billing software; social
marketing techniques) as well as using policy combinations of voluntary and
mandatory approaches.
After an extensive review of the climate planning literature, I find that
there are very few studies exploring community-wide behavior change programs in
depth. Also, I did not find any academic research on local climate and energy action
planning practice focused on the State of Colorado municipalities.
Behavior Change Theory & Practice
Local efforts to reduce individual and community-wide GHG emissions are
crucial in effective climate mitigation planning, but it is not addressed adequately in
the CEAP literature. However, this is happening in cities around the world. This
section reviews literature on practical frameworks to change behavior based on
theories in behavioral science and psychology that are currently being applied by
municipalities and utilities.
The sections of this literature review on behavior change theory and practical
frameworks are organized to first introduce theories in behavioral science and
psychology underlying community-based social marketing, a tool kit of strategies
designed to apply these theories in real world climate and energy program planning
and implementation.
51


Behavioral and Psychological Theories Underlying Community-Based Social
Marketing
Community-based social marketing (CBSM) is a commonly used strategy by
local planners and program managers to foster sustainable behavior in climate and
energy action planning as well as recycling, transportation, and water consumption
behaviors. CBSM is used by program planners to strategically foster more sustainable
behaviors in individuals and communities by integrating behavior change strategies
based on proven behavioral science research findings (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011).
Community-based social marketing is a social planning process that applies theories
from psychology to shape human behavior. With a toolkit of behavior change
strategies drawn from social psychology research and theories of behavior change,
community-based social marketing programs target high impact, high probability,
low penetration behaviors with strategies based on empirically tested behavior change
tools to decrease barriers and increase benefits for individuals engaging in the desired
behavior.
This literature review includes research related to CBSM, which draws from
social marketing, behavioral science and environmental psychology literatures. My
first priority was to find studies that address the application of community-based
social marketing (CBSM) in local climate mitigation programs, which are limited.
However, there are a multitude of studies that address home energy behavior change
strategies implemented by utilities. CBSM is simply described as a mash up of social
marketing and psychology (McKenzie-Mohr, 2012a).
52


Origins of social marketing. It has been over four decades since Kotler and
Zaltman (1971) introduced social marketing in business research at Northwestern
University. Even with increased use in the past twenty years, Lee and Kotler (2011)
suggest that social marketing remains a poorly understood and highly underutilized
method for helping people embrace behaviors that are in societys best interest. Since
McKenzie-Mohr (2011) embraced community-based social marketing and focused on
fostering sustainable behaviors in the late 1990s, there has been a surge of research
documenting case studies of community-based social marketing programs.
Andreasen (2006) suggests that research on social marketing effectiveness is
not keeping up with practice. According to McKenzie-Mohr (2012a), there is a need
for studies focused on program delivery and a demand from program planners for
simpler ways to design and implement community-based social marketing behavior
change programs to help with program delivery.
As a practice, social marketing first emerged in the 1960s when public health
and civil rights agencies began encouraging behavior change related to public health
and civil rights issues. In the 1970s, social marketing scholarship was further
developed based on commercial marketing principles (Kotler, 1989; Andreasen,
2006). Social marketing for the environment, also referred to as community-based
social marketing, emerged in the 1990s when Douglas McKenzie-Mohr developed a
framework integrating classic social marketing concepts with behavior change
theories related to pro-environmental behavior.
An environmental psychologist, Douglas McKenzie-Mohr developed the
framework of community-based social marketing (CBSM) in the late 1990s with a
53


focus on fostering pro-environmental behavior in individuals through a community-
wide reach. He claims that effective individual change happens at the community
level (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). The large number of CBSM case studies is evidence
of CBSMs widespread use by government and non-profit agencies (Takahashi, 2009;
McKenzie-Mohr et al, 2012), but both scholars and practitioners grapple with
whether CBSM programs are efficient and effective.
In Social Marketing to Protect the Environment: What Works (McKenzie-
Mohr, Lee, Schultz, & Kotler, 2012), social marketers Philip Kotler and Nancy Lee
join with environmental psychologist Doug McKenzie-Mohr and social psychologist
Wes Schultz to provide evidence of the effectiveness of community-based social
marketing in the residential and commercial sectors (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 2012).
The 24 diverse case studies examined address the effectiveness of community-based
social marketing programs related to waste reduction and recycling, water quality,
greenhouse gas emissions reduction, water conservation, energy conservation, and
fish and wildlife protection. For example, in two case studies on energy conservation
there were significant changes in behavior with 25% increased participation in people
turning off their lights with prompts in one study, and a 26% reduction in towel
washing due to reuse at a hotel that used descriptive and injunctive norms in their
messaging in a second study. It is difficult to summarize findings of effectiveness as
each CBSM program is unique in targeted behaviors, barriers, strategies, and metrics.
However, each case study demonstrates significant behavior changes and inspires
ideas for program planners in their respective subject areas.
54


However, research suggests that social marketing concepts are often
misapplied (Andreasen, 1994; Takahashi, 2009; Hargreaves, 2012). For example,
practitioners often incorrectly define target audiences as the general population and
do not segment their target audiences adequately. By trying to influence as much of a
population as possible, focus may be dispersed and strategies fragmented, which
often results in insignificant behavior change.
A key tension to explore further in community-based social marketing
research is that between local planning, which tends to examine broad patterns of a
community, and behavioral science principles, which tend to examine large samples
of individuals. Planning studies on CBSM are virtually nonexistent. However, CBSM
is well-respected as several planning scholars reference community-based social
marketing in their studies of local climate planning as a recommended approach to a
well-thought out, effective behavior change strategy to increase participation in a
desired behavior and reduce GHG emissions (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al., 2010;
Bassett & Shandas, 2010). These researchers claim that local climate plans are weak
in achieving their main purpose: reducing GHG emissions. This is attributed to a
variety of factors: GHG reduction goals vary widely across sectors and agencies
resulting in fragmented policies, messages, and programs; political and institutional
commitment needed to mitigate emissions is lacking; mitigation actions are primarily
voluntary and participation is low; and individuals are reluctant to change behaviors.
All of these weaknesses have a common denominator: behavior change.
Behavioral science scholarship directed at human pro-environmental behavior
and environmental problems began in the 1970s when the US oil crisis prompted
55


federal programs in energy conservation, which were considered generally ineffective
(Gardner and Stem, 2002). Behavioral scientists, Paul Stern, a senior scholar with the
Board on Environmental Change at the National Research Council, and Gerald
Gardner, Professor at the University of Michigan, have researched human behavior
related to environmental problems for over 30 years, building a body of empirical
research that underpins community-based social marketing. Their research includes
the application of behavioral science knowledge to the understanding and solution of
global and regional environmental problems.
Conservation psychologist E. Scott Geller, Alumni Distinguished Professor
and Director of the Center for Applied Behavior Systems in the Department of
Psychology at Virginia Polytechnic University, has contributed significant research
based on a modified applied behavior analysis approach to human behavior in the
context of environmental behavior change intervention strategies, which has
influenced McKenzie-Mohr and community-based social marketing. His research
approach is a modified form of applied behavior analysis where external, observable
behaviors are examined in their social context in order to design strategies to
influence such behaviors (Skinner, 1987). The Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence
(ABC) model of behavior change conceptualizes applied behavior analysis:
behaviors (B) are directed by the antecedent or activator (A) stimuli that
preceded them and announce the availability of a positive or negative
consequence (C) (and) further occurrences of the behavior (B) are determined
by the consequences (C) that follow (Lehman & Geller, 2004, p. 18).
Behavior change strategies can be categorized as either antecedent/activator
strategies (e.g. communication, prompts, commitment) or consequence strategies (e.g.
incentives, feedback, rewards, punishments).
56


Geller developed the Defme-Observe-Test-Intervene (DO IT) method to
package behavior change theories and models into a methodology accessible to
practitioners. The DO IT method and community-based social marketing are similar
in that they both focus attention on external behaviors that can be directly influenced.
This applied behavior approach of Geller contrasts with the attitude-behavior
approach of Gardner and Stem. The applied behavior approach focuses on changing
external, observable behaviors with antecedent and consequence strategies (e.g.
rewards, punishments), whereas attitude-behavior approach focuses on changing
attitudes by primarily influencing an individuals knowledge (e.g. information
intensive campaigns). Both traditions merge in community-based social marketing.
Table 2 on the next page illustrates the similarities of the work of McKenzie-Mohr
(2011), Geller (2002), and Stem (2000).
57


Table 1: Three Applied Behavioral Science Perspectives on Behavior Change
McKenzie-Mohr (2011) Community-Based Social Marketing Geller (2002) Define-Observe-Intervene-Test (DO IT) Method Stern (2000) Behavior Change Design Principles and Strategies
(1) Select the actors and behaviors to target. (1) Define certain behaviors to increase environment-protective behaviors or to decrease environment-destruction behaviors. Identity actors to target. (2) Observe how often target behavior occurs. Identify target behaviors from an environmental perspective in terms of their impact. Understand the situation from the actors perspective.
(2) Identity the barriers and benefits associated with the selected behavior. Analyze behaviors to identity the responsible actors and actions. Consider the full range of barriers and benefits and explore their possible relevance to the target behavior from the actors standpoint. Use participatory methods of decision-making.
(3) Design a strategy that utilizes behavior-change tools to address these barriers and benefits (3) Intervene (design intervention) to change target behaviors. Use multiple intervention types to address the factors limiting behavior change. Stay within the bounds of actors tolerance for intervention. When limiting factors are psychological, apply understanding of human choice processes. Set realistic expectations and outcomes. Apply principles of community management. Get the actors attention. Make limited cognitive demands.
(4) Pilot the strategy with a small segment of a community. (4) Test the intervention and refine or replace a behavior change intervention. Continually monitor responses and adjust programs accordingly.
(5) Evaluate the impact of the program once it has been implemented broadly (4) Test the intervention and refine or replace a behavior change intervention. Continually monitor responses and adjust programs accordingly.
58


Research from the behavioral sciences, including conservation psychology,
applied psychology, environmental psychology, and social psychology, inform
theories of behavior change underlying community-based social marketing tools. The
table below organizes community-based social marketing behavior change tools and
corresponding theories according to the behavioral barrier the program planner is
strategizing to overcome. I review theoretical concepts underlying each intervention
tool (commitment, social norms, social diffusion, communication, prompts,
incentives, convenience) that may be applied to overcome barriers to pro-
environmental behaviors. Theories include self-perception theory (Bern, 1972),
theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), social norms (Schwartz, 1977;
Cialdini, 2003), theory of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1987), theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1987), theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1987), diffusion of
innovation theory (Rogers, 1962), and reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 1981).
59


Table 2: Behavioral Barriers, CBSM Strategies, and Related Psychological Theories
Behavioral Barrier Behavior Change Strategy Theory
Lack motivation Commitment Self-perception theory (Bern, 1972) Theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) ABC model (Geller, 1989)
Norms Injunctive and descriptive norms (Cialdini, 2003) Norm activation theory (Schwartz, 1977)
Incentives Theory of externalities (Gardner & Stem, 1996) Theory of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1987) ABC model (Geller, 1989)
Forget Prompts Theory of reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981) ABC model (Geller, 1989)
Lack of Social Norms Norm activation theory (Schwartz, 1977) Injunctive or descriptive norms (Schultz et al,
Pressure 2007)
Lack of Knowledge Communication Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) Theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) ABC model (Geller, 1989)
Social Diffusion Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 1962)
Inconvenience Convenience Make structural changes to remove barriers based on cost-benefit analysis (Geller, 1989)
The following discussion is of specific strategy techniques designated in the
community-based social marketing literature. It is important to reiterate that because
behavior is complex, contextual, and multi-faceted, these tools need to be used paying
attention to process and context, because there is no substitute for analysis of the
behavioral system targeted for change and the people who comprise that system.
Commitment. A process of building commitment in stages has been used in
community-based social marketing programs with often significant results
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). When people commit to something small, they are more
likely to take action towards congruent and bigger behaviors due to a strong internal
60


pressure to behave consistently after a promise of behavior has been made.
Commitments are used to address the barrier of lack of motivation. Underlying
commitment are two psychological theories: self-perception theory (Bern, 1972) and
the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957).
Self-perception theory (Bern, 1972) suggests that when individuals come to
perceive themselves as the type of person who supports initiatives, they will commit
to behaviors congruent with such initiatives. The idea is that the initial commitment to
the small request will change ones self-perception, therefore giving a person a reason
for agreeing with the subsequent, larger request. People observe their own behaviors
and the context in which they behave and thus infer they must have a preference for
certain behaviors or products.
The social psychology theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957)
proposes that people are driven to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions
and adding new ones to create a consistent belief system or by reducing the
importance of any one of the dissonant elements. Cognitive dissonance is a
discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g. ideas, beliefs, values,
emotional reactions, awareness of actions) simultaneously. The theory of cognitive
dissonance explains that when two psychologically inconsistent states are held, it
generates an unpleasant feeling of dissonance, and people work to eliminate it or
reduce it (Clayton & Myers, 2009). For example, an individual may believe that
driving a single occupancy vehicle to work every day is not good for the
environment, but does so anyway and experiences dissonance. Making a commitment
has been shown to invoke greater dissonance between the individuals beliefs and
61


behavior and compel them to change their behavior to reduce or eliminate
inconsistencies, perhaps by carpooling, taking transit, or biking to work.
Social and personal norms. Social norms are emphasized in the community-
based social marketing toolkit as several tools are used to activate personal and social
norms (e.g. seeking commitment, use of prompts, personal communication, use of
positive incentives) (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). Social norms are used to address lack
of motivation as well as to build social capacity around a behavior.
Social psychologists consider norms to be an extremely powerful force in
changing group behaviors as they .. .are informal obligations that are enforced
through social sanctions or rewards (Schwarz, 1977, p. 156). Social norms theory
states that much of people's behavior is influenced by their perception of how other
members of their social group behave. Social norms show how people gravitate and
adapt toward conformity as human society rewards conformity (Schultz, 2007).
People adhere to social norms through enforcement, internalization, the sharing of
norms by other group members, and frequent activation (Smith, 2007). Norms can be
enforced through tools that reward or punish. For example, individuals are rewarded
for conserving resources or punished for waste.
An important distinction in effectively communicating and influencing social
norms is pairing descriptive information with injunctive information (Cialdini, 2003).
Injunctive norms involve perceptions of which behaviors are typically approved or
disapproved by others: they assist individuals in determining what is acceptable and
unacceptable based on the morals of their interpersonal networks and surrounding
62


community. Descriptive norms involve perceptions of which behaviors are typically
performed: they normally refer to the perception of others' behavior.
Stem (2000) introduced the Values-Beliefs-Norms (VBN)
theory of environmentally significant behavior, which provides a framework for
assessing individual behavior through personal norms, an internal obligation to act in
a particular manner. Personal norms are activated when an individual believes that
violation of a norm would adversely affect something the individual values. To
change beliefs, Stern (2005) indicates that narrow educational approaches (such as
telling people what behaviors are environmentally beneficial, or simply that
environmental disaster is looming) have not proven overly effective. However,
programs where information .. .arrives at the time and place of decision, is linked to
the available choices, is delivered from trusted sources, and is delivered
personally are more likely to yield success (p. 10787). Stern (2005) also indicates
that personal norm activation may be enhanced in a community context
where ...face-to-face communication, mutual interdependence, and the possibility
for social influence can build interpersonal norms that buttress personal norms (p.
10788).
Social diffusion. The tool of social diffusion was added to the latest edition of
Fostering Sustainable Behavior (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). This tool is used to address
the barrier of lack of knowledge. McKenzie-Mohr looks to the diffusion of innovation
theory (Rogers, 1983) to spread new behaviors throughout a community. Diffusion is
the process by which an innovation, such as a new behavior, is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Rogers
63


conceptualized opinion leaders and early adopters as the groups who should be
understood to diffuse innovations effectively. Community-based social marketing
encourages program planners to identify opinion leaders and well-respected people in
target segments of their community to influence social networks and diffuse desired
behaviors by recruiting well-known and well-respected people to communicate the
program message and by making commitments public and durable (McKenzie-Mohr
etal, 2012).
Prompts. Prompts can remind people to engage in activities that they might
otherwise forget (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). A prompt must be noticeable, self-
explanatory, and in close proximity to the site where the targeted behavior is to be
carried out. This tool is grounded in the theory of operant conditioning, which states
that consequences, such as rewards, punishments, and feedback, are the primary
determinants of behavior (Skinner, 1987).
However, the psychological theory of reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981)
suggests that too obvious attempts to control behavior often lead to a backlash where
people may react and deliberately ignore a prompt, or engage in a prohibited behavior
in order to demonstrate their independence. This boomerang effect warns that
attempts to restrict a person's freedom communicated in behavioral change programs
may produce an anti-conformity boomerang effect. In social marketing, the
boomerang effect may occur if a strong attempt is made to change an individuals
attitude toward a subject and the individual counters with an equally strong response.
Communication. Communication as a tool of community-based social
marketing builds upon marketing theory, which holds that attention must be captured
64


to initiate behavior change (Lee & Kotler, 2011; Andreasen, 2006). Communication
is used to address the barrier of lack of knowledge. The theories of planned behavior
(Ajzen, 1985) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) are used in communication tools to
influence a persons perception that s/he is able to successfully complete an action.
The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) is a theory about the link
between attitudes and behavior and is one of the most predictive persuasion theories.
The theory states that attitudes toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions and behaviors.
If people are knowledgeable about what to do and believe they can successfully
execute the behavior, they are more likely to adopt the behavior. It includes the
concept of perceived behavioral control, which originates from the theory of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) is the conviction that one can successfully
execute the behavior required to produce outcomes. A belief in self-efficacy is an
important determinant of ones ability and motivation for a task as perceived efficacy
is often found to be a stronger factor than knowledge or attitudes in predicting
behavior and is the most important precondition for behavioral change, since it
determines the initiation of coping behavior.
Incentives. Incentives are a useful tool to motivate behavior change and are
most effective when the incentive and the behavior are closely paired and when they
are visible (Gardner & Stem, 2002). Positive incentives have been shown to be more
effective than negative disincentives on changing behavior. Incentives, whether
financial or otherwise, can provide the motivation for individuals to perform an
65


activity more effectively that they already engage in or to begin an activity that they
otherwise would not engage in.
Based on the economic theory of externalities, incentives are meant to
internalize the externalities of environmental problems (or other problems related to
public goods) by applying a cost to the externality and to appeal to an individuals
economic self-interest through an economic reward or punishment (Gardner and
Stern, 2002). Incentives are most effective when used in combination with other
community-based social marketing tools (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011).
Convenience. People will not adopt new behaviors if there are barriers that
make it difficult to do so or that take away a convenience. In terms of the ABC model
of Geller (1989), convenience could be achieved if the antecedent barriers to the
desired behavior were removed. Research indicates that social norms have been more
readily activated by methods that increase the convenience of the desired behavior
(McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995).
Community-based social marketing behavior change tools comprise a toolkit
that draws from insights from across the behavioral sciences (social psychology,
environmental psychology, applied psychology, conservation psychology) because
the important behavioral variables lie in the domains of various disciplines and the
variables interact. Thus interdisciplinary perspectives are needed to address these
complexities.
There are numerous empirical studies by behavioral scientists that report on
the effectiveness of community-based social marketing behavior change tools.
Academic journals such as Environment and Behavior, Journal of Environmental
66


Psychology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, and Human Ecology contain
many empirical studies testing various pro-environmental behavior change tools (e.g.
social norms, commitments, prompts) separately and in combinations. On cbsm.com,
there are nearly 1,500 empirical case studies posted and categorized by issue (energy,
agriculture & conservation, transportation, waste, pollution, water) (McKenzie-Mohr,
2011).
Research evaluating community-based social marketing as a discipline was
found in two diverse studies: a meta-analysis of the CBSM field from an
environmental scientist (Takahashi, 2009) and a study on the effectiveness of
community-based social marketing in complementing regulatory development from
the discipline of law (Kennedy, 2010). It should be noted that there are several studies
on the effectiveness of social marketing in general, but very few specifically on
community-based social marketing, which I am focused on in this literature review.
Bruno Takahashi (2009), PhD in Environmental Sciences from State
University of New York (SUNY) Syracuse, conducted a survey to evaluate research
activity related to social marketing for the environment or CBSM. Takahashi (2009)
examined publication trends and content of articles from 1971 2006 by practitioners
and scholars in marketing, science, and social science. He found that the number of
CBSM studies increased markedly in 1999, demonstrating an increasing trend
through 2006. The two areas of analysis that show most research activity are
recycling and energy conservation programs. He found CBSM being applied by
multiple levels of government to environmental issues, such as energy conservation,
waste reduction and recycling, transportation and water conservation. Based on the 62
67


peer-reviewed articles Takahashi reviewed, organizations using CBSM are federal
governments (25%), non-profit organizations (24%), state and provincial
governments (20%), and local governments (19%).
Takahashis major conclusions about CBSM are that even though there is an
increasing trend in the application and study of social marketing, there are also
several conceptual and theoretical problems attached to it. Takahashi describes
through the lens of human development stages that social marketing in the
environmental arena is still in the adolescent stage when compared to social
marketing in the public health domain, which has reached maturity. He suggests a
need to refocus the research and application of social marketing toward the reduction
of consumptive behaviors and encourages both academics and practitioners to
disseminate their work further.
Amanda Kennedy (2010), professor at University of New England Australian
Centre for Agriculture and Law in New South Wales, Australia, provides an
assessment of CBSM through the perspective of regulatory law. She argues that
regulations should be complemented by CBSM techniques for a well-rounded
approach to address behaviors and social norms that are being regulated. Kennedy
(2010) suggests that regulatory intervention is more likely to be cost-effective when it
is embedded within a broader strategy to change behavior. Kennedy (2010) suggests
that CBSM in conjunction with environmental regulation offers the ability to better
manage individual environmental behavior through a whole-systems approach of
identifying and overcoming barriers to change, a comprehensive menu of behavior
change tools, and ongoing feedback and evaluation (p. 1154).
68


Despite the growth of CBSM as a discipline as well as
an increase in academic and governmental support the past 25 years, it is limited by a
range of challenges, including confusion over its position and role and the potential
for incorrect application (McKenzie-Mohr, 2012a, 2012b). CBSM is generally used at
the program level, not integrated into broad institutional goals and planning processes
where there could be great advantages. Broadening the scope of CBSM applications
to upstream institutional decision-making (e.g. targeting decision makers) has been
proposed by some academics (Kennedy, 2010; McKenzie-Mohr et al., 2012).
Evidence of the use of social marketing as an overarching strategic framework
to guide marketing, education, and policy approaches is found in Australia where
institutional barriers to CBSM use have been removed (e.g. special approval
processes, requests for proposals). Australian government agencies use CBSM as an
overarching vision and have removed institutional barriers to its use. In Australia,
community-based social marketing has become a way of doing business (McKenzie-
Mohr, 2012a).
If program planners are not applying CBSM properly, it will most likely not
be effective. The problem is behavior selection and strategy delivery (McKenzie-
Mohr, 2012a). Program planners tend to not pay enough attention to behavior
selection and strategy design and delivery and tend to avoid strategically selecting
behaviors and identifying barriers and benefits and then deliver programs focused on
the wrong behaviors. From conversations with program planners, McKenzie-Mohr
(2012a) found that significant pressures exist in practice for program planners to
avoid identifying behavioral barriers. Three of the most common reasons for not
69


identifying barriers are: (1) program planners are likely to believe that the barriers to
an activity are already well known; (2) most programs must be delivered within a
short period of time, which makes conducting barrier research a challenge; and (3)
organizations that deliver CBSM programs suffer from financial constraints that make
additional work difficult to justify.
Proponents of CBSM encourage pilot studies of the intended program and
ongoing evaluation to measure the behavior change achieved and to refine the
strategy if necessary before full implementation of a program (McKenzie-Mohr et al.,
2011). However, current programs lack adequate evaluation components and usually
evaluate outputs rather than outcomes (McKenzie-Mohr, 2012a). For example,
outcomes, such as changes in behavior, changes in resource use and quality, and
return on investment should be measured throughout a CBSM campaign in order to
continue to build its case through field research. Market research, pilot testing, and
monitoring effectiveness are crucial feedback mechanisms that may be overlooked by
program planners.
As the CBSM movement has grown, numerous case studies of effective
CBSM initiatives have been conducted and are available on the CBSM website.
These case studies explore CBSM program design, challenges and successes and are
accessible to anyone. As more program planners use CBSM, researchers are
examining the strengths and weaknesses of the process adding to the relatively
limited evidence base available today (Anda & Temmen, 2014).
Three government agency reports include brief reviews of CBSM and
represent three countries: the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
70


(Tiedemann, 2010); U.K. National Government Research (NGR) agency (Damton,
2008); and the Asian Development Bank (Serrat, 2010). These reports reviewed
behavior change programs in general, which include brief reviews of community-
based social marketing that are discussed here. Even though all three reports
recommend that community-based social marketing is an effective approach to
environmental behavior change, they also suggest shortcomings.
Tiedemann (2010) evaluated U.S. federal residential energy conservation
programs through the lens of rational choice theory and the theory of planned
behavior, which he argues are the main theories underlying energy conservation
behavior change programs. He concludes that effective behavioral interventions fall
into four main types: information, goal setting, rewards, and feedback, as well as
combinations thereof. It is interesting to note that he does not include social norms or
social diffusion, the dynamic behavioral tools in the CBSM toolbox. This may reflect
his national energy efficiency program perspective, which may not be concerned with
community-level social tools.
Darnton (2008) argues that community-based social marketing should include
more dynamic theories of social change, such as systems thinking, which is helpful
in attempting to address behaviors which have multiple and complex underlying
factors (p. 9). He suggests that CBSM studies be conducted through the lens of
systems thinking to help build the evidence base for explaining the effectiveness of
changing behaviors among complex interactions and their components.
Serrat (2010) suggests that the desired outcomes of community-based social
marketing programs are often overly ambitious and that it is difficult to assess
71


accurately the direct impact that they have on behavior. He compares commercial
marketing to social marketing. To provide context for the challenges of community-
based social marketing, Serrat states that in social marketing: the products are more
complex, demand is diverse, the target groups are challenging, the necessary
involvement of end users is greater, and competition is more varied (p. 2). He
stresses the importance of planning and implementation processes (National Social
Marketing Center [NSMC], 2010). Damton (2008) and Serrat (2010) both point out
that there is limited empirical evidence on the latter part of the CBSM process: the
steps of implementation and assessment.
Behavioral Wedge Theory
Recently, behavioral science scholars (Dietz et al, 2009) responded to a study
conducted by engineering scholars Pacala and Socolow (2004). Pacala and Socolows
study argues that a significant percentage of GHG emissions could be eliminated
from the business as usual scenario with technology that have already been
developed. They argue that more investments in technology are not necessary. The
U.S. lacks the political will to put into use technologies that have already been
developed.
Dietz et al. (2009), based on their years of work on studying energy efficiency
behaviors, conducted a study to look at just how much energy could be saved if
individuals in the U.S. changed or adopted certain energy behaviors. They identify 17
household behaviors of which half are related to energy efficiency, such as
weatherization, using cold water for laundry and lowering household water heater
temperature. This study addresses the social, versus technological, aspect of
72


mitigation strategies whereas Pacala and Socolow only address the technological
aspects. Dietz et al. (2009) argue that without technology, just by households making
simple behavioral choices and changes, 20% of U.S. emissions could be reduced.
Potential and reasonably achievable emissions reductions
Laundwy tsmperdtive
W tier ri*awr lempwslur*
Low-flow Show Tune up AC
Lane drying
Standby Wettricily
Clunge HVAC an fillers
ffouime auio maintenance
Therfnottil wIDatkt
6moen1 water neater
Caipooteiij and Ino-cbal
LRRTMt
Driving tehWKK
HVAC Equipment
Appliances
Weaneriiaaon
f u es*fi*nt venitiet
Totals
potenbal emsaons reduction (rrtt)
reasoraMr achievable emissions reduction (irce)
Source Dietz et al. 2C09
Figure 2.2 The Behavioral Wedge
Planning practitioners from around the country that are implementing
behavior change programs have taken part in the development of a behavior wedge
profile tool (U.S. Urban Sustainability Directors Network, 2013). In a project
conducted by the Garrison Institutes Climate, Cities and Behavior Project, a behavior
wedge profile tool is being developed to help cities identify which household
behaviors are contributing most to their GHG emissions so they can address directly
and more effectively those behaviors community-wide that should be targeted
(Ehrhardt-Martinez & Meier, 2013). This tool is still in the development stages but
73


was piloted at the city of Baltimore and seems to be gaining momentum in academic
discourse and possibly city sustainability initiatives.
The stabilization wedge approach is also used by infrastructure and energy
experts. Ramaswami et al. (2012) analyzed, in a bottom up study based on Denvers
GHG emissions and energy consumption data, how effective behavior change
policies were in Denver. They argue that voluntary programs alone will not make
much of a difference in reducing GHG emission. Voluntary programs should be
integrated with mandatory regulations in order to make significant reductions. The
challenge is that mandatory programs are hard to fund, manage and monitor and often
are politically unacceptable.
This research explores cases that are applying behavior change strategies
based on the theories of Ajzen (1985), Bandura (1997), Bern (1972), Brehm & Brehm
(1981), Cialdini (2003), Gardner & Stern (1996), Geller (1989), Rogers (1962), and
Schultz (2007). This research is a meeting of energy policy, planning, behavioral
science, and psychology disciplines. It illustrates the complex interdisciplinary nature
and underscores the importance of responses that are holistic. This research strives to
explore how municipal climate and energy planners use applied behavior change
strategies. Because CBSM is an approach considered by program planners in
Colorado, I use CBSM as a lens from which to evaluate home energy programs in
Colorado. This section is dedicated to CBSM research as it is a framework considered
by climate and energy program planners to reduce household energy consumption.
Three studies suggest that drastic GHG emissions could be achieved through
individual behavior changes without large investments in new technology (Pacala &
74


Socolow, 2004; Dietz et al., 2009; Ramaswami et al., 2012). Pacala and Socolow
(2004) first developed a national scale stabilization wedge (p. 968), which includes
seven carbon mitigation wedges that they claim would solve the climate problem for
the next 50 years with current technologies (p. 968) and urge national decision-
makers to take action and pursue this portfolio of stabilization wedge technologies.
Six of the wedges in Pacala and Socolows (2004) model address production, or
supply side, technologies whereas one wedge focuses on human behaviors, such as
reasonably achievable household energy efficiency upgrades, which constitutes
demand side technologies. It is this behavioral wedge that justifies the relevance of
this dissertation.
Building on Pacala and Socolows analysis, Dietz et al. (2009) developed the
concept of a behavioral wedge through a top-down analysis based on national level
data. Dietz et al. (2009) argue that people-centered efforts (as opposed to new
technology) may achieve faster GHG reductions with much smaller investment when
compared to traditional technology initiatives as mentioned in Pacala and Socolows
stabilization wedge study. The behavioral wedge concept is based on the argument
that 20% of U.S. household GHG emissions, or 7.4% of total U.S. GHG emissions,
could be eliminated if certain household energy consumption and personal
transportation behaviors were adopted. They claim that GHG emissions could be
reduced with little or no effect on household well-being if U.S. households adopted
17 specific behaviors in the next ten years. The behaviors they examine that are
related to home energy efficiency are weatherization, HVAC equipment efficiency
upgrade, low flow showerheads, efficient water heater, efficient appliances, change
75


HVAC air filters, tune up AC, cold laundry temperature, standby electricity,
thermostat setbacks, line drying clothes (Dietz et al (2009). Dietz et al. (2009) argue
that by integrating the most effective behaviorally oriented non-regulatory
interventions, which make up a behavioral wedge, GHG emissions could be reduced
much more quickly than other kinds of changes and (this behavioral wedge)
deserves explicit consideration as part of climate policy (p. 18452).
They first estimated the potential emissions reduction from each of the 17
household actions that would be achieved with 100% adoption and then estimated
plasticity (the proportion of current non-adopters that could be induced to take action)
from data on the most effective proven interventions. Assuming such high levels of
national participation may not provide an accurate assessment of what can be
achieved at the local level. Also, this top-down assessment does not provide guidance
for decision makers on specific policy and planning design to guide GHG emissions
reduction at the local level, considering unique factors that define local context such
as climate, technology usage and lifestyles of local people.
Ramaswami et al. (2012) expand upon Pacala and Socolows (2004) and Dietz
et al.s (2009) work by evaluating carbon mitigation interventions that have actually
been implemented by cities in a short term (five year) carbon mitigation wedge.
Through a bottom-up analysis of 55 U.S. cities GHG emissions reduction actions,
they illustrate the importance of participation rates and energy savings per home, or
unit, in calculating GHG mitigation impact. Ramaswami et al. (2012) emphasize that
knowing actual participation rates is critical for understanding the effectiveness of
behavioral interventions and whether or not GHG emissions have actually been
76


reduced. In their examination of 55 city climate and sustainable energy plans, they
found that participation rates are not evaluated in most local climate and energy
action planning initiatives.
Ramaswami et al. (2012) also evaluated the differences between voluntary
and mandatory interventions implemented by the City and County of Denver in terms
of participation rates and concluded that typical voluntary outreach programs have
low participation rates and hence low GHG impact (p. 3629). They suggest that
cities using a portfolio mix of voluntary and regulatory actions can yield a best-case
maximum of ~1% per year GHG emissions reduction annually in buildings and
transportation sectors, combined (p. 3629) and argue that innovative higher impact
behavioral, technological, and policy/regulatory strategies are under-utilized (p.
3629). Ramaswami et al. (2012) recommend that cities must find ways to enhance
societal participation in voluntary programs (p. 3639) as well as consider ways to
diffuse innovations across communities, carefully measure energy consumption and
carbon reductions, and report participation rates in different voluntary program
designs. They suggest that mandates alone may decrease GHG emissions, but
mandates are difficult to manage. Therefore, they suggest that combinations of
voluntary programs and mandatory policies are needed to influence energy
consumption behavior and effectively reduce GHG emissions.
The stabilization wedge and the behavioral wedge both offer reasonably
achievable goals, which could reduce U.S. GHG emissions if corresponding federal,
state and local policies and programs were established. The wedge concepts highlight
the need for effective mitigation actions that take into account human behavior and
77


are presented here to justify the importance of this study. Dietz et al. (2009) and Stern
et al. (2010) make strong arguments for the large potential of GHG reductions that
could be achieved through voluntary household actions that would not affect quality
of life or cost much. Ramaswami et al. (2012) suggest that the GHG reductions that
can be realistically achieved through voluntary actions are more modest than Dietz et
al. (2009) estimate.
Applied frameworks, such as CBSM, are being used by local planners to
integrate low carbon living into communities. Research on CBSM program delivery
and effectiveness in local climate and energy action planning is limited. Thus, there is
a need for research, which evaluates the effectiveness of CBSM in local climate
mitigation programs. The intent of community-based social marketing is to foster
more sustainable behaviors, such as reducing GHG emitting behaviors; however, it is
not clear whether local CBSM programs to reduce GHGs are effective.
Cities in Colorado are delivering home energy programs designed with (one
time efficiency) behavior change in mind. For example, the city leaders in climate
and energy planning in Colorado offer these programs to residents: Boulder Energy
Smart, Denver Energy Challenge and Fort Collins Home Energy Efficiency Program.
All offer free energy audits to all residents to determine how their house may be
losing energy. Energy advisers then help homeowners to implement energy efficiency
upgrades based on their audit as well as help homeowners navigate through incentives
and government programs. These three home energy programs as well as others in
Colorado (Arvada Resource Smart, Golden Resource Smart, Colorado Energy Smart,
etc.) will be discussed in detail in Chapters IV and V.
78


Research Gap
Finally, I address the gap in the research between local climate and energy
action mitigation planning and household behavior change strategies. Although it is
an active area of practice, sufficient research does not seem to exist that addresses
behavior change strategies, program design, implementation and evaluation in the
local climate planning literature. Also, there is a lack of research related to the
practice of local climate planning in Colorado.
The conundrum expressed in the introductory chapter: if city sustainability
coordinators were able to master behavior change program design as behavior studies
suggest, then significant GHG reductions should be realized; motivates this study,
which is driven by what could be achieved in local climate and energy action
planning (e.g. top-down analysis per Dietz et al, 2009) and the reality of what is
actually being achieved (e.g. bottom-up analysis per Ramaswami et al., 2012),
specifically in the residential sector related to energy (natural gas and electricity)
consumption behaviors. This study explores this tension in climate and energy
program design practices in Colorado communities and behavior change programs
designed to reduce household energy consumption and, ultimately, GHG emissions.
This study is designed to answer the following research questions to address
how local climate planning is playing out in Colorado after nearly ten years of action
as well as how Colorado municipalities are designing energy efficiency behavior
change programs.
(1) How far have Colorado municipalities progressed in local climate and
energy action planning?
79


(2) What factors influence municipalities level of involvement in local
climate and energy action planning?
(3) How are home energy programs designed to reduce community-wide
GHG emissions?
(4) How do Colorado cities evaluate effectiveness of home energy efficiency
programs?
Chapter III explains the methods and procedures used to answer these questions.
80


CHAPTER III
METHODS
This study of local climate mitigation planning and related behavior change
programs explores and evaluates a diverse sample of Colorado municipalities and
their involvement in local climate planning processes as well as the implementation
pathways they followed, if any, to reduce household energy consumption and
ultimately greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It acts as a follow up study to a previous
research initiative with the University of Colorado Denver Sustainable Urban
Infrastructure group that conducted GHG emissions inventories for the sample of
municipalities. The main aims of this research are to effectively address the lack of
research related to local climate and energy planning in Colorado and local behavior
change interventions designed to reduce GHG emissions.
To answer the how and what research questions, this exploratory study
relies primarily upon qualitative research methods, including interviews, content
analysis, and case studies. However, a simple quantitative descriptor analysis is
conducted to verify findings that lead to the development of a case typology. I first
introduce where I am coming from as a researcher and then proceed to each aspect of
the research design: research questions, conceptual framework, sampling strategy,
data collection and analysis methods, and verification and accuracy of findings.
Research Perspective
Because the process of research typically stems from the researchers
philosophical assumptions to worldviews and on to the methods and procedures
(Creswell, 2007), it is important to be reflexive. I share my research perspective in
order that readers may understand the background and biases that likely influence this
81


research. As the sole researcher, I am the key instrument of data collection, analysis
and interpretation.
I strive to be reflective and aware of my biases and blind spots in this
research. In this interpretive inquiry, what I see, hear, understand cannot be separate
from my background, history, context, and understandings. Therefore, I strive to
focus on the learning and the meaning that participants hold about behavior change
programs in local climate planning, as well as the meaning I bring to the research.
The qualitative research process is emergent, therefore, phases of the process changed
after I began collecting and analyzing the data (Creswell, 2007).
With over fifteen years of experience in local government infrastructure
planning and program development, I am particularly interested in how applied
behavior change approaches and theories play out in the real world of local
government actions to change community-wide behaviors related to GHG emitting
behaviors. With previous experience implementing a community-based social
marketing campaign related to solid waste and recycling behaviors, I am curious as to
how effective community-based social marketing (CBSM) is related to energy
consumption behavior. CBSM is designed to target specific behaviors and draws from
behavioral science and psychological theories of pro-environmental behavior.
I am a practitioner at my core drawn to conducting applied and
interdisciplinary research to further behavior, energy and climate change knowledge
in the field. I am concerned with applications what works and what does not and
solutions to problems. To me, the important aspect of research is the problem being
82


studied, the questions asked about this problem, and how the answers will help to
improve practice.
Research Design
The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to explore what is happening in the
practice of local climate and energy mitigation planning in a diverse sample of
Colorado municipalities (to answer research questions one and two) as well as (2) to
explore related behavior change initiatives designed to reduce GHGs in the context of
local climate planning and municipalities role in the delivery of such programs (to
answer research questions three and four). Each aspect of the research design is
discussed in this section: research questions, conceptual framework, units of analysis,
sampling strategy, data collection and analysis methods, and verification of findings.
Research Questions
The research questions guiding this study (as introduced in the previous
chapter) are:
(1) How far have Colorado municipalities progressed in local climate and energy
action planning?
(2) What factors influence municipalities level of involvement in climate and
energy action planning?
(3) How are home energy programs designed to reduce community-wide GHG
emissions?
(4) How do Colorado cities evaluate effectiveness of home energy efficiency
programs?
83


