Assessing climate justice awareness among climate neutral-to-be cities

Climate justice, long present in climate discourse, has recently become prominent in academic and policy debates. This study focuses on climate justice as it relates to the effects of responses to climate change, framed through recognitional, distributive, procedural, and intergenerational dimensions. Cities, responsible for a large share of emissions yet key agents of change, can also be hotspots of injustice if climate measures exacerbate inequalities. The research seeks to operationalise climate justice by quantitatively assessing justice awareness in urban climate action planning. Using a large, homogeneous dataset from the European Mission on 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities, the authors aim to construct a robust, comparable index of climate justice awareness (CJA), examine its relationship with climate engagement (CE), and identify city-specific factors (e.g., GDP, population density, legal powers, perceived conditions, and government support) that predict justice-aware climate action.

The theoretical framework builds on environmental justice, recognising four interlinked pillars: recognitional, distributive, procedural, and intergenerational justice. Prior research highlights shortcomings of technocratic urban climate approaches that neglect social inequities, sometimes exacerbating vulnerabilities through planning and investment choices. Although conceptual advances exist, empirical assessments of justice integration in urban plans are limited and often rely on small samples and interpretative indicators, hampering comparability. This study contributes by operationalising justice frameworks at scale, aligning with calls to evaluate justice awareness in decision-making to better co-target climate and social justice goals.

Data derive from the European Commission’s Expression of Interest (EOI) for the Cities Mission (362 respondent cities across 35 countries). The EOI comprised 374 questions on preparedness, engagement, ambition, co-benefits, barriers, risks, and integrated approaches. From selected survey items, the authors constructed five indexes via principal component analysis (PCA): four justice pillar indexes—recognition (RJ), distributive (DJ), procedural (PJ), intergenerational (IJ)—and a climate engagement index (CE). Survey responses were transformed: multiple-choice items as counts or dummies; single-choice items as ordered categorical values or dummies; numeric responses retained as numbers. PCA was used to condense related variables, handle multicollinearity, and form composite indexes; KMO and Bartlett tests confirmed suitability (all KMO>0.5; all Bartlett p<0.05). The composite climate justice awareness index (CJA) is the simple average of RJ, DJ, PJ, and IJ (equal weights). The authors then estimated OLS regressions of CJA on CE and city-specific controls (log GDP per capita, population density, perceived favourable local conditions—economy, funding/financing, communication, climate—breadth of municipal legal powers across fields, count of identified barriers, and types of government support—financial, reporting, coordination, technical, tools/skills, dissemination, capacity building, policy regulation, financial advisory). Standard errors were clustered at the country level. To explore regional heterogeneity, regressions were also run by geographic groups: North-Western, Southern, and Eastern countries. Analyses used Stata 15.

Index quality: Bartlett’s tests significant (p<0.001) and KMO values acceptable to excellent (e.g., DJ KMO=0.929; PJ KMO=0.845; CE KMO=0.884; RJ KMO=0.852; IJ KMO=0.543). Distribution examples: RJ mean 1.96 (s.d. 2.17), PJ mean 2.36 (s.d. 2.32), DJ mean −2.54 (s.d. 2.99), IJ mean 2.38 (s.d. 1.23), CJA range (−2.79, 5.76) with mean reported as −6.02 (s.d. 1.88) in text (noting variation across countries). Correlations: CJA positively correlated with CE and multiple forms of government support (financial, reporting, coordination, technical, tools/skills, dissemination, capacity building, regulation/policy advisory, financial advisory), GDP per capita (log), perceived favourable economy, funding/financing, communication, breadth of legal powers, and count of barriers; mildly with population density. Perceived favourable climate correlates negatively. Regression—All cities (R²≈0.528; clustered SEs): - CE positively associated with CJA: coef 0.420 (p<0.01). - Government capacity building support: 0.405 (p<0.01). - Government financial advisory services: 0.297 (p<0.10). - Fields power count: 0.0541 (p<0.05). - Perceived favourable climate: −0.164 (p<0.05). Other controls not statistically significant at conventional levels. Multicollinearity moderate (mean VIF ~1.4–1.6). Regional regressions: - North-Western (R²≈0.524): CE 0.526 (p<0.01); population density 0.0000880 (p<0.05); government coordination support 0.662 (p<0.05). - Southern (R²≈0.537): CE 0.350 (p<0.01); fields power 0.112 (p<0.01); government financial advisory 0.642 (p<0.01); government reporting support 0.521 (p<0.10). - Eastern (R²≈0.609): CE 0.413 (p<0.01); government financial support 0.637 (p<0.01); government capacity building 0.938 (p<0.05); perceived favourable climate −0.183 (p<0.05); perceived favourable funding/financing −0.340 (p<0.10). Overall: More climate-engaged cities demonstrate higher climate justice awareness. Governmental support (capacity building, financial advisory/assistance) and broader municipal legal powers are key positive predictors; perceiving favourable geo-climatic conditions relates negatively to justice awareness. Relationships vary by region, underscoring governance and contextual heterogeneity.

Findings indicate that climate engagement co-moves with justice-aware planning: cities that invest more in mitigation/adaptation and set ambitious targets are more likely to integrate recognitional, distributive, procedural, and intergenerational considerations. Cross-level governmental support, especially capacity building, coordination, and financial advisory/assistance, appears instrumental for embedding justice. Broader municipal legal powers enable cities to pursue social objectives alongside emissions reductions. Conversely, perceiving local climate conditions as favourable may reduce urgency and the salience of justice concerns. Regional analyses reveal distinct enabling factors and constraints shaped by governance structures, capacities, and socio-economic contexts: North-Western cities benefit from coordination support amid complex governance; Southern cities gain from legal empowerment and financial advisory/reporting support; Eastern cities’ justice awareness is fostered by financial and capacity-building support, while perceived favourable climate/finances dampen it. These insights support targeted policy design to strengthen just transitions across diverse urban contexts.

The study operationalises climate justice in urban planning by constructing a climate justice awareness index from a large, harmonised European city dataset and demonstrating its positive association with climate engagement. It identifies critical predictors—government capacity building and financial advisory/assistance, and broader municipal legal powers—as facilitators of justice-aware climate action, while perceived favourable climate conditions are associated with lower justice awareness. Regional nuances underscore the need for tailored governance and support strategies. The work establishes a Europe-wide baseline for climate justice awareness and offers a lever for policy course correction toward just, resilient urban transitions. Future research should explore causal mechanisms, deepen understanding of each justice pillar through stakeholder engagement, and track how selected cities implement and mainstream justice within their climate neutrality pathways.

The analysis is observational; correlations and regressions do not establish causality. The sample comprises self-selected, highly ambitious cities responding to the Cities Mission EOI, potentially limiting generalisability. Justice awareness is inferred from survey-based indicators and PCA-derived indexes, which, despite validation tests, may entail information loss or measurement bias. Data confidentiality limits external replication. Regional grouping aggregates countries and may mask within-group heterogeneity.