Which Local Jurisdictions Are Environmental Policy Entrepreneurs? Insights from Israel

Abstract

Environmental challenges demand local-level engagement. This study delves into the often overlooked entrepreneurial role played by “off-the-map” local authorities in environmental policy. By examining factors influencing Local Environmental Policy Initiatives (LEPIs), including demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, environmental impact, and promotion strategies, we offer a comprehensive analysis. In contrast to studies that spotlight prominent cities, we prioritize the majority—ordinary local governments. Leveraging Israel as a case study, we employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, to validate prior hypotheses suggesting that economically stable and larger authorities tend to initiate more LEPIs. Nevertheless, our research reveals a pro-environmental inclination, even among authorities traditionally not categorized as entrepreneurial. Consequently, smaller and less influential authorities adopt tailored approaches such as problem-framing and terminology strategies to drive environmental initiatives forward. These findings underscore the critical role of local authorities in advancing environmentally sustainable practices, emphasizing their significance in the broader landscape of environmental policy. Notably, they highlight the imperative nature of targeting strategies toward untypical entrepreneurial authorities, to maximize the potential impact of widespread environmental change from the bottom up.

1. Introduction

Environmental policy studies have traditionally focused on global [1] and national scales [2,3], overlooking the pivotal role of local jurisdictions in driving sustainable change. Lately, there is a growing awareness that addressing global environmental issues requires multilevel governance and actions in multiple levels of government [4,5,6,7], including grassroots and civil society initiatives [8,9,10,11]. However, there remains a lacuna in understanding the proactive role of local governments as policy entrepreneurs.

Several studies suggest that local governments are a major arena for environmental action [12,13], wherein independent policy initiatives arise [14,15,16]. In some cases, such local initiatives prompt national and even supranational policies [17]. Local policy seems thus to be central for innovative sustainable change, by taking responsibility for environmental issues such as reducing emissions or plastics [18,19]. In spite of the expanding research on local environmental initiatives, existing research seems to focus on the implementation phase of these policies [20,21] and their likelihood of success [7,22]. The entrepreneurial mode of local authorities receives only scant attention [23,24,25]. Yet, the factors that distinguish environmentally entrepreneurial jurisdictions from their counterparts remain poorly understood.

Hence, this study seeks to address this gap by examining the role of local jurisdictions in advancing sustainable environmental change by promoting local environmental initiatives. In contrast to widespread perceptions, local environmental policies are much more than the mere adoption and implementation of top-down initiatives [16,26,27]. Rather, local governments should be viewed as institutional entrepreneurial actors [28]. In this context, we emphasize the concept of organizations themselves being policy entrepreneurs, when “collective entities consistently and effectively nurture and train professional staff who promote policy innovation” [29] (p. 308). Indeed, studies find a range of environmental policy initiatives that are initiated by local jurisdictions [14,19]. We term these Local Environmental Policy Initiatives (LEPI), actions which are performed by local authorities without being required by the central government. LEPIs are significant due to the wide array of local jurisdictions that thereby provide a wide arena for such initiatives [30]. Moreover, local governments have the advantage of a close acquaintance with the needs of the place [31,32] and the sense of belonging of residents, thereby providing options for encouraging citizens to take part in environmental initiatives [33]. Furthermore, many environmental issues, such as noise, are primarily relevant at the local level, and therefore, local authorities are at the forefront of initiatives to address them.

Local environmental actions can be viewed in the top-down context of policy adoption or implementation [27,34]. Our definition of local environmental initiatives is broader and focuses on the innovation phase, that is, initiatives that are launched by local authorities themselves, as bottom-up initiatives [16,35] or as middle-out ones following model on energy in [36], in contrast to grassroots or civic initiatives. Moreover, studies of local environmental initiatives have tended to focus on large “forerunner” cities, such as London [37], Tokyo, and Kyoto [38], with a bias toward cities in economically developed countries [39,40]. Though some studies have looked at a range of cities [19], they largely focused on medium-sized cities [41,42]. Other studies of entrepreneurial cities or authorities largely focused on flagship projects or other unique cases [17,43,44].

Most jurisdictions are not large and leading cities but rather “off the map” [45] cities, “mostly mid-sized or smaller cities that are not high-profile progressive actors in climate governance” [46] (p. 84). Yet these are the jurisdictions where most of the global population lives. Recent studies indicate their importance in global climate action [47]. Though they do not necessarily advance flagship initiatives [48], these cities do initiate environmental policies and are important for addressing environmental issues [49]. Analyzing a wide range of local jurisdictions is crucial to distinguish environmental entrepreneurial entities from non-initiators of LEPIs. Targeting strategies towards these “ordinary” authorities, which constitute the majority, is essential to maximize the potential for widespread environmental change.

