Key Motivations, Barriers, and Enablers Toward Net-Zero Cities: An Integrated Framework and Large Survey in Japan

Abstract

Ensuring consistent progress toward cities’ net-zero emission goals requires understanding key dimensions of urban climate governance—particularly the motivations driving municipalities toward net zero and the critical barriers and enablers along this pathway. Current knowledge on these critical aspects is fragmented, lacking a holistic framework and empirical prioritization of key factors. We developed an integrated analytical framework and empirically distilled the most salient motivations, barriers, and enablers through a large-scale survey targeting 489 net-zero-committed municipalities—known as “Zero Carbon Cities”—across Japan. With responses from 309 municipalities, we deliver the first systematic mapping of factors perceived as most influential by Japanese local authorities. The results indicate that municipalities are primarily motivated by seizing local economic development opportunities (enhanced local energy conditions, financial gains and savings, and local industry revitalization), future-proofing communities against disasters, and enhancing the local quality of life. Key barriers and enablers were identified across four categories: municipal resources and authority (budgets, dedicated staff, and empowered climate agencies), knowledge and expertise (staff climate competence), institutional coherence (cross-departmental coordination and stakeholder involvement), and political will and leadership (the presence of climate champions and awareness within city halls and among residents). Accordingly, we discuss implications and derive recommendations toward strengthened local action in Japan and beyond.

1. Introduction

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is poised to devote its next seminal Special Report to cities [1], the widely acknowledged role of urban settlements in addressing climate change is further cemented. As concentrated hubs of human activity, cities simultaneously act as both significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters and as promising sites for climate responses [2,3,4,5], with local governments at the forefront as key actors and decision-makers [3,6]. Given their proximity to the public and oversight of critical infrastructure, local authorities are well-positioned to craft and implement impactful climate policies tailored to local needs [5,7,8,9].

The late 2010s witnessed growing momentum among cities and regions in committing to “net-zero” goals—aiming to reduce in-boundary anthropogenic GHG (or CO₂, depending on the commitment) emissions to levels balanced by their removal [10,11,12]. What was previously a pioneering practice pursued by only a few frontrunners with ambitious targets has since evolved into a broader trend as increasing numbers of local and regional governments began declaring climate emergencies (formal acknowledgments of the urgency for action), as well as pledging to net zero, often ahead of their national governments [11,13,14,15].

Yet, given the magnitude of the challenge of closing the global emissions gap [16], the uptake of local net-zero commitments remains insufficient and uneven, while local action often lacks the necessary follow-through [11,17] and may be vulnerable to backsliding amid major crises and political shifts [18,19]. These concerns underscore the importance of clarifying and reinforcing compelling motivations—strong enough to inspire and drive local actors forward—while simultaneously fostering a conducive environment for progress by strengthening key enablers and addressing critical barriers. All these elements are necessary to ensure stronger and more consistent progress.

Japan presents a particularly instructive case for examining these crucial aspects of cities’ movement toward net zero. Since 2019, hundreds of subnational governments have pledged to achieve net-zero carbon emissions—reaching 80% of the population by 2021 and surpassing 1000 jurisdictions covering over 95% of the population by 2023 [20]. Within a framework outlined by the Ministry of the Environment, these jurisdictions are designated as “Zero Carbon Cities”—municipal and regional (prefectural) governments that voluntarily commit to net-zero CO₂ emissions by 2050 or earlier [20]. Notably, this bottom-up trend has predated the nationwide carbon neutrality target announced by the central government in October 2020 [21], with 166 local governments having made commitments prior to the national pledge, even though the majority followed afterward [20]. Indeed, researchers observed that, in contrast to many proactive local governments, the national government initially appeared hesitant to elevate its climate ambition [22], and some scholars suggest that the rapid diffusion of Zero-Carbon Cities helped generate critical bottom-up momentum that ultimately influenced the national commitment [23].

Elsewhere in East Asia, important local climate action movements are also evident, although their governance approaches differ. In China, although climate targets are generally allocated to subnational governments in a top-down manner (as scaled-down quotas from the national target), local leadership is also encouraged through the national “low-carbon pilot” program to which ambitious provinces and municipalities can seek designation and subsequent assistance [24]. South Korean local governments have adopted a collective stance, jointly declaring a climate emergency in June 2020 [25] and subsequently announcing a unified “2050 Carbon Neutrality Joint Declaration” in May 2021 [26]. In contrast to China and South Korea, however, Japan’s approach is characterized by local governments taking the initiative to come forth with their own commitments, reflecting a higher degree of local “institutional political leeway” in target-setting [24] and individual agency in decision-making.

The widespread voluntary adoption of net-zero commitments by local governments, including many made before the national pledge, suggests the presence of strong motivations driving local authorities, potentially stemming not only from external pressures but also having intrinsic origins. Existing research investigated what potential determinants were standing behind the domino-like diffusion of Zero-Carbon City commitments, identifying both internal factors (e.g., resource endowments) and external ones (e.g., pressure from neighboring cities’ declarations) [23]. However, what remains less explored is why (in addition to the goal of mitigating climate change per se) local authorities aspire to pursue net-zero emissions, i.e., which specific intrinsic motivations—rooted in their own agency, priority objectives, or perceptions of benefit—attract and drive them forward.

Understanding these motivations is essential not only to explain why municipalities commit to net zero in the first place but also to shed light on what sustains their implementation efforts. The literature notes that such motivations often stem from perceived benefits and opportunities of climate action, which can inspire and drive local initiatives [27,28]. Municipalities may, for instance, be strongly motivated by the potential to improve air quality (by reducing air pollutants simultaneously with GHGs) [4,29]; by prospects for cost savings and added value from energy-efficiency measures and building retrofits [30]; or by various other co-benefits associated with climate action [31]. Alternatively, motivations may also arise from concerns about climate-related risks, past experiences with natural disasters, or a broader altruism-driven desire to join efforts for the global good [15]. Demystifying and highlighting the most salient motivations are crucial not only to encourage undecided local governments to join the effort but also to strengthen the ongoing implementation. Moreover, such insights can help local authorities identify synergies between climate and non-climate policies while fostering stronger and broader stakeholder support.

While motivations are key, they are not sufficient on their own. Even when municipalities are driven by strong ambitions and aspirations, they often encounter a range of roadblocks and may lack the necessary capacities or enabling environment to act. Various barriers—such as insufficient funding [3,4,32], inadequate data management systems [33,34,35], an unsupportive regulatory environment [2,30,33], and numerous other obstacles—can significantly impede progress. Conversely, municipalities may recognize and highly value certain enabling conditions that support or accelerate climate action, whether these conditions are currently in place or not. For instance, the presence of a dedicated climate champion among local leadership (e.g., a mayor)—who can mobilize resources and unite stakeholders—is widely viewed as improving the likelihood of effective action [2,36,37]. Overall, understanding the dynamics of local climate progress (or lack thereof) requires considering both the conditions that influence local governments’ ability to act (barriers and enablers) and the factors driving local actors’ interests and ambitions (motivations) [35].

While mostly studied separately, motivations, barriers, and enablers (MBEs) are generally acknowledged by scholars and practitioners alike as vital aspects of urban climate governance [9]—a field that explores how different actors and institutions manage the planning and implementation of climate action at the local level [6,38,39,40]. Although some scholarship pertaining to this field has investigated motivations, barriers (or “challenges”), and enablers (or “drivers”) of local climate action [2,27,32,33,35,40,41,42,43,44,45], the knowledge remains fragmented.

This fragmentation emerges from two primary tendencies within the existing research. On the one hand, scholars argue that most scholarship derives factors from context-specific case studies (primarily in the US and Europe), resulting in a lack of generalizable insights and a widely applicable analytical framework [2,32,38]. On the other hand, a few review studies attempted to consolidate existing knowledge, producing broader lists of relevant MBE items commonly identified across disparate publications. For instance, Sippel and Jenssen (2009) derived a comprehensive overview of motivations and challenges from over 90 academic articles [42], and van der Heijden (2019) summarized knowledge on common enablers from 260 publications [2]. Likewise, a few climate urban-oriented reports feature chapters summarizing challenges or potential enablers associated with effective urban climate governance (e.g., [40]). However, while these overviews provide useful insights into broad collections of possible factors, their applicability remains limited without feedback on the salience of these factors from practitioners, such as city officials. Indeed, scholars caution that lists of potentially relevant factors could be endless [46]. Relatedly, Ryan (2015) warns of “a tendency for the literature on climate change and urban issues to fall into the ‘everything matters’ trap” [35]. This critique underscores the importance of assessing not only the existence of these factors but also their relative significance and severity, including how they are perceived by local actors whose views are shaped by practical, on-the-ground realities.

Further compounding these gaps is the limited exploration of Japan’s perspectives on these key issues. While some recent studies have examined, for instance, the diffusion of Zero-Carbon City commitments in Japan [23], few offer systemic insights into municipalities’ motivations, barriers, or enablers.

Against this backdrop, our study seeks to advance and further systematize knowledge of urban climate governance—specifically, the motivations, barriers, and enablers (MBEs) of municipalities as they move toward achieving net-zero goals. We develop an integrated analytical framework of common MBEs and empirically assess their perceived significance among local officials across a wide range of Japanese municipalities. Specifically, we investigate the following research question: Which motivations, barriers, and enablers do Japanese local authorities identify as most salient in their efforts to fulfill Zero-Carbon City commitments (i.e., achieving net zero by 2050)?

To answer this question, we conducted a questionnaire survey targeting 489 net-zero- committed municipalities in Japan. First, to build our analytical framework (see Section 2.1), we reviewed the existing literature on relevant MBE topics and synthesized an updated inventory of commonly identified factors, organized into three respective lists: (1) motivations, (2) barriers, and (3) enablers. Then, we designed a survey (see Section 2.2), incorporating these lists into a questionnaire, which we administered to local officials responsible for net-zero policy, asking them to assess and prioritize the salience of each item.

Our contributions are twofold. First, by integrating existing knowledge on common MBEs and refining key factors through our survey, we bring greater structure to the field and bridge the latest academic understanding with the practical perspectives of municipal practitioners. We investigate particularly the perspectives of municipal managers and policymakers, acknowledging that MBEs may vary across actor groups (e.g., national or local governments, civil society, and businesses), thus responding to scholarly calls for more actor-oriented research [46,47]. Second, by conducting an extensive survey across Japanese municipalities of varying sizes and administrative capacities, we aim to produce findings that can be reasonably generalized across contexts. To supplement the aggregated analysis, we also examine responses by administrative division (e.g., large cities, medium cities, and towns and villages). This allows us to capture more nuanced municipal dynamics and enables further generalizations by municipal type.

