US cities increasingly integrate justice into climate planning and create policy tools for climate justice

The paper examines whether and how large U.S. cities have integrated justice and equity into climate mitigation planning. The authors situate the study within the growing recognition that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and that mitigation and adaptation actions can produce uneven benefits and burdens. Given that cities house most of the world’s population and produce a large share of global CO2 emissions, urban climate actions have significant justice implications. Prior research has largely focused on adaptation/resilience or broad sustainability, with limited, small-sample examinations of mitigation planning and few sector-specific analyses, leaving a gap in understanding the integration and institutionalization of justice in urban mitigation. Addressing this gap is critical because mitigation policies can affect energy access and pricing, technology access, mobility, employment, and housing dynamics, potentially exacerbating or redressing inequities. The study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of justice in urban climate mitigation plans, identify local factors associated with justice engagement, characterize sectoral articulations of justice, and document policy tools used to operationalize climate justice.

Previous studies have often found that cities have not meaningfully incorporated equity or justice into climate strategies, with most analyses centered on adaptation/resilience or broader sustainability agendas. Studies of mitigation plans have been limited to small samples or narrow sectoral scopes. Adaptation-focused analyses show discourses emphasizing distribution of benefits/burdens rather than deeper recognition of structural injustice. Evidence also suggests that local climate actions can lead to inequities in energy access and pricing, access to clean technologies and low-carbon transport, uneven employment opportunities, and green gentrification. There has been a noted lack of concrete tools and metrics to operationalize climate justice in both adaptation and mitigation practice.

Study scope: The authors analyzed climate action plans from the 100 largest U.S. cities (defined by 2019 U.S. Census population estimates). Climate action plans included those explicitly addressing multiple mitigation sectors (standalone mitigation plans; integrated mitigation-adaptation/resilience plans; and sustainability/energy plans with explicit mitigation chapters). Plans focused solely on adaptation/resilience or authored by non-city entities without formal city adoption were excluded. Sample: As of June 2021, 58 of the 100 largest cities had an eligible plan. For cities with multiple plans, the most recent was used unless a new plan complemented (not superseded) an earlier one, in which case both were reviewed. Content analysis and coding: The authors conducted qualitative content analysis using NVivo 12 Pro. Coding followed a two-stage process: (1) development and pre-testing of a preliminary protocol based on literature, covering three dimensions of climate justice (distributive, procedural, recognition), key concepts, mitigation sectors, and policy strategies; (2) iterative, focused coding with inductive refinement of categories. The final protocol comprised 98 sub-categories and 18 main categories across six themes: distributive justice; procedural justice; justice as recognition; justice in climate mitigation sectors; key definitions; and key sections where justice is articulated. Only sections explicitly related to mitigation were coded. Engagement categorization: Cities were classified into three ordinal categories based on plan content: (1) do not articulate justice as a core feature; (2) articulate justice as an aspiration (justice/equity as goal/vision/principle without systematic implementation strategies); (3) explicitly planning for justice (systematic embedding of justice via criteria for policy selection and/or justice-focused tools). Statistical analysis: Ordinal logistic regression assessed associations between cities’ level of engagement with justice and local sociodemographic, economic, political, and plan characteristics. The dependent variable was the three-level engagement category. Predictors (pre-selected from literature) included: plan published after 2017; city population > 500,000; median household income above sample mean; percentage of persons in poverty (2019); percentage people of color; coastal city; legacy (post-industrial) city; and mention of community engagement in the plan. Sociodemographic data came from 2019 U.S. Census estimates and the 2015–2019 American Community Survey. Model specification used forward/backward stepwise selection via AIC (MASS::stepAIC in R). Model fit reported McFadden pseudo-R2.