How these questions fit into the broader domain of policy and planning
responses is illustrated in a conceptual framework (Figure 3.1).
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework illustrates the main concepts that are explored in a
study (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Figure 3.1 shows the broad domain of policy and
planning responses to climate change and how this studys research questions reside
in the domain of climate policy and planning.
LOCAL CLIMATE & ENERGY PLANNING
How MR HAVE COLORADO
MUNICIPALITIES
PROGRESSED IN LOCAL
CLIMATE AND ENERGY
ACTION PLANNING?
RQ1
WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCE
municipalities* level of
INVOLVEMENT IN CLIMATE AND ENERGY
ACTION PLANNING?
RQ2
MITIGATION
STRATEGIES
SOCIAL
COMMUNITY
HOME
ENERGY
PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS
WHY ARE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ENERGY PROGRAMS DESIGNED AS
THEY ARE ANO SELECTED FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
R03
HOW DO CITIES EVALUATE
EFFECTIVENESS OF HOME
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
RQ4
Figure 3.1: Conceptual Framework
Units of Analysis
This research analyzes local climate planning processes and embedded within
that home energy programs designed to reduce community-wide GHG emissions. The
units of analysis, therefore, are local climate and energy action planning (subject of
84


Chapter IV) and residential energy behavior change programs (subject of Chapter V).
The unit of analysis for data collection is a municipality. This exploratory study starts
by examining whether or not municipalities with GHG emissions inventories have
pursued climate planning beyond their GHG emissions inventory. And if so, why, and
what factors influence their level of involvement. Once municipalities that are
actively involved in climate planning and home energy programs are identified in
Chapter IV, case studies of home energy programs are conducted to better understand
the implementation pathways of home energy efficiency programs in Chapter V.
By exploring a specific local climate mitigation strategy operating in most
communities (household energy efficiency programs), I am able to draw from and
contribute to the body of knowledge and practice in the intersecting research domains
of climate mitigation planning and behavior change interventions. The focus of this
study is on residential energy programs as a climate and energy mitigation action
because:
Household energy sector is a significant source of a citys GHG emissions
profile and cities are compelled to include mitigation actions targeting
such emissions in their local climate action planning even though different
cities have different relationships with the energy utilities serving their
residents (Millard-Ball, 2012).
Climate and energy planning is requiring a broader view by city
management and is being handled in offices with a broader scope of
responsibility: mayors office, city managers office, rather than in a
85


department that may not have authority in the agency (e.g. facilities
department, public works department, planning department).
Electricity is a service that is offered by both municipally-owned utilities
as well as investor-owned utilities which creates an interesting dynamic,
which requires strong collaborations to overcome outdated institutional
ways, business as usual and the industrial growth mindset.
Municipal engineers and planners are having to draw upon the social
sciences to understand the behaviors that shape energy use and how
people can be persuaded to use less energy in the first place (Wired,
2014).
Sampling Strategy
This research builds upon previous work of University of Colorado Denver
and the municipalities being studied. UC Denver Center for Sustainable Infrastructure
Systems (UCD CSIS) conducted GHG emissions inventories with over 20
municipalities from 2005 to 2011 in partnership with the Colorado Municipal League.
My association with UCD CSIS stems from my time as a National Science
Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Trainee (IGERT)
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Fellow (2009-2012), which was coordinated by
UCD CSIS. As a UCD CSIS research fellow and PhD student, I assisted in
conducting GHG emissions inventories of two of the cities: Golden and Westminster.
The sample consists of all of the municipalities that partnered with UCD CSIS. It is a
pre-specified sample based on the municipalitys prior work with UCD CSIS. Table 3
shows the municipalities as well as the participants who were interviewed and
86


provided data for this study. The participants have a wide variety of titles, but for the
sake of this study, I refer to all participants as sustainability planners.
87


Table 3: Study Sample and Participants
Municipality Participant Title
1. Adams County Adrienne Dorsey Sustainability Coordinator
2. City of Arvada Jessica Prosser Sustainability Coordinator
3. City of Aurora Karen Hancock Environmental Program Supervisor
4. City and County of Boulder Kristen Hartel Beth Beckel Program Coordinator, City of Boulder Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Specialist, Boulder County
5. City of Broomfield Kathy Schnoor Kevin Standbridge Environmental Services Manager Assistant City Manager
6. Central City Greg Thompson Planning Director
7. Chaffee County Don Weimer Development Director
8. City and County of Denver Liz Babcock Gregg Thomas Julie Saporito Tom Herrod Residential Energy Program Administrator Environmental Assessment and Policy Section Supervisor Residential Energy Program Administrator Director of Environmental Quality
9. Town of Dillon Dan Burroughs Public Works Engineer
10. City of Durango Mary Beth Miles Sustainability Coordinator
11. Eagle County Deron Dirksen Public Works Engineer
12. Town of Fowler Did not participate N/A
13. City of Fort Collins Bonnie Pierce Environmental Data Analyst
14. City of Golden Theresa Worsham Sustainability Manager
15. City of Lafayette Curt Cheesman Director, Recreation and Facility Management
16. City of Lakewood Erich Harris Sustainability Division Manager
17. City of Montrose Virgil Turner Director of Innovation and Citizen Engagement
18. San Miguel/Ouray Counties/Telluride Nina Kothe Kim Wheels Administrator, Ouray County Commissioners Office EcoAction Partners, Energy Programs Coordinator
19. Routt County/ Steamboat Springs Tim Winter Purchasing/Building and Plant Director
20. City of Thornton Karen Widomski Sustainability Planner
21. Town of Vail Kristen Bertuglia Sustainability Coordinator
22. City of Westminster Rachel Harlow-Schalk Environmental and Administrative Services Officer
88


These municipalities provide a diverse representation of the population of
Colorado, from the highly populated metropolis of Denver to suburban communities
of Arvada and Golden to rural mountain towns, such as Dillon and Durango, to ski
towns such as Steamboat Springs in Routt County, Telluride in San Miguel County,
and Vail in Eagle County. The design intent of this small-// study is to closely
examine a relatively small but diverse and representative sample of Colorado
municipalities to find out how different types of communities are addressing climate
change and energy.
Research Methods
The exploratory nature of this research as well as the how, what and why
research questions call for a primarily qualitative research approach. However, a
simple quantitative analysis is conducted to triangulate findings regarding the factors
influencing municipalities level of involvement in local climate planning.
Qualitative research methods are selected as an effective approach for
discovering and exploring a new area such as climate mitigation planning in
Colorado. It is used when an issue needs to be explored rather than using
predetermined information from the literature or relying on results from other
research studies (Creswell, 2007). The main strengths of qualitative data and why I
collect primarily qualitative data for this study is because of its focus on real events
occurring in local climate mitigation interventions, which provides an understanding
of the contexts and settings in which the participants address this issue (Creswell,
2007, p. 40). It is also used to gain a holistic understanding of the context of climate
planning in Colorado and to understand these settings, which are inherently complex
89


and influenced by a wide range of factors. Qualitative methods embrace this
complexity and allow the researcher and readers to get a sense of what is actually
occurring in the cases and ground the data in a local context since the data is collected
in close proximity to the situation. Qualitative data is useful for its richness and its
holistic nature as it emphasizes peoples lived experiences. Since I aim to
comprehend the meaning of the qualitative data from interviews and formal
documents, qualitative methods are used to explicate the ways people in particular
settings come to understand, account for, take action, and otherwise manage their
day-to-day situations (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 7).
Quantitative analysis is used to verify the assumptions made in the
development of the case typology of settlement pattern types of urban, suburban, and
rural relating home energy program design to municipality size and geographic
location.
Table 4 outlines the research methods used in this study.
90


Table 4: Research Questions, Methods, Data Types
Research Questions Methods Type of data
(1) How far have C o lorado municipalities progressed in local climate and energy action planning? Answered in Chapter IV Data Collection Semi-structured interviews UCD CSIS GHG contact data/sample Data Analysis Qualitative content analysis with descriptive pattern coding Colorado map indicating home energy program initiatives Coded excerpts from interview transcripts and climate plans Case-ordered data display (Table 4.1) levels of municipality involvement (LOI) H-M-L -display matrix -narrative with evidence by HML level Cross case display matrices of cases representing each LOI (Tables 4.2,4.3,4.4) Case-ordered data display (Table 4.1) levels of municipality involvement (LOI) Unit of analysis = CEAP
(2) What factors influence municipalities level of involvement in climate and energy action planning? Answered in Chapter IV Data Collection Semi-structured interviews Documents: climate and energy action plans (CEAP) Secondary databases (US Census, US BLS, Colorado Secretary of State) Data Analysis Qualitative content analysis Analyze progress through lens of 5 milestone planning process Chronological analysis of climate policy evolution Quantitative descriptive analysis of socio-economic factors influencing LOI Unit of analysis = Climate and energy action planning Coded excerpts from interview transcripts and climate plans Climate policy and planning timeline Table of municipalitys socio- economic demographic data: population, density, political party of each city; Data display matrices of each cases features related to LOI Data display matrices of factors influencing LOI
(3) How are home energy programs designed to reduce community-wide GHG emissions? (4) How do cities evaluate effectiveness of home energy efficiency programs? Answered in Chapter V Data Collection Semi structured interviews Home energy program website text Data Analysis Qualitative content analysis Analyze program effectiveness through lens of CBSM applied framework Case Typology Case Studies of Home Energy Program Implementation Pathways Unit of analysis = Home energy programs Coded excerpts from interview transcripts and home energy program website content Cross case data display matrix of Urban/Suburban/Rural vs behavior change and measurement strategies Flow charts of institutional arrangements for each type
91


Full Text

PAGE 1

i CLIMATE PLANNING IN COLORADO: COMMUNITY BEHAVIOR CHANGE INTERVENTIONS TO MITIGATE HOUSEHOLD CARBON EMISSIONS by ANN MARGARET SCHEERER B.A., Kalamazoo College, 1984 B.S.M.E., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1985 M.P.A., University of Washington, Seattle, 2002 M.S c ., Sustainability Leadership, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2005 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Design and Planning 2015

PAGE 2

ii 2015 ANN SCHEERER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PAGE 3

iii This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Ann Margaret Scheerer has been approved for the Design and Planning Program b y Carolyn McAndrews, Chair Louise Turner Chawla, Advisor Thomas Clark Tanya Heikkila Anu Ramaswami Date: November 18, 2015

PAGE 4

iv Scheerer, Ann Margaret (PhD, Design and Planning) Climate P lanning in Colorado: Community B ehavior C hange I nterventions to M itigate C arbon E missions. Thesis directed by Professor Emeritus Louise Turner Chawla ABSTRACT This study explores over a decade of local climate mitigation activity in Colorado. Base d on the main premises that climate change impacts are due to human activities and that the local scale is the recommended scale for effective climate mitigation action this study explores the intersection of local climate mitigation planning pract ice and applied behavior change strategies employed by municipalities and community nonprofit agencies in Colorado to reduce community wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Through primarily qualitat ive methods (interviews of planners, plan content analysi s, case typology, case studies) as well as a simple descriptive quantitative analysis to triangulate findings, this study shows that Colorado municipalitie s involved in climate planning implement mitigation programs, such as home energy programs, outside t he formal structure of municipal planning offices and rely upon collaboration with community, regional, utility and federal government partners. Results suggest that climate mitigation action occurs at different levels of involvement depending on four fact ors that influence municipal levels of involvement: political will, federal funding support, local government capacity, and diffus ion of innovations A case typology emerged, which is based on each municipality's settlement patterns of urban, suburban, and rural types, which categorizes the models of residential energy efficiency programs that are offered to

PAGE 5

v residents in each community: an urban Energy Advisor model, suburban Resource Smart model, and rural mountain town 'Regional NonProfit' model. Cas e studies exploring the implementation pathways of home energy programs are presented to understand behavior change program design and institutional arrangements of each type. Communities are hubs of innovation diffusing climate action best practices throughout Colorado and the United States. The results confirm that municipalities are driving climate mitigation efforts, but engage in collaborations across sectors (government, nongovernmental organizations, utilities, businesses) and scales to deliver prog rams, such as home energy efficiency programs. With voluntary home energy services available to homeowners across Colorado, the most difficult behavior to change is getting homeowners to make that first call to inquire about available services and incentiv es. Results show that once contact is made, approximately 30% of homeowners upgrade the energy efficiency of their home in some way. For deeper carbon reductions, policy instruments should consider including mandates for efficiency upgrades targeted at specific household behaviors The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Louise Chawla

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION........1 II LITERATURE REVIEW.......10 Historical Development of Climate and Energy Policy ..........11 Local Climate an d Energy Planning.......21 Behavior Change Theo ry and Practice....51 Research Gap ..............79 III METHODS .............81 Resear ch Perspective...81 Research Design ..............83 IV MUNICIPAL INVOLVEMENT IN CLIMATE PLANNING... ..102 Colorado Municipalities Progress & Level of Involvement ....104 Factors I nfluencing M unicipalities L evel of I nvolvement......116 V IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE P ROGRAMS .....131 Case T ypology ......132 Cas e S tudies: U rban, S uburban, Rural Mountain T own.......135 VI CONCLUSION ..... Discussion of R esults.... Policy & Planning Implications........ Strengths & Limitations Suggestions for Future R esearch ....... REFERENCES..

PAGE 7

vi i APPENDICES..... A Interview Protocol... B Coding F rame.......... C Case Study P rotocol............206

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Three Applied Behavioral Science Perspectives on Behavior Change...58 2. Behavioral Barriers, CBSM Strategies and Related Psychological Theories60 3. Study Sample and Participants 4. Research Questions, Methods, Data Types ......91 5. Level of Involvement: Climate Mitigation Planning Milestone s Ach ieved 106 6. Municipalities with High Level of Involvement in Climate Planning .................................................................................................110 7. Municipalities with Medium Level of Involvement in Climate Planning .112 8. Climate Policy and Planning Timeline ..117 9. Factors Influencing High Level of Involvement in Climate Planning ...126 10. Factors Influencing Medium Level of Involvement in Climate Planning .128 11. Factors Influencing Low Level of Involvement in Climate Planning ...129 12. Case Typology ...132 13. Socio Economic Dem ogra phic Data.. 14. Urban Energy Advisor Home Energy Behavior P rogram Design Elements .142 15. Suburban Resource Smart Home Energy Behavior Pro gram Design Elements.....155 16. Rural Regional Non Profit Home Energy Behavio r Program Design Elements .........166

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1 ICLEI Five Milestone Climate Action Planning Process ...39 2.2 The B ehavioral Wedge....73 3.1 Conceptual Framework ... 4.1 ICLEI Five Milestone Climate Action Planning Process .104 4.2 Map of Organizations in Colorado Sustainability Collaborative.. 5.1 Institutional Arrangement of U rban Energy Advisor Model.....139 5.2 Soci al Norming Message..........146 5.3 Institutional Arrangement of Suburban Resource Smart Model 5.4 Institutional Arrangement of Rural Regional Non profit Model...162

PAGE 10

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The warming of the planet is a result of human activities Ex cessive amount s of heat trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emitted into the atmosphere due to human consumption of energy derived from carbonbased fossil fuels (IPCC, 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2014). Emissions are especially pervasive in highly populated industrialized regions. In response to climate change, h undreds of cities and regions acr oss the United States are taking on the challenge of local climate and energy action planning. It is logical to address climate and energy at the local scale because cities comprise over half of the worlds population and are where the majority of greenh ouse gases (GHGs) are emitted. C ities produce more than 60% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions and consume 80% of the worlds energy. Cities are important places for action on GHG mitigation and are an important part of the solution to addressing clim ate change. Also, municipalities are responsible for many of the infrastructure systems that generate GHG emissions at the local level. Municipalities may also act as a laboratory for trying out new approaches to cli mate mitigation and adaptation and are l eading the way in developing innovative best pr actices to curb GHG emissions. Local context of climate impacts requires different solutions that are locally appropriate (U .N Habitat, 2011). Household energy consumption accounts for 38 percent of GHG emissions in the United States and 8 percent of world emissions (Dietz, 2009). In local climate and energy action plans, local governments are working to mitigate GHG emissions by implementing a variety of mitigation actions. Mitigation strategies to redu ce GHG emissions include both technological solutions and social solutions achieved through

PAGE 11

2 engaging communities in climate mitigation actions (US Conference of Mayors, 2014). Cities represent high concentrations of private sector actors with a growing com mitment to act on climate change and provide arenas within which civil society is mobilizing to address climate change. This research explores the intersection of climate change, cities and human behavior. It integrates an evaluation of local climate and energy planning practice in Colorado with academic conversations in the fields of local climate and energy action planning (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2010; Millard Ball, 2012), and behavioral science theory and practice, such as community based social marketing (McKenzieMohr, 2011) and the behavioral wedge ( Dietz Gar dner Gilligan, Stern, & Vandenbergh, 2009; Ehrhardt Martinez & Meier 2013). This dissertation use s the broad term municipalities to refer to a number of forms of local governments such as an incorporated town, city or county that seek s to govern at the local level and which are represented in this study. Climate and energy action planning (CEAP) is also referred to as climate planning throughout this paper. This study builds upon previous work of UC Denver and the municipalities being studied. UC Denver Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Systems (UCD CSIS) conducted GHG emissions inventory work with over 20 municipalities from 2005 to 2011. My association with UCD C SIS stems from my time as a National Science Foundation IGERT Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Fellow (20092012), which was coordinated by UCD CSIS. As an IGERT research fellow and PhD student, I was engaged in conducting GHG emissions inventories of two of the cities in the sample (Golden, Westminster). The sample consists of all of the municipalities that partnered

PAGE 12

3 with UCD CSIS. It is a pre specified sample based on the municipalitys prior work with UCD CSIS. Local climate and energy action plans have helped cities and local stakeholders focus on the goal of GHG emissions reduction, but qualitative studies by planners suggest that local climate and energy action plans have generally not been successful in achieving actual GHG reductions (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Bassett & Shandas, 2010). Climate and energy action plans are designed to reduce GHG emissions primarily through voluntary programs targeted at households and businesses. However, political consensus is far from being achieved at the U.S. f ederal and state government scales International agencies, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), have instituted initiatives to encourage national governments to take action on climate change, but for ma ny nations, such as the United States, there is a lack of political will to institute climate change policy, which stems from concerns that it will decrease economic growth and threaten the American lifestyle. In addition, the uncertainties and complexitie s of climate change make decision making extremely difficult, especially in the shortterm context of politics and capitalism Despite the lack of United States federal government leadership on climate change over the last two decades, several U.S. state and city governments have assumed leadership roles by adopting policies and plans and implementing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation initiatives) as well as preparing local communities for impending climate change impacts (adaptation initiatives). The

PAGE 13

4 saying think globally, act locally expresses how many state and local governments view the importance of taking action within their local context of potential climate change impacts, such as floods, droughts, fires, air quality. Some researchers (Betsill et al ., 2007) suggest that the most effective policy responses to climate change emerge from multilevel, multisector collaborative governance Collaborative governance implies that local, state, regional, federal and international policy responses are intertwined and connected. The process of collaboration for mitigating climate impacts is in itself a change in human behavior at the policy level. If planners were able to master behavior change program desi gn as studies suggest (Dietz et al ., 2009), then significant GHG reductions should be realized. This study explores behavior change strategies and programs that local climate planners actually implement that are targeted at household energy consumption, how they are designed in terms of behavioral strategies, how effective they are, and how they are evaluated. This study addresses the gap between the rhetoric of what could be achieved in local climate and energy action planning (e.g. topdown analysis per Dietz et al, 2009) and the reality of what is actually being achieved (e.g. bottom up analysis per Ramaswami et al. 2012), related to household energy ( natural gas and electricity ) consumption behaviors. Climate planners are seeking proven ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by influenc ing their communities to foster more sustainable and l ess energy consumptive behaviors. With GHG reductions a high priority for many cities with climate plans the household energy sector has the potential for significant reductions.

PAGE 14

5 However, there is very little research addressing behavior change theory and practice in the emerging CEAP literature. Recent academic conversations on household energy consumption behavior and climate mitigation actions fall into two areas : community based social marketing (a n applied process) and the behavioral wedge (a research framework) A popular approach used by local planners to foster community wide behavior change is community based social marketing ( CBSM ) Whereas the behavioral wedge highlights the potential of simple household behavior changes to mitigate carbon, based on behavioral studies, CBSM fo cuses on approaches to community wide influence by integrating the principles of social marketing with the ories from behavioral science and environmental psychology in a practical framework. CBSM framework guides program planners to put into practice behav ior change strategies recommended in behavioral science studies (McKenzieMohr, 2011). CBSM bridges the theory to practice in terms of encouraging pro environmental behavior changes. Behavioral wedge researchers (Dietz et al ., 2009) claim that activities such as home weatherization, routine vehicle maintenance and opting for the clothesline instead of the dryer could cut total U.S. carbon emissions by 5 percent over just five years and 7.4 percent in 10 years. Thats the equivalent of Frances total carbon output, or of total emissions by the U.S. petroleum refining, steel and aluminum industries (p. 18452). The behavioral wedge researchers argue that barriers to behavior change and principles for designing programs and policies to overcome ba rriers to change are well known from past research, but they are rarely implemented as an integrated package. They argue that programs and policies could have greater

PAGE 15

6 impact if they adopt the bes t principles of program design and target the most impactful carbon emitting behaviors Ehrhardt Martinez et al. (2013) have developed a tool to help cities identify which community behaviors included in the behavioral wedge argument should be targeted based on the amount of emissions in comparison to other behaviors. This study explores the progress of local government climate and energy action planning in Colorado in terms of milestones achieved. Of the cities fully engaged in climate and energy action planning, household energy programs are identified and analyze d through the lens of community based social marketing. T he research questions guiding this study are: (1) How far have Col orado municipalities progressed in local climate and energy action planning? (2) What factors influence Colorado municipalities level of involvement in climate and energy action planning? (3) How are home energy programs designed to reduce community wide GHG emissions? (4) How do cities evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral interventions targeted at household energy use? This exploratory study of local climate and energy action planning in Colorado is designed to answer the se research questions through semi structured interviews of sustainability coordinators from a diverse group of 22 Colorado municipalities as well as a content review of local climate and energy action plans and municipal home energy program websites. C omparative case studies of home

PAGE 16

7 energy behavior change program pathways of urban, suburban and rural municipalities were conducted to better understand the design and implementation of home energy programs If the potential to reduce GHG emissions is achievable through household level behavior change (Dietz et al ., 2009; Ramaswami et al ., 2012; McKenzie Mohr, 2011) and climate and energy action plans are in place to do just that, reduce GHGs (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell, 2010), it is important to understand how municipalities are designing, implementing and evaluating behavior change programs designed to reduce GHG emissions in line with local climate and energy action plans. This research provides an opportunity to do this by integrating behavioral science, policy and planning literature in the domain of local climate and energy action planning. By exploring a specific local climate mitigation strategy operating in most communities household energy efficiency programs I am able to draw from past research and community experience to support this study. I have chosen to focus on residential energy programs because: The h ousehold energy sector is a significant source of a citys GHG emissions profile and municipalities include mitigation actions targeting such high impact emissions in their local climate action planning even though different cities have different relationships with the energy utilities s erving their residents (Millard Ball, 2012). Energy consumption concerns at city hall typically fall under the responsibility of the building department, but climate and energy action planning is requiring a broader scope of activities to reduce carbon

PAGE 17

8 e missions and is being handled in offices with a broader range of responsibility: mayors office, city managers office, facilities department, public works department, planning department. Electricity is a service that is offered by both municipally owned utilities as well as investor owned utilities which creates an interesting dynamic, which requires strong collaborations to overcome outdated institutional ways, business as usual and the industrial growth mindset. A recent article in Wired magazine (2014) entitled The Hot New Frontier of Energy Research is Human Behavior states that utility energy en gineers and planners are drawing on lessons from the social sciences, trying to understand the behaviors that shape energy use and how people can be p ersuaded to use less energy in the first place (para. 1). This article articulates the importance of designing technologies and infrastructure with human behavior principles in mind. The nonprofit organization, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainabil ity, has set the tone for local government climate planning in the U.S. and around the world. Through their work with local government greenhouse gas emissions reporting, ICLEI has been instrumental in the local climate planning trend. ICLEI provides a sol id justification: Energy efficiency in the building sector is touted as a low hanging fruit for cities to take hold of, in order to lower overall carbon emissions. Indeed, energy efficiency opportunities are well understood and implemented in a variety of settings. And yet, energy efficiency as a st rategy is still underutilized (ICLEI website, 2015).

PAGE 18

9 This dissertation is organized as follows The literature review of Chapter II addresses the broader historical development of climate policy and planning, literature specific to local climate and energy action planning at the municipal level, and c oncludes with behavior change theory and practical applications ( c ommunity based social marketing, behavioral wedge profile tool ) Chapter III discus ses the methods used to answer the research questions Chapters IV and V discuss the results Chapter VI concludes with main points gleaned from this research that may affect policy strengths and limitations of this study as well as areas for further research.

PAGE 19

10 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW R esearch confirms over and over again that climate change is due to anthropogenic factors and that local context is where social change to reduce GHG emissions happens most effectively. Cities are where the majority of GHG emissions are generated and where impactful actions can be taken to reduce GHG emissions. Since t he local scale is where effective behavior change action takes place, I explore local climate and energy planning efforts and how these plans and programs address individual and community wide behavior change I begin t his literature review by setting context with an overview of the development of climate policy and governance I start with a brief overview of international initiatives that influence local planning. I then explore the development of United State s (U.S.) federal climate and energy policy, and review briefly state involvement in climate and energy policy. After discussing the historical development of climate and energy policy at multiple scales I review extensively policy and planning literature related to the emerging body of interdisciplinary knowledge related to the theory and practice of local climate and energy action planning Several terms are used interchangeably for this term. For simplicitys sake, I will refer to local climate and ener gy action planning as climate planning throughout this dissertation. My review of the local climate and energy planning literature starts with a review of what compels cities to voluntarily engage in local climate planning and moves into climate plan eva luation studies.

PAGE 20

11 After reviewing the CEAP literature for how or if cities deliver behavior change programs, I review literature on the theories underlying the practice of household energy behavior change. With a focus on the effectiveness of applying behavior change theory to pra ctice, I explore academic literature and professional reports from the fields of local CEAP and behavior change. At the end of this chapter, I discuss the research gap s identified in the review of this literature as well as introduce the research questions guiding this study Historical Development of Climate and Energy Policy and Planning Scientists from around the world agree that warming of the climate is unequivocal and is due primarily to human activities that emit an excessive amount of heat trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (IPCC, 2014). However, political consensus is far from being achieved. International agencies, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), have instituted initiatives to encourage national governments to take action on climate change, but for many nations, there is a lack of political will to institute climate change policies. Political c oncerns over negative impacts of climate policy to the economy have stifled efforts to develop climate policy in many developed countries, such as the United States. T he uncertainties and complexities of climate change make decision making extremely difficult, internationally and especially in the short term context of U.S. politics. International climate policy talks began in the late 1980s through the United Nations W orld Commission on Environment and Development (UNWCED ) Up until recently, the U.S. has not participated in international climate agreement s through the

PAGE 21

12 U.N. T he lack of U.S. federal government leadership on climate change policy since it emerged in the late 1980s did not keep U.S. state governments or local governments from taking action. S everal U.S. state and city governments have assumed leadership roles by adopting policies and plans to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. They have i mple ment ed policies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation initiatives) as well as to prepar e local communities for impending climate change impacts (adaptation initiatives). The saying think globally, act locally expresses how many stat e and local governments view the importance of taking action within their local context. The focus of this research is climate change mitigation policy and planning. Focusing on climate change mitigation responses, I first r eview literature related to international climate po licy over the past twenty years, then provide an overview of U.S. climate policy and governance. Then I provide an overview of U.S. state and local climate change policy and planning research, providing background on subnational cl imate change responses in the absence of federal climate policy. I analyze and critique recent evaluation research focused o n U.S. local climate action plans, which is at the core of this research and where this project will contribute knowledge I conclude with an identification of gaps in the reviewed literature International Climate Policy One of the first international initiatives that brought attention to the importance of local action in addressing sustainable development issues, such as climate change, was the creation of the Brundtland Commission in 1983, named in recognition of former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, Chair of

PAGE 22

13 the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. In 1987, the Brundtland Commission publi shed Our Common Future also known as the Brundtland Report (UNWCED, 1987). The Brundtland Report includes a chapter on the important role of cities in the pursuit of sustainable development goals and embraces the concept of thinking globally and acting locally. Even though climate change was one of many issues addressed in the Brundtland Report and it received brief attention, the report is often given credit for planting the seeds for local climate action planning (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006; Boswell et al ., 2012). Even though international climate change policy emerged in the 1980s from United Nations sustainable development initiatives, the previous decades 1973 U.S. oil crisis resulted in the establishment of the first generation of U.S. energy policy. U nder President Jimmy Carter, the Department of Energy was established in 1977 and The National Energy Act was instituted in 1978. These initiatives resulted in more renewable forms of energy and more diversified supplies of oil. However, U.S. energy policy lost political momentum in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan who developed agreements with oil rich countries to import cheap oil to the U.S. and diverted attention away from energy conservation and renewable energy technologies (Randolph & Masters, 2008). In 1988, the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Program (UNEP) formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific intergovernmental body who provides comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical, and socio economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential

PAGE 23

14 environmental and socio economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects (IPCC website 2012). The IPCC is considered the authority on climate change science ( Wheeler, Randolph, & London, 2009) Since 1988, the IPCC has gained international peer reviewed scientific consensus on climate change, bringing attention to the effects of climate change, and to options for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC recently released their fifth and latest assessment report (IPCC, 2014). In it they conclude that it is evident that h uman influence on the climate system is clear due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, increased radiative forcing, and recorded warming trends (IPCC, 2014). The first assessment report AR 1 ( IPCC 1990) addressed climate change as a distinct issue of sustainable development This first IPCC report was published in sync with the planning of the 1992 U .N Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro where policy and planning responses to t his crisis were discussed by international policy makers The first IPCC assessment report and the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro influenced the development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC, 1992) The UNFCC C seeks to reach a comprehensive international climate change agreement applicable to all countries with the aim of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius The UNFCCC is a universal convention of principle, acknowledging the existence of anthropogenic cl imate change and giving industrialized countries the major responsibility for combatting it (COP 21 website 2015). The UNFCC C has been ratified by 196 nation states, which

PAGE 24

15 constitute the Conference of Parties (COP) and is the decision making body regardi ng international strategies and goals for combatting climate change I n December 2015, the 21st meeting of UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP21) will be held in Paris (COP21, 2015). International decision makers at the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro agreed that acting locally was critical. In Rio, 178 nations adopted L ocal Agenda 21 (LA 21). The United States was not one of these nations. LA 21 is essentially a planning document to help guide localities in sustainable development actions ( United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [UNCED] 1992). This was a key turning point in international sustainable development policy discussions. LA 21 committed the signatory nations to develop local sustainable development pla ns. LA 21 inspired the formation of a highly influential nonprofit consultancy and transnational network, ICLEI (International Council for Local Envir onmental Initiatives Local Governments for Sustainability). ICLEI supports local governments in developing sustainability and resilience policies and programs to reduce GHG emissions and prepare communities for potential climate change impacts In 1998, ICLEI introduced the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Program based on the Local Agenda 21 planning model (ICLEI, 2008). ICLEIs CCP was highly influential in getting local governments to conduct GHG emissions inventories and develop climate and energy action plans. ICLEI will be discussed in greater detail later in this literature review in the section on local climate and energy action planning.

PAGE 25

16 The establishment of the UNFCCC led to the creation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto Protocol is considered to be one of the most far reaching global agreements to regulate environmental protection by controlling nations GHG emissions I n 1997, i t urge d nations to reduce their GHG emissions by 7% of their 1990 baseline GHG levels by 2012. U.S. federal government did not commit to the Kyoto Protocol goals at that time Under Preside nt George W. Bushs administration (when the Kyoto Protocol was established), economic concerns as well as reservations regarding developing nations (such as China) not taking part, were reasons why the U.S. refused to agree to Kyoto Protocol GHG emissions reduction goals. In response to U.S. federal inactivity, state and local governments have assumed leadership and established climate change policies and plans in the United States United States Federal Climate and Energy Policy Since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, several political moves have been made to address climate change and energy policy at the federal level (Rabe, 2010; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [ EPA ] website 2015). These moves include: revisions to the Clean Air Act to include GHGs as air pollutants; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funds ; proposed carbon standards for new power plants; and most recently, a Clean Power Plan administered by the Envir onmental Protection Agency In 2013, President O bama initiated a c limate action plan for the U.S In November 2014, Obama announced GHG reduction goals for the U.S. Obama stated that the U .S would emit 26% 28% less

PAGE 26

17 GHG emissions in 2025 than it did in 2005. This is double the pa ce of reduction previous ly set. According to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and ICLEI in a recent report (2015) t he U.S. has doubled its wind and solar electricity generation, adopted the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in US history, and increased the energy efficiency of homes, i ndustries and businesses (p.5). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has enacted appliance efficiency standards that will save Americans nearly 480 billion on their utility bills through 2030. The EPAs Energy Star Program, which endo rses energy efficient appliances, will help consumers save more than $34 billion per year. The White House website states that President Obamas climate and energy policies will continue to promote the use and development of smart, simple, low cost technologies to help households save on their energy bills and help America transition to cleaner, and more distributed energy resources ( U.S. White House website 1, 2015). A key feder al policy instrumental to state and local climate and energy actions is t he 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( ARRA ) ARRA institute d energy efficiency and renewable energy projects throughout the United S tates The U .S Department of Energy (DOE) invested over $90 billion in programs and tax incentives to create a foundation for a clean energy economy (US DOE, 2012) From 2009 through 2013, DOE invested its Recovery Act funds into several key areas to ensure Americas lo ng term competitiveness: increasing energy efficiency; restructuring the transportation system; doubling renewable energy generation;

PAGE 27

18 investing in smart grid infrastructure; expanding innovative research; and cleaning up our nations nuclear waste ( US DOE, 2012 ). The focus of this research is home energy efficiency programs of which The Recovery Act was a major influence. Financial incentives for h ome weatherization were a primary focus of The Recovery Acts Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) program which helped to insulate more than 650,000 low income homes across the U.S. The Recovery Act spurred weatherization upgrades throughout Colorado as well In June 2014, President Obama introduced his climate action plan: Climate Change and President Obamas Action Plan (U S White House website 2, 2015), which includes The Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan sets achievable standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 (The White House website 1 2015). The main objective s of The Clean Power Plan are to reduce carbon pollution from power plants; expand the clean energy economy ; bui ld clean energy infrastructure; cut energy waste in homes, businesses and factories; reduce other GHG emis sions; and take federal leadership in reducing carbon emissions ( EPA 2015). By setting these goals and enabling states to create t ailored plans to meet them, the EPA claims that the average American family will save n early $85 a year on their energy bills in 2030 and overall s ave enough energy to power 30 million homes in 2030 and s ave $155 billion from 20202030 (The White House website 1, 2015). The DOE estimates that families can save an average of $437 a year on their energy bills as a result of weatherizing their home (DOE, 2012).