In addition, our study addresses three common biases in the existing literature: (1) an overemphasis on climate frontrunners, (2) an overrepresentation of Western cities, and (3) a shortage of large-sample, survey-based research. First, conventionally, most studies have focused on frontrunner cities—pioneers of climate action—rather than typical municipalities, leading to a skewed knowledge base derived predominantly from research on affluent and high-capacity cities [2,33,48]. Relatedly, van der Heijden warns of a “frontrunner paradox” (i.e., when the ambitious rhetoric of so-called frontrunners often fails to match their actual performance), addressing which requires studying typical municipalities representing a broader spectrum of urban governance contexts [2,49,50]. Japan, with over 95% of its population covered by Zero-Carbon City commitments, offers a valuable case for such research, allowing for the exploration of larger, all-encompassing (rather than exclusively high-capacity frontrunner) municipal samples to generate more generalizable insights. Second, urban climate governance research continues to be dominated by cases from Europe and North America as scholars have consistently highlighted [2,33,38,51]. Echoing broader advocacy for post-Eurocentric, cosmopolitan social science [52], Blok (2016) calls for more urban climate research (especially empirical investigations) to be conducted in East Asian cities, where climate risks and policy responses are rapidly intensifying [51]. Third, very few studies employ questionnaire surveys to capture practitioner perspectives at scale. A few of such large earlier surveys (e.g., [32,43,44]) were conducted prior to the net-zero trend, often focusing on municipalities affiliated with transnational city networks (e.g., ICLEI)—considered pioneers by some scholars [2,53]—or municipalities within leading subnational jurisdictions, such as those in California. Our study provides fresh insights by surveying a wide cross-section of local governments in Japan.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the materials and methods used, including the description of the analytical framework we developed and the survey design. Section 3 presents the key survey findings. Section 4 discusses the implications and offers recommendations relevant to policymakers and future research. Section 5 concludes with final remarks and a conceptual summary of the study’s key insights.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Analytical Framework

To operationalize our survey (survey design described in Section 2.2), we began by building a comprehensive and integrated analytical framework of motivations, barriers, and enablers (MBEs) of urban climate action commonly identified in the literature. First, we reviewed studies that present multiple MBE items in high-level overviews. They included literature reviews [2,35,42], relevant report chapters on urban climate governance [33,40], and some previous survey studies [32,43]. We integrated interrelated and overlapping mentions of MBE items across these sources and compiled them into a framework consisting of three distinctive lists of commonly reported factors: (1) motivations, (2) barriers, and (3) enablers. A further triangulation review of wider studies—including those that do not necessarily focus on MBEs but where many supporting arguments were nonetheless identified—adds another layer of rigor to the framework. While we aimed for comprehensiveness, we acknowledge that our synthesis is not exhaustive as its primary purpose is to effectively inform the design of our empirical survey.

2.1.1. Intrinsic Motivations of Municipalities Toward Net Zero

Our study shifts attention beyond the initial triggers of municipalities’ net-zero commitments (for instance, as investigated by Nakazawa et al. (2023) [23]), exploring instead the deeper intrinsic motivations that inspire local authorities to embrace and actively pursue these ambitious climate objectives over the long term. Drawing from motivational psychology—particularly Ryan and Deci’s (2000) classic conceptualization of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations within Self-Determination Theory [54], originally defined at the individual level—we adapt these concepts to collective actors, specifically municipal administrations. In the municipal context, we regard intrinsic motivations as those internal considerations closely tied to a city’s own values, purposes, and ambitions (e.g., ensuring healthy local economic development, enhancing residents’ quality of life, and boosting civic pride), reflecting autonomy and self-determination in their decision-making. By contrast, extrinsic motivations are primarily driven by external pressures (e.g., peer pressure and mandates by the upper government). While external factors certainly play a role (especially when adopting the goal [23]), given a largely voluntary nature of climate goals, municipalities also seem to be strongly guided by self-determined internal priorities, particularly when recognizing the opportunities and co-benefits of climate action [27,28,30,35,39,41,55,56].

Based on this understanding, we compiled a list of nine major motivations across six categories (

Table 1. Common intrinsic motivations of municipalities toward local climate action.

Category	N	Motivations	Direct High-Level Overviews	Broader Supporting Literature
Local Economic Development	1.1	Cost savings and financial benefits: Achieving savings with more efficient equipment, boosting property value (e.g., via building retrofits, presence of green/blue infrastructure), revenue from specific policies (e.g., traffic tolls and congestion taxes), and other direct financial benefits	[42,43]	[4,30,33,34,40,41,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]
	1.2	Local industry development and economic revitalization (via green growth/circular economy): Enhancing the local economy’s competitiveness with job creation, increased productivity, new investments, and attracting businesses and talent through the promotion of the innovative green economy sector	[32,42]	[4,7,15,36,41,55,57,59,60,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]
	1.3	Improving local energy conditions: Developing local renewable energy to enhance self-sufficiency, independence, and stability of energy supply while reinvesting the energy revenues into the local economy and community (i.e., “local production, local consumption”)	-	[33,36,57,58,61,65,66,71,72,73]
Quality of Life	2	Enhancing residents’ well-being and health: Mitigating air pollution, traffic congestion, and urban heat islands through emission reductions, urban greening, sustainable transport, and other synergistic initiatives that improve public health and quality of life	[32,42,43]	[3,4,5,15,33,38,41,56,59,60,63,64,65,69,74]
Institutional	3	Strengthening ties and gaining assistance from the national government by engaging in pioneering nationally designated urban frameworks (e.g., Eco City, Smart City) or other pilot programs for low-carbon development	[32,43]	[15,58,69,73,75]
Political	4.1	Green city brand/identity: Cultivating an appealing city image (to attract new residents, entrepreneurs, tourists) and community pride in the city’s environmental achievements, as well as securing other benefits from an enhanced reputation	[32,42,43]	[15,34,55,57,76]
	4.2	Trend-setting and elevating municipal leadership: Highlighting the local government’s role in the global climate agenda to gain political capital, setting the trend for climate action at local, national, and international levels, and mobilizing stakeholders toward action	[32,42,43]	[3,4,7,15,33,36,38,53,55,57,58,67,77]
Vulnerability	5	Ensuring safety and resilience: Perceiving vulnerability to climate impacts or having experienced past calamities and striving to safeguard residents and increase resilience (including future-proofing the energy system) through climate action	[32,42,43]	[15,59,63,66,78]
Global Norms, Altruism	6	Aligning with global norms and contributing to global betterment: Inspired by key international climate reports, conventions, and peers’ best practice; driven by self-determined responsibility or altruism to contribute to global efforts	[42,43]	[15,33,34,55,56,67,79]

Source: Developed by the authors based on the review and synthesis of relevant literature. See Table S1 in Supplementary Materials for details and verbatim quotes from the literature.

).

2.1.2. Barriers and Enablers

Climate mitigation and adaptation literature provides helpful theoretical clarifications of the concepts of “barriers” and “enablers”. Although numerous aspects can hamper local climate action, most scholars emphasize the social and institutional nature of barriers, predominantly arising from human decisions or actions [40,45,46,47,80,81,82]. Indeed, in contrast to “limits” (typically of physical and ecological nature), barriers are viewed as not insurmountable—they can be overcome through concerted effort, effective management, prioritization, and political will [40,45,46,47,83,84].

Additionally, the concept of “barriers” closely complements and interrelates with “enablers” (also called “drivers” or “enabling conditions”)—factors that are conducive to climate action, facilitating and supporting it [2]. Scholars often view both notions as closely related, such as being opposites or mirror images, in concept (yet without implying strict analytical symmetry) [45,46,80,84]. For instance, Biesbroek et al. (2013) position barriers and enablers on a continuum as opposing notions, describing them as subjective perceptions by actors of factors exerting negative or positive influences on their climate efforts [46]. Accordingly, a certain condition or resource (e.g., competent personnel, technology, funding, or coordination among actors) can be perceived either as an enabler when sufficient or as a barrier when deficient [35]. Ideally, as some scholars put it, improving climate governance involves transforming barriers into enablers [74,80,81], for instance, when administrative silos were addressed, resulting in more effective cross-sector coordination.

To build a comprehensive analytical framework and minimize the omission of important factors, we adopted this dualistic lens in our literature review. Specifically, we mirrored items from barrier-focused studies, as well as from enabler-focused ones, synthesizing insights on commonly identified factors from both literature streams. Consequently, we compiled two structured lists of common barriers (

Table 2. Common barriers hindering municipal efforts toward local climate action.

Category	N	Barriers	Direct High-Level Overviews	Wider Supporting Literature
I. Municipal Capacity: Authority and Resources	1.1	Limited authority and influence of the dedicated municipal climate agency (or its parent bureau, e.g., environmental department)	[2,33,40,42]	[38,53,62,80,81]
	1.2	Limited municipal control over key policy areas and infrastructure that have strong GHG implications (e.g., energy, transport, utilities)	[2,32,33,35,42]	[3,5,7,34,38,41,50,56,62,64,80,81]
	1.3	Inadequate (or lacking) legal and regulatory frameworks (e.g., laws, financing schemes, planning frameworks, and other provisions) conducive to local climate policies	[2,33,40,42]	[30,36,53,64,78,80,81]
	1.4	Constrained municipal budgets (i.e., limited own revenue or national transfers, fiscal stress)	[32,33,35,42]	[3,4,9,34,41,45,53,61,63,70,81]
	1.5	Limited accessibility to funding from external sources (e.g., financial organizations, private foundations, national or international grants and subsidies)	[2,32,33,35,42]	[3,4,5,34,36,38,56,64,78]
	1.6	High upfront costs of climate measures, coupled with long recovery times prior to yielding benefits and return on investment	[40,42]	[4,41,45]
	1.7	Lack of staff (or staff-time) dedicated to climate-related tasks within the local administration	[32,33,35,42]	[38,41,63,81]
	1.8	Lack of access to technological options and specialized workforce in the local area	[32,33]	[5,64,66,70,80]
II. Municipal Capacity: Knowledge and Expertise	2.1	Lack of specialized knowledge and expertise among local administration staff and policymakers, hindering the development of appropriate policy measures	[32,33,40,42]	[3,38,41,50,74,81]
	2.2	Limited access to reliable, locally relevant data, necessary for policymaking and climate action (e.g., data on GHG emissions or energy consumption by local industries, infrastructure, households, etc.)	[32,33,35,40,42]	[3,4,34,38,41]
	2.3	Lack of methods, tools, or best-practice portfolios for creating climate policy-relevant information and assessments (e.g., GHG inventories, energy scenarios) that support policymaking	[32,33,35,40,42]	[3,4,34,71,81]
III. Institutional Coherence and Coordination	3.1	Administrative work culture (i.e., municipal staff job descriptions, work practices, and routines) is overly rigid and conservative, leaving little space to take risks, try new ideas, or depart from “normal”	[32,33,40,42]	[3,34,36,41,62,74,80,81,85,86]
	3.2	Insufficient or fragmented collaboration and coordination on climate policy among local administration’s departments (e.g., environmental, urban planning, economic development, etc.)	[2,32,33,40,42]	[4,34,36,38,39,50,62,63,74,80,81,85,86]
	3.3	Limited inter-municipal cooperation and coordination of climate response with neighboring local authorities and other peer municipalities	[33,35,40,42]	[3,41,64]
	3.4	Insufficient or inefficient vertical coordination and cooperation on climate policy between national, regional, and local authorities	[2,33,35,40,42]	[3,7,9,36,38,39,49,50,53,60,63,64,74,80,81]
	3.5	Difficulty in engaging and forming partnerships with local stakeholders (e.g., private sector, civil society) for co-creation and joint implementation of initiatives	[2,33,40,42]	[3,4,34,39,50,62,64,74,87,88,89]
IV. Political Will and Leadership	4.1	Lack of climate policy champions, i.e., individuals who promote, advocate, and lend political support to climate action (e.g., mayors, senior managers)	[2,32,33,40,42]	[30,34,36,39,64,81,86]
	4.2	Lack of clear vision, guidance, and leadership by the upper echelons of government (i.e., inadequate high-level political context)	[2,32,33]	[3,30,39,64,71,86]
	4.3	Low continuity and priority of climate action on municipal agenda (due to many competing issues and incognizance of synergies, politician term limits, inability to frame climate as an issue of local importance)	[32,33,40,42]	[3,34,36,41,53,56,74,78,80,81,86,90]
	4.4	Low public interest, involvement, and demand for climate policy	[33,35,40,42]	[34,56,80]
	4.5	Weak problem perception or skepticism among civil servants within the city hall	[32,42]	[41,56,58,74,81]