- Prevalence of plans: 58 of the 100 largest U.S. cities had an approved climate action plan as of June 2021. - Engagement levels among 58 plans: 20 cities (34.5%) articulated justice as an aspiration; 20 cities (34.5%) explicitly planned for justice; 18 cities (31%) did not articulate justice as a core feature. - Temporal trends: Justice has become more common in recent plans. Of the 40 plans incorporating justice, 31 (78%) were published between 2017 and 2021. Among plans before 2017: 22.7% articulated justice as an aspiration and 18.2% explicitly planned for justice. Among plans from 2017–2021: 41.7% articulated justice as an aspiration and 44.4% explicitly planned for justice. - Recognition of structural injustice: 15 cities (26%) acknowledged histories of racial segregation, disinvestment, environmental injustice, and exclusion; 12 of these 15 plans (80%) were published in or after 2018. Emphasis was primarily on racial and income inequalities, with less attention to gender, age, or disability. - Sectoral attention to justice (number of plans linking justice within sector/number addressing sector): energy efficiency 47/57; clean energy 36/57; land use and transport 34/54; waste 21/50; electric vehicles 17/48; urban greening 15/29; food 12/18; water 4/21; air quality 2/5. Indirect impacts like displacement/gentrification were less frequently addressed (n=10), mostly in energy efficiency and land use/transport. - Programs and outreach: 14 cities (24%) included green jobs training for vulnerable populations; 18 cities (31%) planned targeted outreach to inform historically vulnerable populations about climate programs. - Policy tools to operationalize justice: Identified four types—justice partnerships; equity advisory boards; equity tools; justice indicators. Among the 20 cities explicitly planning for justice, 17 described leveraging justice partnerships. Six cities had developed or were developing equity tools (e.g., San Antonio’s Climate Equity Screening Tool). Eight cities created or planned justice indicators (e.g., San Diego’s Climate Equity Index with 30+ indicators across environmental, housing, mobility, socioeconomic, and health factors). - Ordinal logistic regression (selected results; Odds Ratios [OR]): plan published after 2017 (OR 11.01; p=0.0010); population >500,000 (OR 4.27; p=0.0242); median household income above mean (OR 25.25; p=0.0023); higher poverty percentage (OR 1.49; p=0.0007); higher percentage people of color (OR 0.94; p=0.0071; negative association); coastal city (OR 15.50; p=0.0007); legacy city (OR 0.22; p=0.0989); engagement with community mentioned (OR 40.31; p=0.0105). McFadden pseudo-R2: 36.72%.

The study addresses the research question by demonstrating that justice and equity have become integral elements of urban climate mitigation planning in many large U.S. cities, particularly since 2017. Cities increasingly recognize structural and historical injustices and are beginning to adopt concrete tools to operationalize justice. Justice articulations vary across sectors, with strongest attention in energy efficiency, clean energy, and transportation, and weaker linkages in waste, water, air quality, and electric vehicles. Statistical analysis shows that temporal factors, city size, income levels, poverty rates, coastal location, and inclusion of public engagement correlate with higher levels of justice engagement, while legacy city status is negatively associated and higher population diversity does not show a positive association. The findings suggest an emergent transition toward urban climate justice governance, but reveal uneven sectoral attention and limited consideration of indirect impacts such as displacement. The work underscores the importance of moving beyond sector-specific approaches toward systemic, cross-sector strategies and highlights the need for implementation and evaluation tools to ensure just outcomes.

The paper provides a comprehensive assessment of how justice is integrated into climate mitigation plans across the 100 largest U.S. cities, documents increasing attention to justice (especially post-2017), identifies local factors associated with greater engagement, and catalogues four policy tool types—justice partnerships, equity advisory boards, equity tools, and justice indicators—that pioneer cities are using to operationalize climate justice. As urban climate justice becomes more prevalent, advancing just urban transitions will require broader, cross-sector approaches and robust implementation and evaluation mechanisms. Future research should conduct in-depth case studies of cities developing and deploying these tools (e.g., Oakland, Cleveland, Baltimore, San Antonio), evaluate their effectiveness in addressing structural injustices and empowering vulnerable populations, and identify best practices and pathways for embedding justice throughout urban climate governance.

- Scope limited to the 100 largest U.S. cities and to plans available as of June 2021; 42 cities lacked an eligible citywide climate action plan, constraining generalizability. - Content analysis focused only on mitigation-related sections; adaptation/resilience content was not coded unless explicitly linked to mitigation. - Cross-sectional analysis of plan documents does not assess on-the-ground implementation or outcomes; many tools are recent, precluding evaluation of their effectiveness in addressing structural injustices or producing just outcomes. - Reliance on plan text may miss informal practices or actions not documented in plans. - Regression identifies associations, not causal relationships; some predictors (e.g., legacy city) were not statistically significant at conventional thresholds.