PAGE 28

19 U.S. State Climate and Energy Policy State level policy researchers claim that even though many states are actively involved in climate policy development, climate mitigation efforts are fragmented across the U.S. states and GHG emissions continue to increase Some scholars argue that federal policy that is consistently applied to all states is what is needed for better policy integration across the country (Rabe, 2010; Crane & Landis, 2011). ICLEI calculates the t otal GHG emission s that states and cities commit to reducing and claim s that significant GHGs will be reduced if states and cities are achieving the GHG reduction targets they set ( WWF & ICLEI, 2015). In the past two decades, climate change has emerged as one of the main challenges facing U.S state and local governments It is one of the core obstacles to sustainable development (IPCC, 2014). Scholars from a variety of disciplines ( e.g. political science, behavioral science, energy planning, infrastructure engineering ) are primary contributors examining the chal lenges and opportunities of climate and energy policy and planning. Prominent political scientist, Barry Rabe, has approached his research of state level climate policy from the viewpoint of national and state political dynamics in his books, Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Stealth Politics of American Climate Change Policy (2004) and Greenhouse Governance: Addressing Climate Change in America (2010), both published by The Brookings Insti tution. At the level of U.S. state government, the majority of states have actively adopted climate and energy policies and programs. States leading the charge, the early adopters of state climate and energy plans and policies, ar e California and Massachu setts (Alliance to Save Energy [ASE] 2015). In California state mandates

PAGE 29

20 require that every city develop a climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for climate impacts (Millard Ball, 2012). Colorado adopted a climate action plan under Governor Bill Ritter in 2007. State level climate and energy policies are diverse and numerous. Types of state level climate and energy policies include renewable portfolio standards (RPS), carbon offset progra ms and cap and trade systems. Mandates as well as voluntary climate protection policies have been initiated in the majority of U.S. states (EPA, 2012). To increase the level of renewable energy sources in operation in states, mandated Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) provide a mechanism to increase renewable energy generation and make renewable energy economically competitive with conventional forms of electric power. RPSs were first developed in Iowa, and as of 2011, 33 states had operational RPSs (Rabe, 2004, 2010; EPA, 2011). States have also developed voluntary market based policy initiatives, such as cap and trade systems and carbon offset programs. Rabe (2004) examined state governments and found that states with climate plans had a strong presenc e of policy entrepreneurs who heavily influence state involvement in climate policy. However, even with strong policy entrepreneurs, Drummond (2010) found state climate actions have resulted in modest but measurable reductions in GHG emissions, where approximately half the GHG reductions come from the commercial sector and half from the transportation sector, with negligible reductions coming from the residential sector. Brody et al (2008, 2010) examined the degree to which federal agency and state decisio nmakers consider climate change in their overall policy making activities

PAGE 30

21 They found that state agencies exhibit a variation in type of solution depending on the type of agency and their locale. For example, energy related agencies focused on mitigation responses whereas natural hazard related agencies focused on adaptation responses. Brody suggests that U.S. state agencies as a whole demonstrate weak engagement in climate policy interventions when compared to other issues on their agendas. According to t he think tank, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE, 2014), many innovative policies and programs that promote energy efficiency originated in states. ACEEE ranks states on their policy and program efforts, and recommends ways that state s can improve their energy efficiency perf ormance in various policy areas. ACEEE ranked the State of Colorado thirteenth of the 50 states with their Energy Efficiency Scorecard tool. There is room for improvement in Colorado climate and energy policy (ACE EE, 2014) In a recent report released by the World Wildlife Fund and ICLEI (2015) : From observing recent experiences in states with climate mitigation frameworks, such as California and New York, it is apparent that there are substantially more communit ies that will act when supported and aligned within their state and federal frameworks. Bold commitments from federal and state government s can unleash a wave of local innovation as more cities include climate as a key performance metric, linked to the competitiveness of their businesses, health of their citizens, and efficiency of government services (p. 15). Local Climate and Energy Action Planning Since local context is a key consideration in applying appropriate climate change strategies, local municipalities have a great opportunity and enormous potential to reduce GHG emissions and help local residents prepare for climate change impacts through innovative local climate and energy action plans (CEAP). To

PAGE 31

22 reiterate, t his study examines climate mitigation strategies aimed at reducing household GHG emissions. Adaptation strategies are extremely important in CEAPs, especially those adaptation strategies that complement mitigation strategies rather than undermine, but are not the focus of this study. Mitigation efforts are present in most local climate and energy plans but adaptation efforts are addressed in a limited way (Bryan, 2015; Jabareen, 2015). Planning scholars, such as Sammy Zahran (2008) Samuel Brody (2008, 2010), and Himanshu Grover (2008, 2010) quantitatively analyze regional and local climate planning from a U.S. spatial perspective using geogr aphic information systems and U.S. census data to identify geographic and demographic patterns in locales that have adopted climate protection policies and plans. Other leading climate action planning scholars, such as Stephen Wheeler (2008, 2009) and Michael Boswell (2010, 2012) qualitatively analyze the content and quality of state and local climate plans. Political science researchers, such as Michele Betsill (2001, 2006, 2007) and Harriet Bulkeley (2005, 2006, 2007, 2013, 2015) study governance dynamics of local climate planning efforts. Infrastructure engineering and energy planning scholars, such as Gilbert Masters (2008) Anu Ramaswami (2008, 2012) and John Randolph (2008) approach climate p olicy research from a technological perspective. These multiple perspectives are briefly reviewed in the following review of local climate change policy and planning research. C ities have emerged as climate leaders in the U.S. by voluntarily developing and adopting local climate plans and policies (Betsill, 2001; Wheeler, 2008; Resilient Communities for America, 2015). Cities are providing leadership regardless of

PAGE 32

23 incentives and support from higher levels of government (ICLEI, 2015). The emergence of U.S. local government climate policy and planning in the 1990s and 2000s is reflected in several studies of local climate protection published in premier policy and planning academic journals (e.g. Journal of the American Planning Association, Local Environment Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Landscape and Urban Planning, Journal of Urban Affairs Climate Policy) Four main research designs have been used to study local climate policy and planning: (1) small n in depth case studies that describe the governance dynamics of best practice cities (e.g. Betsill, 2001; Lindseth, 2004; ); (2) quantitative large n studies that examine the factors that influence cities to make climate protection commitments (e .g. Brody et al ., 2008; Zahran et al ., 2008; Krause, 2010; Castan Broto & Bulkeley, 2013; Jabareen, 2015) ; (3) write ups by climate protection networks on member cities activities (ICLEI, Sierra Club Cool Cities, C40 Cities); and (4) small n studies that qualitatively assess small samples of cities climate planning processes and the resultant quality of their plans (e.g. Kousky & Schneider, 2003; Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell, 2010; Pitt, 2010; Tang et al ., 2010; Finn & McC ormick, 2011; Krause, 2011; Fenton et al ., 2015). Four broad themes addressed in early local climate and energy action planning studies (20002008) are: (1) policy and planning theories underlying local climate and energy action planning; (2) emerg ent climate governance dynamics; (3) factors influencing local governments to pursue climate and energy action planning; and (4)

PAGE 33

24 climate plan evaluation studies of process, content, and quality of local climate and energy action planning. The majority of these climate plan evaluation studies use qualitative content analysis and interview research metho ds to explore small samples of best pract ice city climate and energy action plans (Wheeler, 2008; Pitt & Randolph, 2009; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell e t al ., 2010). There are also several in depth case studies of specific climate and energy action planning cases (Willson & Brown, 2008; Ramaswami et al ., 2012; Barbour & Deakin, 2012). Recent (20112015) quantitative survey research builds on qualitative r esearch and develops empirical generalizations about local climate and energy action plan quality across broad populations (Krause, 2010, 2011; Tang et al 2010; Millard Ball, 2012). Whereas early research focused on the emergence of local climate and energy action planning as a viable planning process, more recent climate and energy action planning research focuses on evaluating effectiveness, drawing from over ten years of city climate and energy action planning experien ce. Research suggests that U.S. local climate and energy action plans are strong in conducting GHG emissions inventories and setting GHG reduction targets through extensive stakeholder processes, establishing detailed emissions inventories with quantified emissions benefits, and greening local government but are weak in quantification of outcomes (Wheeler, 2008; Bulkeley & Castan Broto, 2013) Also, climate and energy action plan ning has proven to positively influence both the degree to whi ch municipalities understand the concept of climate change as well as the degree of public awareness of climate change. Municipalities with climate

PAGE 34

25 and energy action plans generally receive strong public support for their efforts (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Tang et al ., 2010) However, a number of researchers claim that local climate and energy action plans are weak in achieving their main purpose: reducing GHG emissions (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Tang et al ., 2010; Krause, 2011). This is attributed to a variety of factors: GHG reduction goals vary widely across sectors and agencies, resulting in fragmented policies, messages, and programs; political and institutional commitment needed to mitigate emissions is lacking; mitigation action s are primarily voluntary and participation is low; and individuals are reluctant to change behaviors. All of these weaknesses have a common denominator: behavior change. Policy and Planning Theory Underlying Local Climate Planning Political scientists and public affairs scholars (e.g. Lindseth, 2004; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2001, 2005, 2006; Kousky & Schneider, 2003; Krause, 2010, 2011; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Bulkeley & Castan Broto, 2013 ) examine climate change policy through a variety of theoretical lenses, such as rational planning theory, communicative planning theory, and diffusion of policy innovation theory. Early climate change policy research grapples with classic rational choice political economic theory due to the phenomenon of hundreds of cities adopting climate protection policies and plans and receiving minimal direct benefit from their GHG reduction efforts, yet bearing the full burden of the c ost. Brody et al (2008) explain : From a pure rational choice perspect ive, it is unreasonable for a local government to assume the costs of climate protection because (1) reducing emissions will not fully insulate a locality from the global risks of climate change, (2) the costs of mitigation are higher than the expected ben efits when participation is both

PAGE 35

26 voluntary and relatively low, (3) the collective benefits of climate protection if achieved are non excludable and nonrival because climate outcomes are shared, and (4) there is no federal assistance to offset production e fforts (p. 34). Rational planning is often described as a linear process, in which a clearly defined series of steps are taken from problem formation through analysis, selection and implementation to evaluatio n and feedback (Fenton et al ., 21015) From a rational planning perspective, it is expected that with this type of global good, the climate most decision makers woul d free ride and rely on other agencies to solve the problem and avoid the costs themselves. The large number of cities involved in local climate action planning demonstrates that at the local level, free riding has been much less of an obstacle than theorized (Kousky & Schneider, 2003; Brody e t al ., 2008; Krause, 2010, 2011). Because voluntary municipal involvement in climate protection seemingly contradicts rational choice theory, much of the academic research on the topic focuses on why a local government would voluntarily participate in climate change mitigation efforts and examines emergent dynami cs of climate chan ge governance. Through a survey of 20 global cities Jabareen ( 2015) found that: the vast majority of contemporary cities continue to employ traditional planning approaches (whe n planning for climate change and) are not doing all they can to fortify themselves against uncertainties, climate change, and natural environmental hazards. ( and) have ignored anticipated threats, vulnerabilities and uncertainti es stemming from climate change. The f undamental premise is that urban plans possess an unrivaled potential to contend with the impacts of climate change (p. 40 ). In recent years many cities have been grappling with climate change using master, strategic, and action plans aimed a t mitigating GHG emissions and adapting

PAGE 36

27 to the anticipated, and uncertain, impacts of climate change. Local climate plans have yet to be assessed for their impact at national levels. A ssessments have gone no further than reports on the climate change relat ed activities of cities, which tend to pertain to general activities and experiment s conducted at the local level. It is found, however, that cities that take climate change seriously have applied a broad range of mitigation measures aimed at GHG emissions reduction. Thus, mitigation actions, experiments and innovations appear to be feasible for many cities and can be attributed to local climate plans (Jabareen, 2015). In contrast to the rational planning perspective, which the ICLEI five milestone planning model adheres, the communicative planning model suggests that all stakeholders affected or influenced by a planning strategy should participate in dialogue to clarify pre conditions, interests and reach consensus on proposed actions (Innes & Boohe r, 2004). Climate planning is being examined by some scholars to determine if the rational planning model is appropriate for climate change as it does not make increasing the role of citizens and private stakeholders a priority Ideally, climate change cal ls for a change f rom government to governance. This is an apt metaphor for the transition from r ational to communicative models of planning which impl y increasing plurality, in terms of both the actors involved and the levels of awareness about the complexity and inte rdependency of climate change issues ( Innes & Booher, 2004; Fenton et al ., 2015) Climate mitigation actions clearly involve multiple stakeholders not solely government, many of whom are in the private and nonprofit sectors, which provide s evidence of a shift to more communicative forms of planning.

PAGE 37

28 Diffusion of innovation theory is addressed in the policy research on local adoption of climate change plans (Pitt 2009, 2010; Krause, 2010; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Brody et al, 2010; Bulkeley Castan Broto & Edwards 2015). Everett Rogers (1962) initiated research on the diffusion of innovation in his seminal book Diffusion of Innovations Rogers defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system (p. 11). He defines innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption (p.12). Everett classified adopter s of innovations as: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, or laggards He refers to individual adoption of innovations, not government adoption of innovation as this thesis explores. Everett argues that at the heart of the diffusion process is the modeling and imitation by potential adopters of their near peers experiences with the new idea. In deciding whether or not to adopt an innovation, individuals depend mainly on the communicate experience of others much like themselves who have already adopted a new idea. These subj ective evaluations of an innovation flow mainly through interpersonal networks. So we must understand the nature of networks in order to understand the diffusion process (p.331). Berry and Berry (1999) address Innovation and Diffus ion Models in Policy Research in regards to government adoption of innovative new policies, plans or programs. The dominant practice in the policy innovation literature is to define an innovation as a program that is new to the government adopting it. Thus a government jurisdiction can innovate by adopting a program that numerous other

PAGE 38

29 jurisdictions established many years ago (p. 171 ) Although some research has been conducted on local government adoption of new policies, the vast majority of the innovation policy researc h fo cuses on state governments. States emulate each other for three reasons: learning, competition, public pressure. This theory could be extended to local government: 1. States learn from each other cities learn from each other 2. States compete with each other cities compete with each other to achieve a competitive advantage or to avoid being disadvantaged. 3. City officials can feel public pressure from their own citizens to adopt policies initiated in other states There are three models from the diffusion of innovation theory that may apply to the diffusion of local climate planning phenomenon: interaction model, which is based on the idea that social networks diffuse innovations; and regional diffusion model, where ci ties emulate neighboring cities; and the leader laggard m odel where it is assume d that states (cities) emulate other states in a learning process rather than because of interstate competition or public pressure Coordination and collaboration with nearb y jurisdictions as well as involvement in transn ational networks (e.g. ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection U .S M ayors C limate A greement ) have influenced the diffusion of adoption of local climate plans and policies. Cities are influenced by neighboring cities to adopt climate plans as well as by ICLEI who shares stories of member cities, which often inspires climate action. Castan Broto & Bulke ley (2013) investigate a variety of climate change responses that emerge outside of formal contexts and are led by stakeholders ot her

PAGE 39

30 than municipal governments. They argue that urban climate change governance is a process of experimentation where climate change experiments are presented as interventions to try out new ideas and methods in the context of future uncertainties. This study suggests that climate experimentation at the local level tends to focus on both social and technical forms, but technical experimentation is more common in urban infrastructure systems. While municipal governments have a critical role in climate change experimentation, they often act alongside other actors in a variety of forms of partnership and are a key tool to open up new political spaces for governing climate change in the city So w hile local governments lead the majority of climate change experiments, many other actors are involved either leading experiments or in partnerships (Castan Broto & Bulkeley, 2013). Early climate governance research primarily examines the case of ICLEIs Cities for Climate Protection program and its influence on cities to adopt climate action plans as this is the primary arena in which cities initially committed to climate policy and planni ng. (Lindseth, 2004; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2001, 2005, 2006; Kousky & Schneider, 2003). An important finding to come out of this research is the dispersed nature of bottom up climate change governance, which reflects the complexity of governing such an unc ertain and dispersed phenomenon. A multi level governance dynamic, where city, utility, and non governmental agencies are critical actors in the governance of climate change, is dominated by networks between public and private actors across levels and se ctors of social organizations. Within these complex networks, climate change is constructed and contested at a variety of scales and scales of governance and through multiple political spaces

PAGE 40

31 (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007, p. 58). It is increasingly recogniz ed that the top down approach traditionally used to address global public goods problems, like climate, is floundering in regard to climate protection, and efforts would benefit by shifting to multilevel, multipronged stra tegies (Krause, 2011, p. 193). Three highly influential transnational networks, are connecting city staff and Mayors around the world to local CEAP best practices: ICLEI Local Governments for the Environment, the U.S. Mayors for Climate Protection ( USMCP ), and the C40 C ities Climate Leadership Group. These networks encourage local government adoption of climate policies and plans to reduce local GHG emissions increase energy efficiency and prepare for climate impacts. In 1993, ICLEI initiated their Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program after UN Agenda 21 discussions at the 1992 UN Earth Summit ICLEI provides climate action planning technical assistance to local jurisdictions worldwide who pledge to reduce GHG emissions by a locally determined amount and to develop a local climate action plan (ICLEI, 2008; Wheeler, 2008). In 2005, Seattle Mayor Gregg Nickels initiated the U.S. Conference of Mayors for Climate Protection Network and Agreement to encourage city mayors to support t he Kyoto Protocol by committing to reducing GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 as well as to urge state and federal governments to take action on climate change. In June of 2013, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution to support the nonprofit advocacy group, the Alliance to Save Energys Energy 2030 goal of doubling the nations energy productivity by 2030 ( ASE 2014).

PAGE 41

32 Also in 2005, President Bill Clintons Global Climate Initiative formed the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which includes mayors of large cities from across the world and is currently chaired by Rio de Janeiro Mayor Eduardo Paes. As of 2011, more than 120 U.S. cities and counties have prepared climate change action plans of var ying types, more than 1,000 U.S. mayors have signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors for Climate Protection Agreement, and 58 mayors from around the world have joined the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (Boswell et al ., 2012). At the 2014 U .N Climate Summit, another transnational network of city leaders, the Compact of Mayors was launched by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon with support of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40), ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) with strong support from UN Habitat, the UNs lead agency on urban sustainability issues. The Compact of Mayors establishes a common foundation to measure cities collective impact of GHG emissions reductions as well as assessment of risk s. Ultimately, the Compact of Mayors provides hard evidence that cities are leaders in the fight against climate change and that local action can have a significant global impact (Compact of Mayors, 2014) The strategy is to establish a cooperation framework to collect and aggregate new and existing ci ty commitments and climate data and to quantify the impact of city commitments made to date (C40 website 2015). On August 25, 2015 President Obama challenged all U.S. Mayors to commit to climate and energy action planning before the December 2015 COP21 meeting. Obama set a goal of getting at least 100 U.S. city mayors to sign the Compact of

PAGE 42

33 Mayors agreement by the end of November 2015. There is a group of twelve U.S. mayors that has rec ently formed the Local Climate Leaders Circle, which will represent U.S. Mayors at the COP21 meeting. It is interesting to note that Matt Applebaum, the Mayor of Boulder, Colorado, is in the Local Climate Leaders Circle and is the only Colorado representat ive (ICLEI, 2015). T ransnational networks of cities continue to emerge to address climate change. The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance (CNSA), formed in 2014 at an organizing meeting in Copenhagen, is a collaboration of international cities committed to achieving aggressive long term carbon reduction goals. Boulder, CO is the only Colorado city participatin g in this network (CNSA, 2015). Through a s urvey of 25 regional councils in the US, the extent to which metropolitan regional councils have adopted climate change plans was measured and the factors that influence their ability to implement climate change initiatives were ident ified The findings revealed that a majority of regional councils are involved in planning for climate change pri marily because existing efforts in complementary policy domains make this involvement possible (Bryan, 2015). Factors Influencing Local Governments to Adopt Climate Plans Much of the research on climate policy and planning examines what motivates cities to engage in climate protection and what opportunities and obstacles are present in pursuing local climate plans and policies. This body of research includes several qualitative case studies, which examine ICLEIs CCP p rogram with small n samples of best practice cities that joined the CCP program and commit to the five milestone planning process. These qualitative studies use content analysis of local climate action plan documents and interviews of city officials to determine

PAGE 43

34 factors that influence local adoption of climate action plans ( Betsill, 2001; Kousky & Schneider, 2003; Lindseth, 2004; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004; Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Pitt, 2010; Fenton et al ., 2015). Other studies seek generalization s and quantitatively assess bro ader patterns of the populations of cities, counties, and metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) through large n survey research using primary survey data, secondary census data, and some using geographic information systems (GIS) to understand spatial patt erns of climate plan adoption (Brody et al ., 2008; Zahran et al ., 2008; Krause, 2010). The Lincoln Institute of Land Poli cy developed a report entitled Planning for Climate Change in the West which provides context for the climate impacts that may affect Colorado and other states in the intermountain we st (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) and the responses of federal, regional, state and localities (Carter & Culp, 2010). They found the barriers to implementing local climate change policies in the western U .S states are: lack of political support, discounting the impact of local action, perceived lack of peer communities in the region, lack of resources and options, lack of appropriate climate science for planners. They recommend that local planners and communities: mobilize political will; recognize local action and citizen participation; establish peer community networks on a regional scale; identify resources and a variety of options; and adapt climate science to lo cal planning needs. Research suggests that the main factors influencing cities to adopt climate action plans are the presence of: political champions (e.g. political leaders, policy entrepreneurs); local government competencies in climate related policy s ectors (e.g.

PAGE 44

35 energy, transportation, building codes, solid waste and recycling); more staff assigned to energy or climate planning; adequate financial resources ; higher risks of climate related natural hazards; higher proportions of registered voters in the Democratic Party; a large number of local environmental nonprofit organizations; and higher levels of community environmental activism (Betsill, 2001; Rabe, 2004; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007; Zahran et al ., 2008; Brody et al ., 2008; Pitt & Randolph, 2009; Pitt, 2010). Local governments are also motivated to pursue climate change mitigation interventions when city officials recognize that actions to control GHG emissions also address other local co ncerns already on their agendas. Cities are tying climate mitigation activities to the many co benefits stemming from mitigation projects (e.g. air quality, smart growth, compact mixed use development, green building, light rail transit, cost savings) in order to further develop climate mitigation strategies (Betsi ll, 2001; Kousky & Schneider, 2003; Lindseth, 2004; Randolph & Masters, 2008; Wheeler et al ., 2009; Boswell et al ., 2012). Since local governments have control over many decisions related to land use, building construction, public transportation, road cons truction, urban forests, and solid waste management, they are best suited to establish planning processes and policies that are relevant to local contexts. Climate change policy and planning are important at the local level because it is the level closest to the people who are consuming energy in buildings and transport that emit greenhouse gases. In a study of five Swedish municipalities it was found that municipalities used both a rational approach to planning as well as a communicative approach and

PAGE 45

36 the choice of rational or communicative approaches had significant implications on both the organizational form of a municipalitys process for developing energy and climate strategies and the sc ope and content of the output (Fenton et al ., 2015). According to this study, f actors influencing the development of municipal climate and energy plans are: a clear, shared vision and engaged politicians; the size and the organizational structure of the municipality and its willingness and capability to act; the organiz ation or the process and extent to which stakeholders have been involved; the need for clarity about financial aspects ; and the need for greater clarity concerning collection of targets and their relevance to gl obal climate and energy trends (Fenton et al ., 2015, p. 213). There are s everal institutional barriers that need to be addressed by cities pursuing climate action (Betsill, 2001; Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Brody et al ., 2008; Krause, 2010). Barriers include bureaucratic structure, lack of administrative capacity, budgetary constraints, and economic dependence on carbon intensive manufacturing industries, which often prevent municipalities from pursuing local climate action. Local climate policy is often fragmented at the local scale: the crosscutting nature of climate change governance poses challenges for the institutional make up of local government. This may result in a lack of fit between the nature of the problem to be governed and the institutions undertaking governance. In addition, the lack of national climate policy support in terms of funding for research on energy conservation and renewable energy technologies can hinder local interventions to reduce GHGs. Nevertheless, cities take the climate challenge seriously as there are nu merous examples worldwide of local climate action initiatives.

PAGE 46

37 Pitt (2010) suggests the keys to success of municipalities who have adopted climate change mitigation plans. He found that municipalities that had the greatest success did so by engaging in multilevel governance processes in which the efforts of city staff and elected officials were complemented by contributions from a variety of private actors and various forms of regional collaboration (e.g. advisory committees, green ribbon task forces). As well, community input and activism helped to bring climate change mitigation to the political agenda in many of the municipalities who adopted climate plans. Cl imate Plan Evaluation R esearch With many city climate plans adopted, researchers assess the str engths and weaknesses of a first generation of climate plans adopted in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I review these studies, which focus on the effectiveness of local climate planning processes and plan content and quality. Studies evaluating the proces ses, content, and quality of local climate planning were first published in policy and planning journals in 2007. The majority of these plan evaluation studies use qualitative content analysis and interview research methods to explore small samples of bes t practice city climate plans (Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Pitt & Randolph, 2009; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell et al ., 2010). There are also indepth studies of specific climate planning cases, such as the City and County of Denver (Ramaswami et al ., 2012), Californias Smart Growth Bill (Barbour & Deakin, 2012), Cal Poly State University at Pomona (Willson & Brown, 2008) and five Swedish municipalities that implemented climate and energy plans (Fenton et al, 2015) Quantitative survey research is emerging that builds on the qualitative research and

PAGE 47

38 develops empirical generalizations about local climate planning quality across broad populations (Krause, 2010, 2011; Tang et al ., 2010) C limate plan evaluation research generally finds that U.S. local cl imate action plans are strong in conducting GHG emissions inventories and reduction goals through extensive stakeholder processes, establishing detailed emissions inventories with quantified emissions benefits, and greening local government operations (W heeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Tang et al ., 2010). Also, climate action plans positively influence the degree to which local jurisdictions understand the concepts of climate change and public awareness of climate change. Municipalities with climate pl ans generally receive strong public support for climate planning. ICLEI, in collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund, recently published a report, Measuring Up 2015, which states: Data and city profiles have clearly demonstrated that local governments can cut local GHG emissions, reduce climate threats, and achieve multiple community goals, such as lower energy costs, better air quality, improved health and enhanced economic development. Success depends on strong leadership, the close involvement of a w ide variety of stakeholders, funding and technical support from the federal level, as well as well rounded planning and execution processes the year 2015 will be pivotal for addressing climate change. A new global climate treaty is due to be completed and the US will finalize its power plant regulations ( WWF & ICLEI, 2015, p. 8). However, a number of researchers claim that local climate plans are weak in achieving their main purpose: reducing GHG emissions (Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Tang et al ., 2010; Krause, 2011; Ramaswami et al ., 2012). This is attributed to a variety of factors: GHG reduction goals vary widely across sectors and agencies; political and institutional commitment needed to mitigate emissions is lacking; mitigation actions are primarily voluntary and participation is

PAGE 48

39 low; and individuals are reluctant to change behaviors. In this section, I assess climate plans through a review of recent climate plan evaluation research. I organize this section with subsections reflecting the ICLEI five milestone climate action planning process, which reflects the rational planning process familiar to planners, but is unique in that it begins with conducting a GHG emissions inventory, the basis of climate action planning. As part of their Cities for Climate Protection campaign, ICLEI encouraged municipalities to develop plans and actions to reduce greenhouse ga s (GHG) emissions based on a five milestone climate a ction planning (CAP) process to effectively reduce carbon emissions illustrated in Figure 2.1: Figure 2.1. ICLEI Climate Action Planning Process Source: ICLEI (2008) Even though this is rational approach to planning which tends to be linear and should be more communicative and strategic, it is helpful in organizing climate plan evaluation research in this literature review as well as structuring my analysis of

PAGE 49

40 climate planning in Chapter IV Based on the ICLEI five milestone planning framework, cities with climate action plans use GHG emissions inventory protocols ( Global Protocol for Community Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories, 2014) as the first step in climate action planning. Cities join ICLEI out of concern over climate change, but also to gain access to ICLEI data and modelin g software for emissions inventories. Cities in the CCP program also benefit from gain ing and shar ing knowledge and information with other cities. Developing an emissions inventory is an essential part of a climate and energy action plan because it is the means by which GHG reduction efforts are designed and evaluated. A quantitative GHG emissions baseline is to be used to measure progress on climate action plan implementation and is not common to other types of local planning processes (ICLEI, 2003; APA, 2011; Boswell et al ., 2012). However, even though GHG emissions protocols and modeling software have become standardized (e.g. ICLEIs International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol, IEAP), they fall short in reflecting actual carbon emitte d in cities (Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Pitt, 2010). Research suggests that documentation of data and assumptions should be improved, GHG reduction targets should be better justified to reflect actual carbon emitted, and more comple xity and uncertainty issues should be incorporated in order to produce more accurate scenarios of actual community wide carbon emissions. The effect of future changes that are beyond the direct control of the community should be accounted for in GHG emissi ons forecasts and reduction targets as exogenous change and uncertainty are generally left unaddressed. It appears that most communities find this

PAGE 50

41 too challenging to address in their forecasts. However, in some advanced local climate plans (e.g. Boulder, D enver, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle), four forms of exogenous change are generally addressed: population growth, technological innovation, legislative and regulatory initiatives, and economic change. In almost all climate plans studied, social and beha vioral change and demographic changes (other than population growth) are not addressed. This implies that there is considerable uncertainty in forecasting future levels of GHG emissions particularly at the community level. No standardized approach for incl uding these uncertainties has been developed for community level emissions inventories. However, university researchers (e.g. University of Colorado Denvers Chavez and University of Minnesotas Ramaswami) are developing more comprehensive GHG protocols to address the shortcomings of current standardized approaches. Boswell et al (2010) aim to expand on Wheelers (2008) assessment of the first generation of climate plans by examining more closely the series of choices embedded in the process of developing a GHG inventory, which they argue must be based on technical requirements, local context, and political climate (p. 453). Some cities complain that current GHG emissions inventory protocols are not designed to include local political and cultural context. For example, popular community programs, such as local food systems and the degree to which eating local food reduces GHG emissions, are not able to be accounted for in current protocols because of insufficient data and technical capabilities (Bassett & Shandas, 2010). In regards to process, planning researchers suggest that traditional land use and economic development planners have not generally been included in the

PAGE 51

42 development of GHG emissions inventories (Crane & Landis, 2011). Rather, software modelers, public works engineers, environmental services coordinators, sustainability program managers, and facilities managers have been the primary local government actors in conducting GHG emissions inventories. Planning researchers suggest that these actors may be less likely to provide an understanding of more general planning issues that could inform a GHG emissions inventory (Bassett & Shandas, 2010). Setting a GHG reduction target is a key step in the climate and en ergy action planning process. Without a target, cities may not target their mitigation efforts effectively. When municipalities conduct GHG emissions inventories, they analyze data on human activities that generate GHG emissions These activities are typically lumped into three categories: transportation, waste and energy GHG emissions data is also segmented by the economic sectors where the activity is taking place, such as residential, commercial, or industrial. In this study, I focus on the residential energy sector. The main reasons I focus on this sector are: it is responsible for 38% of US GHG emissions (EPA, 2014) and t here is ample data available on energy conservation behavior change research. Since this study commenced in 2012, research finds that c ities are setting more aggressive GHG reduction targets. Emissions target setting and other types of climate action have been significant component of local sustainability efforts for a number of years. In 2005, as part of the US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, more than 1,000 mayors pledged to support GHG emissions reduction targets for 2012 in terms set by the Kyoto Protocol. Instead of waiting for the next global accord, an increasing number of communities are setting aggressive, long term reduction targets ahead of the international negotiation process. Recently pledged targets are commonly looking to the year 2050 to meet the scientific imperative of reducing global emissions by at least 80%, as established by the IPCC (ICLEI web site, 2015).

PAGE 52

43 Decision makers may pursue two avenues to target the reduction of GHG emission s: (1) regulate large polluters usually associated with energy and manufacturing industries or (2) influence the residential sector and individual behavior patterns ( Brody et al ., 2010; Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Tang et al ., 2010) This research is focused on the latter individual and community wide behavior change. In general, city reduction targets have fall en short of international targets. As local climate plans develop cities aim ed for rather modest GHG reductions and generally did not set goals to adequately address the problem. Although most communities preparing climate plans do begin with a GHG emissions inventory, many fail to follow through on conducting adequate emissions forecasts, setting meaningful reduction targets, or linking their mitigation measures to these forecasts and targets. Since potentially flawed choices and assumptions are made in GHG emissions inventories and forecasts, reduction targets, which influence selection and implementation of climate strategies, may not effectively address the climate change problem ( Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al .) In a recent report analyzing the GHG reduction targets of U .S cities engaged in the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Program, WWF & ICLEI (2015) calculated that: the current (GHG) emissions reduction targets in 116 US communities would have the same effect as closing 86 coal fired power plants each year. Hundreds of communities repres enting at least 14% of the U .S population are already taking responsibility for their GHG pollution by performing emissions inventories and establ ishing reduction goals (p. 7). Their point is that the potential in GHG reductions is great. Assessing c limate stabilization wedges has been effective in the development of city climate plans in

PAGE 53

44 Colorado. Carbon stabilization wedges are helpful in linking GHG emissions inventories to a portfolio of strategies that municipalities can use to target the sources and amounts of local carbon emissions (University of Colorado Denver Center for Sustainable In frastructure Systems personal communications, 2010). Once cities have inventoried their GHG emissions and set targets to reduce them, they set out to develop a climate and energy action plan. Processes used for preparing climate plans vary across cities with most convening citizen or technical co mmittees and others using small, less visible technical work groups. Climate plans based on participatory planning proc esses generally reflect the atmosphere and pol0tical context of the locality, but do not consistently include implementation strategies that include outside agencies and nongovernmental organizations. This is attributed to the lack of local government aut hority in enforcing implementation actions assigned to outside agencies, such as electrical utilities or regional transportation authorities. Also, since many climate action strategies are voluntary and cannot be enforced, they may not be highly prioritize d and strongly pursued if competing with other issues on the local governments agenda. Climate policy and planning scholars urge policy makers to consider the importance of multilevel governance networks when dealing with the climate change issue (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Boswell et al, 2010). R esearchers claim that state, regional, and local governments are not collaborating effectively in climate change policy and plan making (Willson & Brown, 2008; Barbour & Deakin, 2012). Studies of local climate plans reveal that state and regional policies are generally not well integrated into local climate action plans. This is

PAGE 54

45 attributed to factors such as local governments inability to enforce state and regional policies as well as a lack of support, funding, and local capacity to work with state and regional governments and other climate change stakeholders. A few studies examine how state and regional climate policies are recognized at the local level (Barbour & Deakin, 2012) and how local governments view state and regional policies (Willson & Brown 2008). Barbour & Deakin (2012) studied Californias Smart Growth Policy, which was diffused throughout the state to regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) who were then charged to diffuse it to local governments. They found that regional smart growth climate policy can be built on existing local planning processes, particularly for transportation and associated air quality requirements; however, regional and local planners expre ss concerns about inadequate resources for implementation (p. 70). Without strong state or federal mandates or incentives that favor the anticipated local policy outcomes, the state smart growth law expects more from MPOs and local governments than they c an easily accomplish. Willson & Brown (2008) found in their study of California State Polytechnic University that carbon neutrality in suburban areas is a fantasy unless there are supportive energy, transportation, and carbon sequestration initiatives at the state, national, and international level (p. 497). There is great diversity in what types of intervention strategies are included in climate action plans. Some plans are motivational documents, while others are extremely detailed implementation plans with concrete goals, clear objectives, and well reasoned methods (Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Krause, 2010,

PAGE 55

46 2011). Climate action plan strategies cover a broad range of areas such as energy, transportation, land use, buildings, industry, solid waste and recycling, and water. The number of potential actions included in local climate action plans is large, averaging about 50 actions per climate plan (Wheeler, 2008). The number of actions as well as the diverse actors involved in climate action planning make the complexities of moving from a climate action plan to implementation a daunting task. Part of plannings commitment to rationality and comprehensiveness is to ensure that decision makers consider the full range of alternatives (Willson & Bro wn, 2008). The most recent evaluation studies of climate plans examine how cities use various types of regulatory, voluntary, and market based policy interventions to achieve GHG reductions. The majority of community wide climate plan interventions are voluntary. Krause (2011) found that there is considerable variation in the frequency with which the different (policy and planning interventions) are implemented, when considered across policy intervention type (p. 193). She found that voluntary interventio ns (e.g. information, services) are employed over twice as frequently as incentives, and that local governments appear to be reluctant to utilize incentives. The use of regulatory authority is more varied and seems quite subject specific (e.g. tree plantin g, zoning to limit sprawl). Purely voluntary strategic interventions are not proving successful in local climate planning (Wheeler, 2008; Willson & Brown, 2008; Krause, 2011; Ramaswami et al. 2012). Wheeler (2008) examined the basic policy mechanisms use d by cities that may reduce GHGs: regulating emissions, carbon taxes, cap and trade systems, rationing of emissions allowances given to consumers, and voluntary

PAGE 56

47 approaches. Of these, he found that most states and cities opt for voluntary approaches offerin g rebates or tax credits as incentives to encourage voluntary reductions, yet voluntary reductions have done little to reduce overall GHG emissions to date (p. 487). Ramaswami et al (2012), conducted a portfolio analysis of 55 U.S. local climate action plans, which revealed a predominance of voluntary outreach programs that have low societal participation rates and hence low GHG impact, while innovative higher impact behavioral, technological, and policy/regulatory strategies are under utilized (p. 3629). Wheeler (2008) found that municipalities developed weak strategies to deepen public awareness of the need for fundamental changes in behavior. He suggests that local climate planners implement more strategic social marketing strategies that are backed by necessary financial resources. In order to foster community wide behavior change that will reduce GHG emissions, climate planners need to help the public make connections between their personal lifestyle and climate impacts. Willson & Brown (2008) also found that behavior change programs have received somewhat less research and policy attention within planning and design, as well as within broader energy policy (p. 497). They observed that behavior change policies and programs may be politically challenging, may require changes in standard operating practices, and may not be easily accessible to outside researchers. However, they argue that such strategies can be quickly implemented, easily modified, and do not require capital up front

PAGE 57

48 Ramaswami et al (2012) suggest cities design climate intervention strategies that encourage high levels of individual participation using technology to influence human behavior (e.g. feedback metering, social norming billing software; social marketing t echniques) as well as employ optimal policy combinations of high impact voluntary and mandatory approaches across spatial scales and social sectors in order to achieve rapid GHG mitigation. Less than 30% of US cities are pursuing such policy combinations. They found that relying solely on voluntary actions reduces mitigation rates more than fivefold Local climate and energy plan strategies range from those narrowly defined to emphasize energy and cost savings giving little attention to the carbon problem to those that include a broad aspirational call to build more progressive carbon neutral cities (Bailey, 2007; Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Finn & McCormick, 2011). Researchers argue that local governments need to include more innovative strat egies and actions to respond more effectively to climate change and overall sustainable development (e.g. environment, equity, economy) issues. Local climate plans largely fail to substantively engage a holistic sustainability approach in that they do not address issues of equitable economic development and environmental, or climate, justice. Early climate planning r esearch indicates that climate action plans generally lack strong actions and the political and institutional commitment needed to mitigate emissions (Wheeler, 2008; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Tang et al ., 2010). However, more recent research ( Caston Broto & Bulkeley, 2013) focusing on climate mitigation actions of 100 global cities suggest s that there is an increase in activity in

PAGE 58

49 city climate mitigation projects. They found that experimentation within partnerships are where new mitigation ideas may be tested. These partnerships of formal and informal actors were common in their database of 627 climate change experiments in a sample of 100 global cities. They conclude that local municipalities are not solely responsible for climate mitigation at the local lev el. Planned mitigation interventions included changes in the built and natural environment (e.g. expanding bike lanes, increasing mixed use development, adding tree canopy) and programmatic efforts (e.g. educational and outreach efforts, expanded weatheri zation programs) that might be considered innovative; however, many climate plan interventions are traditional planning strategies already tied directly to the long range and current planning operations of municipalities. Tang et al (2010) evaluated the i mplementation component in climate plans to learn how local jurisdictions plan to reduce GHG emissions. They found that local climate plans have relatively limited action approaches for climate change mitigation. Climate plans may include appropriate polic ies for communication and coordination, however they employ relatively few strategies for implementation. They note that research on the effectiveness of local climate actions is lagging behind research on climate impact assessment. The implementation milestone is tightly linked to the previous plan development milestone and reinforces findings that policy actors do not include prioritized, high impact, strategic intervention combinations that are necessary to reduce G HGs to meet climate plan goals.