Source: Developed by the authors based on the review and synthesis of the literature. See Table S1 in Supplementary Materials for details and verbatim quotes from the literature.

) and enablers (

Table 3. Common enablers enhancing municipal efforts toward local climate action.

Category	N	Enablers	Direct High-Level Overviews	Wider Supporting Literature
I. Municipal Capacity: Authority and Resources	1.1	Sufficient authority and influence of the dedicated climate agency (or its parent bureau, e.g., environmental department)	[2,33,40,42]	[53,62,81]
	1.2	Sufficient municipal autonomy and jurisdiction over key urban policy areas and infrastructure that have strong GHG implications (e.g., energy, transport, utilities)	[2,32,33,35,42]	[9,34,38,41,56,64,78]
	1.3	Supportive legal context with adequate frameworks and mandates (e.g., laws, regulations, overarching policies) in place	[2,32,33,40,42]	[7,30,36,39,49,57,63,64,68,74,78,81,89,91,92]
	1.4	Adequate municipal budget	[2,32,33,35,42]	[4,5,9,34,36,39,44,63,64]
	1.5	Accessibility to funding from external sources (e.g., financial organizations, private foundations, national subsidies)	[2,32,33,35,42]	[3,4,5,36,64,78,92,93]
	1.6	Realizable benefits, complementarities and linkages with other goals (e.g., SDGs) are well explored and exploited, thereby justifying and partially offsetting policy costs	[32,42]	[4,9,34,38,59,60,65,74]
	1.7	Enough staff dedicated to climate-related tasks within the local administration	[32,33,35,42]	[38,81]
	1.8	Local presence or access to low-carbon industry solutions (i.e., specialized technology and workforce)	[32,33]	[5,80]
II. Municipal Capacity: Knowledge and Expertise	2.1	Adequate climate governance expertise among local administration staff and policymakers to identify locally suitable policy options and synergies	[32,33,42]	[5,7,34,75,81]
	2.2	Access to reliable and locally relevant data (e.g., GHG emissions or energy consumption data) from various sources, including public and private organizations (e.g., regional utilities, local industries)	[32,33,35,42]	[3,64,75]
	2.3	Having access to technical instruments (e.g., tools, methods, and know-how) for generating policy-relevant information and assessments (e.g., carbon emissions inventory, energy scenarios) that support policymaking, including by being a member of domestically or internationally driven capacity-building initiatives	[2,32,33,35,42]	[4,5,34,71,78,90]
III. Institutional Coherence and Coordination	3.1	Municipal staff are stimulated, empowered, and actively encouraged to engage in climate work (through trainings and discussion groups, green accomplishment rewards, etc.); i.e., climate as part of the organizational culture	[32,33,42]	[34,81,85,86,87]
	3.2	Effective cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation on climate policy among local administration agencies (supported by mechanisms like an umbrella coordinating unit, working groups, designated coordinators, etc.)	[2,33,42]	[4,34,38,41,53,59,62,63,70,74,81,86]
	3.3	Strong external horizontal cooperation and partnership for climate action with neighboring and other peer municipalities, including active membership in domestic or transnational city networks	[32,33,35,40,42]	[3,4,5,7,34,45,53,59,64,68,71]
	3.4	Strong vertical alignment, strategic cooperation, and coordination of climate policy between national, regional, and local authorities	[2,33,35,42]	[3,4,7,36,44,45,49,53,59,63,64,89,91]
	3.5	Sufficient partnerships and involvement of stakeholders (e.g., businesses, residents) in the creation and coordination of local climate initiatives	[2,33,40,42]	[3,4,5,9,34,50,59,62,63,64,68,75,86,87,88,89,94,95]
IV. Political Will and Leadership *	4.1	Presence of dedicated climate policy champions among local leaders (e.g., mayors, village chiefs), strongly advocating and steering local climate efforts	[2,32,33,35,40,42]	[7,30,34,36,37,39,41,44,58,78,81,86]
	4.2	Strong vision, enthusiasm and leadership by the upper echelons of government (national, provincial) and the major political party, advocating carbon neutrality on a sustained high-level policy agenda	[2,33,35]	[5,30,39,44,60,64,71,74,81,86,92,96]
	4.3	High priority, continuity, and favorability toward environmental action on local agenda (e.g., city history of environmental action/struggle, consecutive re-elections of pro-environment mayors/politicians, forward-looking local declarations/commitments and political vision, climate successfully framed as “local” issue synergistic with local priorities)	[32,33,35,42]	[9,36,38,60,62,71,74,75,81,86,90]
	4.4	Citizens exhibiting high interest and demand for climate policy (e.g., high public climate awareness, civic pride of living in a “green city,” active pro-environment civil society organizations)	[32,33,35]	[9,34,57,60,67,75,80,88]

* The mirror image of the barrier N4.5 as a corresponding enabler is omitted because the authors deemed it inappropriate to pose to local officials. While a lack of awareness among government officials can be easily perceived as a barrier by observing skepticism and a lack of enthusiasm for climate policy in the local administration, the presence of awareness as an enabling condition is difficult to evaluate objectively. Source: Developed by the authors based on the review and synthesis of the literature. See Table S1 in Supplementary Materials for details and verbatim quotes from the literature.

), each organized into four broad thematic categories. Beyond the direct high-level (overview) literature on barriers and enablers, we also reviewed the wider literature to triangulate and support the resulting synthesized items, enhancing the robustness of our framework.

Although we use the conceptual pairwise relationship between barriers and enablers in the initial literature synthesis, we keep them independent in the rest of our research for the following methodological and analytical reasons. First, separate treatment provides clearer cognitive framing for survey respondents, enabling them to more precisely (and with less mental effort) evaluate each factor’s salience (i.e., how severely a barrier impedes action and how significantly an enabler facilitates it). Second, it avoids the problematic assumption of symmetry between barrier–enabler pairs as factors may exert asymmetric influences [45]. For example, high public awareness might strongly facilitate climate action, whereas limited awareness might not equally impede it, or vice versa. Relatedly, independent evaluation allows for diagnostic insights: if a particular barrier and its corresponding enabler both rank highly, this indicates that addressing this specific barrier may significantly unlock enabling potential. Conversely, if top-ranked barriers differ significantly from top-ranked enablers, this may demonstrate that certain factors are predominantly perceived as impeding action without their opposites necessarily being seen as strong facilitators. Finally—and crucially for our integrated depiction of motivations, barriers, and enablers (see Section 2.1.3)—we prepare the ground for all MBE factors to be explored in terms of their relationships and their potential to reinforce one another, inviting future research to explore what combinations of factors should be addressed and in which sequence, to ensure the most effective conduct of local climate governance. As an initial step toward this objective (as well as to empirically test the symmetry/asymmetry between barrier–enabler pairs), we conduct a correlation analysis on the survey response data (see Appendix A).

2.1.3. Conceptual Interrelation and Holistic Depiction of MBEs

In addition to the intricate relationship between barriers and enablers, it is important to recognize both the connection and distinction between enablers and motivations. Even highly motivated actors may lack the necessary enabling environment and capacity to overcome barriers and effectively implement climate measures. Conversely, even when enabling conditions and capacities are present, actors might still lack sufficient motivation to translate that existing potential into action [35,80,81,86]. Put simply, motivations and enablers are distinct yet related: both are necessary, but neither alone is sufficient for effective climate governance [2,35].

Crucially, motivations and enablers can also mutually reinforce each other and help reduce barriers. For instance, compelling motivations that effectively demonstrate the rationale for local action (e.g., enhanced air quality) are attractive for local actors and, hence, can help secure dedicated budgets, garner citizen support, or enhance cross-sectoral collaboration—all important enabling factors. Similarly, key enablers—such as the presence of local climate champions or accessible financial support for local projects—can elevate the attractiveness of climate policies on the local agenda. Thus, by advocating for climate action and emphasizing relevant co-benefits, such champions and supportive financial schemes can further motivate stakeholders and strengthen their commitment to act.

With this in mind, we present motivations, barriers, and enablers within a holistic integrated framework, which allows the independent analysis of each concept and factor, yet acknowledges their inherent interrelatedness. Indeed, scholars increasingly emphasize that local climate responses are shaped by complex interactions among multiple factors [47,78], stressing that climate governance cannot be effectively addressed through isolated perspectives [1,40,46]. By positioning the three MBE concepts and their respective key items (ranked through our survey) side-by-side within a holistic framework, we hope to provide a fertile ground for future research into their interrelationships, synergies, and trade-offs, which could inform the development of more effective local climate strategies.

In summary, our integrated analytical framework can be conceptually depicted as shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Survey Design and Implementation

The analytical framework directly informed our survey design. The MBE items synthesized from the literature (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) were presented to local officials through a three-stage questionnaire to distill the most salient factors.

We use the term “salience” in the paper to convey the meaning of both the importance/significance and the quality of being perceived as such. When posing questions to respondents, we operated with two terms in Japanese: 重要 (jūyō), meaning “important; essential; significant; major; key; principal” when asking respondents to rate motivations and enablers; and 重大 (jūdai), meaning “serious; important; significant; grave; weighty” when asking about the barriers. We asked respondents to consider and evaluate the salience of the factors presented to them from the perspective of their administration through three major question stages.

