Climate change poses a significant ethical challenge, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations despite their minimal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The connection between climate action and equity is particularly crucial in cities, which house most of the world's population and generate a substantial portion of global CO2 emissions. Recent initiatives like the UN Race to Zero and Race to Resilience aim to accelerate the transition to net-zero cities. However, urban climate actions can create both benefits and unintended consequences, often distributed unevenly. Calls for "just urban transitions" highlight the need to address social inequities inherent in climate responses. Existing research suggests limited integration of equity or justice goals into climate strategies, with most analyses focusing on adaptation or broader sustainability. This study fills a critical knowledge gap by comprehensively assessing how justice concerns have been integrated into urban climate action planning, aiming to provide policy guidance for just urban transitions. The study's importance stems from the fact that climate mitigation policies intersect with various aspects of urban life, potentially exacerbating existing disparities in energy access, clean technology access, transportation, employment opportunities, and gentrification. Understanding how cities conceptualize justice implications and identify policy tools to address these issues is crucial for urban scholars and decision-makers.

Previous research indicates that few cities have meaningfully incorporated equity or justice goals into their climate strategies. Most analyses of urban climate plans primarily concentrate on climate adaptation and resilience or broader sustainability. Studies examining climate mitigation plans have been limited in scope, focusing on a small number of cities or specific mitigation sectors. This lack of comprehensive research hinders the development of effective policy guidance on achieving just urban transitions. The existing literature highlights the potential for urban climate actions to create disparities in energy access and pricing, equitable access to clean technologies, low-carbon transportation, employment opportunities, and the risk of green gentrification. This underscores the need for research that examines how different cities conceptualize the justice implications of climate mitigation policies and identifies policy tools used to address these challenges.

This study analyzed the most recent climate mitigation plans of the 100 largest US cities (as of June 2021). 58 cities had approved plans fitting the study's criteria, which included formal local planning documents addressing multiple climate mitigation sectors. The study excluded plans focusing solely on adaptation or resilience, those created by state or regional entities, and those not formally adopted by city governments. Plans were collected via internet searches, city government websites, and the Local Government Climate and Energy Goals database. A two-stage qualitative content analysis was employed. Stage 1 involved developing a preliminary coding protocol based on existing literature, covering distributive justice, procedural justice, justice as recognition, mitigation sectors, and policy strategies. This protocol was pre-tested on five plans. Stage 2 involved coding all plans using the refined protocol, allowing for inductive emergence of new themes and categories. NVivo 12 Pro was used for coding. Only sections explicitly related to climate mitigation were coded. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify local sociodemographic, economic, and political characteristics influencing cities' engagement with justice and to assess whether attention to climate justice increased over time. Data on city characteristics came from the 2019 US Census and the 2015-2019 American Community Survey.

The analysis revealed that large US cities are increasingly incorporating justice into their climate action plans, particularly in the past five years. The recognition of historical patterns of racial segregation, disinvestment, environmental injustice, and exclusion is becoming more common. However, attention to justice varies across mitigation sectors. The study categorized cities into three groups based on their engagement with justice: those not articulating justice as a core feature, those articulating justice as an aspiration, and those explicitly planning for justice. Ordinal logistic regression confirmed that the publication year of the climate action plan is a significant determinant of cities' level of engagement with justice, even after controlling for sociodemographic, economic, and political characteristics. Cities with higher median household income and higher poverty rates showed increased odds of incorporating justice. Public engagement in climate planning was also associated with greater attention to justice. Larger cities were more likely to engage with justice, potentially due to higher capacities. Coastal cities had increased odds, while legacy cities had decreased odds. The language of "equity" was more prevalent than "environmental justice" or "climate justice." When definitions were provided, "justice" was often defined as prioritizing historically vulnerable communities, while "equity" had broader definitions. Fifteen cities (26%) explicitly recognized historical injustices, with most (80%) of these plans published after 2018. The focus was primarily on racial and income inequalities. Attention to justice across mitigation sectors was uneven, with energy efficiency, clean energy, and land use/transport sectors showing the most focus. Fewer cities linked justice to waste, electric vehicles, water, and air quality. Targeted workforce development and outreach programs were identified in many plans, aiming to benefit vulnerable populations. Four main policy tools were identified for operationalizing just climate policies: justice partnerships, equity advisory boards, equity tools, and justice indicators. Justice partnerships engage vulnerable groups. Equity advisory boards offer community representation and input. Equity tools guide justice-centered policymaking, and justice indicators measure policy impacts.

The study's findings demonstrate a growing trend towards integrating climate justice into urban governance in the US. The increasing attention to justice in climate action plans, along with the growing recognition of historical injustices, signifies a positive development. However, several caveats exist. First, a significant number of large US cities lack city-wide climate action plans. Second, there is a need for more comprehensive approaches to justice across and beyond climate mitigation sectors. The sector-specific approach to climate action plans can lead to uneven attention to justice issues, and it often fails to address the indirect and cross-sectoral impacts of climate policies. Third, most climate plans have not articulated specific strategies to operationalize just climate policies on the ground. The identified policy tools—justice partnerships, equity advisory boards, equity tools, and justice indicators—can serve as models for other cities. Future research should investigate why cities devote unequal attention to justice across sectors and the effectiveness of these implementation tools in achieving just outcomes.

This study provides a comprehensive overview of how large US cities integrate justice into climate mitigation planning. The increasing attention to justice and the development of innovative policy tools represent significant progress toward just urban transitions. However, challenges remain regarding plan adoption, comprehensive justice approaches across sectors, and the operationalization of just policies. Future research should focus on addressing these limitations and evaluating the effectiveness of existing tools in promoting equitable outcomes. The findings offer valuable insights for urban policymakers and other stakeholders working towards more just and sustainable cities.

The study's focus on the 100 largest US cities limits its generalizability to smaller cities. The reliance on publicly available climate action plans may not fully capture all justice-related initiatives. The qualitative nature of the content analysis means findings are subject to interpretation. The study's timeframe may not capture the full extent of changes in the approach to climate justice due to the time lag between policy adoption and policy impact.