PAGE 59

50 Several climate plan evaluation studies conclude that more effective and timely monitoring and feedback need to be addressed in local climate action planning (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Bassett & Shandas, 2010; Krause, 2011; Ramaswami, 2012). Measurement is regarded to be time intensive and costly for municipalities. This is an area where cities are striving for better approaches. Long term planning frameworks are needed, which monitor progress toward GHG reduction goals on a regular basis. Actions are not being revised on a regular basis and new plan recommendations are not being implemented effectively through commitment of resour ces, revised regulations, and incentives for reducing emissions. Cities do not systematically measure results of GHG reduction programs or record participation rates that influence GHG emissions reduction outcomes. When participation in climate programs is low, significant administrative resources are wasted. Intervention programs must be assessed and redesigned to enhance strategic effectiveness and increase public participation. To conclude this section and to segue into the behavior change literature, I reiterate some key points from local climate planning research related to behavior change strategies. Wheeler (2008) suggests that local climate planners implement more strategic social marketing strategies in order to help the public make connections be tween their personal lifestyle and climate impacts. Willson & Brown (2008) found that behavior change programs have received somewhat less research and policy attention within planning and design, as well as within broader energy policy (p. 497). They ob served that behavior change policies and programs may be politically challenging, may require changes in standard operating practices, and may

PAGE 60

51 not be easily accessible to outside researchers. However, they argue that such strategies can be quickly implemen ted, easily modified, and do not require capital up front. Ramaswami et al (2012) suggest cities design climate intervention strategies that encourage high levels of individual participation using technology to influence human behavior (e.g. feedback mete ring, social norming billing software; social marketing techniques) as well as using policy combinations of voluntary and mandatory approaches. After an extensive review of the climate planning literature, I find that there are very few studies exploring community wide behavior change programs in depth. Also, I did not find any academic research on local climate and ener gy action planning practice focused on the State of Colorado municipalities. Behavior Change Theory & Practice Local efforts to reduce individual and community wide GHG emissions are crucial in effective climate mitigation planning, but it is not addressed adequately in the CEAP literature. However, this is happening in cities around the world. This section reviews liter ature on practical frameworks to change behavior based on theories in behavioral science and psychology that are currently being applied by municipalities and utilities. The section s of this literature review on behavior change theory and practical framewo rks are organized to first introduce theories in beh avioral science and psychology underlying community based social marketing a tool kit of strategies designed to apply these theor ies in real world climate and energy progra m planning and implementation.

PAGE 61

52 Behavioral and Psychological Theories Underlying Community Based Social Marketing C ommunity based social marketing (CBSM) is a commonly used strategy by local planners and program managers to foster sustainable behavior in climate and energy action plan ning as well as recycling, transportation, and water consumption behaviors. CBSM is used by program planners to strategically foster more sustainable behaviors in individuals and communities by integrating behavior change strategies based on proven behavio ral science research findings (McKenzieMohr, 2011). Community based social marketing is a social planning process that applies theories from psychology to shape human behavior. With a toolkit of behavior change strategies drawn from social psychology rese arch and theories of behavior change, community based social marketing programs target high impact, high probability, low penetration behaviors with strategies based on empirically tested behavior change tools to decrease barriers and increase benefits for individuals engaging in the desired behavior. This literature review includes research related to CBSM, which draws from social marketing, behavioral science and environmental psychology literatures My first priority was to find studies that address the application of community based social marketing (CBSM) in local climate mitigation programs, which are limited. However, there are a multitude of studies that address home energy behavior change strategies implemented by utilities. CBSM is simply described as a mash up of social marketing and psychology (McKenzie Mohr, 2012a).

PAGE 62

53 Origins of social marketing. It has been over four decades since Kotler and Zaltman (1971) introduced social marketing in business research at Northwestern University Even with increased use i n the past twenty years, Lee and Kotler (2011) suggest that social marketing remains a poorly understood and highly underutilized method for helping people embrace behaviors that are in societys best interest. Since McKenzieMohr (2011) embra ced community based social marketing and focused on fostering sustainable behaviors in the late 1990s, there has been a surge of research documenting case studies of community based social marketing programs. Andreasen (2006) suggests that research on soc ial marketing effectiveness is not keeping up with practice. According to McKenzie Mohr (2012a), there is a need for studies focused on program delivery and a demand from program planners for simpler ways to design and implement community based social mark eting behavior change programs to help with program delivery. As a practice, social marketing first emerged in the 1960s when public health and civil rights agencies began encouraging behavior change related to public health and civil rights issues. In the 1970s, social marketing scholarship was further developed based on commercial marketing principles (Kotler, 1989; Andreasen, 2006). Social marketing for the environment, also referred to as community based social marketing, emerged in the 1990s when Doug las McKenzieMohr developed a framework integrating classic social marketing concepts with behavior change theories related to pro environmental behavior. An e nvironmental psyc hologist, Douglas McKenzie Mohr developed the framework of community based soci al marketing (CBSM) in the late 1990s with a

PAGE 63

54 focus on fostering pro environmental behavior in individuals through a community wide reach. He claims that effective individual change happens at the community level (McKenzieMohr, 2010). The large number of C BSM case studies is evidence of CBSMs widespread use by government and nonprofit agencies (Takahashi, 2009; McKenzieMohr et al, 2012), but both scholars and practitioners grapple with whether CBSM programs are efficient and effective. In Social Marketing to Protect the Environment: What Works (McKenzieMohr, Lee, Schultz, & Kotler, 2012), social marketers Philip Kotler and Nancy Lee join with environmental psychologist Doug McKenzie Mohr and social psychologist Wes Schultz to provide evide nce of the effectiveness of community based social marketing in the residential and commercial sectors (McKenzieMohr et al 2012). The 24 diverse case studies examined address the effectiveness of community based social marketing programs related to waste reduction and recycling, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, water conservation, energy conservation, and fish and wildlife protection. For example, in two case studies on energy conservation there were significant changes in behavior with 25% increased participation in people turning off their lights with prompts in one study, and a 26% reduction in towel washing due to reuse at a hotel that used descriptive and injunctive norms in their messaging in a second study. It is difficult to summarize findings of effectiveness as each CBSM program is unique in targeted behaviors, barriers, strategies, and metrics. However, each case study demonstrates significant behavior changes and inspires ideas for program planners in their respective subject areas.

PAGE 64

55 However, research suggests that social marketing concepts are often misapplied (Andreasen, 1994; Takahashi, 2009; Hargreaves, 2012). For example, practitioners often incorrectly define target audiences as the general population and do not segment t heir target audiences adequately. By trying to influence as much of a population as possible, focus may be dispersed and strategies fragmented, which often results in insignificant behavior change. A key tension to explore further in community based social marketing research is that between local planning, which tends to examine broad patterns of a community and behavioral science principles, which tend to examine large samples of individuals. Planning studies on CBSM are virtually nonexistent. However, C BSM is wellrespected as several planning scholars reference community based social marketing in their studies of local climate planning as a recommended approach to a well thought out, effective behavior change strategy to increase participation in a desi red behavior and reduce GHG emissions (Wheeler, 2008; Boswell et al ., 2010; Bassett & Shandas, 2010). These researchers claim that local climate plans are weak in achieving their main purpose: reducing GHG emissions. This is attributed to a variety of fact ors: GHG reduction goals vary widely across sectors and agencies resulting in fragmented policies, messages, and programs; political and institutional commitment needed to mitigate emissions is lacking; mitigation actions are primarily voluntary and partic ipation is low; and individuals are reluctant to change behaviors. All of these weaknesses have a common denominator: behavior change. Behavioral science scholarship directed at human pro environmental behavior and environmental problems began in the 1970s when the US oil crisis prompted

PAGE 65

56 federal programs in energy conservation, which were considered generally ineffective (Gardner and Stern, 2002). Behavioral scientists, Paul Stern, a senior scholar with the Board on Environmental Change at the National Rese arch Council, and Gerald Gardner, Professor at the University of Michigan, have researched human behavior related to environmental problems for over 30 years, building a body of empirical research that underpins community based social marketing. Their research includes the application of behavioral science knowledge to the understanding and solution of global and regional environmental problems. Conservation psychologist E. Scott Geller, Alumni Distinguished Professor and Director of the Center for Applied Behavior Systems in the Department of Psychology at Virginia Polytechnic University, has contributed significant research based on a modified a pplied behavior analysis approach to human behavior in the context of environmental behavior change intervention strategies, which has influenced McKenzie Mohr and community based social marketing. His research approach is a modified form of applied behavi or analysis where external, observable behaviors are examined in their social context in order to design strategies to influence such behaviors (Skinner, 1987). The Antecedent Behavior Consequence (ABC) model of behavior change conceptualizes applied behavior analysis: behaviors (B) are directed by the antecedent or activator (A) stimuli that preceded them and announce the availability of a positive or negative consequence (C) (and) further occurrences of the behavior (B) are determined by th e consequences (C) that follow (Le hman & Geller, 2004, p. 18). Behavior change strategies can be categorized as either antecedent/activator strategies (e.g. communication, prompts, commitment) or consequence strategies (e.g. incentives, feedback, rewards, punishments).

PAGE 66

57 Geller developed the Define Observe Test Intervene (DO IT) method to package behavior change theories and models into a methodology accessible to practitioners. The DO IT method and community based social marketing are similar in that they both focus attention on external behaviors that can be directly influenced. This applied behavior approach of Geller contrasts with the attitude behavior approach of Gardner and Stern. The applied behavior approach focuses on changing external, observable behaviors with antecedent and consequence strategies (e.g. rewards, punishm ents), whereas attitude behavior approach focuses on changing attitudes by primarily influencing an individuals knowledge (e.g. information intensive campaigns). Both traditions merge in community based social marketing. Table 2 on the next page illustrat es the similarities of the work of McKenzie Mohr (2011), Geller (2002), and Stern (2000).

PAGE 67

58 Table 1: Three Applied Behavioral Science Perspectives on Behavior Change McKenzie Mohr (2011) Community Based Social Marketing Geller (2002) Define Observe InterveneTest (DO IT) Method Stern (2000) Behavior Change Design Principles and Strategies (1) Select the actors and behavior s to target (1) Define certain behaviors to increase environment protective behaviors or to decrease environment destruction behaviors. Identify actors to target. (2) Observe how often target behavior occurs. Identify target behaviors from an environmental perspective in terms of their impact. Understand the situation from the actors perspective. (2) Identify the barriers and benefits associated with the selected behavior. Analyze behaviors to identify the responsible actors and actions. Consider the full range of barrier s and benefits and explore their possible relevance to the target behavior from the actors standpoint. Use participat ory methods of decision making. (3) Design a strategy that utilizes behavior change tools to address these barriers and benefits (3) Intervene (design intervention) to change target behaviors. Use multiple intervention types to address the factors limiting behavior change. Stay within the bounds of actors tolerance for intervention. When limiting factors are psychological, apply understanding of human choice processes. Set realistic expectations and outcomes. Apply principles of community management. Get the actors attention. Make limited cognitive demands. (4) Pilot the strategy with a small segment of a community. (4) Tes t the intervention and refine or replace a behavior change intervention. Continually monitor responses and adjust programs accordingly. (5) Evaluate the impact of the program once it has been implemented broadly (4) Test the intervention and refine or r eplace a behavior change intervention. Continually monitor responses a nd adjust programs accordingly.

PAGE 68

59 Research from the behavioral sciences, including conservation psychology, applied psychology, environmental psychology, and social psychology, inform theories of behavior change underlying community based social marketing tools. The table below organizes c ommunity based social marketing behavior change tools and corresponding theories according to the behavioral barrier the program planner is strategizing to overcome. I review theoretical concepts underlying each intervention tool (commitment, social norms, social diffusion, communication, prompts, incentives, convenience) that may be applied to overcome barriers to proenvironmental behaviors. Theories include self perception theory (Bem, 1972), theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), social norms (Schwartz, 1977; Cialdini, 2003), theory of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1987), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1987), theory of self efficacy (Bandura, 1987), diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 1962), and reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm 1981).

PAGE 69

60 Table 2 : Behavioral Barriers, CBSM Strategies and Related Psychological Theories Behavioral Barrier Behavior Change Strategy Theory Lack motivation Commitment Self perception theory (Bem, 1972) Theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) ABC model (Geller, 1989) Norms Injunctive and descriptive norms (Cialdini, 2003) Norm activation theory (Schwartz, 1977) Incentives Theory of externalities ( Gardner & Stern 1996) Theory of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1987) ABC model (Geller, 1989) Forget Prompts Theory of reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981 ) ABC model (Geller, 1989) Lack of Social Pressure Norms Norm activation theory (Schwartz, 1977) Injunctive or descriptive norms (Schultz et al 2007 ) Lack of Knowledge Communication Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) Theory of self efficacy (Bandura, 1997) ABC model (Geller, 1989) Social Diffusion Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 1962 ) Inconvenience Convenience Make structural changes to remove barriers based on cost benefit analysis (Geller, 1989) The following discussion is of specific strategy techniques designated in the community based social marketing literature. It is important to reiterate that because behavior is complex, contextual, and multi faceted, these tool s need to be used paying attention to process and context, because there is no substitute for analysis of the behavioral system targeted for change and the p eople who comprise that system. Commitment. A process of building commitment in stages has been us ed in community based social marketing programs with often significant results (McKenzieMohr, 2011). When people commit to something small, they are more likely to take action towards congruent and bigger behaviors due to a strong internal

PAGE 70

61 pressure to beh ave consistently after a promise of behavior has been made. Commitments are used to address the barrier of lack of motivation. Underlying commitment are two psychological theories: self perception theory (Bem, 1972) and the theory of cognitive dissonance ( Festinger, 1957). Self perception theory (Bem, 1972) suggests that when individuals come to perceive themselves as the type of person who supports initiatives, they will commit to behaviors congruent with such initiatives. The idea is that the initial commitment to the small request will change ones self perception, therefore giving a person a reason for agreeing with the subsequent, larger request. People observe their own behaviors and the context in which they behave and thus infer they must have a pre ference for certain behaviors or products. The social psychology theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) proposes that people are driven to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions and adding new ones to create a consistent belief system or by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements. Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g. ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions, awareness of actions) simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance explains that when two psychologically inconsistent states are held, it generates an unpleasant feeling of dissonance, and people work to eliminate it or reduce it (Clayton & Myers, 2009). For example, an individual may believe that driving a single occupancy vehicle to work every day is not good for the environment, but does so anyway and experiences dissonance. Making a commitment has been shown to invoke greater dissonance between the indivi duals beliefs and

PAGE 71

62 behavior and compel them to change their behavior to reduce or eliminate inconsistencies, perhaps by carpooling, taking transit, or biking to work. Social and personal norms. Social norms are emphasized in the community based social mar keting toolkit as several tools are used to activate personal and social norms (e.g. seeking commitment, use of prompts, personal communication, use of positive incentives) (McKenzie Mohr, 2011). Social norms are used to address lack of motivation as well as to build social capacity around a behavior. So cial psychologists consider norms to be an extremely powerful force in changing group behaviors as they are informal obligations that are enforced through social sanctions or rewards (Schwarz, 1977, p. 156). Social norms theory states that much of people's behavior is influenced by their perception of how other members of their social group behave. Social norms show how people gravitate and adapt toward conformity as human society r ewards conformity (Schu ltz, 2007). People adhere to social norms through enforcement, internalization, the sharing of norms by other group members, and frequent activation (Smith, 2007) Norms can be enforced through tools that reward or punish. For example, individuals are rewa rded for conserving resources or punished for waste. An important distinction in effectively communicating and influencing social norms is pairing descriptive information with injunctive information (Cialdini, 2003). Injunctive norms involve perceptions of which behaviors are typically approved or disapproved by others: they assist individual s in determining what is acceptable and unacceptable based on the morals of their interpersonal networks and surrounding

PAGE 72

63 community. Descriptive norms involve percepti ons of which behaviors are typically performed: they normally refer to the perception of others' behavior. Stern (2000) introduced the Values Beliefs Norms (VBN) theory of environmentally significant behavior, which provides a framework for assessing ind ividual behavior through personal norms, an internal obligation to act in a particular manner. Personal norms are activated when an individual believes that violation of a norm would adversely affect something the individual values. To change beliefs, Ster n (2005) indicates that narrow educational approaches (such as telling people what behaviors are environmentally beneficial, or simply that environmental disaster is looming) have not proven overly effective. However, programs where information arrives a t the time and place of decision, is linked to the available choices, is delivered from trusted sources, and is delivered personally are more likely to yield success (p. 10787). Stern (2005) also indicates that personal norm activation may be enhanced in a community context where faceto face communication, mutual interdependence, and the possibility for social influence can build interpersonal norms that buttress personal norms ( p. 10788). Social d iffusion. The tool of social diffusion was added to the latest edition of Fostering Sustainable Behavior (McKenzieMohr, 2011). This tool is used to address the barrier of lack of knowledge. McKenzie Mohr looks to the diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 1983) to spread new behaviors throughout a community. Diffusion is the process by which an innovation, such as a new behavior, is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Rogers

PAGE 73

64 conceptualized opinion leaders and ear ly adopters as the groups who should be understood to diffuse innovations effectively. Community based social marketing encourages program planners to identify opinion leaders and well respected people in target segments of their community to influence so cial networks and diffuse desired behaviors by recruiting well known and well respected people to communicate the program message and by making commitments public and durabl e (McKenzieMohr et al, 2012). Prompts. Prompts can remind people to engage in act ivities that they might otherwise forget ( McKenzieMohr, 2011). A prompt must be noticeable, self explanatory, and in close proximity to the site where the targeted behavior is to be carried out. This tool is grounded in the theory of operant conditioning, which states that consequences, such as rewards, punishments, and feedback, are the primary determinant s of behavior (Skinner, 1987). However, the psychological theory of reactance (Brehm & Brehm 1981) suggests that too obvious attempts to control behavior often lead to a backlash where people may react and deliberately ignore a prompt, or engage in a prohibited behavior in order to demonstrate their independence. This boomerang effect warns that attempts to restrict a person's freedom communicated in behavioral change programs may produce an anti conformity boomerang effect. In social marketing the boomerang effect may occur if a strong attempt is made to change an individuals attitude toward a subject and the individual counters with an equally strong response Communication. Communication as a tool of community based social marketing builds upon marketing theory, which holds that attention must be captured

PAGE 74

65 to i nitiate behavior change ( Lee & Kotler 2011; Andrea sen, 2006). Communication is used to address the barrier of lack of knowledge. The theories of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and self efficacy (Bandura, 1977) are used in communication tools to influence a persons perception that s/he is able to successfully complete an action. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) is a theory about the link between attitudes and behavior and is one of the most predictive persuasion theories. The theory states that attitude s toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, togethe r shape an individual's behavioral intentions and behaviors. If people are knowledgeable about what to do and believe they can successfully execute the behavior, they are more likely to adopt the behavior. It includes the concept of perceived behavioral co ntrol which originates from the theory of self efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Self efficacy (Bandura, 1997) is the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce outcomes. A belief in self eff icacy is an important determinant of ones ability and motivation for a task as perceived efficacy is often found to be a stronger factor than knowledge or attitudes in predicting behavior and is the most important precondition for behavioral change, since it determines the initiation of coping behavior. Incentives. Incentives are a useful tool to motivate behavior change and are most effective when the incentive and the behavior are closely paired and when they are visible (Gardner & Stern, 2002). Positive incentives have been shown to be more effective than negative disincentives on changing behavior. Incentives, whether financial or otherwise, can provide the motivation for individuals to perform an

PAGE 75

66 activity more effectively that they already engage in or to begin an activity that they othe rwise would not engage in. Based on the economic theory of externalities, incentives are meant to internalize the externalities of environmental problems (or other problems related to public goods) by applying a cost to the externality and to appeal to an individuals economic self interest through an economic reward or punishment (Gardner and Stern, 2002). Incentives are most effective when used in combination with other community based social marketing tools (McKenzieMohr, 2011). Convenience People will not adopt new behaviors if there are barriers that make it difficult to do so or that take away a convenience. In terms of the ABC model of Geller (1989), convenience could be achieved if the antecedent barriers to the desired behavior were removed. R esearch indicates that social norms have been more readily activated by methods that increase the convenience of the desired behavior ( McKenzieMohr, Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995). Community based social marketing behavior change tools comprise a t oolkit that draws from insights from across the behavioral sciences (social psychology, environmental psychology, applied psychology, conservation psychology) because the important behavioral variables lie in the domains of various disciplines and the vari ables interact. Thus interdisciplinary perspectives are needed to address these complexities. There are numerous empirical studies by behavioral scientists that report on the effectiveness of community based social marketing behavior change tools. Academic journals such as Environment and Behavior, Journal of Environmental

PAGE 76

67 Psychology Journal of Applied Social Psychology and Human Ecology contain many empirical studies testing various pro environmental behavior change tools (e.g. social norms, commitments, prompts) separately and in combinations. On cbsm.com, there are nearly 1,500 empirical case studies posted and categorized by issue (en ergy, agriculture & conservation, transportation, waste, pollution, water) (McKenzie Mohr, 2011). Research evaluating community based social marketing as a discipline was found in two diverse studies: a meta analysis of the CBSM field from an environmental scientist (Takahashi, 2009) and a study on the effectiveness of community based social marketing in complementing regulatory development from the discipline of law (Kennedy, 2010). It should be noted that there are several studies on the effectiveness of social marketing in general, but very few specifically on community based social marketing, which I am focused on in this literature review. Bruno Takahashi (2009), PhD in Environmental Sciences from State University of New York (SUNY) Syracuse, conducted a survey to evaluate research activity related to social marketing for the environment or CBSM. Takahashi (2009) examined publication trends and content of articles from 1971 2006 by practitioners and scholars in marketing, science, and social science. H e found that the number of CBSM studies increased markedly in 1999, demonstrating an increasing trend through 2006. The two areas of analysis that show most research activity are recycling and energy conservation programs. He found CBSM being applied by mu ltiple levels of government to environmental issues, such as energy conservation, waste reduction and recycling, transportation and water conservation. Based on the 62

PAGE 77

68 peer reviewed articles Takahashi reviewed, organizations using CBSM are federal governme nts (25%), non profit organizations (24%), state and provincial governments (20%), and local governments (19%). Takahashis major conclusions about CBSM are that even though there is an increasing trend in the application and study of social marketing, th ere are also several conceptual and theoretical problems attached to it. Takahashi describes through the lens of human development stages that social marketing in the environmental arena is still in the adolescent stage when compared to social marketing in the public health domain, which has reached maturity. He suggests a need to refocus the research and application of social marketing toward the reduction of consumptive behaviors and encourages both academics and practitioners to disseminate their work fu rther. Amanda Kennedy (2010), professor at University of New England Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law in New South Wales, Australia, provides an assessment of CBSM through the perspective of regulatory law. She argues that regulations should be co mplemented by CBSM techniques for a well rounded approach to address behaviors and social norms that are being regulated. Kennedy (2010) suggests that regulatory intervention is more likely to be cost effective when it is embedded within a broader strategy to change behavior. Kennedy (2010) suggests that CBSM in conjunction with environmental regulation offers the ability to better manage individual environmental behavior through a whole systems approach of identifying and overcoming barriers to change, a comprehensive menu of behavior change tools, and ongoing feedback and evaluation (p. 1154).

PAGE 78

69 Despite the growth of CBSM as a discipline as well as an increase in academic and governmental support the past 25 years, it is limited by a range of challenges, including confusion over its position and role and the potential for incorrect application (McKenzie Mohr, 2012a, 2012b). CBSM is generally used at the program level, not integrated into broad institutional goals and planning processes where there could be great advantages. Broadening the scope of CBSM applications to upstream institutional decision making (e.g. targeting decision makers) has been proposed by some academics (Kennedy, 2010; McKenzie Mohr et al ., 2012). Evidence of the use of social marketi ng as an overarching strategic framework to guide marketing, education, and policy approaches is found in Australia where institutional barriers to CBSM use have been removed (e.g. special approval processes, requests for proposals). Australian government agencies use CBSM as an overarching vision and have removed institutional barriers to its use. In Australia, community based social marketing has become a way of doing business (McKenzie Mohr, 2012a). If program planners are not applying CBSM properly, it will most likely not be effective. The problem is behavior selection and strategy delivery (McKenzie Mohr, 2012a). Program planners tend to not pay enough attention to behavior selection and strategy design and delivery and tend to avoid strategically sele cting behaviors and identifying barriers and benefits and then deliver programs focused on the wrong behaviors. From conversations with program planners, McKenzie Mohr (2012a) found that significant pressures exist in practice for program planners to avoid identifying behavioral barriers. Three of the most common reasons for not

PAGE 79

70 identifying barriers are: (1) program planners are likely to believe that the barriers to an activity are already well known; (2) most programs must be delivered within a short per iod of time, which makes conducting barrier research a challenge; and (3) organizations that deliver CBSM programs suffer from financial constraints that make additional work difficult to justify. Proponents of CBSM encourage pilot studies of the intended program and ongoing evaluation to measure the behavior change achieved and to refine the strategy if necessary before full implementation of a program (McKenzieMohr et al ., 2011) However, current programs lack adequate evaluation components and usually evaluate outputs rather than outcomes (McKenzie Mohr, 2012a). For example, outcomes, such as changes in behavior, changes in resource use and quality, and return on investment should be measured thr oughout a CBSM campaign in order to continue to build its case through field research. Market research, pilot testing, and monitoring effectiveness are crucial feedback mechanisms that may be overlooked by program planners. As the CBSM movement has grown, numerous case studies of effective CBSM initiatives have been conducted and are available on the CBSM website. These case studies explore CBSM program design, challenges and successes and are accessible to anyone. As more program planners use CBSM, resear chers are examining the strengths and weaknesses of the process adding to the relatively limited evidence base available today (Anda & Temmen, 2014). Three government agency reports include brief reviews of CBSM and represent three countries: the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

PAGE 80

71 (Tiedemann, 2010); U.K. National Government Research (NGR) agency (Darnton, 2008); and the Asian Development Bank (Serrat, 2010). These reports reviewed behavior change programs in general, which include brief revie ws of community based social marketing that are discussed here. Even though all three reports recommend that community based social marketing is an effective approach to environmental behavior change, they also suggest shortcomings. Tiedemann (2010) evalua ted U.S. federal residential energy conservation programs through the lens of rational choice theory and the theory of planned behavior, which he argues are the main theories underlying energy conservation behavior change programs. He concludes that effect ive behavioral interventions fall into four main types: information, goal setting, rewards, and feedback, as well as combinations thereof. It is interesting to note that he does not include social norms or social diffusion, the dynamic behavioral tools in the CBSM toolbox. This may reflect his national energy efficiency program perspective, which may not be concerned with community level social tools. Darnton (2008) argues that community based social marketing should include more dynamic theories of social change, such as systems thinking, which is helpful in attempting to address behaviors which have multiple and complex underlying factors (p. 9). He suggests that CBSM studies be conducted through the lens of systems thinking to help build the evidence b ase for explaining the effectiveness of changing behaviors among complex interactions and their components. Serrat (2010) suggests that the desired outcomes of community based social marketing programs are often overly ambitious and that it is difficult to assess

PAGE 81

72 accurately the direct impact that they have on behavior. He compares commercial marketing to social marketing. To provide context for the challenges of community based social marketing, Serrat states that in social marketing: the products are mor e complex, demand is diverse, the target groups are challenging, the necessary involvement of end users is greater, and competition is more varied (p. 2). He stresses the importance of planning and implementation processes (National Social Marketing Center [NSMC] 2010). Darnton (2008) and Serrat (2010) both point out that there is limited empirical evidence on the latter part of the CBSM process: the steps of implementation and assessment. Behavioral Wedge Theory Recently, behavioral science scholars (Di etz et al, 2009) responded to a study conducted by engineering scholars Pacala and Socolow (2004) Pacala and Socolow s study argu es that a significant percentage of GHG emissions could be eliminated from the business as usual scenario with technology that have already been developed. They argue that more investments in technology are not necessary. The U.S. lacks the political will to put into use technologies that have already been developed. Dietz et al (20 09), based on their years of work on studying energy efficiency behaviors, conducted a study to look at just how much energy could be saved if individuals in the U.S. changed or adopted certain energy behaviors. They identify 17 household behaviors of whic h half are related to energy efficiency, such as weatherization, using cold water for laundry and lowering household water heater temperature. This study addresses the social, versus technological, aspect of

PAGE 82

73 mitigation strategies whereas Pacala and Socolow only address the technological aspects. Dietz et al (2009) argue that without technology, just by households making simple behavioral choices and changes, 20% of U.S. emissions could be reduced. Figure 2.2 The Behavioral Wedge P lanning practi tioners from around the country that are implementing behavior change programs have taken part in the development of a behavior wedge profile tool (U .S Urban Sustainability Directors Network 2013). In a project conducted by the Garrison Institutes Climate, Cities and Behavior Project, a behavior wedge profile tool is being developed t o help cities identify which household behaviors are contributing most to their GHG emissions so they can address directly and more effectively those behaviors community wide that should be targeted (Ehrhardt Martinez & Meier, 2013) This tool is still in the development stages but

PAGE 83

74 was piloted at the city of Baltimore and seems to be gaining momentum in academic disco urse and possibly city sustainability initiatives. The stabilization wedge approach is also used by infrastructure and energy experts. Ramaswami et al (2012) analyzed, in a bottom up study based on Denvers GHG emissions and energy consumption data, how e ffective behavior change policies were in Denver. They argue that voluntary programs alone will not make much of a difference in reducing GHG emission. Voluntary programs should be integrated with mandatory regulations in order to make significant reductio ns. The challenge is that mandatory programs are hard to fund, manage and monitor and often are politically unacceptable. This research explores cases that are applying behavior change strategies based on the theories of Ajzen ( 1985), Bandura (1997), Bem ( 1972), Brehm & Brehm (1981), Cialdini (2003), Gardner & Stern (1996) Geller (1989) Rogers (1962), and Schultz (2007) This research is a meeting of energy policy, planning, behavioral science, and psychology discipl ines. It illustrates the complex interd isciplinary nature and underscores the importance of responses that are holistic. This research strives to explore how municipal climate and energy planners use applied behavior change strategies. Because CBSM is an approach considered by program planners in Colorado, I use CBSM as a lens from which to evaluate home energy programs in Colorado. This section is dedicated to CBSM research as it is a framework considered by climate and energy program planners to reduce household energy consumption. Three stud ies suggest that drastic GHG emissions could be achieved through individual behavior changes without large investments in new technology (Pacala &

PAGE 84

75 Socol ow, 2004; Dietz et al., 2009; Ramaswami et al ., 2012) Pacala and Socolow (2004) first developed a national scale stabilization wedge (p. 968), which includes seven carbon mitigation wedges that they claim would solve the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies (p. 968) and urge national decisionmakers to take action and pur sue this portfolio of st abilization wedge technologies. Six of the wedges in Pacala and Socolows (2004) model address production, or supply side, technologies whereas one wedge focuses on human behavior s such as reasonably achievable household energy eff iciency upgrades, which constitutes demand side technologies. It is this behavioral wedge that justifies the relevance of this dissertation. Building on Pacala and Socolows analysis, Dietz et al (2009) developed the concept of a behavioral wedge t hrough a topdown analysis based on national level data. Dietz et al (2009) argue that people centered efforts (as opposed to new technology) may achieve faster GHG reductions with much smaller investment when compared to traditional technology initiative s as mentioned in Pacala an d Socolows stabilization wedge study The behavioral wedge concept is based on the argu ment that 20% of U.S. household GHG emissions, or 7.4% of total U.S. GHG emissions, could be eliminated if certain household energy consumpti on and personal transportation behaviors were adopted. They claim that GHG emissions could be reduced with little or no effect on household well being if U.S. households adopted 17 specific behaviors in the next ten years The behaviors they examine that a re related to home energy efficiency are weatherization HVAC equipment efficiency upgrade, low flow showerheads, efficient water heater, efficient appliances, change

PAGE 85

76 HVAC air filters, tune up AC, cold laundry temperature, standby electricity, thermostat setbacks, line drying clothes (Dietz et al (2009 ) Dietz et al (2009) argue that by integrating the most effective behaviorally oriented nonregulatory interventions, which make up a behavioral wedge, GHG emissions could be reduced much more quickly than other kinds of changes and (this behavioral wedge) deserves explicit consideration as part of climate policy (p. 18452). They first estimated the potential emissions reduction from each of the 17 household actions that would be achieved with 100% adopti on and then estimated plasticity (the proportion of current nonadopters that could be induced to take action) from data on the most effective proven interventions. Assuming such high levels of national participation may not provide an accurate assessment of what can be achieved at the local level. Also, this top down assessment does not provide guidance for decision makers on specific policy and planning design to guide GHG emissions reduction at the local level, considering unique factors that define loca l context such as climate, technology usage and lifestyles of local people. Ramaswami et al (2012) expand upon Pacala and Socolows (2004) and Dietz et al .s (2009) work by evaluating carbon mitigation interventions that have actually been implemented by cities in a short term (five year) carbon mitigation wedge. Through a bottom up analysis of 55 U.S. cities GHG emissions reduction actions they illustrate the import ance of participation rates and energy savings per home, or unit in ca lculating GHG mitigation impact. Ramaswami et al (2012) emphasize that knowing actual participation rates is critical for understanding the effectiveness of behavioral interventions and whether or not GHG emissions have actually been

PAGE 86

77 reduced. In their examination of 55 ci ty climate and sustainable energy plans, they found that participation rates are not evaluated in most local climate and energy action planning initiatives. Ramaswami et al (2012) also evaluated the differences between voluntary and mandatory interventions implemented by the City and County of Denver in terms of participation rates and concluded that typical voluntary outreach programs have low participation rates and hence low GHG impact (p. 3629). They suggest that cities using a portfolio mix of vol untary and regulatory actions can yield a best case maximum of ~1% per year GHG emissions reduction annually in buildings and transportation sectors, combined (p. 3629) and argue that innovative higher impact behavioral, technological, and policy/regulat ory strategies are under utilized (p. 3629). Ramaswami et al (2012) recommend that cities must find ways to enhance societal participation in voluntary programs (p. 3639) as well as consider ways to diffuse innovations across communities, carefully mea sure energy consumption and carbon reductions, and report participation rates in diffe rent voluntary program designs. T hey suggest that mandates alone may decrease GHG emissions, but mandates are difficult to manage. Therefore, they suggest that combinations of voluntary programs and mandatory policies are needed to influence energy consumption behavior and effectively reduce GHG emissions. The stabilization wedge and the behavioral wedge both offer reasonab ly achievable goals, which could reduce U.S. GHG emissions if corresponding federal, state and local policies and programs were established. The wedge concepts highlight the need for effective mitigation actions that take into account human behavior and

PAGE 87

78 are presented here to justify the importan ce of this study. Dietz et al (2009) and Stern et al (2010) make strong arguments for the large potential of GHG reductions that could be achieved through voluntary household actions that would not affect quality of life or cost much. Ramaswami et al (2 012) suggest that the GHG reductions that can be realistically achieved through voluntary actions are more modest th an Dietz et al (2009) estimate. Applied frameworks, such as CBSM, are being used by local planners to integrate low carbon living into com munities. Research on CBSM program delivery and effectiveness in local climate and energy action planning is limited. Thus, there is a need for research, which evaluates the effectiveness of CBSM in local climate mitigation programs. The intent of communit y based social marketing is to foster more sustainable behaviors, such as reducing GHG emitting behaviors; however, it is not clear whether local CBSM programs to reduce GHGs are effective. Cities in Colorado are delivering home energy programs designed w ith (one time efficiency) behavior change in mind. For example, the city leaders in climate and energy planning in Colorado offer these programs to residents: Boulder Energy Smart, Denver Energy Challenge and Fort Collins Home Energy Efficiency Program A ll offer free energy audits to all residents to determine how their house may be losing energy E nergy advisers then help homeowners to implement energy efficiency upgrades based on their audit as well as help homeowners navigate through incentives and gov ernment programs. These three home energy programs as well as others in Colorado (Arvada Resource Smart, Golden Resource Smart, Colorado Energy Smart, etc. ) will be d iscussed in detail in Chapters IV and V

PAGE 88

79 Research Gap Finally, I address the gap in the r esearch between local climate and energy action mitigation planning and household behavior change strategies. Although it is an active area of practice, sufficient research does not seem to exist that address es behavior change strategies, program design, implementation and evaluation in the local climate planning literature. Also, there is a lack of research related to the practice of local climate planning in Colorado. T he conundrum expres sed in the introductory chapter: i f city sustainability coordinators were able to master behavior change program design as behavior studies suggest, then significant GHG reductions should be realized; motivates th is study which is driven by what could be achieved in local climate and energy action planning (e.g. topdow n analysis per Dietz et al, 2009) and the reality of what is actually being achieved (e.g. bottom up analysis per Ramaswami et al ., 2012), specifically in the residential sector related to energy (natural gas and electricity) consumption behaviors. This st udy explores this tension in climate and energy program design practices in Colorado communities and behavior change programs designed to reduce household energy consumption and, ultimately, GHG emissions. This study is designed to answer the following research questions to address how local climate planning is playing out in Colorado after nearly ten years of action as well as how Colorado m unicipalities are designing energy efficiency behavior change programs. (1) How far have Colorado municipalities prog ressed in local climate and energy action planning?

PAGE 89

80 (2) What factors influence municipalities level of involvement in local climate and energy action planning? (3) How are home energy programs designed to reduce community wide GHG emissions? (4) How do Colorado citie s evaluate effectiveness of home energy efficiency programs? Chapter III explains the methods and procedures used to answer these questions.

PAGE 90

81 CHAPTER III METHODS T his study of local climate mitigation planning and related behavior change programs explores and evaluates a diverse sample of Colorado municipalities and their involvement in local climate planning processes as well as the implementation pathways they followed, if any, to reduce household energy consumption and ultimately greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It acts as a follow up study to a previous research initiative with the University of Colorado Denver Sustainable Urban Infrastructure group that conducted GHG emissions inventories for the sample of municipalities. The main aims of this r esearch are to effectively address the lack of research related to local climate and energy planning in Colorado and local behavior change interventions designed to reduce GHG emissions. To answer the how and what research questions, this exploratory study relies primarily upon qualitative research methods including interviews, content analysis, and case studies However, a simple quantitative descriptor analysis is conducted to verify findings that lead to the development of a case typology. I first introduce where I am coming from as a researcher and then proceed to each aspect of the research design: research questions, conceptual framework, sampling strategy, data collection and analysis methods and verification and accuracy of findings Research Perspective Because t he process of research typically stems from the researchers philosophical assumptions to worldviews and on to the methods and procedures (Creswell, 2007), i t is important to be reflexive I share my research perspective in order that readers may un derstand the background and biases that likely influence this

PAGE 91

82 research. A s the sole research er, I am the ke y instrument of data collection, analysis and interpret at ion. I strive to be reflective and aware of my biases and blind spots in this research. I n this i nterpretive inquiry what I see, hear, understand cannot be separate from my background, history, context, and understandings. Therefore, I strive to f ocus on the learning and the meaning that participants hold about behavior change pro grams in local climate planning, as well as the meaning I bring to the research. T he qualitative research process is emergent, therefore, phases of the process changed after I began collecting and analyzing the data (Creswell, 2007). With over fifteen years of experience in local government infrastruct ure planning and program development, I am particularly interested in how applied behavior change approaches and theories play out in the real world of local government actions to change community wide behaviors related to GHG emitting behaviors With previous experience implementing a community based social marketing campaign related to solid waste and recycling behaviors I am curious as to how effective community based social marketing (CBSM) is related to energy consumption behavior. CBSM is designed to target specific behaviors and draws from behavioral science and psychological theories of pro environmental behavior. I am a practitioner at my core drawn to conducting applied and interdisciplinary research to further behavior, energy and climate change knowledge in the field I am concern ed with applications what wo rks and what does not and solutions to problems To me, the important aspect of resear ch is the problem being

PAGE 92

83 studied, the questions asked about this problem and how the answers will help to improve practice Research Design The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to explore what i s happening in the practice of local climate and energy mitigation planning in a diverse sample of Colorado municipalities ( to answer research questions one and two) as well as (2) to explore related behavior change initiatives designed to reduce GHGs in the context of local climate planning and municipalities role in the delivery o f such programs ( to answer research questions three and four ) Each aspect of the research design is discussed in this section : research questions, conceptual framework, units of analysis, sampling strategy, data collection and analysis methods, and verification of findings. Research Questions T he research questions guiding this study ( as introduced in the previous chapter ) are: (1) How far have Colorado municipalities progressed in local climate and energy action planning? (2) What factors influence municipalities level of involvement in climate and energy action planning? (3) How are home energy programs designed to reduce community wide GHG emissions? (4) How do Colorado cities evaluate effectiveness of home energy efficiency programs?