In the first mandatory stage of the questionnaire, respondents rated the salience of each factor for their municipality on a five-point unipolar Likert scale, ranging from “1” (“of no significant importance”) to “5” (“very important”). Descriptive statistics (mean scores and standard deviations) were computed for each item, excluding “I don’t know” responses. Thus, items receiving mean scores above “4” indicate they were frequently rated “important” or “very important,” therefore, highlighting their strong salience to municipalities. In the second stage (optional), to avoid potential bias where all items may be perceived as important [97], we asked respondents to select the “single most significant” factor within each category. Together, the two stages of the survey (Likert-scale ratings and forced prioritization) provide comprehensive and complementary insights into the MBEs of climate action that local authorities deem most significant in their respective municipalities. Finally, in the third question stage (optional), we provided space for respondents to offer free-text elaborations through open-ended comments, allowing us to further triangulate the quantitative insights and gain some qualitative depth.

Our survey targeted all 489 municipalities in Japan with Zero-Carbon Cities commitments as of January 2022 (Figure 2) and was conducted between June and August 2022. Although additional municipalities made declarations before the survey commenced, we maintained our initial sample, considering that newly declared municipalities would require some time after their declarations in order to respond adequately.

While Zero-Carbon City declarations in Japan include both prefectural and municipal governments [20], we focus specifically on municipalities (i.e., cities, towns, villages), leaving prefectures outside the scope of our study. Specifically, our respondents were municipal officials responsible for net-zero policy, typically working within environmental departments or other climate-related agencies that focus on green growth, circular economy, or related sectors. Such officials are assumed to possess the most accurate knowledge regarding climate policy and associated MBEs within their municipal administrations [56].

After finalizing the questionnaire in English, we translated it into Japanese with the assistance of native speakers. To ensure accuracy and clarity, we sought feedback from climate policy scholars from Kyoto University and Toyo University, as well as from practitioners at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Further, we pilot-tested the questionnaire with a local government official from Kitakyushu City Hall, who also provided additional feedback on the appropriateness and clarity of the language from a municipal official’s viewpoint.

We obtained contact information for the targeted 489 municipalities primarily by reviewing their official websites and identifying the department responsible for Zero-Carbon City declarations. When this information was unavailable, we utilized official inquiry forms or contacted municipal call centers. After explaining the purpose of our survey and requesting permission to distribute the questionnaire, we received approval from 446 municipalities. Subsequently, we distributed the questionnaire via email, offering it in both PDF and Google Forms formats, along with explanatory documents and consent forms. To encourage responses, we sent reminders via email or called.

We received responses from 309 municipalities (63% response rate), whose jurisdictions cover approximately 49 million people (about 44% of Japan’s population). Response rates across administrative categories closely mirrored the overall distribution, with each achieving a response rate of around 60% (

Table 4. Survey sample characteristics and response rates by administrative category.

Administrative Category	Total Municipalities in Japan	Contacts (Zero-Carbon Cities as of January 2022)	Responses (Response Rate, %)	Mean Population of Responded Jurisdictions
Designated City 1	20	19	11 (58%)	1,421,257
Special wards (Tokyo) 2	23	15	10 (67%)	410,162
City	772	296	202 (68%)	141,090
Town, Village	926	159	86 (54%)	11,908
Total	1740	489	309 (63%)	159,416

¹ Designated Cities are large municipalities (population ≥ 500,000) with enhanced administrative autonomy granted by national ordinance. ² Special wards within the Tokyo Metropolis have administrative autonomy comparable to independent cities. Source: Authors; Population Census 2020. Note: for individual details on each surveyed municipality, see Table S2 in Supplementary Materials.

). In the Results section, we present both aggregated findings (depicted as bars) and detailed breakdowns by administrative category (depicted as colored diamond markers).

3. Results

3.1. Motivations

Among the common motivations identified in the existing literature (Table 1), our survey further elucidates those that were most frequently perceived as salient among Zero-Carbon Cities (Figure 3). The results indicate that key motivations center around the potential benefits to local economic development (M1.1, M1.2, and M1.3). On average, municipalities tend to attach extremely high significance to these three economy-related items, which indicates the primary role of economic motivations for most respondents (see bar chart). When asked to prioritize, every fifth municipality (20%) identifies benefits to local industry development and economic revitalization (M1.2) as their top motivation. Similarly, 19% prioritize improving local energy conditions (M1.3), and 18% emphasize achieving cost savings and direct financial benefits (M1.1) (see pie chart). Another prominent motivation is the municipalities’ desire to ensure safety and resilience (M5) (i.e., perceiving vulnerability and striving to future-proof local infrastructure) through climate action, standing fourth in both evaluation and prioritization rankings.

Improving local energy conditions (M1.3), emerging as the top-ranking motivation, indicates that many municipalities recognize climate action as a clear opportunity to enhance local energy self-sufficiency. Municipalities believe that promoting local renewable energy enterprises not only increases the overall energy self-sufficiency of the municipality but also enables local authorities to reduce spending on energy imports and retain the revenues within the municipality. This strengthens local economic sustainability while contributing to the overall goal of achieving net-zero emissions. All municipalities evaluate this motivation equally highly, regardless of their administrative divisions. Similarly, the direct financial benefits (M1.1) motive (i.e., cost savings and added value from more efficient equipment and green buildings, etc.) consistently ranks highly among all municipality types.

We observe more nuanced patterns regarding local economic growth and revitalization through developing the “green” industry sector (M1.2). This motivation reflects municipalities’ aspirations to reverse depopulation and economic stagnation by fostering green businesses, creating new jobs, attracting residents, and consequently enhancing local tax revenues and overall economic vitality. Notably, the revitalization motive is particularly salient among larger (designated) cities. This finding aligns well with Japan’s socioeconomic context, where (except for Tokyo, Osaka, and a few other thriving urban centers) many large industrial legacy cities grapple with ongoing population decline and economic slowdown. Consequently, these large legacy cities actively seek new identities and growth pathways, including placing green industries at the center of their revitalization strategies.

Motivations such as improving residents’ well-being and health (M2) and gaining the “green city” reputation (M4.1) are also significant on average among all responding municipalities, albeit slightly less than the economic and safety motives. As for the former (M2), municipalities strive to raise their residents’ overall quality of life by addressing air pollution, traffic congestion, and urban heat islands through urban greening, sustainable transportation, and other actions, with 12% picking this aspect as their foremost motivation. Notably, this motivation is especially significant for larger municipalities (designated cities and Tokyo wards). The latter motivation (M4.1) reflects municipalities’ ambitions to gain recognition and a favorable reputation as sustainable, eco-friendly communities and is prioritized by 8% of respondents, evenly distributed across administrative categories.

Other motivations appear less prominent. However, the motivation of cities for setting the trend as champions of climate action (M4.2) emerges as relatively important among populous cities (designated cities and Tokyo wards), which is consistent with their higher responsibility and larger capacity for action. Lastly, in a rather notable outcome, the altruistic objective of aligning with global norms and contributing to global betterment (M6) closes the rank as the least salient motivation.

In summary, our results show that in the pursuit of net-zero emissions, responded municipalities tend to be driven the most by economic and resilience motivations and, to a slightly lesser degree, by the opportunities to enhance residents’ quality of life and to boost the city’s brand and reputation.

3.2. Barriers

3.2.1. Category I: Municipal Capacity Constraints—Authority and Resources

The first category encompasses barriers related to municipal capacity constraints in terms of authority and resources (Figure 4). The survey identifies constrained municipal budgets (B1.4), lack of climate-dedicated staff (B1.7), and high upfront costs of climate initiatives (B1.6) as the most significant barriers, receiving the highest average ratings (see bar chart). Likewise, when respondents were asked to select “the single most important” barrier, approximately two-thirds (69%) chose one of these three items (see pie chart), confirming their salience.

Constrained municipal budget (B1.4) emerges as the most significant barrier overall (mean score of 4.4), with nearly one-third of respondents (93 out of 307) selecting it as their primary constraint. Despite net-zero commitments, most municipalities struggle to allocate sufficient funds to net-zero initiatives alongside their existing public service responsibilities. This barrier is rated highly across all municipal categories, with the notable exception of Tokyo wards.

The lack of climate-dedicated staff (B1.7) is another prominent barrier, rated highly on average and prioritized by every fifth respondent. Although closely related to budget constraints, staffing presents a separate issue, representing another severe barrier to municipalities’ climate actions. This barrier is consistently significant across all municipalities, albeit somewhat less acute in Tokyo wards.

The above results show that most local administrations are highly concerned about delivering progress toward net zero without adequate municipal budgets and staffing. Apart from dynamic urban areas like most Tokyo wards, the prominence of these concerns highlights the broader context of ongoing demographic and economic stagnation faced by many local governments in Japan. Relatedly, the high initial costs of climate action (B1.6) constitute the third most significant barrier, rated consistently high by respondents across all municipal types.

Notably, staffing shortages are particularly acute within municipal administrations themselves. Although the broader lack of specialized local workforce and technology (B1.8) is regarded as a “high barrier,” it remains less critical than the internal shortage of climate-dedicated municipal staff (B1.7), which many rate as an “extreme barrier”. Understandably, medium-sized cities and towns find the general workforce and technology constraints (B1.8) more pressing than larger and better-resourced municipalities such as designated cities and Tokyo wards.

A common thread in the results is that resource-related constraints (B1.4–B1.8) clearly dominate municipalities’ concerns, whereas barriers related to authority and control (B1.1–B1.3) are perceived as less significant. Nevertheless, the limited authority of climate agencies (B1.1) remains prominent for 12% of respondents (38 out of 307). Particularly so in Tokyo wards, where it is notably rated higher than resource-related concerns, which may signify that the capital’s ward-level climate agencies experience certain power imbalances vis-à-vis the metropolitan government.

3.2.2. Category II: Municipal Capacity Constraints—Knowledge and Expertise

Category II focuses on municipal capacity limitations regarding the knowledge and expertise needed to deliver on the net-zero commitment. Factors included here relate to insufficient specialized knowledge by the municipal staff, data gaps, and methodological shortages (Figure 5). Compared to Category I, barriers here receive slightly lower average ratings, generally between 3 (“moderate barrier”) and 4 (“high barrier”) (see bar chart).

The lack of specialized knowledge and expertise among local administration staff and policymakers (B2.1) emerges as the most prominent barrier in this category, with an average score just below 4 (“high barrier”). Notably, over half (59%) of respondents identified this factor as the single most critical barrier (see pie chart). This underscores a pervasive issue: many municipalities lack the specialized expertise needed to formulate and implement effective net-zero strategies. This challenge is likely compounded by staff shortages in local administrations, as also highlighted in our findings (see Section 3.2.1). Indeed, the emergence of climate-related tasks within the municipal administration’s sphere of responsibility, together with a general lack of experience in climate policymaking and the steep learning curve, likely adds further burden on existing staff. Standing as the most severe, this barrier dwarfs the other two barriers related to managing relevant climate data necessary for policymaking (B2.2–B2.3).

