Localizing carbon neutrality policy for climate crisis management: typological analysis of government and citizen roles in Gyeonggi Province

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Researchers can adopt the typological framework for comparative studies of local climate policy across regions or countries.

🏢実務担当者:Practitioners in local government or sustainability teams can use the typology to benchmark their own programs and identify gaps in citizen engagement or adaptation.

🏛政策担当者:Policymakers can leverage the findings to design differentiated support programs for municipalities based on their governance capacity and policy orientation.

Local governments are central to carbon neutrality implementation because climate risks and policy effects are place-specific. Yet local climate governance cannot be understood through government action alone, nor through mitigation-focused approaches that understate adaptation and everyday civic practices. This study develops and tests a two-dimensional typological framework that integrates (1) policy actors (citizens/civil society, public–private partnerships, government) and (2) policy orientation (mitigation vs. adaptation) to explain how local carbon neutrality policies are configured in practice.Using project-level information from Korea's Carbon Neutrality Policy Portal, we compiled a 2023 dataset of 1589 carbon neutrality projects and constructed four municipal indicators for 31 basic local governments in Gyeonggi Province: the number of citizen-led programs, government-led programs, adaptation projects, and mitigation projects. The results identify two theoretically anticipated types and one empirically emergent type. The citizen-led integrated climate action type shows comparatively strong citizen-centered programming with moderate mitigation and adaptation activity. The government-led mitigation type exhibits high governmental program intensity and strong mitigation performance, with local governments also leading adaptation in practice. A capacity-deficient type emerges with consistently low values across all indicators, suggesting structural constraints in planning and implementation capacity. Notably, the theorized public–private governance type is largely absent, implying either limited collaborative governance or measurement limitations.The findings highlight marked inter-municipal variation and a mitigation bias relative to adaptation, underscoring the need for type-specific strategies and metropolitan-level capacity support.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2026.100418first seen 2026-06-20 05:28:05