PAGE 93

84 How these questions fit into the broader domain of policy and planning responses is illustrated in a conceptual framework (Figure 3.1) Conceptual Framework A conceptual framework illustrates the main concepts that are explored in a study (Miles & Huberman, 1994) Figure 3.1 shows the broad domain of policy and planning responses to climate change and how this studys research questions reside in the domain of climate policy and planning Figure 3.1: Conceptual Framework Units of Analysis This research analyzes local climate plan ning processes and embedded within that home energy programs designed to reduce community wide GHG emissions The units of analysis, therefore, are local climate and energy action planning (subject of

PAGE 94

85 Chapter IV) and residential energy behavior change programs (subject of Chapter V). The unit of analysis for data collection is a municipality. This exploratory st udy starts by examining whether or not municipalities with GHG emissions inventories have pursued climate planning beyond their GHG emissions inventory. And if so, why, a nd what factors influence their level of involvement. Once municipalities that are act ively involved in climate planning and home energy programs are identified in Chapter IV case studies of home energy programs are conducted to better understand the implementation pathways of home energy efficiency programs in Chapter V By exploring a s pecific local climate mitigation strategy operating in most communit ies ( household energy efficiency programs ), I am able to draw from and contribute to the body of knowledge and practice in the intersecting research domains of climate mitigation planning and behavior change interventions The focus of this study is on residential energy programs as a climate and energy mitigation action because: H ousehold energy sector is a significant source of a citys GHG emissions profile and cities are compelled to include mitigation actions targeting such emissions in their local climate action planning even though different cities have different relationships with the energy utilities serving their residents (Millard Ball, 2012). C limate and energy planning is requ iring a broader view by city management and is being handled in offices with a broader scope of responsibility: mayors office, city managers office, rather than in a

PAGE 95

86 department that may not have authority in the agency (e.g. facilities department, public works department, planning department ) Electricity is a service that is offered by both municipally owned utilities as well as investor owned utilities which creates an interesting dynamic, which requires strong collaborations to overcome outdated instit utional ways, business as usual and the industrial growth mindset. M unicipal engineers and planners are having to draw upon the social sciences to understand the behaviors that shape energy use and how people can be persuaded to use l ess energy in the first place (Wired, 2014). Sampling S trategy This research builds upon previous work of U niversity of C olorado Denver and the municipalities being studied. UC Denver Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Systems (UCD CSIS) conducted GHG emissions inventori es with over 20 municipalities from 2005 to 2011 in partnership with the Colorado Municipal League My association with UCD CSIS stems from my time as a National Science Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Trainee ( IGERT ) Sustainable Urb an Infrastructure Fellow (2009 2012), which was coordinated by UCD CSIS. As a UCD CSIS research fellow and PhD student, I assisted in conducting GHG emissions inventories of two of the cities: Golden and Westminster. The sample consists of all of the municipalities that partnered with UCD CSIS. It is a pre specified sample based on the municipalitys prior work with UCD CSIS. T able 3 shows the municipalities as well as the participants who were interviewed and

PAGE 96

87 provided data for this study. The particip ants have a wide variety of titles, but for the sake of this study, I refer to all participants as sustainability planners.

PAGE 97

88 Table 3 : Study Sample and Participants Municipality Participant Title 1. Adams County Adrienne Dorsey Sustainability Coordinator 2. City of Arvada Jessica Prosser Sustainability Coordinator 3. City of Aurora Karen Hancock Environmental Program Supervisor 4. City and County of Boulder Kristen Hartel Beth Beckel Program Coordinator City of Boulder Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Specialist, Boulder County 5. City of Broomfield Kathy Schnoor Kevin Standbridge Environmental Services Manager Assistant City Manager 6. Central City Greg Thompson Planning Director 7. Chaffee County Don Weimer Development Director 8. City and County of Denver Liz Babcock Gregg Thomas Julie Saporito Tom Herrod Residential Energy Program Administrator Environmental Assessment and Policy Section Supervisor Residential Energy Program Administrator Director of Environmental Quality 9. Town of Dillon Dan Burroughs Public Works Engineer 10. City of Durango Mary Beth Miles Sustainability Coordinator 11. Eagle County Deron Dirksen Public Works Engineer 12. Town of Fowler Did not participate N/A 13. City of Fort Collins Bonnie Pierce Environmental Data Analyst 14. City of Golden Theresa Worsham Sustainability Manager 15. City of Lafayette Curt Cheesman Director, Recreation and Facility Management 16. City of Lakewood Erich Harris Sustainability Division Manager 17. City of Montrose Virgil Turner Director of Innovation and Citizen Engagement 18. San Miguel/Ouray Counties /Telluride Nina Kothe Kim Wheels Administrator, Ouray County Commissioners Office EcoAction Partners, Energy Programs Coordinator 19. Routt County / Steamboat Springs Tim Winter Purchasing/Building and Plant Director 20. City of Thornton Karen Widomski Sustainability Planner 21. Town of Vail Kristen Bertuglia Sustainability Coordinator 22. City of Westminster Rachel Harlow Schalk Environmental and Administrative Services Officer

PAGE 98

89 These municipalities provide a diverse representation of the population of Colorado, from the highly populated metropolis of Denver to suburban communities of Arvada and Golden to rural mountain towns, such as Dillon and Durango, to ski towns such as Steamboat Springs in Routt County Telluride in San Miguel County and Vail in Eagle County The design intent of this small n study is to closely examine a relatively small but diverse and representative sample of Colorado municipalities to find out how different types of communities are addressing climate change and energy. Research Methods The exploratory nature of this research as well as the how, what and why research questions call for a primarily qualitative research approach. However, a simple quantitative analysis is conducted to triangulate findings regarding the factors influencing municipalities level of involvement in local climate planning. Qualitative research methods are selected as an effective approach for discovering and exploring a new area such as climate mitigation planning in Colorado. It is used when an issue needs to be explored rather than using predetermined information from the literature or rely ing on results from other research studies (Creswell, 2007). The main strengths of qualitative data and why I collect primarily qualitative data for this study is becau se of its focus on real events occurring in local climate mitigation interventions, which provides an understanding of the contexts and settings in which the participants address this issue (Creswell 2007, p. 40). It is also used to gain a holistic unders tanding of the context of climate planning in Colorado and to understand these settings, which are inherently complex

PAGE 99

90 and influenced by a wide range of factors. Qualitative methods embrace this complexity and allow the researcher and readers to get a sense of what is actually oc curring in the cases and ground the data in a local context since the data is collected in close proximity to the situation. Qualitative data is useful for its richness and its holistic nature as it emphasizes peoples lived experien ces. Since I aim to comprehend the meaning of the qualitative data from interviews and formal documents, qualitative methods are used to explicate the ways people in particular settings come to understand, account for, take action, and otherwise manage their day to day situations (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 7). Quantitative analysis is used to verify the assumptions made in the development of the case typology of settlement pattern types of urban, suburban, and rural relating home energy program design to municipality size and geographic location. Table 4 outlines the research methods used in this study.

PAGE 100

91 Table 4: Research Question s Methods, Data Types Research Questions Methods Type of data (1) How far have Colorado municipalities progressed in local climate and energy action planning? Answered in Chapter IV Data Collection Semi -structured interviews UCD CSIS GHG contact data/sample Data Analysis Qualitative content analysis with descriptive pattern coding Colorado map indicating home energy program initiatives Coded excerpts from interview transcripts and climate plans Case-ordered data display (Table 4.1) levels of municipality involvement (LOI) H -M -L -display matrix -narrative with evidence by HML level Cross case display matrices of cases representing each LOI (Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4) Case-ordered data display (Table 4.1) levels of municipality involvement (LOI) Unit of analysis = CEAP (2) What factors influence municipalities level of involvement in climate and energy action planning? Answered in Chapter IV Data Collection Semi -structured interviews Documents : climate and energy action plans (CEAP) Secondary databases (US Census, US BLS, Colorado Secretary of State) Data Analysis Qualitative conten t analysis Analyze progress through lens of 5 milestone planning process Chronological analysis of climate policy evolution Quantitative descriptive analysis of socio -economic factors influencing LOI U nit of analysis = Climate and energy action planning Coded excerpts from interview transcripts and climate plans Climate policy and planning timeline Table of municipalitys socio economic demographic data: population, density, political party of each city ; Data display matrices of each cases features relat ed to LOI Data display matrices of factors influenc ing LOI (3) How are home energy programs designed to reduce community wide GHG emissions? (4) How do cities evaluate effectiveness of home energy efficiency programs? Answered in Chapter V Data Collection Semi structured interviews Home energy program website text Data Analysis Qualitative content analysis Analyze program effectiveness through lens of CBSM applied framework Case Typology Case Studies of Home Energy Program Implementation Pathways Unit of analysis = Home energy programs Coded excerpts from interview transcripts and home energy program website content Cross case data display matrix of Urban/Suburban/Rural vs behavior change and measurement strategies Flow charts of inst itutional arrangements for each type

PAGE 101

92 Data Collection. Data collection methods include semistructured interviews of municipal sustainability planners, climate or sustainability plan documents, home energy program websites and secondary quantitative data. A variety of data collection methods are used in order to view the phenomena of local climate planning and home energy programs through a variety of perspectives and from an inductive approach. Qualitative data was collected primarily from semistructured interviews of the diverse sample of Colorado municipal sustainability planners who are planning and managing climate mitigation activities The first research question (h ow far have Colorado municipalities progressed in l ocal climate and energy action planning?) guides the determination of whether or not the municipalities in the sample, of which all have a GHG emissions inventory, have continued to take action towards GHG mitigation beyond conducting an emissions inventor y. During the interview process, I collected data that allowed me to identify the municipalities that have implemented community wide climate and energy action plans and/or residential energy behavior change programs I n preparation for initial interviews conducted in the fall of 2012, an interview protocol was developed to guide the data collection process and to observe and record events (Appendix A) Based on the gaps in the literature review and prior involvement with UCD CSIS, I started by brainstormin g a long list of interview questions. I then culled this list back and refined the questions to be openended and clear. Prior to i nterviewing all participants, interview quest ions were tested with a peer to ensure clarity I also planned to conduct my fir st interview with an interviewee that I know from my work with UCD and Goldens GHG emissions

PAGE 102

93 inventory (Theresa Worsham, City of Golden). After this initial interview, interview questions were refined for better flow. Even though an interview protocol was in place, I welcomed a casual information sharing discussion allowing any information that participants felt important to share which exemplifies the semistructured interview approach. I did not want my questions to drive the entire interview, but rather let participants share what they deem important in their particular context This resulted in the interviews go ing off on tangents at times but resulted in rich data that informed the analyses Interview length ranged from 30 minutes to one hour. Each interview was audio recorded and is saved in an online database. E ach municipalitys sustainability coordinator and/or home energy program manager was identified from UCD CSIS contacts as well as municipal websites. Municipal contacts were invited to participate by email and phone The majority were eager to participate in and contribute to this study with a 95% participation rate (21/22). The municipality that did not respond to my requests, thus did not participate is the Town of Fowler. From Septe mber through December 2012, I conducted ( 36) semi structured phone interviews of municipal personnel involved in climat e planning as shown in Table 3. In September 2015, nearly three years later, four additional interviews were conducted to collect additional data for the case studies as well as to verify Chapter IV and V results with practitioners. Of the 30 interviews conducted, 29 were via telephone and one was faceto face. P articipant background information was gathered first, then data related to questions about the municipalities involvement in the climate and energy action planning process was collected pertaining to their progress

PAGE 103

94 in moving from GHG emissions inventories to developing climate action plans to implementing community wide mitigation actions to assessing effectiveness of these actions. For those municipalities delivering, or about to deliver, home energy programs, more specific questions about the design of household energy behavior change programs were asked. The intent was to expl ore and uncover the implementation pathways of household energy programs that are in operation or are in the planning stages. To build upon, strengthen and triangulate data collected from interviews of municipalities actively involved in climate planning I collected related municipal documents: climate or sustainability plans and home energy program website text (Creswell, 2007; David & Sutton, 2011). During interviews, five cities with stand alone formal plans were identified (Table 6 ) These cities also had home energy program materials online. Five regional nonprofits were identified that had home energy program information on their websites (Table 7 ) Therefore, relevant text from five plans and ten home energy program websites was collected. Secondar y socio economic quantitative demographic data pertaining to each municipality was collected from three sources: (1) U.S. Census Bureau (2010); Colorado Secretary of State (2011); and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011). Socio economic factors likely influence local planning strategies and act ions. In order to understand how local context may influence a municipalitys level of involvement in climate and energy action planning, data such as population, density, average age, educational levels and political leanings were collected. These data were useful to

PAGE 104

95 validate the case typology and to better understand each municipalitys socioeconomic demographic background in preparation for interviews. Data Analysis. Qualitative content analysis methods are used to address the first two research questio ns regarding municipal involvement in climate planning (Miles & Huberman, 1994) whereas, a case typology and case study analysis are used to answer the latter two research questions on design of home energy programs (Yin, 2014) To answer the first research question regarding climate planning progress, the five milestone climate planning processes were used as a lens through which to analyze the data. A continuum emerged to categorize the different levels of involvement of municipalities in local climate planning as highmedium low (Table 5). To answer research question two, interview excerpts were coded and factors influencing each level of involvement were identified as key themes emerged from the data that provide d answers to the questions. Q uali tative content analysi s was conducted in a variety of ways to determine a municipalitys progress in climate planning (research question one), the factors influencing their progress (research question two) and informing case studies of the main elements o f implementation pathways of home energy programs (r esearch questions three and four ) This is an inductive qualitative content analysis where I build patterns and themes from the ground up by organizing data into increasingly more abstract units of information (David and Sutton, 2011). According to Miles & Huberman (1994), there are three components of qualitative data analysis which they describe as:

PAGE 105

96 three concurrent interwoven flows of activity that are continuous and iterative : (1) data reduction, or coding of data, is a form of analysis that sharpens, sorts, focuses, discards, and organizes data from interview transcripts in such a way that final conclusions can be drawn and verified; (2) data displays (matrices, graphs, chart s, networks), organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action; and (3) conclusion drawing and verification ( p. 10) To prepare documents for content analysis the first task was to transcribe the audio tapes of the interviews Once interview transcripts were created in M icrosoft Word documents, I review ed the transcripts for accuracy, uploaded transcripts of the 26 interview transcripts into Dedoose software, and simultaneously developed a cod ing frame (Appendix B) which essentially is my catalog identif ying the codes applied to the data in order to identify patterns within the data (David & Sutton, 2011). I proceeded to upload relevant sections of climate and energy action plans to the Dedoose database and converted text from city home energy program websites to MS Word documents and uploaded these documents into Dedoose as well. Through the coding process, I was able to reduce the large amount of data and structure it by labelling it f or retrieval in the analysis process. Coding the data reduced large amounts of data into a smaller number of analytic units (Miles & Huberman, 1994) Data was coded in Dedoose software, which assisted in the analy sis of an abundance of transcript text into pattern codes as well as with manual met hods Pattern codes are designed to enable the investigation of relationships with the s pecific content. Pattern codes are explanatory or inferential codes that identify an emergent theme, configuration or explanat ion. Pattern coding is a way of grouping those summaries into smaller numbe r of sets, themes or constructs and help s organize the data to analyze and interpret patterns

PAGE 106

97 I identified both manifest and latent pattern codes where I identified specific theme s within the text that could be investigated both for their relationship with particular summary code characteristics (David & Sutton, 2011). A n initial coding frame was generated at the outs et of the data analysis process, based on the concepts identified in the conceptual framework, research questions climate planning milestones and community based social marketing tactics. E xcerpts were coded in Dedoose based on the se manifest codes (Appendix B). Manifest codes refer to specific terms that recur within the text data collected. They are terms that are in the data themselves (David & Sutton, 2011, p. 342). I examined the data in the form of int erview transcripts and identified portions (excerpts) which contained content meaningful to the research questions. All the excerpts and the codes that were applied were analyzed as I look to understand the phenomenon of climate planning and how patterns in the data expose the deeper and more complex meaning as communicated by the research participants, which led to the development of latent codes. Latent codes emerged further along in the analysis (Appendix B ) Latent codes are terms or themes that the researcher identifies beneath the surface of the text (David & Sut ton, 2011, p. 342). L atent codes ultimately le d to identifying the factors that influence municipal level of involvement in climate planning (research question two) as well as elements examined in depth in the case studies (research question three). A list of latent codes was generated after the data was collected and before the recor ded interviews were transcribed. After coding the data, I reconfigured data in different ways through display s in order to reduce and structure the coded data for anal ysis of the municipal progress

PAGE 107

98 in climate planning and factors influencing progress : climate policy and planning timeline; a caseordered data display (Table 8 ) indicating levels ( highmedium low ) of municipality involvement (LOI); cross case display matrices of cases representing each level of involvement and the factors influencing each level (Tables 5, 6, 7); and a map of Colorado indicating geographic locations of home energy program initiatives (Figure 4.2) which also verifies findings related to home energy programs (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I applied an inductive approach to analysis, which began with observations of patterns in the coded interview s and plans. I drew mind maps, schematics and data display tables to reduce the content to themes and identify patterns emerging from the data. I searched for examples of the unit s of analysis in the data and code d them to assemble examples into an answer to the questions (Foss & Waters, 2007). I work ed back and forth between coding frame s and the database until a comprehensive set of themes was established (Creswell, 2007 ). A c limate policy timeline represents flows and processes of connection, of sequences and relationships (Table 8) It shows the influence of federal and state government initiatives on local climate and energy initiatives in Colorado. The climate policy timeline represents flows and processes of connection, of sequences and relationships (David & Sutton, 2011). The analytic strategy to answer research questions three and four is a case typology followed by case studies examining each of the three types identified in the typology The case study analysis process includes developing a case study protocol,

PAGE 108

99 selecting the cases to be examined, and identifying the concepts from which each case will be analyzed (Yin, 2014) Analysi s of case study evidence from documents as well as interview transcripts provide findings to inform a case typology of Colorado municipalities engaged in residential energy efficiency and conservation pr ograms. The case typology emerged by working the data from the ground up (Yin, 2014). Key concepts emerged by closely examining the data, not from prior theoretical propositions and resulted in a case typology based on municipality settlement pattern ur ban, suburban, rural mountain town. This illustrates the theory of diffusion of innovation at work within settlement pattern types. It stems from the high and medium level of involvement cities to the urban, suburban and rural types of behavior programs. A case study protocol was developed to guide the case study process (Appendix C ). A database of the case study data is located in Dedoose software. This allows the researcher to maintain accurate data, which can be accessed to verify the chain of evidence leading to the results. Case studies are selected which represent each type of home energy program. (Yin, 2014). The main criteria for selecting cases were that a home energy program was being implemented and it represented well each one of the types. Based on the interview data, two municipalities and one regional nonprofit were selected to be the focus of case studies of the implementation pathways of residential energy behavior change programs. I select three cases to stud y in depth, each of which e xplores one of the three types of home energy programs identified in this study : the urban type; the suburban type; and the rural/mountain town type. After reducing the data in order to

PAGE 109

100 answer the first two research questions, it became clear that municipalities, depending on their settlement pattern, were involved in a certain implementation pathway. Three types of behavior change programs became evident depending on if it was a large city (city directly delivers and manages home energy program), a suburb (city contracts out home energy program to a third party contractor), or a rural mountain town (municipality is a partner of the nonprofit delivering the home energy program). T he implementation pathways of home energy programs related to each of the type s (urban, suburban, rural) is analyzed through the lens of four concepts: diffusion of innovation, institutional arrangements, behavior change tactics and evaluation approaches. The studys goal is to understand the design of home energy behavior change pr ograms to reduce household energy consumption and GHG emissions Validity C hecks To address the construct validity of this study, data was collected from multiple sources, verification of results was conducted with participants at two different points of the study. Also, I strive to ensure validity of the results by triangulation of methods: (1) content analysis of documents ( climate and energy action plans residential energy program website text); (2) interview transcript analysis and (3) case study anal ys e s of the implementation pathways of each type of residential energy program based on interview data, which incorporates quantitative data of geographic, socio economic, and political demographics I collected and analyzed multiple sources of data: 26 city sustainability coordinator in terviews, city documents, plans and website text. These multiple sources of data allow triangulation to be built into the study.

PAGE 110

101 Data was initially collect ed in the fall of 2012. Now, three years later it is likely infor mation has changed considering the constant evolution of climate policy and planning practice With the goal of providing accurate and timely results, I verified my findings with participants twice since 2012. In August 2014, I participated in a conference call with the members of the Colorado Sustainability Collaborative an initiative of the Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado. I was invited to present the case typology and case study approach to the Collaborative. Participants in this conference call agreed wi th the case typology logic and also clarified some of the results. They expressed interest in seeing the final product. Also, i n September 2015, I conducted follow up interviews of the three agencies represented in the cas e studies : Denver Energy Challenge (Julie Saporit o, Tom Herr od); Arvada Resource Smart (Jessica Prosser) and EcoAction Partners (Kim Wheels) The field of climate policy and planning practice is in a state of constant chang e s o it is with great humility that I present these fin dings to the best of my ability and knowledge at the time of publication. If any information is misrepresented, I take full responsibility.

PAGE 111

102 CHAPTER IV MUNICIPAL INVOLVEMENT IN CLIMATE PLANNING Through local climate and energy action planning, many municipalities are committing to mitigate greenhouse (GHG) emissions from sources both controlled by local g overnment operations as well as community wide sources of emissions. With a focus on what Colorado municipalities are doing to foster household GHG reductions community wide, this chapter answers research questions one and two: (1) How far have Colorado municipalities progressed in local climate and energy action planning? (2) What factors influence municipalities level o f involvement in climate and energy planning? The results reported in this chapter are based on data collected from extensive interviews of local climate planners in Colorado as well as local climate plan text and home energy program text. I begin by analy zing all of the municipalities in the sample and their progress as measured by the highest climate planning milestone achieved. Through qualitative content analysis methods (e.g. coding data, displaying data, verifying results), I seek to better understand w hy some municipalities progress further in their climate and energy action planning efforts and why some have not progressed beyond conducting a GHG emissions inventory or do not implement community wide mitigation actions beyond local government operati ons In Colorado, residential energy consumption equates to approximately 23% of Colorados total GHG emissions (U.S. Energy Administration Information, 2012). The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) ranked Colorado

PAGE 112

103 thirteenth of all U .S. states in their 2014 Energy Efficiency Scorecard (ACEEE, 2014), which measures the activity of states energy policies and programs. There is room for improvement in Colorados climate and energy policy and programs and it is hoped that findings from this research may inform state and municipal climate leaders A lso, a s the climate action planning literature reveals, there is a gap between climate planning and program implementation as well as limited research that investigates Colorado local governments and their GHG mitigation efforts beyond those of progressive cities like Boulder, Denver and Fort Collins. Progress on local climate and energy planning in Colorado has not been thoroughly examined state wide. The main aim of this study is to close this gap and contribute to furthering the body of knowledge of climate planning in the state of Colorado. Results in this chapter are organized into two sections presenting : (1) evidence of each municipalitys progress in c limate and energy and action planning in terms of their level of involvement (high, medium, low) and (2) key factors that influence municipal involvement in climate and energy action planning (federal and state support, political will, local government cap acity, diffusion of innovation) T his chapter concludes with an introduction to an emerging case typology based on the similarity of behavior change program designs by type of settlement pattern (urban, suburban, rural mountain town). This typology structures the case studies of home energy program implementation pathway s examined in Chapter V.

PAGE 113

104 Colorado Municipalities Progress & Level of Involvement To determine how far the municipalities in the sample have progressed in climate and energy action planning I use the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) five milestone planning process (Figure 4.1) which provide s a structure to organize the data for analysis. Figure 4.1: ICLEI Five Milestone Climate Action Planning Process T he highest milestone achieved by each municipality is determined, which is referred to this as their level of involvement in climate planning. According to ICLEIs recommended climate planning process, after GHG emissions inventories are conducted (planning milestone 1), GHG reduction targets are to be set (planning milestone 2) and programs are to be developed in a local climate and energy plan (planning milestone 3). The next step for local governments is to move from planning to action by implementing carbon reduction programs and/or policies (planning milestone 4). An important step in the rational planning process is always to evaluate progress and effectiveness of implemented actions (planning milestone 5) and redesign policies and programs if they are not reducing GHG emissions, which is the purpose of this planning model. Figure 4.1 illustrates this framework used to analyze

PAGE 114

105 the progress, or level of involvement, of each municipality in terms of the highest c limate planning milestone achieved. It is important to reiterate an additional criteria for level of involvement, which is the municipalitys commitment to a community wide scope of climate and energy action planning. It is important to define the scope of a GHG emissions inventory as to whether or not it includes emissions from local government operations only or from community wide GHG emissions. With a focus on community wide residential energy behavior change programs, I am interested in identifying those municipalities that are actively participating in community wide GHG emissions reductions. Several municipalities have implemented actions directed towards local governm ent operations; however, since a primary purpose of this study is residential energy behavior change programs, the first criteria that a mu nicipality must have to be considered committed is a community wide scope to their GHG emissions inventories and clim ate planning actions. Table 5 provides a holistic view of the municipalities examined in this study and their progress, or level of involvement LOI), in local climate and energy action planning This case ordered display illustrates the community wide cli mate mitigation planning milestones each municipality has achieved and categorizes their level of involvement as either high, medium or low

PAGE 115

106 Table 5 : Level of Involvement: Climate Mitigation Planning Milestones Achieved Municipality ICLEI Climate Action Planning Milestones 1. Conduct ed GHG inventory 2.Set GHG reduction target 3. Adopt climate plan 4. Implement GHG reduction actions 5. Measure effectiveness of actions HIGH (5) DIRECT IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY WI DE GHG MITIGATION ACTIONS Boulder Denver Fort Collins Golden Arvada MEDIUM (7 ) INDIRECT INVOLVED AS PARTNERS IN RESIDENTIAL ENERGY PROGRAM S Dillon Durango Eagle Lafayette Routt Co/Steamboat Springs Ouray Co/ San Miguel Co/Telluride Vail LOW (9) NOMINAL PROMOTE UTIL ITY RESIDENTIAL ENERGY PROGRAMS via WEBSITE Adams County Aurora Broomfield Central City Chaffee County Lakewood Mont rose Thornton Westminster

PAGE 116

107 The municipalities examined range from national leaders in climate and energy action planning (e.g. Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins) to small rural mountain towns and counties that often lack resources to engage in climate and energy planning (e.g. Central City, Chaffee Count y, Fowler). This diversity of communities provides a broad view of pathways to move towards low carbon communities The checked cells in Table 5 illustrate each climate planning milestone achieved by each municipality in this study. There are five cities (24%) in the sample demonstrating a high level of involvement in community wide climate planning in Colorado; six municipalities (29%) show a medium level of involvement; and ten municipalities (47%) exhibit a low level of involvement. All of the municipalities under examination have achieved planning milestone 1 as their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory was conducted with the help of University of Colorado Denver faculty and students. It is interesting to note that even though local governments may not be following the CCP climate planning process, they may still be engaged in GHG reduction efforts. For example, the City of Arvada has not set GHG reduction targets or developed a communi ty wide climate and energy action plan, but they are implementing a home energy behavior change program through a third party contractor. Due to a variety of factors (e.g. federal and state funding community nonprofit partnerships), cities may implement GHG reduction programs even though they have not adopted reduction targets or a climate plan. The rationale behind the high, medium and low designation of involvement is discussed next. There are four Colorado cities with stand alone adopted climate and energy action plans: Aspen,

PAGE 117

108 Boulder, Denver, and Fort Collins (ACEEE, 2014) Of these, Boulder, Denver and Fort Collins are examined in this study. Aspen is not part of this study since they had conducted a GHG emissions inventory prior to the UCD CSIS initiative and therefore was not one of the municipalities for which UCD CSIS conducted a GHG emissions inventory. Even though just four Colorado cities have officially adopted climate and energy action plans, 17 Colorado mayors have pledged to reduce GHG emi ssions to Kyoto Protocol levels by signing the US Conference of Mayors Cli mate Protection Agreement. Six of these 17 Colorado mayors represent cities in this studys sample: Boulder, Denver, Dillon, Durango, Telluride and Westminster (US Conference of Mayors, 2014). Of these six, Boulder, Denver, Durango have committed to reduci ng community wide GHG emissions reductions, whereas Telluride and Westminster have committed to reducing GHG emissions in local government operations only. Despite these mayors commitments, I find that Boulder and Denver exhibit a high level of involvement in climate planning; Dillon, Durango and Telluride exhibit a medium level of involvement; and Westminster a low level of involvement in actions related t o community wide reductions of GHG emissions based on whether or not they have committed to community wide reductions Some Colorado municipalities have adopted sustainability plans, which generally do not include GHG reduction targets. Arvada and Golden, for example, have sustainability plans and offer home energy prog rams despite not having an adopted climate plan (Table 5 ) I also learned of something unexpected: many of the rural municipalities do not directly offer residential energy programs, but rather

PAGE 118

109 collaborate in regional networks often in the form of a nonprofit agency that offers home energy programs with support from a variety of stakeholders in their respective regions. High Level of I nvolvement High level of involvement (LOI) is assigned to cities that have progressed through the five ICLEI climate planning milestones. A high level of involvement means that the local government is directly implementing a residential energy behavior change program coordinated by city staff. These cities are directly involved in climate planning as they have committed to reducing GHG emissions by taking comm unity wide action, setting GHG reduction targets, implementing a variety of GHG reduction policies and programs and measuring the effectiveness of these actions. The leaders of these cities are committed to reducing GHG emissions and providing resources to achieve aggressive climate mitigation goals The cities of Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, Arvada and Golden demonstrate a high level of involvement in climate and energy action planning. Each of these cities has a plan to reduce GHG emissions; all but one (Arvada) has set GHG reduction targets and all five offer voluntary residential energy behavior programs. Table 4.2 displ ays the evidence of each citys level of involvement

PAGE 119

110 T able 6 : Municipalities with High Level of Involvement in Climate Planning One of these cities, Fort Collins, has its own municipal electric utility, which drives an aggressive climate and energy plan for this community. Their target to be carbon neutral by 2050 is one of the most ambitious local targets in the country. They have the ability to implement aggressive carbon reduction interventions both on the supply side with new technologies and on the demand side with aggressive programs to foster energy conservation and efficiency in homes and businesses. I n m ost cases local governments are not the provisioning sta keholders for energy services P ower utilities, such as Xcel Energy in these cases, provide energy services to these cities and are not operated by the local governments Therefore, c ities without a municipally owned power utility have typically only been able to City Adopted Plan GHG Emissions Reduction Target Year Plan Adopted Residential Energy Behavior Program (REBP) Year REBP Implement ed Arvada Sustain Arvada None 2012 Resource Smart Arvada 2013 Boulder Boulder Climate Action Plan 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 2007 Energy Smart Boulder 2011 Denver Denver Climate Action Plan 10% below 2007 levels by 2012 Meet 1990 levels by 2020 2007 Denver Energy Challenge 2010 Fort Collins Fort Collins Climate Action Plan 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 80% below 2005 levels by 2030 100% below 2005 levels by 2050 (Carbon neutral) 2008 Home Efficiency Program 2008 Golden Golden Sustainabilit y Plan Reduce community wide energy usage by 20% 2007 Resource Smart Golden 2013

PAGE 120

111 exercise explicit control over the activities for which they are directly responsible. However, with the emergence of local climate planning, cities are committing to reduce GHGs and are finding creative ways, no matter who provides energy services to its residents, to reduce GHGs into the atmosphere. Medium L evel of I nvolvement Medium level of involvement designation means that the municipality is indirectly involved in community wide climate and energy action planning and GHG reduction activities through partnerships with counties and regional nonprofit agencies. At this level of involvement, the municipalities do not directly take on community wide climate planning and GHG reduction activities at the municipal offices, rather are involved and supported either by their countys program or a regional nonprofit working to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the wider use and implementation of energy efficiency measures and renewables (Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado [ASC] we bsite, 2014). Table 7 shows the municipalities involved at a medium level and the regional partner that delivers home energy efficien cy programs to their residents.

PAGE 121

112 Table 7 : Municipalities with Medium Level of Involvement in Climate Planning Municipality Regional Non Profit holding home energy program Third party contractor handling day to day Dillon High Country Conservation Center Colorado Energy Smart Eagle, Vail Walking Mountains Science Center Colorado Energy Smart Durango Four Corners Office for Resource Efficiency Utilities Contractors Lafayette Energy Smart Boulder Colorado Energy Smart Ouray County/ San Miguel County/Telluride EcoAction Partners Colorado Energy Smart Routt County/Steamboat Springs Yampa Valley Sustainability Council Colorado Energy Smart Montrose FORE (Focus On Resource Efficiency) Alliance DISBANDED AFTER ARRA FUNDING EXPIRED N/A

PAGE 122

113 For an effective geographic visual of thes e initiatives, Figure 4.2 shows the 19 nonprofits and municipalities across Colorado that are part of the Colorado Sustainability Collaborative (Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado, 2012) The Colorado Sustainability Collaborative is an overarching network of agencies across the state that meet on a monthly basis to discuss climate and energy policy and programs. The p artners listed in Table 4.3 are the primary stakeholders that deliver home energy programs to residents in their respective regions. The municipalities listed in Table 7 do not directly deliver the home energy programs rather they support the partner non profits efforts Figure 4.2: Organizations in Colorado Sustainability Collaborative Source: Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado website (2015)

PAGE 123

114 Table 7 reveal s that the municipalities indirectly involved as partners in county and regional sustainability initiatives are generally rural mountain towns and ski resort towns with the exception of Lafayette, which is located in Boulder County and therefore residents are served by the Energy Smart Boulder program Dillon is located in Summit County, which is served by the High Country Conservation Center. Eagle and Vail are located in Eagle County and are served by the Walking Mountains Science Center. San Miguel County, Ouray Count y and Telluride are supported by EcoAction Partners. Durango is engaged in the Four Corners Office for Resource Efficiency (4CORE). Steamboat Springs and Routt County are partners in the Yampa Valley Sustainability Council. Montrose was involved in the FORE Alliance; however, this organization has disbanded since Montrose was interviewed in October 2012. Several of the municipalities that exhibit a medium level of involvement are active in reducing their local government operations GHG emissions, but are indirectly involved in community wide residential energy efficiency. These regional organizations are supported financially by local and county governments, electrical utilities, natural gas utilities and the C olorado Energy Office. They pool resources to educate and motivate residents throughout the intermountain region of Colorado. Rather than the highly involved approach of big cities, the majority of towns in rural Colorado are involved, but not directly, in an institutional arrangement more suited to their capacity. Low L evel of I nvolvement Low level of involvement refers to the decision by city officials to not engage in community wide climate and energy mitigation actions Nine of the municipalities in this sample are considered to be engaging nominally at a low level. These municipalities have achieved milestone one, conducting a GHG baseline inventory, due to the free service

PAGE 124

115 offered by UCD CSIS, but have not set community wide GHG reduction target s or adopted a plan to reduce GHG emissions Their primary strategy is to refer constituents to their electrical and natural gas utilities energy efficiency and conservation programs. This typically takes the form of a link on the city website to the elec tric and natural gas utilities conservation and efficiency programs As shown in Table 4.1, these cities do not actively engage in community wide climate planning These municipalities express it is not their responsibility to deliver residential energy efficiency programs, rather it is the responsibility of the utility ( K. Hancock, personal communication, 2012), which reflects a fiscally conservative city council position on spending municipal money on home energy programs If these municipalities promot e residential energy programs at all, it is by referring residential customers to state and utility programs. Before climate planning emerged on the local scene, it was rare that municipalities without their o wn municipally owned utility directly implemented energy efficiency programs. This is a recent responsibility that municipalities have voluntarily taken on since climate and energy action planning has made it to the local decision making agenda. Since appr oximately 23% of Colorados GHG emissi ons come from residential building heating and cooling, many cities are stepping up to be leaders in helping to reduce emissions based on their commitments realizing that there are bigger reasons such as the threats of climate impacts to communities as we ll as the moral responsibility of acting to reduce GHG emissions despite which agency may be the overseer of energy production.

PAGE 125

116 Factors Influencing Municipalities Level of Involvement I analyze the interview data further to uncover primary factors tha t influence whether and how municipalities proceed along the path to reducing GHG emissions. I explore the factors that influence each municipalitys involvement in climate mitigation policy and planning. I present findings related to the primary factors that influence a municipalitys level of involvement in local climate and energy planning. This section answers the second research question: What factors influence Colorado municipalities level of involve ment in climate and energy action planning? From interviews with municipal sustainability coordinators, evidence suggests that four primary factors influence municipal involvement in climate planning : (a) federal and state support ; (b) local political will; (c) local government capacity ; and (d) diffusion of innovation. First, I describe each of the factors, then offer Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11 to provide evidence to support my claims of high, medium and low levels of municipal involvement in climate planning in Colorado. Federal and State Support Key federal, state and local policy and planning events influencing local climate and energy planning in Colorado are illustrated in the Climate Policy a nd Planning timeline (Table 8 ). I investigate federal and state policies that have influenced each municipalitys activity in climate and energy action planning. Included are key climate and energy policy and planning milestones of Colorado municipalities, which provide a glimpse of each municipalitys progress compar ed to the others and help to determine which municipalities have implemented energy efficiency and conservation programs. This timeline also illustrates patterns of plan adoption and program implementation and how climate planning innovation has diffused t hrough Colorado cities.

PAGE 126

117 Table 8: Climate Policy and Planning Timeline Year Milestone Scale 1997 United Nations encourages GHG reduction targets Kyoto Protocol International 1999 Fort Collins adopts first climate action plan Local 2002 Boulder conduc ts first GHG emissions inventory Local 2004 Boulder adopts GHG reduction targets Local 2005 US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement signed Federal 2005 Denver conduct s first GHG emissions inventory Local 2006 Boulder votes for climate action p lan (CAP) tax Local 2007 Colorado enacts Energy Efficiency Resources Standards (EERS) policy State 2007 Denver adopts Greenprint climate a ction Plan with GHG reduction targets Local 2007 Boulder adopts climate action p lan Local 2007 Golden adopts sustainability p lan Local 2008 Fo rt Collins adopts updated climate plan with aggressive reduction targets Local 2009 US American Recovery and Reinvestment Act s st i mulus funds Federal 2010 San Miguel and Ouray County Sustainability Action Plan dev eloped; Mt Sneffels Regional Energy Board launched Local 2010 Colorado Energy Smart program launched State 2011 Denver Energy Challenge launched Local 2011 Boulder Energy Smart launched Local 2012 Arvada Sustainability Plan adopted Local 2013 Fort Collins adopts Zero Waste by 2030 goal 2013 Arvada and Golden Resource Smart Programs launched Local 2013 US Climate Action Plan unveiled Federal 2014 Coal fired power plant regulations established Federal 2015 US Clean Power Plan enacted Federal 2015 Denver releases updated Climate Action Plan Local The 2009 Federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funding was a primary factor influencing Colorado local government energy efficiency behavior change programs from 20092013. Many local governments in Colorado received pr ogram support from the Federal stimulus funds from the Department of Energy (DOE) ARRA EECBG grant program in 2009. According to the Department of Energy, Milestones accomplished (throughout the US) in FY 11 include performance of energy upgrades of over 40,000 buildings, installation of 5,000 solar energy systems, and installation of over 300,000 energy efficient traffic and streetlights (DOE website, 2013).