The second most salient barrier identified relates to inadequate technical instruments for handling climate data (B2.3), including the absence of standardized methods, accessible tools, and best practices available to local officials. Many municipalities are still in the initial stages of developing their net-zero strategies and face significant challenges in creating and managing datasets and systems that contain essential climate data, such as local GHG inventories. Municipalities require user-friendly tools, standardized methodologies, and practical guidelines to effectively manage data and perform essential assessments. Approximately 29% of respondents highlighted this factor as the most significant barrier within Category II.

Overall, these results illustrate the seriousness of the insufficient climate expertise among local administrators (B2.1) and the shortage of practical tools and methodologies (B2.3) across most municipalities. Notably, designated cities, which have larger populations, seem to be better equipped with both expertise and tools and tend to evaluate these issues as less significant compared to other municipal groups.

3.2.3. Category III: Institutional Coherence and Coordination Constraints

The third category encompasses the difficulties with the institutional coherence, effective management, and coordination required to achieve net-zero emissions (Figure 6). Most respondents rate items in this category as either high or moderate barriers, with average scores hovering around 3.5 (see bar chart). Overall, municipalities attach somewhat lower significance to items in this category compared to items related to municipal capacity constraints (i.e., Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.2.2). Although mean scores across items appear relatively uniform, examining respondents’ single-item priority rankings (see pie chart) reveals a more nuanced picture, highlighting two particularly critical barriers in this category.

For a third (33%) of the surveyed municipalities, the most significant challenge is insufficient collaboration and coordination on climate policy among local administration’s departments (B3.2), such as environmental, urban planning, economic development, and other relevant agencies. Scholars have consistently emphasized that effective climate action must be recognized as a multi-sectoral endeavor—one that extends beyond environmental divisions to engage various policy domains [33,41,62]. Yet, our findings reveal that many municipalities continue to face obstacles in achieving the necessary cross-departmental alignment. This issue appears especially salient for Tokyo wards and cities, likely due to their more complex administrative structures compared to smaller municipalities, where bureaucracies are more compact.

The difficulty of engaging and forming partnerships with stakeholders (B3.5) emerges as an equally significant barrier. Proactive engagement with and involvement of stakeholders are crucial not only for building a strong consensus around climate action but also for joint co-development and implementation of initiatives. Nearly one-quarter (22%) of municipalities selected stakeholder engagement as their primary challenge within this category.

Vertical coordination between national, prefectural, and municipal levels of government (B3.4), along with rigid administrative practices within local governments (B3.1), also pose notable challenges, though slightly fewer municipalities (17% and 16%, respectively) cited these as their primary barriers. The former underscores ongoing difficulties in aligning hierarchical governance structures to enable effective local action. The latter reflects how rigid conservative administrative routines and procedures, often averse to change and innovation, can slow municipalities’ responses to climate-related demands. These two factors tend to be perceived as more challenging by medium and smaller municipalities, whereas designated cities and Tokyo wards report fewer constraints in these areas.

Noticeably, designated cities generally perceive institutional barriers as less severe compared to other municipal types. This likely reflects their greater resources and more direct communication with the national government (according to their “designated” status), whereas regular cities and towns typically coordinate through prefectural authorities, and Tokyo’s special wards primarily interact with the Tokyo metropolitan government. Nonetheless, insufficient inter-departmental collaboration (B3.2) consistently emerges as a significant challenge for designated cities as well. Together with the difficulty of engaging and involving stakeholders (B3.5), these two barriers prominently represent the core institutional coherence issues faced by most municipalities in advancing their net-zero commitments.

3.2.4. Category IV: Insufficient Leadership and Political Will

Political will and leadership-related issues are the final category of barriers, addressed under Category IV (Figure 7). Items in this category received overall lower significance scores than those in other categories, with two barriers standing out.

Weak climate awareness or skepticism among municipal staff and decision-makers (B4.5) emerges as the most prominent barrier in this category, with the highest mean score of 3.7, and is identified as the single most critical barrier by approximately one-third (34%) of municipalities. This finding likely reflects the difficulty faced by climate-focused municipal staff in fostering broader acceptance within city halls about the importance of the net-zero objective. Limited commitment from top administrators and decision-makers can create competing priorities and undermine effective policy implementation. While all municipal categories rate this barrier as significant, designated cities perceive it somewhat less severely.

Low public interest, involvement, and demand for climate policy (B4.4) were evaluated second on average in this category and prioritized by approximately one-quarter (26%) of respondents. Given that successful local climate initiatives depend heavily on residents’ support and active demand for climate policies, this finding highlights officials’ concern regarding low community interest and awareness.

Other barriers received relatively modest ratings. Designated cities particularly tended to downplay the severity of this category’s factors. A relatively high share of respondents (8%) selected “I don’t know”, possibly indicating officials’ hesitancy to respond to politically sensitive topics. Nonetheless, the survey clearly reveals municipal willingness to highlight internal administrative challenges, with skepticism and weak climate awareness within city halls themselves (B4.5) emerging prominently as the category’s most critical barrier.

3.3. Enablers

3.3.1. Category I: Municipal Capacity Enablers—Authority and Resources

Adequate municipal capacity in terms of resources and authority emerges as the category with the highest-rated enabling conditions in our survey. Six enablers achieve mean scores above 4, indicating their high significance for most responding municipalities (Figure 8).

Mirroring the findings from the barriers section (Section 3.2.1), the most prominent enabling condition is the availability of an adequate municipal budget (E1.4). Unlike the barriers section, however, sufficient authority and influence by the dedicated municipal climate agency (E1.1) emerges as the second highest-rated enabler on average, and it is identified as the single most important enabler by 16% (49 out of 306) of respondents. This result is particularly noteworthy, as it indicates that most respondents believe not only that funding, but also an empowered climate agency, may significantly enable municipal net-zero efforts.

The availability of sufficient staff dedicated to climate-related tasks (E1.7), the accessibility to external funding (E1.5), as well as the presence and recognition of realizable benefits and complementarities with local policy priorities (E1.6), and the local availability of technology and a skilled workforce (E1.8) are also identified as significant enabling conditions that may substantially enhance municipalities’ net-zero progress.

3.3.2. Category II: Municipal Capacity Enablers—Knowledge and Expertise

Municipal capacity enablers related to knowledge and expertise are all considered equally important by municipalities overall (Figure 9, bar chart), albeit not as significantly as most resource- and authority-related enablers from Category I. When asked to identify the single most important enabler in this category, nearly half of the municipalities (45%) prioritize adequate climate governance expertise among municipal policymakers and staff (E2.1) (see pie chart). This result echoes findings from Category II barriers (Section 3.2.2), further emphasizing the primary necessity of having adequate expertise in municipal administrations for developing effective climate measures.

In contrast to barriers, however, access to reliable and relevant local data (e.g., GHG emissions, energy consumption) (E2.2) is considered the most significant enabler by a slightly higher proportion of municipalities (26%) compared to having access to necessary tools and instruments to support policymaking (E2.3) (20%). Designated cities, in particular, attach more significance to the former than the latter. This may indicate that larger cities with greater administrative capacities face challenges primarily in obtaining necessary data rather than in lacking the technical capabilities to process it. In contrast, for smaller cities, which may be at earlier stages of their climate response and have fewer human resources, both of the above enablers seem equally important.

3.3.3. Category III: Institutional Coherence and Coordination

Institutional coherence and coordination represent enabling factors related to effective organizational management of municipal agencies and cooperation across sectors and stakeholders (Figure 10). Such coordination can occur horizontally among administrative departments and vertically between different levels of government. Beyond the confines of the city hall, it also includes fostering closer partnerships with the private sector, academic institutions, civil society, and peer municipalities. In short, organizational coherence and coordination are about creating a collaborative ecosystem where government entities and various stakeholders work together toward common climate objectives. Overall, municipalities consider most factors in this category important, with average ratings around the value of “4” (“important enabler”) and relatively consistent evaluations across municipal groups (see bar chart).

Coordination across different administrative agencies representing diverse sectors (E3.2) is the top enabler in the category, receiving the highest average score and being identified as the single most important by every third municipality (36%). The opposite of this enabler (insufficient coordination) is also viewed as the top barrier (see Section 3.2.3), indicating the acuteness of this issue faced by most municipalities pursuing net zero. Considering that many municipalities are relatively new to climate action, establishing an organizational structure that fosters collaboration among different agencies within the administration seems to be one of the priority enablers for advancing their climate-related efforts.

Effective cooperation and engagement with local stakeholders (E3.5) emerge as another essential enabling condition, viewed by 28% of municipalities as the topmost enabler in this category. This finding highlights local officials’ clear recognition that municipal governments cannot achieve net-zero objectives without active collaboration with the private sector and civil society. At the same time, as also emerged in the barriers results (Section 3.2.3), municipalities frequently struggle to effectively leverage stakeholder engagement, underscoring the importance and challenge of this factor.

Other factors, such as effective vertical governance (E3.4) and stimulated and empowered municipal staff actively encouraged to engage with climate work (E3.1), are also viewed as significant enabling conditions, though prioritized by fewer municipalities (16% and 10%, respectively).

Interestingly, strong horizontal cooperation with peer municipalities (E3.3) comes last in the ranking. This finding is rather contrary to expectations, given that academic literature often emphasizes the facilitating role of transnational city networks.

Overall, the rankings of enabling factors in the institutional coherence category closely mirror findings from the corresponding barriers category, indicating that addressing the most acute barriers can effectively contribute to a better enabling environment. Improving cross-departmental cooperation (E3.2) and stakeholder engagement (E3.5) appear to be particularly promising areas for focus.

3.3.4. Category IV: Strong Political Will and Leadership

The final survey category—enablers related to political will and leadership (Figure 11)—includes factors that reflect the proactive stance of actors toward climate policy. Overall, municipalities rate enabling conditions in this category notably higher (means ≈ 4) compared to corresponding barriers (means ≈ 3) (see also Section 3.2.4). Additionally, a rather different set of items emerges at the top compared to barriers, highlighting their asymmetrical nature.

The most prominent enabler in this category is the presence of climate policy champions among local leaders (E4.1). This item receives the highest average evaluation (mean above 4), and, notably, 40% (122 out of 307) of municipalities select it as the single most important factor. Such a result is a testament to the important role of local leaders—including mayors, chiefs, or governors—in mobilizing political and institutional resources to advance the net-zero agenda.

Other significant enablers include strong vision, enthusiasm, and leadership by the upper echelons of government (E4.2), as well as citizens exhibiting high interest and demand for climate policy (E4.4). The former speaks to a strong, proactive stance on climate policy by the national government and ruling political parties, which contributes to a high-level political environment conducive to local-level action. The latter highlights a similarly crucial theme—that residents have a high awareness of the issue and support the government’s climate initiatives. Out of all respondents, 22% and 21%, respectively, chose these items as their most important ones.

