Drivers of Policy Instrument Selection for Environmental Management by Local Governments

• Date: 01 July 2019
• Published date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13025

Drivers of Policy Instrument Selection for Environmental Management by Local Governments 477

Richard C. Feiock is Augustus B.

Turnbull Professor of Public Administration

and holds the Jerry Collins Endowed Chair

at Florida State University. He served as

editor of

Public Administration Review

from 2013 to 2017. He researches local

government, sustainability, and local

democratic institutions. He is a National

Academy of Public Administration fellow

and served on the Board of Scientific

Counselors for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

E-mail: rfeiock@fsu.edu

Angela Y. S. Park is a doctoral

candidate at the University of Kansas. Her

research focuses on understanding the

key challenges facing local governments

in delivering sustainability services

and programs and what enables them

to overcome these challenges. She is

particularly interested in the effects

of institutional arrangements and

mechanisms in dealing with the issues of

interagency coordination and performance

management.

E-mail: angelapark@ku.edu

Christopher V. Hawkins is

associate professor in the School of Public

Administration at the University of Central

Florida. His research focuses on urban

politics, metropolitan governance, and

urban sustainability policy.

E-mail: christopher.hawkins@ucf.edu

Abstract: Local governments commonly pursue environmental objectives that exceed state and federal minimum

requirements. Although research informs our understanding of factors that lead cities to adopt such policy goals, the

underlying mechanisms employed to achieve them are not well understood. This article examines factors that drive the

choice of policy instruments that cities use to pursue local environmental objectives. The literature links the structure

of the local governing body, characteristics of the community and target populations, and the nature of the policy

problem to instrument selection. Building on this, the authors model the dynamics shaping cities’ use of regulations,

financial incentives, or combination thereof, to pursue a variety of different environmental objectives. Results indicate

that community racial composition and political leaning influence instrument choice when policy targets the public at

large. Alternatively, when policy targets particular stakeholder groups, such as developers, the characteristics of the local

governing body are of greater importance.

Evidence for Practice

• Local governments regularly enact environmental policies that exceed the minimum standards set by higher

levels of government.

• Cities use regulations much more frequently than incentives to implement policies related to water

conservation, greenspace preservation, and the promotion of mixed-use development.

• City government characteristics—such as the form of government and prioritization of the environment—are

key determinants of instrument choice for land-use policies, for which business and development groups are

the primary target population.

• Characteristics of the community—such as race, political leaning, income, and population—are dominant

factors shaping the selection of instruments used in residential water conservation policies, which generally

target the public at large.

Rachel M. Krause

University of Kansas

Christopher V. Hawkins

University of Central Florida

Angela Y. S. Park

University of Kansas

Richard C. Feiock

Florida State University

Rachel M. Krause is associate

professor in the School of Public Affairs and

Administration at the University of Kansas.

Her research focuses on local governance,

urban sustainability, and municipal climate

protection initiatives. She was awarded the

2018 Emerging Scholars Award from the

Science, Technology, and Environmental

Politics Section of the American Political

Science Association.

E-mail: rmkrause@ku.edu

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 79, Iss. 4, pp. 477–487. © 2019 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13025.

Drivers of Policy Instrument Selection for Environmental

Management by Local Governments

Research Article

As political conflict has stymied national

and state policy action, cities have become

recognized as the level of government “where

things get done” (Castro 2014). This is notably

the case for issues of environmental sustainability,

where—both in traditional local governance arenas,

such as land-use management, and in less traditional

ones, such as climate protection—cities are frequently

described as policy leaders and innovators (Joss

2015; Krause 2011a; Portney 2013). Many U.S.

cities embrace environmental sustainability as an

objective and have undertaken ambitious planning

processes and policies in pursuit of this aim.

Although some of these efforts have been criticized as

symbolic (Betsill and Bulkeley 2007; Krause 2011b),

a substantial number of cities have adopted and

implemented meaningful policy actions. Reflecting

this, considerable scholarly effort has focused on

understanding what factors lead cities to voluntarily

adopt environmental objectives that exceed state

and federal requirements. However, we still know

little about the dynamics that shape the design of

instruments used to implement these objectives.

Policy instruments are the means by which

government policies are carried out; they are the

mechanisms used to achieve political goals (Smith

and Ingram 2002; Weimer and Vining 2017). As

such, they play an essential role in determining a

policy’s overall success. The process of instrument

selection, however, is not straightforward since

it can be driven by a logic of effectiveness and a

logic of appropriateness. The former is based on

rational links between means and goals; the latter

is based on shared values and ideas of legitimacy

(Capano and Lippi 2017; March and Olsen 1989).

The process of reconciling these logics occurs in

a complex and inherently political environment

since different instruments structure and allocate

opportunities, requirements, benefits, and costs in a