PAGE 127

118 The purpose of ARRA EECBG funds was to provide energy efficiency services to local communities including code training, assistance with establishing local building standards, and local incentive based programs for homeowners and businesses. The local governments who received ARRA funding developed residential energy efficiency behavior programs in line with the Federal government stimulus package criteria. This influenced the design of the home energy efficiency programs. The U.S. Department of Energy reportedly provided $2.7 billion to local and state governments, native American tribes and territories across the U.S. to develop and imple ment projects to improve energy efficiency. Under the ARRA EECBG program, $49 million was budgeted to twenty Colorado cities, ten counties, and two tribes. In 2009, the Colorado Governors Energy Office received an ARRA allocation of $49,222,000 through the DOE State Energy Program ( Colorado Energy Office 2013 ). The Department of Energy describes the objectives of the ARRA EECBG Program: The program provides financial and technical assistance to assist State and local governments to create and implement a variety of energy efficiency and conservation projects. The programs objectives are: To reduce fossil fuel emissions created as a result of activities within the jurisdictions of eligible entities; To reduce the total energy use of the eligible entities ; and To improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building, and other sectors (U.S. Catalog of Federal Assistance, 2009). There are specific uses for the stimulus to achieve the objectives above. The local governments in this study used ARRA EECBG as follows: Developing/implementing an energy efficiency and conservation strategy and retaining technical consultant services to assist in the development of such a strategy.

PAGE 128

119 Conducting residential and commercial building energy audits. Establishin g financial incentive programs for energy efficiency improvements (e.g., loan programs, rebate programs, waive permit fees.) Providing grants to nonprofit organizations to perform energy efficiency retrofits. Developing public education programs to increase participation and efficiency rates for recycling programs (U.S. Catalo g of Federal Assistance, 2009). As illustrated in Table 8 (Climate Policy and Planning Timeline) l ocal climate and energy action planning was underway in Colorados large cit ies when the ARRA EECBG stimulus funds became available in 2009. EECBG funds turned local governments attention to implementing energy efficiency programs, which occurred simultaneously with many of the smaller municipalities GHG emissions inventories. T he GHG emissions inventories provided guidance for priority setting and decisionmaking. Cities in this study that received ARRA EECBG funds for energy efficiency programs are City of Arvada, City and County of Denver, City of Boulder, Boulder County, Cit y of Aurora and City of Golden. These stimulus funds were a big factor influencing local governments implementation of residential energy efficiency and conservation programs. For smaller towns, the Recharge Colorado program, which was funded by the EEC BG funds and administered by the Colorado Governors Energy Office, were the primary reasons for any action in this area. City of Montrose explains how the states Recharge Colorado Program enabled local efforts on the western slope of Colorado, which when ended resulted in the disbanding of the FORE Alliance The federal injection of support to existing local governments climate and energy action plans solidified efforts to provide home energy services to stimulate economic and social recovery. With local climate and energy planning infrastructure and agency in

PAGE 129

120 place, the federal money was inserted into the current systems to stimulate the local energy economy. There is a similarity of design among local governments receiving ARRA funds for residential ene rgy efficiency with a focus on energy audits and weatherization assis tance (Energy Smart Colorado, 2014). Some local governments involved in this study received ARRA EECBG funding to implement local incentive based programs for homeowners to stimulate the local energy economy from the ground up. Municipalities with climate and energy action plans in place were ready for federal stimulus funds because this allowed them to implement local incentive based programs for homeowners and businesses as was recommended in climate action and sustainable energy plans Some municipalities (e.g. Arvada, Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, Golden) will continue to develop their energy programs with different funding support and models. Other municipalities will not con tinue efforts that were started in 2009 due to the end of ARRA funding (e.g. Aurora, Montrose) (E. Babcock personal communication, 2012; K. Hancock personal communication, 2012). In addition to federal EECBG funding, the State of Colorado has demonstrate d climate leadership as an early adopter state of a Climate Action Plan in 2007. The Governors Energy Office (GEO, now Colorado Energy Office, CEO) was responsible for disbursing and monitoring proper use of ARRA funds: GEO was fortunate to have a number of innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy policies in place in 2009, as well as a solid industry presence and momentum in the energy efficiency and renewable energy space. This foundation allowed GEO to develop a strategy to make the most of thi s funding. EECBG and SEP ARRA funds were used for rebates, NEED grants, Recharge Colorado, the Main Street Efficiency Initiative, and outreach activities. This allowed GEO to maximize internal staff resources and processes and implementation partners. A va riety of activities focused on building capacity for the long term. Not only did the ARRA funding keep industry workers employed

PAGE 130

121 during a very difficult time, it helped to build momentum for continued progress to reduce energy consumption in the state (C ol orado Energy Office website, 2012) The states role differs depending on the size and role of the recipient agency. For large cities like Denver, Boulder and Fort Collins there was little oversight by Colorado Energy Office. A nonprofit agency, Recharge Colorado, was established in the Colorado Energy Office to distribute rebates for ARRA EECBG energy efficiency and renewable upgrades for smaller towns. EECBG also funded professional Community Energy Coordinators who were hired to disburse funds and manage home energy efficiency programs in line with the guidelines of the grant: Using EECBG funds, GEO developed the Community Energy Coordinators (CECs) program for Colorados rural and mountain communities. CECs are local government or community nonprofit employees who received personalized g uidance from the GEO, have access to clean energy tools and programs, and participate in twice monthly training and networking sessions. GEO created the CEC program to develop local capacity to ensure that all geographic areas of the state would benefit fr om ARRA. The CECs were instrumental in promoting ARRA grants and rebates, as well as the states Weatherization program. CECs were supported by four GEO staff members, known as the Regional Representatives (RRs) ( US DOE 2013 website ). Energy Smart Colorad o, the home energy efficiency model serving the High Country Conservation Center, Walking Mountains Science Center grew from Recharge Colorado. This state program has been a big influence on rural mountain towns. The Energy Smart Colorado provides home energy audits, energy savings devices, installation, efficiency and project management support (Energy Smart Colorado, 2014). Local governments wit h few staff and other resources rely directly on state informational resources such as the Recharge Colorado program as well as staff from AmeriCorps and Vista to promote the low income weatherization and the block grant programs.

PAGE 131

122 In 2007, Colorado Public Utilities Commission adopted Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) that requires utilities to invest in efficiency incentives for their customers. The EERS requires electricity and natural gas investor owned utilities (IOUs) to : engage in demand response and adopt demand side management (DSM) programs that provide financial incentives for customers to purchase more efficient equipment and use more efficient processes. The law requires utilities meet minimum energy and demand s avings goals, but authorizes the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (COPUC) to revise the goals and establish interim savings goals as it deems appropriate (ACEEE website, Buildings, 2014) In addition to support from federal and state policy, factors s uch as diffusion of policy innovations, political will, and local government capacity for innovation also strongly influence local government involvement in local climate and energy planning. Diffusion of Policy Innovations Local governments are heavily influenced by each other to take on certain best practices, as diffusion of innovation theory explains (Rogers, 1962). It is interesting to note that there are similarities in planning approaches and program design within regions. This illustrates how neighboring cities influence each other in diffusing innovations. There are also similarities in approaches among cities with similar populations and within certain geographic regions as well as political ideologies, which may strongly influence how a city ap proaches climate and energy planning. Everett (1962) argues that at the heart of the diffusion process is the modeling and imitation by potential adopters of their near peers experiences with the new idea. In deciding whether or not to adopt an innovation, individuals depend mainly on the communicate exper ience of others much like themselves who have already adopted a new idea. These subjective evaluations of an innovation flow mainly through interpersonal

PAGE 132

123 networks. So we must understand the nature of networks in order to understand the diffusion process ( p.331). Berry and Berry (1999) posit the regional diffusion model, where ci ties emulate neighboring cities The regional diffusion model illustrates how diffusion of climate planning practices is occurring across the state of Colorado as well as the nation through social networks such as the Colorado Sustainability Coalition and ICLEI. In the analysis of diffusion of innovations, it is important to establish an analytic strategy that allows the researcher to explicitly know an example of diffusion of innovations when it is encountered. The operational definition is based on the idea of municipalities, non profit agencies, federal and state government sharing best practices of programs that are designed to reduce GHG emissions. Sharing best practices may occur in a formal structure, such as a monthly gathering of municipal sustainability coordinators designed to inspire social learning, or it may occur in less formal settings, such as through phone calls and other casual conversations. Political Will Nine of the local governments explored in this study have not progressed beyond climate action planning milestone 1: conducting GHG emissions inventories. However, interviewees ( J. Prosser personal communication, 2012; A. Dorsey, personal communication, Septe mber, 2012) claim that even though their agencies have not officially adopted GHG reduction targets or developed a climate and energy action plan, which can be a highly contentious issue for cities with a strong Tea Party influence, GHG emissions inventori es and climate and energy planning do influence local government decision making. Jessica Prosser, Arvada Sustainability Coordinator explains:

PAGE 133

124 I n 2010, Tea party people were coming (to City Council meetings). T here were about 300 extremely vocal citizens that were hounding us constantly and it felt like that was all that lived here but its not. Our Council is very diverse regarding their political views and I think this reflects our community too. Its a balancing act all the time. It work out that we fou nd things that everyone is aligned on. Were kind of going with those for a while. Why do we have a sustainability coordinator, all shes doing is talking a bunch of Greek in phone calls. This is not a place you want to be in. We finally got to where we h ave a sustainability plan that council can accept with a work plan for the next 2 years works in terms of making recommendatio ns to city council for programs (J. Prosser, personal communication, 2012). Local governments with a high level of involvement in climate and energy planning have a long history of policy and program initiatives that have led up to their high level of involvement. The City of Fort Collins adopted their first Climate Action Plan in 1999, illustrating the political will supporting their efforts. The City of Boulder is leading the way as an early adopter of a carbon tax that is one of the few in the nation (B. Beckel, personal communication, 2012). In many cities, the mere mention of the te rm climate change can set off political debates especially in communities with active Tea Party participation. In Arvada, for example, there was political upheaval because the city had joined ICLEI and was going to use ICLEIs GHG emissions inventory sof tware. The Arvada City Council deal t with Tea Party members asking why the City was a member of ICLEI Arvada has since dropped their membership in ICLEI, but have implemented the Arvada Resource Smart program in which they focus on saving money. They do not use the terms climate change or greenhouse gas emissions (J. Prosser, personal communication s 2012, 2015). Local Government Capacity to Innovate Local governments with a firm resolve to pursue climate and energy planning are those that have a culture of innovation. They are climate policy and planning leaders. The

PAGE 134

125 cities of Boulder, Denver and Fort Collins are developing progressive policies and pr ograms to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Examples of two extremes of local government capacity: at one end, taxpayers tax themselves with a carbon tax to pay for climate mitigation programs (e.g. Boulder, Fort Collins) and at the other end, taxpay ers do not want city government to spend any time or money on climate planning (e.g. Chaffee County, Montrose, Westminster).

PAGE 135

126 Table 9 : Factors Influencing High Level of Involvement in Climate Planning Key excerpts from interviews related to each factor th at influences local climate planning Fed and State Support We got the EECBG Grant from the DOE and created our submission and part of grant was to create a community wide sustainability plan so we had the greenhouse gas (emissions inventory) done. Thats when we (used) the greenhouse gas inventory as a guide for different topics that would apply to (the ARRA EECBG grant). The energy efficiency conservation block grant obtained through the energy office was a ton of money through the stimulus. They were cr eating programs to jump on that had nothing to do with the UC Denver report so this report, which started in 2008, finished in 2009 was kind of irrelevant in terms of representation ( J. Prosser, personal communication 2012). Diffusion of Innovations Cit y of Boulder and Boulder County had a program probably five years ago called Two Techs and a Truck. The idea behind that was the impetus for the Energy Advisor (program that we have today). So they did have people going out to peoples homes providing a n energy audit and giving them some more information about their programs. When we submitted our grant proposal Boulder County, City and County of Denver, and Garfield County went in together on this proposal, to the Department of Energy, for the Better Buildings Neighborhood program. And we proposed the energy advisor model in that grant applicati on (L. Babcock, personal communication, 2012). Political Will There was a vote and a tax that was approved called Keep Fort Collins Great Citizens approved that tax during a recession. That basically told us that sustainability is important to the city ( B. Pierce, personal communication, 2012). The carbon tax, aka CAP tax, money is for energy efficiency programs ( K. Hartel, personal communication 2012) A k ey component to the (Boulder Energy Smart) service that has really affected participation is an ordinance in the city of Boulder called Smart Regs that requires energy efficiency standards in rental housing of which 50% of Boulder housing stock and energy efficient standard has to be met by 2019. It is easier to meet (this requirement) if you go through Energy Smart. 70% of our Energy Smart countywide is as a result of Smart Regs ordinance. ( K. Hartel, personal communication 2012). Local Government Capac ity We have a history of several programs in Boulder that have worked with residents to offer them energy audits or to encourage them to upgrade their homes or adopt energy efficient behaviors with varying levels of success. We used those programs as a bas is to really dive into what are the barriers that people experience in the energy efficiency process. Energy Smart was very thoughtfully designed to address those barriers ( B. Beckel, personal communication 2012). In our (ICAST) model, we use an energy services contract where auditor follow up is through email and phone. We cannot afford staff. We did hire ICAST to help with structure. They went to Golden credit unions, banks, foundations and have access to Gates Foundation funding and created a structur e available to Golden homeowners to get loans through private organization. Now that we have that component set up, it will take little maintenance on part of the city as it is designed as a self -sufficient market -based program. We do not have to rely on c ontractors (like Denver Energy Challenge, Boulder Energy Smart) ( T. Worsham personal communication 2012). Some examples of innovative policy emerging from local climate and energy action planning are Boulders Climate Action Plan Tax (CAP tax) and Boul ders mandatory Smart Regs requiring building owners to upgrade the efficiency of all buildings by a certain date. Also, ICASTs self supporting energy behavior program that

PAGE 136

127 Arvada and Golden offer to their residents is an innovation in financing and implementation. Local governments with a high level of involvement and innovation are committed to reducing GHG emissions through programs that are constantly being improved and redesigned. The cities in this study that demonstrate a high level of involvement all offer standalone programs that target residential energy efficiency (Table 4.1). Energy Smart Boulder, Denver Energy Challenge and Fort Collins Efficiency Works follow the Energy Advisor model. The Energy Advisor model represents an urban government model of a residential energy efficiency program. Resource Smart Arvada and Resource Smart Golden are bas ed on the ICAST model. The ICAST model represents a suburban governme nt model of a residential energy efficiency program. The implementation pathways of these two models of residential energy efficiency programs are further explored through case studies in Chapter V along with the regional collaborative model described next

PAGE 137

128 Table 10: Factors Influencing Medium Level of Involvement in Climate Planning Key excerpts from interviews related to each factor that influences local climate and energy planning Fed and State Support We were well prepared by the time the community energy coordinator was assigned to us. It was then that an opportunity came a two year program to hire a person that would assist with Recharge Colorado, the rebate program from GEO (Governors Energy Office), and to work on marketing of energy efficiency programs, and actually (implement) energy efficiency programs. We are very fortunate to receive one of those grants. We were able to hire a Community Energy Coordinator who made all the difference ( N. Kothe, personal communication 2012). Diffusion of Innovations Renew Energy Mitigation Program (RAMP) is being adopted by Telluride Mountain Village (based i n Aspen), (which is) focused on exterior energy use such as snow making equipment, hot tubs, snow melt equipment as a type of, mitigation with on-site renewable energy systems. In our Sustainability Action Plan, adoption of energy audit at time of home sale ( K. Wheels, personal communication 2014). Political Will We have an internal focus on (energy efficiency ) for government operations (such as) street lighting and city facilities. We havent done too much branching out into the community. We refer residents to 4CORE (Four Corners Resource Efficiency) for energy efficiency rebates and incentives. (Mary Beth Miles, Durango, 2012). San Miguel County tried to tax energy use ( e.g. carbon tax) but it didnt pass ( N. Kothe, personal communication, 2012). Local Government Capacity I used to work for the Governors Energy Office (GEO) as the energy coordinator for the region. Now I work for EcoAction Partners, which focuses on community wide programs. The local governments in the region focus on local government operations only (not community wide emissions reductions). There is a sustainability action plan for the county. Each local government in the county has their own energy coordinator who tracks energy usage. Telluride and San Miguel are leading. Ouray and Ridgeway are working with ESCO (Energy Services Co). (K. Wheels, personal communication, 2014). Local governments with a medium le vel of involvement in climate and energy planning rely upon partnerships to deliver home energ y efficiency services Non profit agencies such as High Country Conservation Center in Summit County Walking Mountains Science Center in Eagle County, 4CORE (Four Corners Office for Resource Efficiency) in Durango, Yampa Valley Sustainability Alliance in Steamboat Springs and Eco Action Partners in San Miguel County are a third type of rural/ski resort model for home energy efficiency programs that will be explored further in Chapter V.

PAGE 138

129 Table 11 : Factors Influencing Low Level of Involvement in Climate Planning Key excerpts from interviews related to each factor that influences local climate and energy planning Fed and State Support I think that if somebody hands me $2,851,300 again (as EECBG stimulus funds did) that I will do an urban residential energy efficiency conservation and renewable energy incentive program. But, if they dont hand me money, then no, because we cant pay fo r (energy efficien cy programs) My community is very politically conservative. They will not raise their taxes for this type of thing. We dont just hand out money to people that need it because it makes sense to them. But, Ill tell you the one thing that we did do was to g et recognition for the utilities ongoing rebate program. So, for those people that didnt get our rebate, they can still access Xcels rebates and that is ongoing. That was a wonderful side benefit. People realized theyre already paying for everybody els es rebates, why not access, its all rate -payer funded. Weve been saying get your money back. You go get that $300 check for insulation (K Hancock, personal communication, 2012). Diffusion of Innovations Montrose is a typical western Colorado city i n that they are conservative in sustainability, which often gets a n egative connotation. Rather we talk from an economic standpoint. We report on money savings, energy savings. Last year our city facilities realized 20% reduction in energy bills ( V. Turner, personal communication, 2012). Political Will We do not use the term climate change (as it is) considered a bad word. We try to relate climate change to other issues important to our community like health and livability ( K. Widomski, personal communication, 2012). We have been very aggressive with energy conservation in facility retrofits local government operations only. We do not have a sustainability plan (or climate plan) and we do not plan to develop one ( R. Harlow -Schalk, personal com munication 2012). I dont know to what degree greenhouse gas analyses are taken seriously in the community, and Lakewood being kind of conservative, sometimes community members have a resistance to using greenhouse gas assessment. ( E. Harris, personal com munication 2012). Local Government Capacity I dont know to what level our local government would be willing to integrate i nto policy (energy initiatives) such as building codes. The (City Council is) less controversial per se, as long as youre not pushing the borders too much. Overall, the strategy is to address climate chan ge as a reduction in energy use. We did some initial statistics on energy use ba sed on the greenhouse gas assessment Lakewood wast es somewhere around $500,000 a year ( E. Harris, personal communication, 2012). Local governments with a low level of involvement do not get involved in residential home energy behavior programs. They lack political will and capacity when state and federal funding and support is not available. They tend to rely instead upon their local electric and natural gas utilities for residential energy efficiency and conservation programs. Because these muni cipalities are not involved in offering energy efficiency programs to residents, they are not studied further.

PAGE 139

130 This analysis of evidence regarding each of the factors influencing climate and energy planning reveals that there are many challenges and oppor tunities for cities to reduce GHG emissions. Local governments that overcome challenges to GHG reduction program implementation innovate with new ways of doing business, which then influences other local governments and stakeholders to take on new programs Mitigation strategies to reduce GHG emissions include both technological solutions and behavioral solutions achieved through engaging communities in climate mitigation actions (US Conference of Mayors, 2014). For those local governments implementing beh avior change programs (engaged at a high or medium level), there is a typology emerging where behavior program design is similar in cities that share certain settlement patterns. In Chapter V, I explore a typology of settlement pattern (e.g. urban, suburban, rural/ski town) related to the design of carbon reduction programs, specifically, residential energy efficiency and conservation programs through the lens of community based social marketing. The five milestone planning process resembles the rational planning process which many planners argue limits effectiveness in dealing with complex wicked problems due to its linear nature. For a complex issue such as climate change, it may be more effective to use a more communicative form of planning outside the formal structure of government.

PAGE 140

131 CHAPTER V IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAMS Chapter IV uncovered the level of involvement of a diverse sample of Colorado municipalities in local climate mitigation planning as well as the factors that influence a municipalitys level of involvement. Results in this chapter are based on a case typology which flows from the high and medium level of involvement municipalities and their settlement patterns: urban, suburban, and rural. Cas e studies of each of these types explore the ir implementation pathways related to the ir institutional arrangements and behavior change program design. This chapter answers research questions three and four : How are home energy programs designed to reduce community wide GHG emissions? How do cities evaluate the effectiveness of home energy efficiency programs? The analytic strategy that leads to the results includes two main components: a case typology and comparative case studies. Through a case typology based on settlement pattern (urban, suburban, rural mountain town), a pattern emerges that represents the theory of diffusion of innovation at work. Communities sharing certain characteristics (e.g. population, location) deliver similar home energy program s. The case studies represent communities of each of these three type s through a n indepth exploration of the implementation pathways of each type in terms of diffusion of innovation theory, institutional arrangements, behavior change tactics, and measurem ent approaches. In this sample of Colorado municipalities, urban communities deliver the Energy Advisor model, suburban communities deliver the Resource Smart model and rural communities partner with regional non profit agencies to deliver home energy programs

PAGE 141

132 Case Typology A case typology of municipalities and the respective type of settlement pattern inductively emerged after data was collected via sustainability planner interviews (Table 12). Table 12 : Case Typology T ype of settlement pattern Level of Involvement Local Government Program Name Behavior Change Program Model Urban High Direct delivery Denver Denver Energy Challenge Energy Advisor High Direct delivery Boulder Boulder Energy Smart Energy Advisor High Direct delivery Fort Collins Fort Collins Home Efficiency Works Program Energy Advisor Suburban Medium Indirect delivery Arvada Arvada Resource Smart Resource Smart ( ICAST ) Medium Indirect delivery Golden Golden Resource Smart Resource Smart ( ICAST ) Rural Mountain/Ski Town Medium Indirect delivery Routt County, Steamboat Springs Yampa Valley Sustainability Council R egional n on profit Medium Indirect delivery Medium Indirect delivery Medium Indirect delivery Medium Indirect delivery Durango Dillon Eagle, Vail San Miguel and Ouray Counties, Telluride 4CORE High Country Conservation Center Walking Mountains Science Center Eco Action Partners R egional n on profit R egional n on profit R egional n on profit R egional n on profit After data was collected and Table 5 was developed to understand each municipalitys level of involvement, it became clear that certain types of communities shared certain models of home energy programs. This case typology flows from the high medium low comparat ive analysis of municipalities level of involvement (LOI) in

PAGE 142

133 climate planning from Chapter IV. The data forms a distinct pattern of implementation pathways of home energy programs. In examining the municipalities and their LOI I fou nd that the high and medium LOI cities are actively participating in delivering home energy programs to residents, whereas the low LOI municipalities are nominally involved. Instead of participating in the delivery of home energy programs low LOI municipalities refer residents to the ir respective utilities for energy efficiency assistance. Because of this lack of involvement, low LOI municipalities are not included in this an alysis of behavior change programs by type A typology is a system used for putting things into groups according to how they are similar; the study of how things can be divided into different types (Merria m Webster dictionary, 2015) and a systematic classification or study of types (dictionary.com). Urban, suburban and rural communities share some general characteristics. According to the U.S. Census Bureau website (2010) urban areas represent densely developed territory and encompass residential, commercial and other nonresidential land uses. U rban areas are defined as having populations of 100,000 or more and a population density of 1,000 people per square mile. Suburban areas are residential areas outside of urban areas They have lower populations and less densely populated land use than urban areas. Rural areas are places outside of hig hly populated urban and suburban areas. They are sparsely populated with usually under 10,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010)

PAGE 143

134 Table 13: SocioEconomic Demographic Data of Municipality Geographic Region Population Density (popn/sq mile) % Dems ** % Reps ** Median Household Income % 18 65 year olds % College Graduate s Urban Boulder Front Range 97 385 3 948 44 22 51 779 73 69 Denver Front Range 600,158 3,923 52 19 45,501 61 40 Fort Collins Front Range 143,986 2,653 27 37 49,589 66 50 Suburban Arvada Front Range 106,433 3,029 31 37 65,942 60 34 Golden Front Range 18,8671 1,901 31 37 53,896 69 51 Rural Summit Co (Dillon ) Rocky Mountains 29,404 46 30 27 63,697 73 48 Durango Rocky Mountains 16,887 1,702 33 36 53,882 70 49 Eagle Co. Rocky Mountains 52,197 31 28 32 71,337 62 46 Routt C o. Rocky Mountains 23,509 10 30 34 60,876 54 46 Vail Rocky Mountains 5,305 1,136 28 32 64,859 76 65 San Miguel/Oura y Rocky Mountains 7,840 6 36 26 63,594 70 54 Sources: *U.S. Census Bureau (2014 ) **C olorado Secretary of State (2015 ) It is interesting to note the diffusion of innovation theory at work here. Not only does this settlement pattern case typology categorize the different types of home energy program models (e.g. Energy Advisor, Resource Smart, regional n onprofit s ) aiding in comparative case study analysis, but it also illustrates the theory of diffusion of innovation at work at several levels: initially with the statewide diffusion of municipal GHG emission s inventories through UCD CSIS and the Colorado Municipal League (20052011) and later in the development of home energy programs with similar implementation pathways by settlement pattern type (2009present) The socio economic data in Table 13 reveals demographic data that is considered in the development of the settlement pattern case typology and provides additional data to understand the demographics of these municipalities. Urban and suburban areas where home energy

PAGE 144

135 programs exist tend to share progra m design, such as the urban Energy Advisor model and the suburban Resource Smart model. The strong similarities among the energy ef ficiency programs in each type reflect the social diffusion of ideas that has resulted in concrete climate mitigation programs among local governments and community organizations of certain population sizes and geographic areas Because each type of home energy program is similar, the diffusio n of innovation theory is explored in each case study to justify the case typology. Case Studies : Urban, Suburban, Rural Mountain Town The case study analytic strategy is to explore the home energy program implementation pathways of a representative case of each type addressing four elements: diffusion of innovation theory, institutional arrangements, behavior change tactics, and measurement approach. Each case study focuses on one spatial settlement pattern type: the urban type; the s uburban type; and the rural mountain/ski town type E vidence gathered from qualitative interview methods plans and program materials content informs a comparative case analysis, which relates program design choices to community scale and geography and how programs share si milar designs based on such factors. E vidence suggests that i nnovative implementation pathways, based on diffusion of innovations, institutional arrangements and home energy program design have emerg ed in communities throughout Colorado to reduce home energy consumption, save homeowners money and reduce GHG emissions The case studies consist of two elements that are analyzed as part of the implementation pathways taken: institutional arrangements and home energy program design ( behavior change st rategies, measurement strategies).

PAGE 145

136 Urban Type Case Study : Direct Energy Advisor Model The urban type of household energy efficiency program is based upon three programs: Boulder Energy Smart, Denver Energy Challenge and Fort Collins Home Energy Efficiency Program. The main elements explored in these cases are the behavior change strategies institutional arrangements and assessment approaches in household energy efficiency programs Boulder, Denver and Fort Collins are located in the high plains of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in north central Colorado. These cities are populated with people with a strong connection to the land and the natural environment. Boulder, Denver and Fort Collins residents show very strong community support for climate change energy programs and policies. Despite Front Range urban sprawl and other undesirable consequences of highly populated areas of human life, these city governments are progressive leaders in the US city sustainability movement and are members of the ICLEI Cities for Climate Change program (ICLEI, 2009). These three cities together represent 21% of Colorados population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013) with Denver having a population of 649,495 (12.3%), Boulder C ounty with 310,408 (5.9%) and Fort Collins with 152,061 (2.9%). Even though the populations vary greatly among these three cities, they are all considered to be the more populated cities of Colorado. The demographics of the peopl e of Boulder, Denver and Fort Collins show that these populations are educated and working in academia, government agencies, businesses, nonprofit organizations. Large cities in the Front Range have reached a higher level of education, are more liberal po litically and more supportive of climate and

PAGE 146

137 energy programs (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) A large economic driver in the Front Range is energy related research and development activity. Agencies such as the National Renewables Energy Lab (NREL) in Golden, N ational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, University of Colorado, Colorado School of Mines, and EPA Mountains and Plains Region 8 are major employers in this region. The Colorado Secretary of State record of voters shows that these three cities all have a majority of democratic voters (Colorado Secretary of State, 2011). Urban Energy Advisor Diffusion of Innovation. Based on a content analysis of home energy program coordinator interviews and home energy program websites, I found that Boulder and Denver offer similar programs based on an Energy Advisor model: Denver Energy Challenge and Boulder Energy Smart. In the analysis of diffusion of innovations, exploring program design reveals program similarities among the urban type of municipality. Boulder and Denver share innovations which is evidenced by their joint Department of Energy Better Buildings grant responsibility Thi s s haring of best practices occur s in a formal structure : monthly meetings of sustainability coordinators Fort Collins is an outlier as they are the only municipality in this study that operates their own municipal electrical utility. Because of this, the y are poised to offer more programs and services due to this institutional arrangement and political control over the utility and its services For this reason, I do not consider Fort Collins a representative case of this type This is because this study i s focused on how municipalitys without their own utilities, which is the norm as well as the challenge that

PAGE 147

138 is being addressed by this study Since climate planning has made energy conservation m ore of a municipal responsibility especially if they have established GHG reduction targets to meet community wide cities have grappled with how to address this sector since this emergence of climate planning in the 2000s. Urban Energy Advisor Institutional Arrangements. Local government agencies of Boulder and Denver have shown a high level of commitment to taking action to combat climate change. In 2007, the mayors from these cities signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors for Cli mate Protection Agreement Each of these cities is committed to taking action on clim ate and energy mitigation and adaptation planning as they have all adopted climate action plans and carbon reduction targets and are actively working towards progressive climate mitigation and adaptation goals (Boulder Climate Action Plan, Denver Climate A ction Plan, Fort Collins Climate Action Plan). Boulder, Denver and Fort Collins are considered city leaders in setting precedence towards sustainability initiatives with their progressive policies and programs (Carter et al, 2010). The urban programs (Boulder Energy Smart, Denver Energy Challenge) have dedicated city staff managing household energy efficiency programs. The program managers from these three cities collaborate regularly on program design, which is why program design is very similar among the programs. Figure 5.1 illustrates the institutional arrangements of the six main stakeholders partnering to deliver urban home energy programs: municipality program delivery contractor, utilities, state and federal government, community nonprofit organi zations and ultimately the homeowner.

PAGE 148

139 Figure 5.1: Institutional Arrangement of Urban Energy Advisor Model A main factor driving the urban type of home energy program is the relationship between city government and the third party program delivery contractor who is delivering energy advisor services. The city is represented as the largest influence with the large yellow circle. The contractor manages home energy efficiency program implementation and data collection and exerts a lot of influence over the success of the program. Utilities and state and nonprofit community organizations provide crucial support in the program design and implementation processes. Homeowners are the target audience and main focus of the stakeholders. Urban Energy Advisor Behavior Change and Evaluation Measures T he Boulder Energy Smart program and Denver Energy Challenge share similar implementation pathw ays as illustrated in Figure 5.1 B ehavior change design elements are similar in both the Boulder and Denver Energy Advisor programs. Based on the applied approach of community based social marketing, I analyze how Denver Energy Challenge design ed

PAGE 149

140 this home energy program through the lens of an applied behavior change framework, community based social m arketing (McKenzieMohr, 2011). E ffective behavior change starts with a clear idea of the desired behavior change (McKenzie, 2011). At the core of CBSM is targeting a specific behavior to be changed and designing a program considering the local context in order to foster a new behavior. In order to effectively change target behaviors, it is important to have a solid understanding of the barriers and potential benefits that a target behavior presents for people in the communit y There are many behavior chan ge tactics that could be applied. The art in application depends on effective selection of strategies to remove barriers and increase benefits. Therefore, the design aspects investigated in this study: 1. Are specific target behavior s identified? 2. Are barriers to taking on the behavior s identified? 3. Are benefits to adopting the behavior s identified? 4. Are effective behavior change tactics used to change community wide behavior and meet energy efficiency program goals such as: Commitment ( good intentions to action) Social norms ( building community support ) Social diffusion ( speeding adoption) Pro mpts ( remembering to act ) Communication ( creating effective messages ) Incentives ( enhancing motivation to act ) Convenience ( making it easy to act ).

PAGE 150

141 Table 14 displays the primary target behaviors, barriers, benefits, services, and measurement approaches.

PAGE 151

142 Table 14 : Urban Energy Advisor Home Energy Behavior Program Design Elements Target b ehavior Barriers to b ehavior Benefits of b ehavior Behavior change strategies Program e lements Measuring effectiveness: Metrics used Homeowners contact DEC for Energy Advisor Services and upgrade home efficiency Homeowners are unaware of program No concern for saving money or energy Inconvenient no time to learn about options Confusing too much information Perceived cost is too high Time commitment is too much Home energy plan Homeowners save money by reducing energy consumption Energy efficient home H ome comfort Lower energy bills Communication Media campaigns (newspaper, TV, b illboards ) Utility bill inserts C ommunity meetings Website Contractor referral Participation: # h omes served: % of homes completed an energy savings measure $ in incentives ( rebates loans) $ homeowner energy savings # upgrades completed Air sealing Attic insulation Floor insulation Efficient w ater heater Furnace Duct sealing Window replacement Efficient appliances Energy Consumption: GHG emissions Kwh Therms Process: Annually evaluate and report to c ity /county c ouncil s, state utility board, US DOE (funder) Staff and reporting tools fully funded Incentives Free energy advisor services C ertified contractor audits Energy Action Report L oan programs for energy efficiency upgrades Prompts Free online t ool: You are in control: Monitor, control and conserve Energy advisor follow up calls Convenience Free expert help to navigate home energy leaks, upgrades, incentives contractors At time of audit, free light bulbs, low flow shower heads installed Social diffu sion Contractor recommendations C ommunity meeting outreach Table at n eighborhood events Commitment Pledge to s ign up for Denver Energy Challenge Social norms Billboard messaging

PAGE 152

143 The energy advisor model is designed to eliminate barriers to taking on the target behavior of upgrading your home to be as energy efficient as possible. There are many possible actions a homeowner could take. Energy advisors are third party contractors (e .g. Populus) hired by the city to deliver home energy efficiency programs. Energy advisors help remove barriers and navigate the complexity of home efficiency improvements and related incentives for the homeowner. Energy advisors are knowledgeable about al l things energy efficiency related. They conduct home visits to help homeowners make an energy efficiency plan and follow up with homeowners to help them implement their plan to reduce energy consumption. The key to success of the program is that the energ y a dvisors work closely with the homeowner to help them actually implement the changes through their knowledge of what incentives are available from a variety of government agencies and utilities. EnergySmart will complete a Home Energy Assessment, then pair you with an expert Energy Advisor, who will: Install FREE energy and water saving items Provide and explain a report on your homes energy use Help determine the most costeffective home improvements Expla in results from radon, carbon monoxide and natural gas leak testing (to help keep your household safe) Help you get and evaluate bids from qualified contractors Help you find and apply for rebates and financial incentives. (Boulder Energy Smart website 2015) Knowing that the main barriers to homeowners upgrading their homes to be energy efficient are the lack of urgency and the hassle factor, city program mana gers designed the Energy A dvisor model to overc ome these barriers (L. Babcock, personal communic ation, 2012; K. Hartel, personal commu nication, 2012). These programs are

PAGE 153

144 designed to remove the barriers of confusion and hassle. From making an appointment to having an audit done on your home to following up on the recommendations and helping you to imp lement the recommended changes, the Energy Advisor model is designed to make it convenient and affordable to make energy efficiency upgrades, such as installing proper insulation, plugging air leaks, installing low emission LED light bulbs, to name a few. Energy advisors remove the complications behind how to complete these energy efficiency actions affordably and conveniently. Energy advisors exist to stimulate agency and help the homeowner figure out the incentives available to them. Energy advisors also remind homeowners of the benefits of home energy efficiency actions. The benefits are to reduce GHG emissions from reduced energy consumption, save money on energy bills, and increase home comfort. Each of these programs offer structured, viable, well staffed, high levels of support to make it convenient for people to conserve energy in their home. All of the energy efficiency programs researched are shaped by their funders criteria and expectations. In the case of the Denver Energy Challenge and Boulder Energy Smart, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds were instrumental in developing and implementing these energy advisor programs. ARRA Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds were to be applied specifically to energy efficiency programs with the home audit as the basis. Respondents revealed that there are many factors that influenced whether or not a local government engaged in beh avior change program development. At the time of my interviews, local governments of Boulder and Denver were figuring out how to fund their energy efficiency programs for 2013 and beyond as this i s when the ARRA funding ended.

PAGE 154

145 With the end of Federal ARRA funding in 2013, funding of the urban type of home energy efficiency program has become more diversified and creative each year. Currently the majority of program funding comes from the Department of Energ y Better Buildings initiative Denver and Boulder partic i pa te in a joint arrangement to receive these funds. Boulder also collects a local carbon tax which pays for staff The urban home energy efficiency programs target one time energy efficiency behaviors such as installing insulation or new windows. In the energy advisor model, ongoing household behavior change strategies are not the focus. It is a crucial part of any planning process to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and the implemented programs. Study participants agree that evaluation of behavior change programs are difficult and require adequate resources in terms of knowledgeable staff ( B. Peirce, personal communication, 2012; K. Hartel, personal communication, 2012; L. Babcock, personal communication, 2012). Ty pical metrics related to urban program s are shown in Table 14. Most programs track number of homes served and value of incentives distributed. To go beyond these two simple metrics takes more resources than available. For example, calculating GHG emissions is no small task as the data required must be retrieved from several sources that are not accountable to the municipality. Cities have both short term metrics that they can retrieve easily (e.g. homes served, $ incentives distributed) as well as long term metrics that are more complex to evaluate, such as GHG emissions. Energy advisors keep track of trends and actions taken and provide data to the city. The energy advisors are in close contact with the city program managers as they provide important inform ation and feedback on the effectiveness of their programs.