All items within this category are rated relatively equally across different municipal groups, suggesting that political will and leadership enablers hold similar importance, regardless of municipalities’ population size or administrative status. One slight exception involves designated cities—they place somewhat greater emphasis on citizens’ interest and support for climate policy (E4.4). This highlights the importance of citizen awareness, in addition to the enthusiasm from local leaders and high-level government tiers.

4. Discussion and Implications

4.1. Major Motivations

4.1.1. Dominance of Economic Motivations and Space for Broader Motivational Perspectives

Earlier survey studies identified “energy and cost savings” [43], “local development” [32], and “saving money” [44] as major motivations for local governments pursuing climate action. While our findings from surveying net-zero committed Japanese municipalities broadly align with this literature, they also highlight more nuanced motivational factors. Specifically, the three top-ranked motivations (prioritized by 57% of respondents) revolve around opportunities to enhance municipal energy conditions (e.g., promoting “local generation local consumption” renewable energy initiatives), achieve direct financial gains (e.g., cost savings through improved energy and resource efficiency), and support local economic revitalization (e.g., reviving local industries through green sector development) (see Figure 3). These results also confirm broader, national-level analyses. For instance, Kameyama’s (2016) study of Japan’s climate policy history between 1980s and 2015 observed that climate change discourse in Japan had been framed mainly in economic and energy policy terms [98].

Confirming the potency of economic and local development rationales for local government climate action, these findings carry several implications. First and foremost, they further emphasize that economic opportunities represent some of the strongest motivations driving municipalities and thus can be strategically leveraged. For instance, policy planners can promote opportunities such as increased local energy autonomy, new revenue streams, economic revitalization, and job creation, thereby aligning climate initiatives more closely with local development priorities, attracting private-sector engagement, and building a strong economic case for local action toward net zero. Success stories demonstrating effective leveraging of these opportunities, such as the floating offshore wind power project in Goto City, for instance, can serve as inspiring examples [72].

At the same time, however, scholarly literature cautions that an overemphasis on economic and technological rationales also presents risks. Krause (2013) cautions that local governments driven primarily by financial objectives tend to develop less comprehensive climate plans and show lower implementation commitment [43]. Similarly, Kameyama (2016) observed that Japan has historically focused on solutions related to energy efficiency and technology export overseas—largely reflecting economic concerns—with less discussion of broader long-term environmental strategies beyond incremental technology improvements [98]. Overall, there is a risk that local climate strategies narrowly focused on financial gains and technological solutions may attract only limited support (primarily from stakeholders directly benefiting economically) and may propagate a short-term focus on immediate costs, potentially overlooking broader synergies and long-term co-benefits.

One potential strategy to mitigate such risks is to promote climate action’s linkages with widely shared people’s values (e.g., safety, health, and autonomy), which is also a core principle of effective climate communication and public engagement [88]. Doing so could expand stakeholder engagement, enable more comprehensive policy design, and strengthen the long-term viability of local climate initiatives. In this light, insights into other highly valued motivations from our survey, beyond economy-related ones, could prove useful.

For instance, the survey revealed that ensuring residents’ safety through climate measures that enhance local resilience is a highly rated motivation among many municipalities (ranked 4th in our results). In the Japanese context, the emphasis on safety likely reflects a historical awareness of frequent natural disasters. However, safety and resilience may also serve as compelling motivators for municipalities globally, particularly in light of rapidly escalating climate-induced disaster risks. This motivation, reflecting widely shared concerns, offers a unifying rationale that can mobilize support across diverse stakeholder groups, bridging political divides and conflicting interests.

Further, improving quality of life (QoL) and public health is another relatively high-ranked motivation, as shown by the survey. Emphasizing and promoting well-being and health-related co-benefits further offers a promising strategy for enhanced stakeholder support, public engagement, and cross-sectoral coordination [74], as well as more sustained action amid crises [18]. Notably, our survey indicates that this motivation, although ranked relatively highly (rated “important” on average and prioritized by 12% of respondents), remains overshadowed by stronger aspirations related to economic development opportunities and safety concerns. This suggests that the potential of QoL improvements as a compelling narrative for climate action remains underutilized in Japanese municipalities—and we believe it merits greater emphasis not only in Japan but also beyond.

In sum, while our findings confirm the dominance of local economy and development motivations driving municipal climate actions, they also show that those related to widely shared people’s values, such as safety and resilience, as well as quality of life and health, increasingly contribute to this drive. As these broader motivations still remain somewhat overshadowed by economic objectives, there is significant potential—in Japan and beyond—to better highlight and leverage them, thus further enhancing the adoption of ambitious climate policies, ensuring wider stakeholder support, and sustaining long-term commitment toward action.

4.1.2. Embracing Local Aspirations

An earlier large-scale survey by Aylett (2014) found that “generating political capital” was the highest-rated motivation theme for municipal mitigation planning among ICLEI-member cities [32]. More recent studies, such as analyses of municipal climate emergency declarations, similarly emphasized “political positioning and international signaling” as major motivations behind such proclamations [15]. By contrast, our survey of net-zero committed Japanese municipalities revealed that such outward-oriented motivations—i.e., alignment with higher-level frameworks, contributing to global efforts, pursuing reputational gains, or demonstrating leadership—were mentioned far less often (in sum, prioritized by 15% of respondents, with average scores around “3” on a five-point Likert scale). Instead, much higher ranked were inward-oriented place-based motives such as local economic gains, community safety and resilience, and quality-of-life improvements (in sum, prioritized by 85% and scoring “4”) (see Figure 3).

This distinct dominance of inward, rather than outward, orientation among major municipal motivations is noteworthy. It reflects that Japanese municipalities, in their movement toward net-zero emissions, tend to be driven largely by grassroots motivations rooted in local objectives and tangible community benefits, in a rather pragmatic, locally oriented approach to climate governance. This suggests the significant role of such community-focused motivations, with both theoretical implications for urban climate governance and practical insights for climate communication and policymaking.

For instance, emphasizing locally resonant co-benefits—that is, making climate action part and parcel of ground-up community aspirations toward improving the overall well-being of their neighborhoods—may represent an important strategy to increase the resilience of climate action amid political shifts and external shocks. Indeed, although without implying causality, observing international experiences hints that climate commitments anchored in community-level co-benefits tend to endure amid higher-level political fluctuations or unforeseen crises. For example, despite the United States’ back-and-forth withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, hundreds of American cities vowed to continue their climate initiatives [19,99]. Their mayors cite local job creation, cleaner air, and energy savings as important opportunities and openly lament that the federal government’s backtracking on climate undermines their communities’ welfare [100,101]. Similarly, many cities continued stable climate efforts despite the COVID-19 pandemic and related economic downturn [102], with links to tangible community co-benefits (like improved public health outcomes) proving particularly important [18]. Complementing these international observations, our survey adds a relevant insight: among the various intrinsic motivations driving Japanese municipalities toward net zero, pragmatic, inward-oriented community-based objectives resonate most strongly with local governments, in clear contrast to outward-oriented motives.

This is not to claim that the net-zero agenda, as observed in Japanese municipalities, will be particularly resilient, which remains to be seen. Nevertheless, this finding may add to ongoing discussions in theories of local governance, such as polycentric and multilevel governance. Both theories have been frequently employed to explain why bottom-up climate governance is often more effective than top-down approaches—epitomized by the success of the Paris Agreement (which ratchets up bottom-up party-determined commitments), in contrast to the more prescriptive Kyoto Protocol [103], as well as by the emergence of city frontrunners and municipal climate networks actively advancing climate policy amidst sluggish (if not backward) federal action [61]. Polycentric governance emphasizes the independent role of multiple actors, driven to self-organize partly by perceived local benefits [104], whereas multilevel governance highlights the significance of municipalities operating both vertically—along hierarchical government levels (e.g., national, regional, and local)—and horizontally, through collaborations with peer cities and other non-state actors [38]. In this context, our finding that inward-oriented, community-focused motivations prevail among Japanese net-zero-committed municipalities may add depth to the understanding of what moves local governments to engage with climate action and why approaches with strong bottom-up elements tend to prevail over strictly top-down climate governance models. We encourage future research to further explore and theorize on what this apparent dominance of inward motivations among local governments pursuing net-zero may imply.

Turning from theory to practice, we propose that policymakers and climate communicators—both within Japan and internationally—might benefit from placing greater emphasis on locally meaningful co-benefits when framing climate initiatives. Clearly connecting global mitigation objectives to concrete local improvements in livelihoods, community safety, and quality of life may help strengthen stakeholder support, buffer climate programs from higher-level political fluctuations, and enhance the sustained engagement necessary to progress toward net-zero goals.

One specific policy example that leverages these principles is the promotion of decentralized municipal renewable energy projects, employing public-private business models that focus on generating electricity locally from renewable sources and retaining revenue within the community. Such business models are already operating in some Japanese municipalities, such as Miyama City [24] and Goto City [72]. This approach offers significant local benefits, including additional tax revenues that strengthen municipal budgets for broader developmental goals, local job creation through energy project operations and associated manufacturing opportunities, enhanced energy autonomy and supply stability, reduced energy costs, and improved local air quality. Communicators can emphasize such benefits to create the necessary stakeholder support for such municipal energy projects.

4.2. Major Barriers and Enablers

4.2.1. Municipal Capacity for Net Zero (I): Budgets, Staff, and Climate Teams’ Authority

While the existing literature often highlights budgetary constraints in municipalities as a barrier to climate action [2,3,34,36,53,63,93], including several related survey findings [32,44,105], our results empirically underscore the paramount salience of this issue across numerous municipalities in Japan relative to many other barriers (see Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). Simultaneously, the adequate municipal budget was also identified as the top-ranked enabler (see Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11). The imperatives of channeling necessary finances toward climate action at the local level are thus further emphasized.

Given that our survey respondents were local officials responsible for net-zero policy, these findings should be interpreted as not simply the general lack of municipal budget (although local governments do often operate under tight financial constraints) but rather as chronic underfunding related explicitly to climate measures planned and operated by dedicated municipal agencies (e.g., environmental departments). This suggests that necessary budgets could be more strategically channeled and more effectively distributed. As mentioned by Burch (2010b), addressing the issue could be “less a matter of creating more capacity than of facilitating the effective use of existing resources” [81]. Still, the general fiscal stress of municipalities is certainly an overarching problem.

Budget issues are intertwined with staffing challenges and the institutional authority of municipal climate departments, both of which emerged prominently in our survey results (see Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.3.1). These findings align with existing scholarly concerns, highlighting that climate governance frequently depends on small climate teams or environmental agencies that are understaffed, inadequately funded, and generally marginalized within municipal administrations. While viewing environmental issues as secondary, many municipalities are reluctant to redirect their already constrained resources toward expanding climate-focused roles and activities, given other competing and immediate local priorities [32,33,41,80,81]. Many open-ended qualitative responses confirm this, exemplified in this respondent’s statement: “There is a significant shortage of staff, leaving no capacity to dedicate personnel solely to global warming countermeasures. Securing sufficient budget is also difficult”.