PAGE 155

146 According to the Boulder and Denver program managers, the energy advisor program is considered successful based on number of participants that have had energy audits conducted and the number of incentives used. The main reason attributed for its success is the personal relationships and the follow th rough of the e nergy a dvisors and homeowners. Energy advisors check in regularly with homeowners to see how they are progressing in getting their insul ation updates or weather stripp ing installed around leaks (B. Beckel, personal communication, 2012; L. Babcock, personal communication 2012). The behavioral strategies used are listed in order of more prevalent to less prevalent in the programs. The behavior change strategies used in the en ergy advisor model that are most prevalent are communication, incentives, prompts, and convenience. Denvers communication plan includes billboards such as the one below, which speaks to social norming with the depi ction of a young woman with lipstick on her teeth and the message: Oblivious. Also oblivious to the ways your home or business is wasting energy? Figure 5.2: Social norming message Source: Denver Energy Challenge Fort Collins has its own municipal utility, which provides ongoing funding for extensive residential energy programs as well as a ccess to any data at any time. Boulder and Denver rely on external utilities for data, are dependent on external sources for

PAGE 156

147 funding, and operate similar Energy Advi sor models. According to Program Coordinator, Julie Saporito ( Personal communication, 2015), Denver Energy Challenge (DEC) use s a database that tracks all upgrades at a speci fic address such as insulation and bulb installation. They try to collect utility release forms from homeowners which gives DEC permission to access their utility bill and annually compare actual savings to deemed savings. By tracking the number of homes and their upgrades, they can calculate with their database deemed energy savings with a conversion rate calculator. They are required to send a report to the Department of Energy on the number of loans and upgrades, which then calculates energy savings. It is difficult to get real time data from the electrical utility, Xcel because of privacy issues. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) prepared a Score Card in 2014 for the Denver Energy Challenge They got the data from Denver and reported out actions in 2014: 1,535 homes served; 84.5% of homes completing an energy saving measure; 604,164 kWh saved; 100, 076 therms saved; 12, 069 MMBTU saved; 1,055 tons of CO2 avoided; 55 energy loans; $394,743 energy loan amount; $752,226 homeowner investment in upgrades; $149,031 cost savings for Denver homes enrolled in 2013; 187 air sealing upgrades; 156 attic insulation upgrades; 56 floor insulation upgrades; 49 water heater upgrades; 47 furnace upgrades; 42 duct repair; and 40 homes replaced window s (ACEEE, 2014). Suburban Typ e Case Study : Indirect Resource Smart Model The suburban pathway of residential energy efficiency behavior change programs is represented in this study by two Front Range suburban cities: Arvada and Golden. I found that Arvada and Golden both offer the same type, the Resource Smart model that

PAGE 157

148 was developed and delivered through a third party contractor, ICAST, International Ce nter for Appropriate Technology. This case study explores the behavior change strate gies, institutional arrangements and measurement approaches used by the Resource Smart model The suburban cities of Arvada and Golden are located in the Foothills and High Plains of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in north central Colorado. These cities are suburbs of Denver and share similar demographics These two cities together represent 2.5% of Colorados population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013) with Arvada having a population of 111,707 (2.1%) and Golden with 19,393 (0.4%). Even though the popul ations vary, these cities share a similar mix of residents and businesses. Despite Front Range urban sprawl and other undesirable consequences of highly populated areas of human activity these city governments are progressive leaders in the city sustainab ility movement and are members of the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program (ICLEI, 2014). The City of Golden Sustainability Plan is often referred to as a best practice city sustainability plan. Suburban Resource Smart Diffusion of Innovat ion. Arvada and Golden residents show mixed community support for climate/energy programs and policies. They believe that the neighborhood level is important to target for social norming and social diffusion, but they do not have the resources to market the program. They look to Denver and Boulder for lessons learned about home energy prog rams (diffusion of innovation). In the analysis of diffusion of innovations, there is evidence of sharing best practices in less formal settings, such as through casual conversations between the Arvada and Golden sustainability coordinators (J. Prosser, personal communication).

PAGE 158

149 W eve started to target one neighborhood as a pilot area. We found that that works a little bit better in sort of concentrated areas. Obviously, an yone in the community can participate. But when it comes to target business or residences we really try to get that peer pressure going, that helps more being in programs aro und the country ( J. Pros ser, personal communication, 2012). The demographics of the people of Arvada and Golden show that these populations include a diverse range of education levels and employers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Even though there has been a surge of climate and energy related activity in the Front Ran ge, local Tea Party members opposed the City of Arvadas involvement with sustainability and climate planning in 2010. There was a disdain expressed at city council meetings for ICLEI and Local Agenda 21 by members of the Tea Party residing in Arvada ( J. P rosser, personal communication, 2012). Even though t he community s eems to be mixed in terms of energy program support, there is a large contingent of the city residents that are in favor of energy and sustainability initiatives This is evidenced by the Sustain Arvada Plan (2012) and the Arvada Resource Smart program (2013). Although driven by different institutional arrangements, these programs share program design elements as offered by ICAST a third party nonprofit agency that offers a turnkey residential energy efficienc y program to communities in Colorado. The City of Golden has teamed with ICAST, a local nonprofit, to develop Resource Smart Golden a unique, simple energy efficiency improvement program designed to create a one stop shop for your energy savings. Resource Smart provides a hassle free experience that will help you save money and reduce energy consumption, create a more comfortable and safe home or building, and positively impact the local economy for years to come. This is your chanc e to help make a difference in your community and the environment now and for future generations. (City of Golden Resource Smart website 2014)

PAGE 159

150 According to the ICAST website: We will manage the end to end process, from making sure you receive a comprehe nsive en ergy review performed by a certified assessor, to all aspects of installation all the way to final inspection. We use the most reputable, qualified contractors to take care of all the work for you. Many different financial rebates and savings opportunities are available, and well work with you to optimiz e which ones work best for you. Multiple established relationships and loan opportunities with financial institutions to help neutralize your initial investment. The reliability of having an ex perienced organization on your side to ensure that every step of the process is handled with the utmost quality and care. Once all the work has been completed, our certified inspector will perform a final overview of your project to ensure that all work me ets our quality standards (ICAST website 2014) This case study explores the institutional arrangements of the implementation pathway, home energy efficiency program design strategies and measurements used by suburban cities in their household energy effi ciency programs. Suburban Resource Smart Institutional Arrangements The main difference between the suburban type of home energy program and the urban type depends on the institutional arrangements. Suburban cities generally have limited city staff to manage energy programs. Before greenhouse gas emissions inventories, energy efficiency programs were not a service provided by municipalities served by investor owned utilities, such as in this case, Xcel Energy. Because these suburban cities do not have t he staff or funding available to manage a program directly, they rely upon other providers that offer creative programs. In the case of Arvada and Golden, provides a turnkey home energy efficiency program, which includes a self sufficient financing model s o as the city does not have to pay ICAST.

PAGE 160

151 F igure 5.3: Institutional A rrangement of Suburban Resource Smart Model The contractor ( ICAST ) has the most influence in the effective implementation of the home energy efficiency program. The suburban city governments have very little responsibility for the day to day management. ICAST is knowledgeable about all of the incentives, policies and programs to help homeowners in making their homes as energy efficient as possible. The idea is that ICAST has the ci tys permission to focus on reducing energy consumption. ICAST manages all aspects of the program: website, staff, programs, home energy audits, call center, monitoring. The money saved from the energy efficiency improvements pays ICAST for their services. They let ICAST drive performance ( J. Prosser, personal communication, 2015). (ICAST is) doing a comprehensive energy efficiency program for us called Resource Smart Arvada. Obviously, it starts with an audit. They prequalify the contractor. They do the whole turnkey approach with a much more comprehensive audit and it tells water consumption, air quality so with that weve partnered with them. We see their ability to actually recommend contractors, as we (City of Arvada) cannot. Theyll create detailed reports for me of all the different measures people are actually implementing. They rebate people for their audits, if they actually end up doing whatever the measure might be. They also have financing partners. We find credit unions throughout the state and since we are a Better Building County partner, we have the financing available to us as well for the larger commercial buildings. Thats our idea, as of now, as to how to conti nue these kinds of programs. I myself am the only person working on this: taking calls from people who want insulation in their homes I mean it just doesnt ma ke sense to house this in the city. And so were going to kick this off (with ICAST) off in January 2013 (J. Prosser, personal communication, 2012).

PAGE 161

152 The city government is the contract holder and oversees that ICAST is delivering the program according to t he agreement between the city and ICAST. The City of Arvada invested $10,000 to set up the Resource Smart program with ICAST. The services offered homeowners by ICAST be gins with an assessment in the form of an energy analysis report outlining costs, benefits and opportunities for financial assistance. They (ICAST) pretty much do it all (J. Prosser, personal communication, 2015). They offer energy efficiency services to single family, multifamily and commercial energy customers. Prosser (2012) clai ms that the City of Arvada is not seeing interest as they anticipated from single family homeowners even with homeowner energy savings of up to 20% on their energy bills. According to Prosser (2015), people dont care about saving money on their energy bi lls right now. Most of the activity is occurring in the multifamily sector. Xcel Energy is the investor owned utility serving the residents of Golden and Arvada. Xcel offers partial funding for the ICAST Resource Smart programs and provides neces sary sup port in terms of data. Colorado state policy exists that requires investor owned utilities (e.g. Xcel) to deliver energy conservation programs or provide funding for energy conservation programs managed by others. This requirement applies to Denver and Boulder as well as Xcel Energy, the utility that serve s residents in these cities: Funding for energy efficiency has increased substantially in Colorado in recent years since the state adopted an EERS in 2007. Xcel Energy (operating as P ublic Service of Colorado is the major investor owned utility (IOU) in Colorado and administers its programs after they have been approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Xcel Energys programs are funded by a demand side management Cost Adjustment Mechanism r ate rider The 2007 state legislation required that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission set energy savings goals for natural gas, which are commensurate with spending targets of at least 0.5% of

PAGE 162

153 prior years revenues. The most recent budgets for energ y efficiency programs and electricity and natural gas savings can be found in the St ate Spending and Savings Tables (ACEEE website 2014). The City Council of Arvada supports the notion that humans must embrace greater energy efficiency habits. Due to the initial support of the federal ARRA EECBG funds, these suburban cities believe it is crucial to offer a home energy efficiency program and are willing to offer a voluntary, no cost to the government, convenient energy efficiency program to homeowners. If they have to use city taxpayer money, they will not offer residential energy efficiency programs. Arvada is interested in having a follow up GHG emissions inventory conducted, but says that the cities expressed they are more interested in more t angible con servation measures. GHG emissions are not tangible and hard for many people to understand. Plus, the City Council does not want to hear the terms climate change, ICLEI or sustainability as these are te rms that connote a liberal slant to political dec isions, which was not appreciated by the Tea Party members residing in Arvada. Suburban Resource Smart Behavior Change Program Design. Arvada Resource S mart and Golden Resource Smart provide turnkey energy efficiency improvement services to eligible residential and business facilities in the city and guide home owners through the process of energy assessments, financing, selection and management of local subcontractors, quality cont rol, invoicing and reporting, to assure desired results (Resource Smart Arvada, 2015 ) Th e Golden Resource Smart program (2015) model claims to make energy efficiency easy with a complete, all inclusive package: comprehensive energy assessments detailed report with costs, savings and payback analysis for each recommendation access to grants, rebates, and incentives

PAGE 163

154 financial loan packages to help offset initial costs management of available rebate and incentive programs bulk purchasing and volume discounts complete sub contractor recruitment, qualification and work management training of local contractors to ensure they meet our required quality standards project management and final quality checks i nvoicing and reporting ( Golden Resource Smart website, 2015). I explore the suburban ICAST model in terms of the theory of diffusion of innovation, institutional arrangements and home energy program design based on the community based social marketing framework (M cKenzieMohr 2011) and as I did in the urban E nergy A dvisor case study previously, I analyze and critique the energy efficiency programs through the lens of effective community based social marketing techniques: According to Jessica Prosser ( personal communication, 2015) it all depends on what the audit reports as to what action the homeowner takes as far as energy efficiency upgrades. The first behavior targeted is to get homeowners to make the phone call to Arvada Resource Smart to introduce them to the free energy serv ices available to them

PAGE 164

155 Table 15 : Suburban Resource Smart Home Energy Behavior Program Design Elements Target Behaviors Barriers to b ehavior Benefits of b ehavior Behavior change strategies Program elements Measuring e ffectiveness : Metrics used Homeowners contact Resource Smart for energy efficiency services a nd to upgrade energy efficiency of home Homeowners unaware of program No knowledge or concern about saving energy Inconvenient no time to learn about options Confusing too much information Perceived cost is too high Time commitment is too much S ave money by reducing energy consumption Increased efficiency and h ome comfort Save money Communication Outreach/promotion: utility bills community meetings webpage Participation: 30% of participants in Resource Smart audit move forward with retrofits. # audits conducted # bulbs installed # loans given # upgrades completed Air sealing Attic insulation Floor insulation Water heater Furnace Duct sealing Window replacement Energy Consumption: kWHr therms BTU s GHG emissions Process: Do not use term climate change ICAST provides reports to city Utility info privacy/confidentiality issues Convenience Free energy efficiency services : home energy audit efficiency action report s implify incentives ( e.g. rebates loans) Incentives Loans R ebates Free LED bulbs Prompts Energy a ction r eport ICAST follow up Social diffusion City webpage Contractor word of mouth Commitment lacking Social norms lacking

PAGE 165

156 The Resource Smart model designed by ICAST is focused on targeting homeowners behavior of upgrading their homes to be as energy efficient as possible. These programs are designed to remove the barriers of confusion and complexity when homeowners seek to upgrade their homes energy efficiency. From making an appointment to having a home energy audit conducted to following up on the recommendations and helping to implement the recommended changes, the model is designed to make the process of energy efficiency upgrades, such as proper insulation, plugging air leaks, or installing low emissions light bulbs, convenient and affordable for homeowners. The benefit of this behavior change is clearly to reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy consumption, but it is also the ability to save money on energy bills and increase home comfort. The behavioral strategies used that are considered most effective are communication, incentives, convenience. The Resource Smart model falls short in social diffusion and social norming strategies. It is a crucial part of any planning process to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and the implemented programs. Evaluat ion of behavior change programs are difficult and require adequate resources in terms of knowledgeable staff. Suburban types measure the effectiveness of their residential energy pr ograms with these measurements. So why would we focus on greenhouse gases, is kind of our thing at this point. We found that out fairly quickly. Some of the people that have been the leaders in sustainability plans are tracking greenhouse gas emissions then theres the political upheaval in having anything to do with ICLEI and ha ving anything to do with greenhouse gases, so were not going there. And I think a lot of other jurisdictions arent either. The exception may be Boulder and Denver and Fort Collins even struggled with it ( J. Prosser, J. Prosser, personal communication, 2012).

PAGE 166

157 When asked if Arvada was interested in conducting a follow up GHG emission s inventory in the near future, Jessica Prosser responded: I think we probably do. Not sure how near. Maybe in the next 2 5 years to see what all the different programs have done and what kind of im pact theyve had. Without being a scientific en gineering modeling person, we probably wont build our own model to go through. But we might be a lot more knowledgeable this time about how we create those models and what were actual ly measuring next time. Because last time, it was sort of like, well this is the standard and how were doing it and these are the categories and its really important for me to calculate you know, it was very intense about calculate and this next time, we might say, were really going to have a lot more focus on distribution. Considering the aspects of agricultural environment, sustainability which everyone is more passionate about makes us want to focus more heavily on that. So, I guess, from your standpoint, it might be harder to compare each of these, if were not using the exact same model. But for us, we might want to model things differently, I guess ( J. Prosser, personal communication, 2012). According to Prosser, Arvada Sustainability Coordinator, Arvada targets homeowners with older properties that likely ne ed energy efficiency upgrades. They also target low income homeowners because this is what their $200,000 grant money is to be applied to. They target neighborhood by neighborhood. Most interest comes from low incom e multifamily property owners (Personal communication, 2015) Home energy assessment and program participation are a few ways to measure the effectiveness of home energy programs. However, suburban cities are more interested in broader assessment approaches to community sustainability beyond home energy program evaluation, such as the STAR (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating) Communities Index. T here ar e STAR communities too. Every body has their own measure of how green a community you are You could spend all your time trying to achieve some national standard for what it is but every community is so different so passionate about very different things. I think you have to be more local in terms of what youre doing Peop le arent (necessarily) data driven. (There are) single mom s that work two jobs with three kids and she says, I dont give a shit about your data. They focus so much on data when theres so many other pressing

PAGE 167

158 issues, people cant pay their energy bills and take it to different level ( J. Prosser, personal communication, 2012). Many cities across the country are co nsidering implementing the STAR Community Index, which pulls in a variety of quality of life issues into the evaluation for a more h olistic picture. Rural Mountain Town Case : Indirect Regional Non profit Model The rural mountain towns explored in this study are located throughout the Rocky Mountain Range west of Denver. The rural mountain home energy efficiency program implementation pathway is driven by regional non profit agencies Across Colorado, municipalities of s maller mountain towns do not have the resources to deliver such programs as the large r urban and suburban cities do that depend upon partnerships of municipalities and utilities. T hey participate in regional nonprofit agencies where ideas and reso urces are shared. This case study explores the implementation pathways of rural towns through behavior change strategies institutional arrangements, and measurement strategies used by rural towns and counties in their residential energy conservation and e fficiency behavior change programs. Colorado ski resorts are located in the heart of the Rocky Mountains rural communities. Large private corporations run ski resorts and have a strong influence over the municipality. Their primary interest is economic, but they realize they need to take car e of the environment on which their business relies. There is concern by ski resorts regarding climate change and possible impacts that will affect the ski industry and local economies: reductions in mountain snowpack, fires threatening mountain economies, pine bark beetles, to name a few. Town officials are not easily able to implement policies and programs as the resort corporations hold the political clout.

PAGE 168

159 Rural Mountain Town Case: Diffusion of Innovation. Ski towns, such as Telluride (San Miguel Count y), Vail (Eagle County) and Steamboat Springs (Routt County), face unique climate and energy issues related to a destination resort culture. Most energy consumers are visitors consuming energy in hotels, restaurants and the ski slopes. Large luxury homes c onsume a lot of energy in ski resort towns. Ski resort towns face unique issues related to a destination resort oriented culture. Several Colorado ski resorts are located in counties that are part of a regional collaborative for sustainability. For example Vail is in Eagle County so Vail residents are served by the Energy Smart Colorado program, which serves the counties of Eagle, Summit, and Pitkin. Steamboat Springs is in Yampa Valley so Steamboat Springs residents are served by the Yampa Valley Sustaina bility Councils Energy FIT Initiative. Telluride is in San Miguel County so Telluride is served by EcoAction Partners. Each of these organizations treat their ski resort town residents with different design strategies because of the different demographics of rural mountain towns and ski resort towns. Local governments in rural towns and counties are engaged in regional nonprofit agencies that operate behavior change programs. These nonprofit agencies in many cases, were formed in response to grassroots advocacy. These Colorado Sustainability Collaborative networks receive support in various forms from city and county governments, gas and electric utilities, other local nonprofits, and the State of Colorado Energy Office. Figure 5.4 illustrates the imple mentation pathway of rural mountain town home energy efficiency programs The regional nonprofit agencies are located in different rural regions of the Rocky Mountains. Rural mountain regions host people with a strong connection to the land and the natura l environment as well as a highly

PAGE 169

160 independent streak. Residents generally do not care for any type of government intervention in their lives and could be considered libertarian. Town officials are not always able to influence the resort corporation and their energy intensive practices, such as making snow and running chair lifts. However, some ski resort communities provide good examples: Aspens Energy S mart Colorado, Park Citys Save Our Snow (SOS) Program, and Whistler, BCs 2020 Plan, all of which ha ve worked collaboratively to reduce their impact on the environment, but not all are focused on residential energy efficiencies, rather they target local businesses. Ski resorts realize the importance of climate change and how it may impact snowpack and th e ski industry. As identified in Table 7 five regional nonprofit agencies that partner with the municipalities in this study fit this type: 4CORE ( Four Corners Office of Resource Efficiency) serving Durango and La Plata County ; the Yampa Valley Sustaina bility Council serving Routt County and Steamboat Springs; EcoAction Partners serving San Miguel County, Ouray County, Telluride, Mountain Village; Walking Mountains Science Center serving Eagle and Vail; and High Country Conservation Center serving Dillon. The five municipalities in the study sample are participating indirectly in regional non profit agencies addressing household energy conservation and efficiency. In 2012, when data was initially collected for this study, High Country Conservation Center and the Walking Mountains Science Center did not exist. In 2015, Colorado Energy Smart evolved from its root s in 2009 with the ARRA funding. They are all non profit organizations collaborating with utilities, municipalities and federal and state government to offer energy efficiency programs based on the Energy Smart Colorado model, which is a program first introduced as Recharge Colorado by th e State of Colorado Governors

PAGE 170

161 Energy Office when ARRA funding was granted and grants required the money be spent by implementing home energy efficiency programs. Rural Mountain Town Institutional Arrangements. Although driven by different institutional ar rangements, the energy efficiency programs of 4CORE, EcoAction Partners, Yampa Valley Sustainability Council and Energy Smart Colorado share similar program design elements. The drivers of this rural type are non profit agencies focused on a variety of reg ional sustainability issues, one of which is home energy efficiency programs. Rural mountain town governments, electric and gas utilities, and state government all support these regional mountain nonprofit agencies in their efforts to implement home energ y efficiency programs and reduce energy consumption. These nonprofit agencies are an outcome of the ARRA stimulus funds of 2009. These regional nonprofit agencies are located in rural areas and are run by non profit organizations, not local government, and include active participation of electrical and natural gas utilities as well as municipal governments (counties and towns) These smaller towns and counties are supportive of household energy conservation and efficiency interventions, but are not administering their own programs. For these rural mountain towns and counties, it is a challenge for local governments to take a firm stand on energy issues especiall y in the realm of behavior change, so the organizing focal point is occurring outside of local government and by collaborations of diverse stakeholders across regions.

PAGE 171

162 Figure 5.4: Institutional Arrangement of Rural Regional Non profit Model In the case of EcoAction Partners, support comes from a regional energy board, call Mount Sneffels Energy Board. This Board convened in 2011 when the ARRA stimulus funds were available to municipalities and utilities. The stakeholders engaged in the Mount Sneffels Re gional Energy Board are Ouray County, San Miguel County, Telluride, Mountain Village, San Miguel Power Association, and Source Gas. This Board developed a Sustainability Action Plan for Ouray and San Miguel Counties establishing goals and strategies for 20102020. Two of the major goals are to Encourage and incentivize existing buildings to reduce energy consumption 20% below 2010 levels by 2020 and to reduce GHG emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 (San Miguel and Ouray Counties Sustainability Actio n Plan, 2010). T he mountain resort town governments do not have adequate staff resources to drive community energy behavior change programs so provide support as partners in regional nonprofit agencies According to the Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado (2014): In the majority of the regions of Colorado, we have partnered with local key experts and community leaders whom we consult and collaborate with in order to

PAGE 172

163 advance sustainability. Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado call this network the Colorado Sustainability Collaborative which collaborates around efforts to link sustainability actions within and among different regions in Colorado. The long term vision is to implement comprehensive sustainability plans in each region which then fold up into a statewide effort. Examples of collaborative projects include securing long term viable funding; sharing marketing materials and campaigns; developing a web based database with ad hoc query functionality that tracks sustainability organizations, projects a nd plans in Colorado; and addressing specific sustainability issues that overlap two or more regions (Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado website, 2014). According to Zach Owens, Partnership Coordinator ( P ersonal communication, 2014) of the Alliance for a Sustainable Colorados Colorado Sustainability Collaborative : participation in monthly Colorado Sustainability Collaborative conference calls has decreased since the ARRA funding expired in 2013. However, Owens (2014) is optimistic in that these networks are constantly evolving due primarily to federal initiatives and local elected officials. These networks use the state of Colorados Climate Action Plan as a guiding framework. Energy Smart Colorado started with the ARRA EECBG stimulus funds and is now the basic home energy program for the counties of Eagle, Gunnison, Roaring Fork Valley, Summit, Lake, Teller, and Yampa Valley ( Energy Smart Colorado website 2015). Utility companies provide financial incentives such as rebates and loans and third party electrical contractors implement upgrades for the homeowner. EcoActions home energy efficiency program is funded by Source Gas their natural gas provider as part of their demand side management program requirements where they have to invest in local programs to reduce the demand and consumption of natural gas. San Miguel Power Association provides rebates for energy audits (K. Wheels, personal communication, 2015).

PAGE 173

164 According to Kim Wheels, Residential Energy Pro gram Manager at EcoAction Partners ( personal communication, 2015), Lotus Energy Solutions, a local energy auditing firm, conducts energy audits throughout the region. Lotus gets clients via word of mouth mostly. Lotus refers homeowners to Energy Smart Colorado for the counties they serve. Lotus provides t horough energy audits on site. They do not heavily market this program The electrical company may receive calls from customers about their high bills and will refer t hem to Colorado Energy Smart or directly to a local contractor Also, EcoAction Partners and Colorado Energy Smart refers homeow ners to Lotus for energy audits. ICAST is no longer involved with Eco A ction Partners. They did some multi family and government building audits, but couldnt make i t work out financially for them EcoAction Partners coordinates a Regional Energy Boar d which consists of municipal elected officials and staff and utility company staff, which meets quart erly. They call themselves the Mount Sneffels Regional Energy Board. This Board was first formed through the Colorado Governors Energy Office through the ARRA grants. This led to the Sustainability Action Plan and the GHG emissions inventory conducted by UCD CSIS. This is the only region in this study that continues to col laborate in the form of a regional energy board since ARRA funds expired in 2013. This is a close collaboration where community residential and business energy strategies and programs are developed and where data is shared. T hey h old annual presentations of milestones achieved. All municipalities and electrical and gas utilities in this regional collaboration provide some level of funding and it varies depending on their size ( K. Wheels, personal communication 2015). They used to participate in the Allianc e for a Sustainable

PAGE 174

165 Colorados Sustainability Collaborative, but this initiative has lost the person driving it and has not held a conference call since December 2014 due to staff changes. Rural Behavior Change Program Design and Effectiveness As in the previous two case studies, I analyze the home energy efficiency programs through the lens of effective community based social marketing techniques. I explore the rural regional nonprofit model in terms of the program design steps recommended by the community based social marketing framework (McKenzieMohr, 2011) and as I did in the urban and suburban case studies previously, I analyze and critique the energy efficiency programs through the lens of effective community based social marketing techn iques: Table 16 illustrates the program design elements of regional non profit agencies that deliver h ome energy efficiency programs: behavior change program design and how effectiveness is evaluated. It is a crucial part of any planning process to evaluat e the effectiveness of the plan and the implemented programs. Rural types measure the effectiveness of their residential energy programs with these measurements: participation ( number of home audits conducted, number of incentives redeemed) money saved, reduced energy consumption (kWHr), reduced GHG gas emissions, number of homes served, and contractor work activity.

PAGE 175

166 Table 16: Rural Regional NonProfit Home Energy Behavior Program Design Elements T he t arget behavior of rural home energy efficiency programs are similar to the urban and suburban models upgrade the energy efficiency of your home. The main barrie rs to this behavior of upgrading a homes energy systems are awareness and high cost. The main benefits are a more comfortable home and energy/money savings. Key behavior change s trategies used are incentives and social diffusion methods. Strategies that are not used are soci al norming, prompts, and commitments. B ehavior change is approached through several avenues. Typically, one behavior is the focus to make it clear for both the administrators and the providers. Currently, EcoAction Partners is focus ed on lighting change ou t s for residents and businesses ( K. Wheels, personal communication 2015). They offer market based rebates for LED replacement bulbs through re tail and wholesale stores. Eco A ction and the utilities cover 50% of the discount and the local governments cover 25% for a total of a 75% discount Target Behaviors Barriers to b ehavior Benefits of b ehavior Behavior change strategies Program Elements Measuring e ffectiveness Homeowners contact regional non profit, utility or contractor for h ome energy assessment and upgrade energy efficiency. Homeowners are unaware of program dont take action due to: complexity hassle confusing perceived cost to upgrade time commitment No knowledge or concern about saving energy c ost Discounts Save money Save energy LED light bulbs installed at audit H ome comfort Energy Advisors tailor plan for each homeowner Incentives Colorado Energy Smart for rebates and loans 75% discount when you order online Energy consumption: Utility records Kw H r Therms Participation : When possible # assessments conducted # upgrades Process: Annual report of accomplishments to non profit board Social diffu sion Utility referrals Contractor word of mouth Communication U tility bill inserts Community meetings W ebpage Convenience Refer to Energy Smart Colorado for energy audit Social norms Lacking Prompts Lacking Commitment Lacking

PAGE 176

167 off LED bulbs for residents and businesses They modelled this after the 2014 Mountain Village Program (diffusion of innovation) which spread throughout the mounta in communities. Customers must pre order and then bulbs are delivered all in one day. Offered to EcoAction clients in 2015 and hopefully 2016. Depends on rebate funding for which programs they can offer such as energy audits because people will generally n ot pay for these services. ( K. Wheels, personal communication 2015). EcoAction Partners track s regio nal GHG emissions and now have five years worth of data for energy use in terms of electricity, natural gas and water use and they look for what is causin g the ups and downs in the trends. They get data from utility companies. They do not track number of participants or homes served because Eco Action does not directly offer the services and so it is not easy to track. T he most difficult aspect of program m anagement is tracking data. Even Energy Smart Colorado has a difficult time tracking. It is difficult to get information from the homeowner as to actions they have taken after an audit. It is not easy to get data in the follow up, which is a standard dilem ma for these types of programs. It is very challenging to try to get a client engaged in ma king energy efficiency. They also track simple on site retrofits like LED bulb installation, water heater blankets, and low flow showerhead installation. Attic insul ation is not tracked as this requires follow up and they do not have the resources and the homeowners and contractors tend to not communicate upgrades. L arger more costly upgrades are not considered the low hanging fruit and are not tracked due to the difficulty of keeping track of what is going on in the field with private contractors and homeowners ( K. Wheels, personal communication 2015).

PAGE 177

168 There are home energy efficiency services available to the majority of home owners in Colorado The main barrier is getting homeowners to take action and contact the provider. Because of resources being spread out among several stakeholders in rural mountain regions, such as the nonprofit, the utility cooperatives, Colorado Energ y Smart, there are challenges for the non profit regional leaders to conduct effective evaluation of the process.

PAGE 178

169 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION From determining how far Colorado municipalities have progressed in local climate planning practices to evaluating the effectiveness of the design of residential behavior change programs to reduce GHG emissions at urban, suburban and rural scales, t his study suggests that initiatives focused on curbing GHG emissions are available in all regions of Colorado, but offer varying levels of effectiveness. As stated in Chapter II, a research gap exists between local climate and energy action mitigation planning and household behavior change strategies. Although it is an active area of practice, research does not see m to exist that address es behavior change strategies, program design, implementation and evaluation in the local climate planning literature. Also, there is a lack of research related to the practice of local climate planning in Colorado. The conundrum expressed in the introductory chapter: i f city sustainability coordinators were able to master behavior change program design as behavior studies suggest, then significant GHG reductions should be realized; motivates th is study which is driven by what cou ld be achieved in local climate and energy action planning (e.g. top down analysis per Dietz et al, 2009) and the reality of what is actually being achieved (e.g. bottom up analysis per Ramaswami et al ., 2012), specifically in the residential sector related to energy (natural gas and electricity) consumption behaviors. This chapter begins with a discussion of the results of this study by addressing the research gap and reconciling the research questions. Next, r esults suggest some implications to consider related to climate planning and applied behavior change

PAGE 179

170 programs. Finally, strengths and limitations of the study are discussed and future research possibilities are suggested. Discussion of Results This study evaluates the evolution of clim ate planning in the United States and Colorado and set s out to address the research gap at the intersection of local climate planning and applied behavior change frameworks The intellectual debate focuses on the rhetoric of what behavior change scholars suggest be accomplished in individual energy consumption reductions versus what really happens in practice in the design of behavior change programs. It is important to clar ify that this study is not designed to test specific behavior change theory ; rather this study uses evaluation criteria based on recommended community based social marketing ( CBSM ) design strategies to assess each home energy program model of Urban Energy Advisor, Suburban Resource Smart or Rural Regional Non profit models There are hundreds of studies that provide empirical evidence of behavior change strategies ( discussed in Chapter II: Literature Review ) This study builds on years of behavioral research using the community based social marketing framework for evaluation of behavior change program design To address the research gap of climate mitigation planning activity in Colorado, four research questions guid ed this study. I discuss how the results answer each research question and t he implications of findings to climate planning and applied behavior change frameworks are discussed as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the study. I con clude with ideas for further research in the areas of climate planning, social change, and community wide behavior change.

PAGE 180

171 To answer the first r esearch question ( How far have Colorado municipalities progressed in local climate and energy action planning?) each municipalitys level of involvement (LOI) was evaluated ba sed on the ICLEI five milestone climate planning process where level of involvement is measured based on the highest climate planning milestone achieved by a municipality. After determining the high, medium and low LOI cities, it became evident that cities were progressing differently, there were variations in climate planning involvement and similarities in program designs Those cities with high levels of involvement ( 24%) have actively directly engaged in planning and programs to reduce GHG e missions. These high LOI cities are generally more densely populated and consequently generate more carbon emissions due to dense human settlements and resultant human carbon emitting activity Cities with medium LOI are engaged in actions to reduce GHG em issions. Cities with low level of involvement engage nominally in climate planning activities and home energy services. This high medium low designation feeds into the case typology. To answer the second r esearch question ( What factors influence munic ipalities level of involvement in climate and energy action planning?), four factors emerged inductively from the data. It is intimidating to reduce the data to just four factors but these factors emerged as the main influence s on a municipalitys involvement in local climate planning and the implementation of home energy efficiency programs : federal and state support, diffusion of innovations, political will, and local government capacity. Based on the evidence, t he most influenti al factors are the first two, multilevel

PAGE 181

172 government support and diffusion of innovation, which became apparent when examining trends in climate policy and planning Federal and state climate and energy policies and programs have a large influence on loc al climate planning activity. Federal and state s upport is found in most every case of home energy program delivery, providing evidence that these programs would likely not exist without federal and state policies and programs T he ARRA stimulus funds and EERS state level policy requiring utilities to invest in energy efficiency programs are key to the implementation of voluntary energy efficiency programs in Colorado. However, overarching federal and state climate and energy policies are often considered m ore effective than a patchwork of local policies. Climate planning is a voluntary practice in Colorado and is practiced with various levels of involvement depending on available resources and business climate. In California, the state government mandates that local governments adopt and implement climate action plans. The city leaders in climate planning Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins are leaders in the fight against climate change and are all engaged in implementing adopted climate plans out of respons ibility and due to citizen demand not mandates of state or federal government Another major factor influencing municipal involvement in local cl imate planning is the diffusion of innovation. Diffusion of innovation theory shows itself in different model s in policy process research (Berry & Berry, 2009). T he regional diffusion model is considered the appropriate model for this study with its focus on organized social networks as the driver of ideas, practices and funding It can be recognized in the field as sharing best practices, stakeholder engagement in regional and state networks to

PAGE 182

173 learn and share ideas through conferences, monthly meetings, etc Social networks lead to social l earning and change. T here is potential for greater reach and deeper learn ing in the realm of how climate planning practice regional ly di ffuses Primari ly, the regional diffusion model results in multilevel governance and local agencies delivering programs in local context (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006 ) Diffusion of innovation occurs from the top down federal to local but also a horizontal diffusion of implementation pathways among municipalities of each type that share certain characteristics. The case typology is helpful in illustrating how program types are similar depending on the characteristic of its agency. Diffusion of innovation occurs at many levels, sectors, and disciplines, both vertically and horizontally. Case typology reveals diffusion of home energy program design by settlement patter n. The Colorado Sustainability Collaborative is an example of social networks sharing innovations and best practices across the state. The early adopter cities of climate and energy planning are Boulder, Fort Collins, and Denver Later adopters, such as Ar vada and Golden, developed programs delivered entirely by a subcontractor (ICAST), which resembles programs of the early adopter cities, but with less resources and support. Laggards are the small towns that do not emit large amounts of greenhouse gasses a nd thus do not feel the need to curb their emissions. Networks of climate and energy planners and city leaders take advantage o f opportunities to share best practices Evidence of this can be seen in the interactions of members of the Colorado Sustainability Coalition ICLEI, and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. To answer research q uestions three and four ( How are home energy programs designed to reduce community wide GHG emissions ? How do Colorado cities evaluate

PAGE 183

174 effectiveness of home energy efficiency programs?), a case typology based on settlement pattern (urban, suburban, rural) was developed and case studies of each type of home energy program were conducted to determine if programs are effective for each type. Case studies explore the differences between hom e energy programs for each type. The behavior change evaluation method was to use the basic elements of a community based social marketing (CBSM) campaign to evaluate whether a program was designed in terms of sound CBSM strategies. Behavior s as suggested by the behavioral wedge were also considered in the analysis of Colorado home energy programs Each of the case studies was evaluated for whether or not they included any of the 19 household behaviors identified in the behavioral wed ge theory T he analytic strategy is to identify the target behaviors of the home energy programs and determine if these target behaviors are high impact behaviors as suggested by the behavioral wedge argument. The case studies show that home energy progra m design adapts flexibly to the needs, conditions, resources, political climate in each city/region and reflects the need for locally appropriate approaches (UN Habitat, 2011). Urban programs are more structured. They receive significant funding from the f ederal government agencies of the EPA and DOE. Suburban programs are less targeted at user behavior and trying to figure out how to reduce the barriers and increase the benefits of taking on certain behaviors. S uburban turn key programs delivered by subcontractors are more focused on distributing incentives than on completing as many energy efficiency upgrades as possible to make homeowners more comfortable and save them money. Rural towns have access to regional nonprofit agencies that offer home energy efficiency services.

PAGE 184

175 Even though home energy efficiency programs are available throughout Colorado, the program designs lack effective applied behavior design strategies as prescribed by behavioral and psychology experts ( Geller, 2002; McKenzie Mohr, 2012). Home energy efficiency programs of local governments and nonprofits could include more innovative elements and more effectively apply principals of social psychology (Tables l4, 15, 16). The urban Energy Advisor model e mploys the broadest range of community based social marketing strategies. This type also is afforded more resources for evaluating the effectiveness of their program. The suburban Resource Smart model is primarily marketbased and does not employ many beha vioral science or psychology strategies. It is driven by a sub contractor that promotes energy efficiency improvements in a full service turn key program model delivered to municipalities guaranteeing a revenue neutral program based on energy saving inve stments. This marketbased approach lacks a clear target behavior. Personal attention is a key factor in upgrades happening. The rural Regional Nonprofit model consists of a variety of stakeholders, such as municipalities, utilities, contractors, building professionals, all supporting a regional nonprofit to deliver the services. Colorado Energy Smart partners with regional sustainability non profit agencies across Colorado and provides phone energy assessments and advising as well as contractor referral to schedule an energy audit. Rather than ongoing curtailment or conservation behaviors, residential energy programs in Colorado focus primarily on one time efficiency upgrade behaviors, such as installing energy efficient appliances, attic insulation, flo or insulation, water heater replacement, furnace replacement, duct repair and window replacement (Gardner & Stern, 2008). This is a practical decision mainly because it is believed that there are more

PAGE 185

176 energy savings realized in upgrading an inefficient app liance or weatherizing your home than there are in day to day behavior changes. The behavior change programs in this study are designed primarily to target one time high impact efficiency behaviors. Cities and utilities may be missing out on high impact curtailment, or conservation, behavior change tools. It could be beneficial for municipalities and utilities to consider more high impact curtailment strategies in their behavior change programs. Energ y consumption curtailment t ools such as real time feedback metering devices and utility bill energy consumption comparison software (e.g. O Power) have been proven to be effective at curtailing consumption behaviors. Cities and utilities may be missing out on high impact curtailment, or conservation, behavior change tools. It could be beneficial for municipalities and utilities to consider more high impact curtailment strategies in their behavior change programs. This study confirms that behavioral strateg ies are used by multiple sectors (government agencies, nonprofit a gencies, utilities) at many scales (from local to international), and vary within settlement pattern contexts, but it is not known whether actual GHG emissions are being reduced because of these programs. Do they know if what they deliver in programs is resulting in overall energy consumption reduction and GHG mitigation? Evaluation strategies are often spelled out in plans, but when it comes to practice, the data that is easiest to retrieve is what is shared Actual data analyzed may not reflect actual conditions as it is often difficult to obtain complete data sets considering limited resources. And in reality, while populations are continually increasing, community wide emissions are increasing in total even if decreasing per capita due to local energy efficiency programs. It is difficult to know if GHGs are being reduced

PAGE 186

177 through these programs. But with proxy measures and participation numbers, trends in Colorado seem to be going in the ri ght direction. Behavioral wedge scholars (Dietz et al., 2009) recommend certain household behaviors be targeted for significant reductions in U.S. household energy consumption. These behaviors related to home energy are weatherization, energy efficient appliance and heating/cooling equipment upgrades. State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) policies have influenced ma rket based incentives, such as discounts, rebates, and loans; but in general these local home energy programs focus on any behavi or related to an efficiency upgrade. The focus is mainly on taking action based on the upgrade recommendations given to the homeowner from the contractor. If cities were to focus more on the behavioral wedge behaviors, would more significant reductions be realized? I bring in the behavioral wedge argument because this is an important concept at this time It has garnered recognition by practitioners and is being considered by urban sustainability planners in the form of a behavioral wedge tool. How do the home energy programs measure up with the behavioral wedge recommendations? (Ehrhardt Martinez et al., 2014). Dietz et al. (2009) and Ramaswami et al. (2012) argue that voluntary programs be paired with mandatory regulations in order for social change to h appen more rapidly. This study shows that local voluntary programs are more effective when supported by mandates from state (e.g. Energy Efficiency Resource Standards) and federal policies. The results confirm that municipalities are driving climate mitig ation efforts, but engage in collaborations across sectors (government, nongovernmental organizations, utilities, businesses) and scales to deliver programs, such as home energy

PAGE 187

178 efficiency programs. With voluntary home energy services available to homeowners across Colorado, the most difficult behavior to change is getting homeowners to make that first call to inquire about available services and incentives. Results show that once contact is made, approximately 30% of homeowners upgrade the energy efficien cy of their home in some way. For deeper carbon reductions, policy instruments should consider including mandates for efficiency upgrades targeted at specific household behaviors Policy & Planning Implications Colorado furnishes a sufficient breadth and duration of experience to make this study fruitful Before local climate planning emerged in Colorado in the early 2000s, home energy efficiency services, if any, were delivered by electric and gas utilities if they deemed this important or were mandated t o do so by state government. Cities have stepped up due to citizen concern as well as federal and state funding support, but the question still remains as to whether such climate mitigation actions actually reduce carbon emissions. Do these programs that s et out to reduce GHG emissions actually reduce GHG emissions? Or are the co benefits of climate mitigation action understood to be a p owerful aspect of such programs? Specifically, this thesis contributes to the field of climate policy and planning in terms of evaluating the climate planning movement across a diverse statewide representation of municipalities There is room for better coordination between city, regional, state and federal levels especially in terms of strategic pairing of voluntary programs and mandatory policies among the different levels of gove r nment P lanners may prefer to leave behavior change strategies to the psychologists and behavioral scientists, but these are important concepts to understand as city planners design behavior

PAGE 188

179 change programs to reduce GHG emissions in terms of energy, transportation, and waste consumption. Throughout this study, the institutional and political contexts affect community wide behavior change programs (Hargreaves, 2011). It is recognized that the kind of support that cities need to be more effective is federal and state subsidies (e.g. stimulus funds) and/or federal and state mandates. Based on the success of previous such programs, mandates and subsidies should focus on the implementation of more renewable technologies. This study highlights the importance of considering combinations of volunta ry programs and mandatory policies targeted at high impact audiences and behaviors. Specifically, this thesis contributes to applied behavior change frameworks and program design in terms of its integration with local climate planning in the US. This stud y uses evaluation criteria based on the CBSM framework behavioral wedge behaviors, and one time efficiency and ongoing curtailment behaviors to evaluate each type of home energy program for effectiveness of behavior change program design. Target behaviors are at the core of effective program design. As California and Massachusetts are state leaders in climate and energy policy the question becomes where does Colorado s tand ? According to the 2014 ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard, Massachusetts ranks first in energy efficiency policy, California ranks second, and Colorado ranks fourteenth. Both Massachusetts and California have policies directed at municipalities. Massachusett s passed the Green Communities Act which strives to help all 351 Massachusetts cities and towns find clean energy solutions that reduce long term energy costs and strengthen local economies. The division provides technical assistance and financial suppor t for municipal initiatives to improve energy

PAGE 189

180 efficiency and increase the use of renewable energy in public buildings, facilities and schools ( Massachusetts Office of Environmental and Energy n.d.) With the passage of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, California mandates their municipalities to participa te in local climate planning. M unicipalities are required to create climate action plans to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for climate impacts ( California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, n.d.) Perhaps Colorado considers a Green Communities program like Massachusetts or a state mandate on climate planning like California State funding has supported an active climate planning research framework in C alifornia as well with several scholarly contributions to the planning literature by California scholars (Millard Bal l, 2014; Lutsey & Sperling, 2008). Cities and utilities may be missing out on high impact curtailment, or conservation, behavior change tools. It could be beneficial for municipalities and utilities to consider more high impact curtailment strategies in their behavior change programs su ch as real time feedback meter and O Power consumption comparison software. Planners may benefit from tr aining in behavior change program development, which could address a variety of issues. Considering rural mountain living, adaptation is an important aspect of climate planning that may garner more interest than mitigation. P roviding people of all income levels opportunities to improve their homes energy efficiency is important, but a daptation actions may be more relevant to rural communities than mitigation actions in climate planning. These less populated communities do not generate large amounts of GHGs, but may bear the brunt of climate change impacts (socially, ecologically,

PAGE 190

181 economically) more than urban and suburban populations. Climate impacts occurring in Colorado, such as wildfires, droughts, floods, and decreased snowpack, are encouraging communities throughout the state to prepare for these changes. Strengths & Limitations The results of this study contribute to the U niversity of C olorado Denver Center for Sustainable I nfrastructure Systems initiative This study builds upon the GHG emissions inventory work of Dr. Ramaswami and UC Denver students. It is a useful summary of climate planning and home energy program designs that emerged since the initial steps when GHG inventories were conducted from 20052011. It gives a broad view of how climate and energy planning activities are happening in Colorado with a diverse sample of cities representing a broad range of Colorado communities. The studys practical analytic strategy results in strong and appropria te methods. The use of common practice frameworks, such as ICLEI climate planning milestones and CBSM design strategies provides practical lenses from which to evaluate planning processes and program designs and are suitable to answer the research questio ns effectively. The mixed methods used for this study provides insights into diffusion of innovation theory and whether real learning is happening when policy innovations are adopted. T he sources of learning and c hange can be difficult to trace, which could be considered a limitation of this study As such, in the analysis of diffusion of innovations, it is important to establish a clear analytic strategy that allows the researcher to explicitly know an example of diffusion of innovations when it is enc ountered. The operational definition is based on the idea of municipalities, nonprofit agencies, federal and state

PAGE 191

182 government sharing best practices of programs that are designed to reduce GHG emissions. Sharing best practices may occur in a formal struct ure, such as a monthly gathering of municipal sustainability coordinators designed to inspire social learning, or it may occur in less formal settings, such as through phone calls and other casual conversations. A nother limitation of this study may be the potential non generalizability of the case study results to some cities and counties in Colorado. This studys sample may not represent of all the cities and towns in Colorado. However with a small sample I was able to look closely at a few cases more closely rather than many cities from a distance. Two exemplar home energy programs in the Colorado Rocky Mountain region that are not included in this study because they did not have their GHG emissions inventories conducted by the University of Colorado Denver Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Systems are Aspens CORE ( Community Office for Resource Efficiency) initiative and Garfield Countys CLEER (Clean Energy Economy of the Region) initiative The CORE and CLEER initiatives are setting the bar for climate policy and planning innovations in the energy arena in Colorado. CORE and CLEER are important to mention because they are often referred to as exemplars of community energy transformation models in Colorado. Generalization across all potential efforts both in and beyond Colorado will prove difficult because (1) energy efficiency technologies could evolve quite rapidly beyond today; (2) the full array of national possibilities for intervention are not exhibited in the list of case studies; (3) the incentive to become involved will vary from place to

PAGE 192

183 place, cohort to cohort, and (4) the pay offs for participation beyond energy cost reduction would seem to vary considerably. There i s difficulty in tracking data, and conducting eval uations that accurately measure GHG emissions. It may not be possible to evaluate actual reductions in GHG emissions due to behavior change programs so alternate, less direct measures, or proxies, of program success, such as participation rates and energy usage, may need to be used that reflect GHG emissions reduction. Despite all of the behavior strategie s, it is difficult getting homeowners on board with making home energy efficiency improvements Evidence suggests that mandates are necessary for more impactful behavior change (Dietz et al., 2008) It is not always politically feasible to apply mandates. Agencies may phase in the implementation of some mandates, such as in Boulder with the Landlord Smart Regs policy. Landlords may voluntarily upgrade rental housing and receive personal assistance until year four when landlords can be punished for not upgra ding the efficiency of the buildings they maintain. Suggestions for Future Research This study sparked several ideas for further research. The methodology developed for this study may be applied to other states local climate plan ning efforts With analyses of additional states carbon mitigation behavior change actions a fuller body of knowledge may help planners and policy makers enact more effective policies, plans and programs across multiple scales It may be beneficial to apply this home ener gy program evaluation methodology to Aspens CORE program and Garfield Countys CLEER initiative Conducting this

PAGE 193

184 analysis would add another dimension in the form of benchmarks as these programs are considered to be leading the way in climate policy and planning innovations. Designing a study integrating an applied behavior change framework such as that used in this study and the behavioral wedge profile tool could lead to a greater understanding of what behaviors cities should target for the most effective carbon emissions reductions. Colorado should look to states that are leading in the climate and energy policy front, such as California and Massachusetts, to improve climate policy and planning efforts (ACEEE, 2014). Future research could examine what California and Massachusetts are doing to be leading in the application of climate policies as well as the feasibility of imp lementing effective policies in Colorado. With the rapid pace of technological improvements, is it prudent to bestow importance upon individual and community wide behavior change programs? Will technology take care of any need for humans to change their behaviors? It is argued that even with the best technologies, human behavior in implementing technology correctly is crucial for real energy savings ( Daily Energy Report, n.d.) There is a lack of research on measurement and evaluation approaches in the cl imate planning literature related to household carbon reduction programs Establishing effective evaluation systems is a common challenge for behavior change programs. Municipalities may lack access to data that is restricted by utility privacy policies. The home energy programs explored are designed to include evaluation measures, but managing data analysis is the most challenging aspect of program planning and

PAGE 194

185 management. To uncover underlying factors regarding assessment, these assessment questions are important for a next phase of this research. With an interest in the complex social planning dynamics of building just and resilient communities, I plan to deepen and grow my research agenda into sustainability and resilience discussions around climate, c ommunities, and behavior.

PAGE 195

186 REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179211. Allia nce for a Sustainable Colorado. ( 2012) Map of nonprofits and counties in Colorado Sustainability Collaborative. Retrieved from : http://www.sustainablecolorado.org/wha t we do/create a sustainability power base/collaborative/networkleaders/ Allia nce for a Sustainable Colorado. ( 2014) Colorado Sustainability Collaborative. Retrieved from : http://www.sustainablecolorado.org/what we do/createa sustainability power base/collaborative/ Alliance to Save Energy (ASE). (2014) Energy efficiency: Americas greatest energy resource. Fact s heet retrieved from: http://www.ase.org/resources/energy efficiency americas greatest energy resource Alliance to Save Energy (ASE). (2015). St ate and Local Policy Priorities. Retr ieved from: https://www.ase.org/policy/state local/priorities American Council fo r an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). ( 2014) State and Local Policy Database. Retrieved from: http://database.aceee.org/state/colorado American Planning Association (APA). (2011). Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/climatechange.pdf Anda M. & Temmen J. (2014) Smart metering for residential energy efficiency: The use of community based social marketing for behavioural change and smart grid introduc tion. Renewable Energy, 67, 119127. Andreasen, A. A. (1994). Social Marketing: Its Definition and Domain. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 13 (1), 108114. Andreasen, A. A. ( 2006 ) Social Marketing in the 21st Century. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bailey, J. (2007). Lessons from the Pioneers: Tackling Global Warming at the Local Level. Institute for Local Self Reliance. Retrieved from: http://www.ilsr.org/lessons pioneers tackling global warming local level/ Bain, P.G. (2015). Cobenefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change Bandura, A. (1977). Social l earning t heory. Prentice Hall, Inglewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The e xercise of c ontrol. W.H. Freeman, New York.

PAGE 196

187 Barbour, E. & Deakin E.A. (2012). Smart Growth Planning for Climate Protection. Journal of the American Planni ng Association, 78 (1), 7086. Bassett, E. & Shandas, V. ( 2010) Innovation and Climate Action Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76 (4), 435450. Bem, D. (1972). Self p erception t heory. Advances in Experimental Psychology 6, 63108. Berry, F.S. & Berry W.D. (1999). Chapter 7: Innovation and Diffusion Mode ls in Policy Research. In P. A. Sabatier (Editor), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 169200). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Berry, F.S. & Berry W.D. (1990). State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. The American Political Science Review 84 (2), 395415. Betsill, M (2001). Mitigating c limate c hange in U .S c ities: Opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment 6 (4), 393406. Betsill, M. & Bulkeley H (2006). Cities and m ultilevel governance of climate change. Global Governance 12, 141159. Betsill, M. & Bulkeley H (2007). Looking back and t hinking a head: A decade of cities and c limate c hange r esearch. Local Environment 12 (5), 447456. Boswell, M. Greve, A.I. & Seale, T.L. (2010). An a ssessment of the l ink between g reenhouse gas e missions i nventories and c limate action p lans Journal of the American Planning Association, 76 (4), 451462. Boswell, M. Greve, A.I. & Seale, T.L. (2012). Local Climate Action Planning. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Brehm, S.S. & Brehm J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and control. San Diego, California : Academic Press Brody, S.D., Zahran, S., Grover, H. & Vedlitz A. (2008). A s patial a nalysis of l ocal c limate change p olicy in the United States: Risk, s tress, and opportunity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 3341. Brody, S.D. Grover, H., Lindquist E. & Vedlitz A. (2010). Examining c limate change m itigation and a daptation behaviors among p ublic s ector organizations in the USA. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 15 (6), 591603. Bryan T.K. (2015). Capacit y for climate change planning: Assessing m etropolitan r esponses in the United States. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

PAGE 197

188 Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking s ustainable c ities: Multilevel governance and the urban politics of c limate c hange. Environmental Politics 14 (1) 4263. Bulke ley, H. & Castan Broto, V. (2013) Government by e xperiment ? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38 (3), 361375. Bulkeley, H., Castan Broto, V ., & Edwards G.A.S (2015) An urban politics of climate c hange: Experimentation and the g overning of s ocio technical transitions. New York, New York : Routledge C40 Cities website. (n.d.). Retrie ved from : http://www.c40.org/ California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. (n.d.) Assembly Bill 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance (CNSA) (2015) Retrieved from : http://usdn.org/public/CarbonNeutral Cities.html Carter, R. & Culp, S ( 2010) Planning for climate c hange in the w est. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. Cialdini, R. (2003). Crafting normative messages to p rotect the e nvironment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 105109. City and County of Denver (2007) Greenprint Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from: https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Sustainability/Climate/Denver_Greenprint. pdf City and County of Denver Office of Sustainability (2015). 2020 Sustainability Goals. Retrieved from: http://www.denvergov.org/sustainability/OfficeofSustainability/2020SustainabilityGoals/ tabid/445247/Default.aspx City of Arvada (2011). Sustain Arvada Plan. Retrieved from: https://static.arvada.org/docs/SUSTAIN_ARVADA_FEB_20121201409171024.pdf Cit y of Boulder (2002). Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from: https://www static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/city 2006climate action plan 1 201305081127.pdf City of Fort Collins (n.d.). Home E fficiency Upgrades website. Retrieved from: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/home efficiency program/

PAGE 198

189 City of Fort Collins (2015). Fort Collins 2015 Climate Action Plan Framework Retrieved from: http://www.fcgov.com/common/pdfs/spotlight pdf.php?id=1092 City of Golden. (2010). City of Golden Sustainability Strategic Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofgolden.net/media/pdf_784.pdf Clayton, S. & Myers G (2009). Chapter 9: Promoting s ustainable behavior. In Conservation Psychology: Understanding and P romoting Human Care for Nature. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Colorado Energy Offic e (CEO). ( 2013) State Energy Program American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content Disposition&blobheadername2=Content Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22ARRA+Report.pdf%22&blobhe adervalue2=application%2Fpdf&bl obkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251 844553290&ssbinary=true Colorado Secretary of State. ( 2015) 2015 Voter Registration Statistics Retrieved from: http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2015/September/VotersByP artyStatus.pdf Compact of Mayors (2014). Retrieved from : http://www.compactofmayors.org/history/ Confer e nce of Parties (COP) 21. (2015). Retrieved from : http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/cop21cmp11/what cop21cmp11 Crane, R. & Landis J. (2010). Planning for c limate c hange: Assessing progress and c hallenges. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76 (4) 389401. Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & r esearch design: Choosing among f ive approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Daily Ener gy Report. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/ Darnton, A. (2008). Practical guide: An overview of behaviour change models and their uses. London, UK: Government Social Research Unit, HM Treasury. David, M. & Sutton, C. D. (2011). Social Research: An Introduction ( 2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denver Energy Challenge. (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.denverenergy.org/ Dietz, T. & Fellows, M. (n.d.). The Behavioral Wedge Research Program. Michigan State University. Retrieved from: http://behavioralwedge.msu.edu/index.htm

PAGE 199

190 Dietz, T. Gardner, G.T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P.C. & Vandenbergh, M.P. ( 2009) Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U .S carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 1845218456. Drummond, W. J. (2010). St atehouse v ersus g reenhouse: Have s tate l evel c limate action planners and policy entrepreneurs reduced greenhouse gas e missions? Journal of the American Planning Association, 76 (4), 413433. EcoAction Partners. ( 2014) Retrieved from : http://www.ecoactionpartners.org/residential/ Ehrhardt Martinez, K. & Meier A (2013) Behavior wedge profile: Model development and documentation. Garrison, NY: Garrison Institute Energy Smart Boulder. ( 2014) Retrieved from http://www.energysmartyes.com/home.html Energy Smart Colorado. ( 2014) Retrieved from : http://www.e nergysmartcolorado.com/for my home 2/ Fenton, P., Gustafsson, S., Ivner, J. & Palm J. (2015). Sustainable Energy and Climate Strategies: lessons from planning processes in five municipalities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 213221. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Finn, D. & McCormick L. (2011). Urban climate change plans: How holistic? Local Environment 16 (4), 397 416. Foss, S. K. & Waters W. (2007). Destination dissertation: A t ravelers guide to a done dissertation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Four Corners Office for Resource Efficienc y (4CORE). (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.fourcore.org/ Gardner, G.T., & Stern, P.C. ( 2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2nd ed.) Boston, MA : Pearson Custom Publishing. Gardner, G.T. & Stern, P.C. ( 2008) The s hort l ist: The m ost effective actions U.S. households can t ake to c urb c limate c hange. Environment 50, 1324. Geller, E.S. (2002). The c hallenge of i ncreasing p ro environmental behavior. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), pp. 525540. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 200

191 Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practiceing behavior change: Applying social practice theory to pro environmental behavior change. Journal of Consumer Culture 11 (1), 7999. Hargreaves, T. (2012). Questioning the virtues of proenvironmental behavior research: Towards a phronetic approach. Geoforum 43, 315324. Hi gh Country Conservation Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.highcountryconservation.org/energy/for home/energy smart/ ICLEI. ( 2008) Local Climate Action Planning Five Milestone Process. Retrieved from: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=810/ Innes, J. E. & Booher D.E. (2004). Reframing public partic ipation: S trategies for the 21s t century. Planning Theory and Practice 5 (4), 419436. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) ( 1990). Climate Change 1990. First Assessment Report (FAR). Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) ( 1995). Climate Change 1995: Synthesis Report. Second Assessment Report ( SAR ). Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) ( 2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Third Assessment Report (AR3). Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Fo urth Assessment Report (AR4). Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) ( 2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Geneva, Switzerland. Jabareen, Y ( 2015 ) City planning deficiencies and climate change the situation in developed and developing cities. Geoforum 63, 4043. Kennedy, A. L. (2010). Using community based social marketing techniques to enhance environmental regulation. Sustainability 2 (4), 11381160. Kotler, P. & Zaltman G. (1971). Social marketing: An a pproach to planned social c hange. The Journal of Marketing, 35 (3), 3 12. Kotle r, P., Roberto, N., & Lee N. (2002). Social marketing: Improving the quality of l ife. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Kotler, P. & Lee N. (2007). Marketing in the public s ector: A r oadmap for improved performance Washington, D.C.: Pearson Education.

PAGE 201

192 Kousky, C. & Schneider S.H. (20 03). Global c limate policy: Will c ities l ead the w ay? Climate Policy, (3) 4. Krause, R. M. (2010). Policy i nnovation, intergovernmental r elations, and the a doption of c limate protection i nitiatives by U.S. c ities. Journal of Urban Affairs 33 (1), 4560. Krause, R. M. (2011). An assessment of the greenhouse gas reducing a ctivities being i mplemented in the U.S. Local Environment 16 (2), 193211. Lee, N.R. & Kotler P. (2011). Social marketing: Influencing behaviors for good. Thousand O aks, CA: Sage Publications Lehman, P. & Geller E.S. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection: Accomplishments and potential for m ore. Behavior and Social Issues 13, 1332. Leiber, E. (n.d.) Dedoose [computer software]. (n.d.). Retrieved from : www.dedoose.com Lindseth, G. (2004). The c ities for climate protection c ampaign and the f raming of l ocal c limate policy. Local Environment 9 (4), 325336. Lutsey, N. & Sperling, D. ( 2008) Americas bottom up climate change mitigation policy. Energy Policy, 36 (2), 673685. Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (n.d.). Green Communities Act. Retrieved from : http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy utilities clean tech/green communities/ Mayors Greenprint Advisory Council. (2007). City of Denver Climate Action Plan: Final Recommendati ons to Mayor Hickenlooper. McKenzieMohr, D., Nemiroff, L.S., Beers, L., & Desmarais, S. (1995). Determinants of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 139156. McKenzieMohr, D. ( 2000) Promoting s ustainable behavior: An i ntroduction to community based s ocial m arketing. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 543554. McKenzieMohr, D. ( 2011) Fostering s ustainable behavior: An i ntroduction to community based s ocial m arketing (3rd ed.). G abriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers McKenzieMohr, D. (2012a). Workshop Presentation: Community Based Social Marketing: Fostering Sustainable Behavior, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, May 2123, 2012.

PAGE 202

193 McKenzieMohr, D. (2012b). Personal Conversation with McKenzie Mohr, Boulder, CO McKenzieMohr, D ., Lee N., Schultz P.W., Kotler, P. ( 2012) Social m arketing to protect the e nvironment: What w orks Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Miles, M.B & Huberman A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Millard Ball, A. ( 2012 ) Do city climate plans reduce emissions? Journal of Urban Economics 71, 289311. National Social Market ing Center. (2010). Retrieved from: http://www.thensmc.com/ Pacala, S. & Socolow R. (2004). St abilization w edges: Solving the climate p roblem for the next 50 Years with c urrent t echnologies. Science, 305, 968972. Pitt, D.R. & Randolph, J. (2009). Identifying obstacles to community c limate protection planning. Environment and Planning C 27, 841857. Pitt, D.R. (2010). Harnessing c ommunity e nergy: The keys to c limate m itigation policy a doption in U.S. m unicipalities. Local Environment 15 (8) 717729. Rabe, B. G. (2004). Statehouse and greenhouse: The s tealth politics of American c limate change policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Rabe, B.G. (2010). Greenhouse governance: Addressing c lim ate change in America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institut e. Ramaswami, A. Hillman, T., Janson, B., Re iner, M., & Thomas, G. ( 2008 ). A d emand centered, h ybrid l ife c ycle m ethodology for c ity s cale g reenhouse gas i nventories. Environmental Science & Technology 42 (17), 64556461. Ramaswami, A. Bernard, M., Chavez, A., Hillman, T., Whitaker, M., Thomas, G. & Marshall, M. ( 2012). Quantifying c arbon m itigation w edges in U.S. c ities: Near term s trategy a nalysis and critical r eview. Environmental Science & Technology 46, 36293642. Randolph, J. & Masters G. (2008). Energy for Sustainability Washington, DC : Island Press Resource Smart Arvada (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.resourcesmart.org/city of arvada program.htm Resource Smart Golden. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.cityofgolden.net/government/departments divisions/sustainability/resourcesmartgolden/

PAGE 203

194 Resilient Communities for America (2015). C limate Leaders Circle. Retrieved from http://www.resilientamerica.org/leaderscircle/ Robbie, E. (2015). The Denver Post. Retrieved from: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28775858/aspenis third us city reach 100 Rogers, E. M. ( 1962) Diffusion of Innovations New York, NY: Free Press. Rosa, E. A. & Dietz T. (2012). Human drivers of national greenhouse gas emissions Nature Climate Change (2). Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W. D., Hammer, S.A., & Mehrotra S. ( 2011). Urban climate change in context. Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press San Miguel and Ouray Counties Sustainability Strategy & Action Plan. (2010). Retrieved from: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52a753f8e4b049b53e3f219b/t/53f2807ee4b0a13f97 460182/1408401534232/Ouray+and+San+Miguel+Strategy+FINAL+March+21+2011+r educed.pdf Schultz, P. W. Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. & Griskevikius V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18 (5), 429434. Schultz, P.W. (2014). Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist 19 (2), 107117. Schwartz, S. (1977). Normative influences on al truism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10, 222279. Serrat, O. (2010). The f uture of s ocial m arketing. Cornell University ILR Group, Asian Development Bank. Skinner, B.F. (1987) A thinking aid. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20 (4), 379 380. STAR Communities Index (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.starcommunities.org/rating system/ Stern, P.C. (2000). Toward a c oherent theory of e nvironmentally s ignificant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407424. Stern, P.C. (2005). Understanding i ndividuals e nvironmentally s ignificant behavior. Environmental Law Report 35, 1078510790.

PAGE 204

195 Stern, P. C., Gardner, G.T., Vandenbergh, M.P., Dietz, T., & Gilligan J.M. (2010). Design p rinciples for c arbon e missions r eduction programs Environmental Science & Technology 44 (10) 48474848. Takahashi, B. (2009). Social m arketing for the environment: An a ssessment of theory and practice. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 8, 135145. Tang, Z., Brody S.D., Quinn, C., Chang L., & Wei T. (2010). Moving from agenda to a ction: Evaluating l ocal c limate c hange a ction plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (1), 4162. Tiedemann, K.H. (2010). Behavioral s trategies that Work: A Review and Analysis of Field Experiments Targeting Residential Energy Use Behavior. PeopleCentered Initiatives for Increasing Energy Savings Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy Eff icient Economy (ACEEE). United Nations World Commission on Economic Development (UNWCED). (1987). Our Common Future Retrieved from: http://www.un documents.net/wced ocf.htm United Nations Habitat Human Settlements Programme (UN Habitat) ( 2011) Cities a nd C limate C hange: Global R eport on Human S ettlements. London, UK: Earthscan LTD. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED ) ( 1992). Sus tainable Development Agenda 21 Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC ). (2009). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/2860.php U .S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. ( 2012) Retrieved from : http://data.bls.gov/cgi bin/dsrv U.S. Census Bureau. ( 2010) Retrieved from : http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html U.S. Census Bureau. ( 2014) Retrieved from : http://quickfacts.cens us.gov/qfd/states/08/0827425.html U.S. Conference of Mayors. ( 2014) Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Actions in Americas Cities: A 282 City Survey. Mayors Climate Protection Center. Retrieved from: http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/2014/0422report climatesurvey.pdf U.S. Department of Energy (2013 ) A merican Recovery and Reinvestment Act Energy Effic iency and Conservation Block Grant Program. Retrieved from: http://energy.gov/eere/wipo/energy efficiency and conservation blockgrant program

PAGE 205

196 U.S. Energy Administration Information. ( 2012) State Energy Data System. Retrieved from: http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_te.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E PA ) (2013). Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrie ved from: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) (2015). Clean Power Plan. Accessed August 20, 2015 http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan U.S. Conference of Mayors. ( 2005) Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Retrieved from: http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/documents/mcpAgreement.pdf U.S. Catalog of Federal Assistance. ( 2009) Retrieved from : https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=core&id=f9e659d65c8a9171 6b3cf2581c634ca2 U.S. White House 1. (2015) Climate Plan Fact Sheet. Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the press office/2015/08/24/fact sheet president obama announces new actions bring renew able energy ). U.S. White House 2. (2015). Obamas Climate Plan Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate change ). Urban Sustainability Directors Network (n.d.). Carbon Neutral Cities All iance. Retrieved from: http://usdn.org/public/Carbon Neutral Cities.html Walking Mountains Science Center (n.d.). For my home: Energy Smart Colorado Program. Retrieved from: http://www.walkingmountains.org/energy smart coloradoformy home/ Wheeler, S.M. (2008). State and m unicipal c limate change p lans: The f irst g eneration. Journal of the Ameri can Planning Association, 74 (4), 481496. Wheeler, S. M., Randolph, J., & London, J.B. (2009). Planning and Climate Change: An Emerging Research Agenda. Progress in Planning, 72, 210222. Willson, R.W & Brown K.D. (2008). Carbon n eutrality at the l ocal l evel: Achievable goal or f antasy? Journal of the American Planning Association, 74 (4) 497504. Wired Science. ( 2014). The hot new frontier of energy research is human behavior. Retrieved from: http://www.wired.com/?s=utility+engineers+behavior+change&sort=score&order=desc

PAGE 206

197 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) & ICLEI. (2015). Measuring Up 2015: How Cities are Accelerating Progress toward National Climate Goals. Retrieved from http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/811/files/original/15_540_Measuring_Up_20 15_Report_low res_FIN2.pdf?1439214847&_ga=1.159359546.1888588523.1443461186 Xcel Energy Residential Solutions. ( 2015) http://www.xcelenergy.com/Energy_Solutions/Residential_Solutions Yampa Valley Sustainability Council. (n.d.). Energy program information. R etrieved from: http://www.yvsc.org/programs/energy programs/ Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zahran, S., Grover, H., Brody, S.D., & Vedlitz A. (2 008). Risk, s tress, and c apacity: Explaining m etropolitan commitment to c limate protection. Urban Affairs Review 43, 447474.

PAGE 207

198 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol APPENDIX B : Coding Frame APPENDIX C : Case Study Protocol

PAGE 208

199 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Research Questions and Corresponding Interview Questions Thank you for taking time to talk to me Introduce myself We met You worked with Anu and Alison UCD sustainable urban infrastructure program, PhD in design and planning, this is a follow up to UCD GHG inventory work how was GHG emissions inventory used? Did it influence city priorities, policies, programs in any way? OK to record? Conf identiality statement Description of Study : This interview is intended t o gather information about your municipalitys progress from GHG emissions inventory to implementation of sustainable energy, carbon reduction interventions since your GHG emissions inventory was conducted with UC Denvers Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Systems. 1. Moving from strategies to implementation top 3 2. Processes used in implementation 3. Evaluation of implemented interventions We are interested in interventions your municipality has implemented related to GHG or carbon reduction goals. In particular, we would like to find out what household energy conservation behavior change programs you have implemented and how effective they hav e been in changing behaviors. Intro ductory Questions What is your title? Describe your responsibilities, the nature of the work you do. How long have you held t his position? Describe your experience in climate/sustainable energy program planning and any other experiences you have relevant t o energy conservation initiatives. Has your city/county adopted a climate/sustainable energy plan since your GHG emissions inventory was conducted with UCD CSIS in ______(year)? Yes No If yes, when was plan adopted? _________ (year)

PAGE 209

200 If no, have you int egrated any GHG emissions reduction strategies into other formal plans (e.g. sustainability plan, comprehensive plan)? Yes: _____________(name of plan) No Research Question Interview Questions 1. What behavioral interventions have been implemented by cities in Colorado to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with adopted sustainable energy plans? Denver Energy Challenge Boulder Energy Smart Arvada Resource Smart (ICAST model) Golden Res ource Smart (ICAST model) Explain what household energy conservation interventions (policies, programs) from the adopted plan strategies have been implemented by the City. Why were these interventions selected for implementation by the City? Are there certain comb inations of behavior change strategies that are effective in certain scenarios (e.g. voluntary, mandatory, and combinations of interventions)? Explain. Describe what is most successful in implemented actions. Describe what is most challenging. Describe opportunities for climate planning. Describe how your organization views climate/sustainable energy planning. Describe how your city council views climate/sustainable energy planning. Describe how citizens in your city/county view climate/sustainable energy planning. Are you familiar with the community based social marketing process to foster environmental behavior change? Do you use the community based social marketing approach to behavior change in any of your climate/sustainable energy planning interventions?

PAGE 210

201 Has your city/county used any of the following (CBSM) behavior change tools in household energy conservation interventions? If no, why? Of the interventions implemented, describe what instruments/tools (e.g. feedback meters, rebates, O Power social norming software, other technologies) you are using/have used in behavior change interventions. Explain why you have chosen these instruments/tools to influence behavior change. Are there other instruments/tools that you are considering to change household energy consumption behavior? If so, please describe. If there were no limits and you were guaranteed not to fail, describe what household energy conservation behavior change interventions you would recommend. 2. Why are these behavioral int erventions selected for implementation? If no household energy conservation strategies were implemented, why is that? 3. How do cities evaluate effectiveness of behavioral interventions targeted at household energy use? In your opinion, what interventions may be more effective than others in changing household energy conservation behaviors and why. Describe how your city/county determines whether or not energy conservation behavior change interventions are effective. Describe what data is collected to ev aluate household energy conservation intervention effectiveness. Prompts: participation (#

PAGE 211

202 individuals/households/users), energy consumption decreases/increases, GHG emissions reduction, return on investment. What have you learned about these instruments/tools? Where does data come from? Who collects data? Describe challenges of evaluating effectiveness of these interventions. Describe what enables effectiveness of behavior change interventions; why some interventions are more successful in changing beh aviors than others. Do you report the results of behavioral change interventions to city management, elected officials? How often? Describe if/how evaluation results are incorporated back into strategies (MS 3) and/or interventions (MS 4). 4. What characteristics of household behavioral interventions are effective in reducing GHG emissions in local sustainable energy planning? Relative to actual interventions just described, explain actions taken or processes used to garner public participation. De scribe challenges involved in implementation of behavior change interventions. Describe successes you have had in the implementation of behavior change interventions. Concluding Questions Is there anything else that is notable regarding climate/sustaina ble energy planning, household energy conservation, and reducing GHG reductions that youd like to share?

PAGE 212

203 Who else do you recommend I talk to about behavioral strategies in your cities/counties climate/sustainable energy planning activities? Who else in your organization coordinates behavior change interventions targeted at household energy conservation? Can you recommend other documents that could enhance understanding of how household energy conservation programs/policies are implemented and evaluated in your organization? May I have a copy of your latest climate/sustainable energy plan?

PAGE 213

204 APPENDIX B CODING FRAME MANIFEST CODES Planning Strategies Funding ARRA EECBG Stimulus Program Other funding sources General comments about funding State of Colorado Policy Influence Fed Policy Influence Planning process Established Plans Framing climate change and energy GHG Inventories Community wide and LGO Protocols Local Government GHGEI Use Benefits of GHGEIs GHG Reduction Targets Level of Influence Program Implementation Partners Behavior Change Strategies CBSM Pilot program Financial incentives Social norming Home energy audits Energy Advisor Model Resource Smart model Social Diffusion Prompts Pledges/Commitment Program Management Implementation Processes Barriers Other programs of focus Marketing and Outreach Great Quotes Local Policy Innovations Carbon Tax

PAGE 214

205 Landlord Building Regulations Various policy innovations Interviewee Background staff support for climate planning job title & other formal stuff Program Evaluation Data tracking Data collection Metrics used General Comments Political Leanings Regional Networks LATENT CODES Political will Federal and State Government support Diffusion of innovation Local government capacity Insititutional arrangements

PAGE 215

206 APPENDIX C CASE STUDY PROTOCOL I. Guided by research questions 3 and 4; unit of analysis is implementation pathways of home energy program II. Collect data from s emi structured interviews of sustainability planners sustainability/climate plans, home energy program website content, group discussion with some members of Colorado Sustainability C ollaborative III. Analyze data a. Case study selection b. Establish chain of evidence c. Qualitative content analysis with descriptive pattern coding (interviews, program information materials websites) based on: i. applied behavior change framework (community based social marketing) ii. diffusion of innovation theory from which typology flows d. T ype s of data i. Flow charts of institutional arrangements for each type; ii. Coded excerpts from interview transcripts and home energy program website content; iii. c ross case data display matrix of Urban/Suburban/Rural vs behavior change and measurement strategies IV. Rep ort Results a. Settlement Pattern Case Typology of home energy programs; in intro, address diffusion of innovation theory: i. Urban ii. Suburban iii. Rural Mountain/Ski Town b. Comparative Case Studies of Exemplar Home Energy Program Implementation Pathways for each type (3); c. Behavior change strategies analyzed through CBSM phases and strategies d. Institutional arrangements e. Conclusions: policy implications, research lessons learned, further research