Overall, as evidenced among surveyed Japanese municipalities, key municipal capacity factors related to resources and authority, specifically the availability of dedicated funding and personnel, act as key barriers and potentially (if properly addressed) as powerful enabling conditions for local action toward net zero. Given the general resource constraints in municipalities—even more so in environmental departments—policymakers should consider a more optimal distribution and allocation of both financial and human resources toward net-zero objectives. Relatedly, ensuring sufficient authority of the dedicated climate agency (a key enabler) can be a promising strategy, potentially contributing to more efficient coordination and pooling of resources toward climate policy needs. Indeed, this enabler’s perceived importance correlates with 11 other barriers/enablers, indicating its high interconnectedness and hence high potential (see

Table A3. Salient local climate governance factors correlating with over 10 other factors (based on survey data of Japanese municipalities working toward net-zero).

N	MBE Item	N of Correlated Factors (ρ > 0.3)
1	E2.1. Adequate climate governance expertise among local administration staff and policymakers	15
2	E3.1. Municipal staff are stimulated, empowered, and actively encouraged to engage in climate work (climate-conducive administrative work culture)	15
3	E3.4. Effective vertical climate governance across all government levels (national, regional, local)	14
4	E1.8. Local access to low-carbon solutions (e.g., technology and workforce)	13
5	E3.2. Effective cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation on climate policy among local administration agencies	13
6	B3.5. Difficulty in engaging and forming partnerships with local stakeholders for co-creation and joint implementation	13
7	E3.5. Strong stakeholder engagement (e.g., businesses, residents) in local climate action	13
8	E1.1. Sufficient authority and influence of the dedicated climate agency	11
9	E2.2. Access to reliable and locally relevant data	11
10	E4.4. Citizens exhibiting high interest and demand for climate policy	11

The table shows factors exhibiting moderate-to-strong correlations (ρ > 0.3) with numerous other motivations, barriers, and enablers (MBEs). Factors correlating with over 10 others are shown (ordered from the most frequently correlated). Codes “B” and “E” indicate barriers and enablers, respectively. For correlation values of all MBE factors, see Table S3 in Supplementary Materials. Source: Authors’ analysis (software MAXQDA 2024).

).

4.2.2. Municipal Capacity for Net Zero (II): A Critical Human Expertise Factor

Our findings clearly highlight the need for sufficient specialized climate governance expertise among municipal staff as a critical priority. Every second surveyed municipality identified insufficient staff’s climate expertise as the most significant knowledge-related barrier—and adequate climate expertise as a top enabling factor—far surpassing factors related to data access or analytical tools (see Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.3.2). This underscores a clear sequence: without qualified personnel, even high-quality data or advanced instruments may remain underutilized.

The issue is likely exacerbated by chronic staff shortages discussed above (see Section 4.2.1). Indeed, the existing literature notes that climate-related responsibilities often become additional tasks for already overstretched staff [41,62]. Qualitative responses, especially by smaller municipalities, corroborate this: “… there is no dedicated department here—staff handle these duties alongside other responsibilities, with no full-time specialists. As a result, a lack of specialized knowledge and capacity is unavoidable.”

Yet, addressing expertise gaps through additional staffing is complicated by constrained financial and human resources (as also discussed above). Hence, optimizing resource allocation and workflows to effectively leverage existing human resources remains crucial [81]. In this context, efforts to reduce barriers related to data access and develop easy-to-use technical tools that support policymaking remain relevant. Better availability of climate data and practical analytical methods can amplify the effectiveness of existing staff expertise and contribute directly to improved resource utilization. At the same time, addressing the insufficient expertise barrier and transforming it into an enabler (adequate expertise) promises high leverage, amplifying multiple enablers simultaneously. For instance, savvy climate-governance personnel can access external funding, enhance internal coordination, increase stakeholder involvement, etc. Indeed, the correlation analysis conducted on survey responses identified the adequate climate expertise enabler as the most interconnected one, with 15 other factors associated with it (see Table A3).

Expertise deficits appear particularly acute in smaller jurisdictions compared to larger designated cities, reflecting their often more limited capacities [41,62]. National and regional governments might, therefore, strategically prioritize targeted capacity-building to support these localities. Possible strategies to strengthen municipal expertise include implementing training programs and refining administrative practices. For instance, to allow in-house expertise to accumulate, adjusting the staff rotation system seems necessary. In Japan, municipal staff are frequently transferred between departments. Many respondents highlighted this issue in their open-ended responses, with one stating the following: “Due to personnel transfers, there are periods when work must proceed without specialized knowledge. I wish skills gained in other departments could be utilized, but I feel that is not currently the case”.

Another strategy is engagement in regional or international municipal networks for knowledge exchange and staff capacity-building [2,78]. Additionally, academia and public–private entities could play a pivotal role by partnering more closely with municipalities to develop accessible tools and data systems that facilitate informed decision-making.

While our survey findings related to stretched municipal human resources likely reflect the specific Japanese context (marked by an aging society and regional depopulation), they also carry broader international implications—particularly for smaller and lower-capacity municipalities globally—which similarly face significant human expertise challenges as they embark upon net-zero action.

4.2.3. Cooperation for Net Zero: City Units’ Collaboration and Stakeholder Involvement

Even when municipal staff possess appropriate knowledge, competencies, and skills, a lack of organizational coherence and collaboration among actors can significantly undermine the effectiveness of local climate efforts [50]. Our survey highlights two particularly salient factors of this nature: cross-departmental coordination within municipalities and effective engagement with local stakeholders.

In Japan’s context, the salience of the former likely reflects a broader organizational culture where vertical siloes is still largely the norm, also known as “tatewari gyōsei” (literally “vertically segmented administration”). As highlighted by Samuels (2013), the entrenched bureaucratic fragmentation “has long been a problem in Japanese governance”, for instance, hampering Japan’s crisis response during the 3.11 triple disaster (earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear accident) [106]. Indeed, one surveyed official explicitly mentions: “The environment division is already understaffed, and tatewari gyōsei further isolates it—this undermines the advancement of climate policy.”

However, the salience of this problem extends beyond Japan’s bureaucracy and also reflects a widespread climate governance issue, where climate action is often viewed as a purely environmental issue and thus confined to environmental departments alone, which are typically situated on the margins of administrative structures [33,38,62]. Consequently, officials responsible for climate policy find it challenging to implement meaningful action since effective climate policy requires cooperation and input from multiple relevant sectors (planning, infrastructure, energy, welfare, etc.). Another respondent states the following: “Because the environmental department is the only unit that leads the city in addressing climate change issues, it is difficult to actually come up with concrete proposals … and to lead other departments”.

Other challenges (e.g., limited dedicated budgets, staff, authority, and expertise), also highlighted in the survey responses (discussed above), are all exacerbating the overall marginalization of climate policy, making cross-sectoral coordination among municipal departments a key issue. The absence of such coordination is detrimental to climate governance, and, conversely, when present, it strongly enables effective action and helps address many adjacent barriers (e.g., by facilitating the pooling of necessary resources and expertise from across policy sectors and administrative divisions).

To address this, the climate governance literature often calls for climate action to be both better “institutionalized” (i.e., creating necessary administrative structures to house the climate policy and coordinate it across different sectors and actors) and better “mainstreamed” (i.e., embedding climate considerations into current non-climate municipal policies and municipal agencies’ operations) [33,53,63,81]. Accordingly, to enhance institutionalization and mainstreaming of climate policy, scholars suggest various measures. These include positioning the coordination of climate policy within the Chief Executive’s office [33], creating a dedicated “overarching unit with appropriate competencies for mainstreaming climate policy, supported by issue-specific task forces” [53], or establishing “multi-departmental steering committees” [81]. Additionally, some scholars advocate integrating accountability mechanisms across multiple departments—for example, by requiring regular reporting on climate objectives [33] or implementing performance management systems to assess the achievements of different departments against net-zero targets [34]. Other studies propose that promoting informal communication between climate and non-climate staff, assigning climate coordination roles within various municipal departments, and aligning climate policy objectives with existing non-climate priorities represent effective approaches for facilitating cross-departmental mainstreaming [62].

In addition to cooperation among municipal departments, effective climate policy requires venturing “beyond the confines of local authorities to engage with stakeholders and communities” [33]. Municipal governments cannot achieve substantial progress without involving, collaborating with, and partnering across a broad range of private and civil society actors. Such collaboration enables municipal authorities to extend the reach of their initiatives beyond their direct jurisdiction, bridge capacity gaps, and achieve greater impact at scale. Furthermore, engaging residents as key stakeholders helps enhance transparency in decision-making, achieve greater public acceptance, develop context-specific solutions, and promote necessary behavioral changes. Although comprehensive stakeholder engagement may have certain downsides, such as being time-consuming and costly [107], it is widely recognized as beneficial and is actively recommended for effective climate governance [2,3,4,40,62,88]. Consistent with existing studies [33,34,39] and strongly echoed in responses from municipal authorities, our survey findings from Japan empirically confirm that stakeholder engagement ranks among both the most critical challenges and the most promising enablers of local climate action. Furthermore, the perceived importance of this factor correlates with the salience of numerous other barriers and enablers (see Table A3), indicating that leveraging stakeholder engagement may simultaneously enhance other aspects of local climate action.

The climate governance literature suggests various directions towards improving stakeholder participation and engagement. Well-designed communication programs and more inclusive modes of policymaking—involving stakeholders in two-way deliberations with the government, including contributions to planning and decision-making—create a greater sense of ownership and enable greater engagement with climate policies [34,60,87,88]. Further, mechanisms such as citizens’ assemblies on climate change, where members of the public participate in learning, deliberation, and developing recommendations, are gaining prominence not only in European contexts (e.g., [108]) but also in Japanese municipalities [109]. Moreover, experimental engagement and co-creation platforms, often termed “urban living labs,” encourage stakeholders to discuss, collaborate, and experiment with developing and implementing new ideas and initiatives. Among various benefits, these platforms may give birth to surprising and inspiring creative solutions, which, if scaled up, may accelerate transitions toward carbon-neutral futures [48,110,111].

Overall, our findings in Japan highlight the prominence of the horizontal dimension of multi-level governance, particularly intra-municipal coordination and collaboration with stakeholders. Vertical coordination between levels of government also ranked relatively high, although not as prominently. Notably, the enabling potential of horizontal cooperation between municipalities, including through city networks, received little attention in the survey. This may reflect the comparatively limited institutionalization or perceived relevance of inter-municipal collaboration in Japan’s local governance landscape, with internal coordination and stakeholder engagement seen as more immediate and actionable priorities.

4.2.4. Political Will for Net Zero: Champions, Executive Awareness, and Citizen Support

The survey indicates that, despite Zero-Carbon City commitments proclaimed, a weak problem perception or skepticism within city halls remains a critical barrier (see Section 3.2.4). Indeed, regarding staff climate awareness, scholars emphasize the importance for city managers to clearly recognize “the potential, necessity, opportunities, and benefits of addressing global concerns in local management,” as well as “the risks and consequences of not doing so” [56]. A lack of such awareness has also been noted as “a factor behind slow governmental reactions” [58]. Consequently, addressing barriers and leveraging enablers described in earlier sections becomes significantly more challenging when municipal managers themselves remain unconvinced or skeptical about the necessity of climate action.

Low interest, involvement, and demand for climate policy by the residents further exacerbate the problem. The influence of local stakeholders on government decision-making is significant, and a high level of public support is necessary for the development and implementation of successful climate policies. Local constituencies’ lack of awareness, poor grasp of climate science, or simply lack of concern (i.e., “not my business”) limits the policy options that local government can justify or is willing to adopt [34,56]. Relatedly, increased public awareness is critical for promoting behavioral change toward low-carbon lifestyles—an inherently complex “wicked” problem with no easy solutions [34,60,88]. Furthermore, strong public support underpins successful stakeholder engagement and deliberative processes [3], which, as discussed previously (Section 4.2.3), play important roles in enabling local climate action.

When residents express strong concern for climate issues, promoting and adopting climate policies becomes a matter of common sense for municipal leaders who are responsive to voter demands [57]. However, in the absence of such public concern, proactive climate policy champions are essential to elevating and sustaining climate action as a priority on the municipal agenda. Indeed, our survey clearly identified the presence of dedicated climate policy champions among local leaders as one of the most significant enabling factors toward effective local climate action. Interestingly, while the absence of climate policy champions was not necessarily perceived as a major barrier, their presence emerged as a highly salient enabler. This underscores the substantial added value provided by dedicated climate policy leaders in driving municipal climate initiatives forward.

Indeed, a substantial body of literature highlights the critical role played by individual leaders in initiating, championing, and advancing policy innovations [112], including those related to climate action [2,36,37]. Such climate champions (often influential executives or political figures like mayors, governors, or senior bureaucrats) serve as catalysts for local climate initiatives [34]. Numerous studies demonstrate how visionary mayors and other proactive leaders have effectively driven low-carbon transitions across various urban policy sectors, including renewable energy, transportation, and green building initiatives [30,33,39,41,58]. Our survey adds further empirical support to this literature, highlighting the importance of climate policy entrepreneurs in creating an enabling environment for climate action, as acknowledged by responses from numerous municipalities across Japan.

Overall, our findings suggest that enhancing climate awareness among municipal executives and, similarly, among residents, as well as cultivating proactive local climate leaders, is essential for overcoming political inertia and sustaining climate actions. Policymakers might, therefore, prioritize various interventions targeting these aspects to improve the overall political will and leadership environment. For instance, they can promote and clearly communicate various tangible local benefits of climate policies (in this regard, our insights into key motivations, as described in Section 4.1, could be particularly relevant). Additionally, they can initiate climate education and awareness-raising activities [33,56,88] and foster meaningful interactions between city officials and residents to build trust [34]. Furthermore, municipalities can increase their leaders’ (e.g., mayors) engagement with climate through regional and international training platforms (e.g., the Asia–Pacific Mayors Academy [68]), which can enhance their “climate champion” qualities. In sum, addressing key low awareness drawbacks (both in city halls and among residents) and fostering local climate leaders could effectively create an enhanced enabling environment to support local climate action.

4.3. Applicability Beyond Japan

While our study is grounded in the Japanese context, many of its findings are expected to have broader relevance. The analytical framework and its broad categories, which we developed from the international literature, are not Japan-specific and can be applied across diverse municipal contexts. Although the relative salience of specific factors identified by Japanese municipalities may differ in other contexts, many of the key items are likely to resonate widely with other cities globally.

Operating under a unitary governance structure (as opposed to federal systems), Japanese municipalities—with the exception of large, affluent cities—typically possess limited formal authority and remain fiscally dependent on the national government [24,113]. This reliance on external support—for financial, technical, and human resources, as well as specialized expertise—is a condition likely shared not only by other unitary states but also by many cities in developing countries, where such capacity shortfalls are often particularly acute. Therefore, our findings on key capacity-related barriers and enablers (Categories I and II)—including the importance of sufficient budgets, skilled personnel, climate department authority, staff climate expertise, and other highly ranked factors—are likely to be relevant to a broad range of non-frontrunner municipalities globally. Furthermore, previous survey studies of local governments in federal countries (e.g., Canada and USA) have also identified some of these key factors as significant [44,105], backing the broad applicability of our findings.

Findings related to Categories III (institutional coherence) and IV (leadership and political will) also offer instructive insights applicable beyond the Japanese context. For instance, improving multi-level governance and overall institutional cohesion through strengthening enablers related to cooperation and coordination with local and external actors, peer municipalities, and other levels of government is likely to be a universal strategy of addressing the capacity shortages discussed above. Networking, collaboration, and joint implementation help pool resources and expertise, combine efforts, and increase efficiencies [4,114]. Likewise, across cities with diverse governance and income contexts, a lack of political will, stemming from a low level of climate awareness among both the general public and public officials within municipal administrations, prevents local climate action from being prioritized on the local agenda. Raising climate consciousness among local actors, including through the involvement of dedicated climate champions (a key enabler identified in our survey), will be important in a wide range of municipal settings.

With this backdrop, insights into the key motivations for climate action among Japanese municipalities can offer valuable strategic guidance for increasing political will and mobilizing stakeholders, particularly by shedding light on compelling win–win narratives that hint at potential synergies with non-climate local priorities. Despite differing development contexts, the motivations of municipalities in Japan may be surprisingly similar to those of cities in developing countries. For instance, our survey shows that economic co-benefits—such as revitalizing local industries and enhancing local energy autonomy—are among the most prominent motivations for municipalities in Japan. As many Japanese regions facing depopulation and industrial hollowing-out seek to revive their local industries and reestablish competitiveness (including through strategies like green growth and the utilization of regional resources) [115], growing cities in developing countries are also seeking to establish stable economies that ensure essential public services and affordable energy (ideally, by “leapfrogging” to low-carbon sustainable development [4]). Similarly, Japan’s acute awareness of disaster risks (historically shaped by frequent experiences of earthquakes and typhoons) echoes the growing climate vulnerabilities faced by many cities worldwide. Finally, the drive to enhance livability and public health through measures such as reducing air pollution, mitigating urban heat islands, and other quality-of-life improvements is likely to be broadly relevant across diverse urban settings. As one municipal official succinctly put it “I believe it is important, in promoting decarbonization efforts, to approach them with the understanding that they are not about imposing burdens or restrictions, but rather about leading to improvements in daily life and revitalization of the local economy.”

In sum, despite inherent contextual differences, the empirical insights from Japan regarding salient local climate action MBEs can be informative and indicative for municipalities in diverse international contexts, although the Japanese contextuality remains a limitation to generalizations.

5. Conclusions

Ensuring consistent progress towards cities’ carbon-neutral futures requires understanding of the critical aspects of urban climate governance—specifically, the key motivations that inspire and drive municipalities to pursue net-zero goals, as well as the key barriers and enablers on their pathway. To date, however, these critical aspects have not been sufficiently explored. To bridge this gap, our study synthesized an integrated analytical framework of motivations, barriers, and enablers (MBEs) from existing scholarship (see Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 and Figure 1) and empirically distilled the most salient factors through a large-scale survey targeting 489 Zero-Carbon Cities in Japan. We received responses from 309 municipalities, providing a comprehensive yet focused overview of the key MBEs shaping municipal climate action in Japan, with insights potentially generalizable to similar contexts.

The results revealed that committed Japanese municipalities pursuing net zero perceive the opportunities to enhance local economic conditions as their primary motivations. These include improving municipal energy conditions (e.g., increasing energy self-sufficiency and generating local energy revenues), achieving direct financial benefits (from efficiency improvements, increased value-added, etc.), and revitalizing local areas focusing on “green” industry development (thus creating jobs, attracting investment, talent, etc.). Further important motivations include ensuring safety and resilience against disasters and disruptions (e.g., to energy supply), enhancing residents’ quality of life (e.g., improved health through cleaner air, reduced traffic, and physically active commute), and boosting the area’s image to attract new residents, businesses, and investors.

Key barriers and enablers to municipal climate action were ranked by respondents across four categories: (I) municipal capacity in terms of resources and authority, highlighting the critical importance of adequate budgets, dedicated staff, and empowered climate agencies; (II) municipal capacity in terms of climate knowledge and expertise, emphasizing the necessity for municipal staff to possess specialized climate-policy competencies; (III) organizational coherence and cooperation, underscoring the need for effective cross-sectoral coordination and stakeholder engagement; and (IV) political will and leadership, revealing that skepticism and limited awareness among both city officials and the public present significant challenges, whereas local climate champions and upper-governments’ pro-climate stance constitute top enabling conditions.

These findings are summarized in a conceptual figure providing a bird’s-eye view of the highest-ranked MBEs (Figure 12).

Our overarching recommendation for both research and policy is to prioritize attention, resources, and efforts toward leveraging and addressing the identified key MBEs as they represent high-potential focal points toward more effective local climate action. In this regard, we have outlined potentially significant implications and offered our recommendations for targeted interventions in these important areas (see Section 4).

Our study has several limitations. First, although we discuss the general applicability of our findings to other countries (see Section 4.3), our exclusive focus on Japan remains an acknowledged limitation for broader generalizations. Second, our analysis relied exclusively on perspectives of municipal officials responsible for climate policy, potentially differing from views of other local stakeholders. Similarly, assuming these officials’ responses fully represent their municipal administrations introduces another limitation. Finally, despite efforts to reduce biases (e.g., through a two-stage survey design), some inherent subjectivity in self-reported, opinion-based surveys remains unavoidable.

Future research may explore specific solutions that address the key barriers, including leveraging interconnections with enablers and motivations. Indeed, we invite future research to build upon our framework and empirical findings by considering possible relationships and feedback loops between the key motivations, enablers, and barriers in order to develop more effective interventions. Follow-up studies employing our analytical framework in different geographical contexts or adapting it to other stakeholder groups would further enhance the generalizability of insights and improve the overall understanding of factors influencing local climate action. Additionally, investigating non-committed municipalities could offer insights into alternative perspectives and challenges. Finally, deeper explorations of the characteristics of respondents and non-respondents (e.g., income distribution, political constellations, and GHG emission profiles) may uncover meaningful patterns and insights.

In conclusion, while numerous factors shape local climate action, clearly understanding the core motivations, barriers, and enablers behind municipal movement toward net zero is crucial. We hope that our holistic framework and empirical insights into the most salient factors identified among 309 committed municipalities in Japan will facilitate future research and policy that effectively leverage compelling motivations, strategically address critical barriers, and strengthen key enabling conditions.