This study employs a cross-sectional national survey and subsequent in-depth interviews with thirty jurisdictions in Israel, focusing on outliers. The jurisdictions range from large cities to regional councils, encompassing diverse urban and rural settings. Additionally, the study examines initiatives beyond large projects, including mundane municipal tasks, to discern the motivations of local authorities in initiating environmental projects. This analysis serves as a foundation for identifying policy tools to incentivize environmental entrepreneurship at the local level.

This paper makes three primary contributions: Firstly, it delineates the common traits of entrepreneurial local authorities, aligning with existing research efforts to gain insights into their scope and influence. Secondly, it encompasses initiatives from both leading municipalities and localized activities, providing a comprehensive portrayal of LEPIs with significant impacts on residents and surroundings. Thirdly, it offers a horizontal view of local environmental efforts, identifying patterns of action, characteristics, and motivating factors of entrepreneurial authorities.

The research questions are the following: What characterizes environmental entrepreneurial jurisdictions, how various environmental issues are addressed locally, what motivates local jurisdictions to initiate LEPIs, and what their strategies are? A policy initiative is defined here as an action of the authority that is not a one-time event but an ongoing action or whose essence is continuous, which expresses the local agenda.

The structure of the article is as follows: In the next section, we describe the drivers for local environmental entrepreneurship. Section 3 presents the research methods. The following section describes the findings of the quantitative analysis of the survey. Then, in Section 5, the motivations for LEPIs are discussed, as elicited from the interviews. Finally, a discussion and the conclusions are presented.

2. What Drives Local Environmental Entrepreneurship?

Policy innovations, such as LEPIs, can be studied from two perspectives: external determinants and internal influence [50]. External influences can be either an outcome of national-level actions and incentives or diffusions from other cities and networks. Environmental policies at the national or state level can have both positive, such as encouraging recycling programs in US cities [51], and negative effects, for example, free-rider tendencies [27,52], or a lack of explicit expectations, complexity, and confusing policies [53], which may hinder local entrepreneurialism. In addition, studies emphasize the interplay between local jurisdictions, mainly due to membership in international city networks (such as ICLEI, C40, and others), that encourage taking responsibility for the city’s environmental influence [27,43,54] or regional administrations [55].

A major internal factor is the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the jurisdictions’ population [27,56]. It seems that strong economic and social factors contribute significantly to local environmental entrepreneurship [27], specifically the high civic capacity [57,58]. In addition, greater vulnerability to environmental hazards (causing a sense of urgency) increases the willingness of locales to promote environmental actions [59]. Policy entrepreneurs may seize on such a sense of urgency to promote their initiatives [29,60,61]. Accordingly, they may play a key role in promoting initiatives at the local level.

Multiple studies sought to characterize city initiatives and policies in the context of sustainability [7,42]. However, due to the multiple facets of sustainability and hence the inability to agree on a single definition [62], cities are ill-equipped to tackle such issues, thereby inhibiting the implementation of such policies [21]. Therefore, in this study, we focus exclusively on environmental policies. Various studies analyze local initiatives and actions regarding GHG emissions [27,63]. However, there are many other environmental issues that local authorities are dealing with that are not necessarily “climatic”, such as plastics [19] or solid waste [64]. Yet, as environmental concerns vary widely between local settings, it can be expected that different local jurisdictions will have different priorities in advancing LEPIs.

Accordingly, the paper examines two aspects that have a significant impact on the local ability to promote LEPIs: one, the local jurisdiction’s profile, and two, the environmental issue under concern.

Local authorities’ profiles vary along many dimensions, prominently population size, jurisdiction type, geographic area, population composition (age structure, religious beliefs, ethnicity, etc.), socioeconomic level, and the fiscal strength and administrative capacity of the municipality [65,66]. It is expected that larger and economically strong municipalities will promote independent environmental policies, due to their economic latitude and power [27,56,67]. This assumption has primarily been scrutinized within the realm of policy adoption, but the extent to which these variables influence LEPIs has hardly been empirically studied. We thus hypothesize that bigger, socioeconomically stronger, and financially more stable jurisdictions will tend to advance more LEPIs.

The environmental issues faced by various local jurisdictions differ in many aspects [68]. Hence, the issues to which they advance LEPIs can be expected to differ accordingly. For example, coastal and low-lying cities tend to implement flood mitigation and adaptation measures [69], which may garner lesser attention in mountainous jurisdictions. In our cases, we assume that there will be differences in the type of initiatives advanced in different jurisdictions according to their profile. We will seek to identify the tools those jurisdictions use to advance initiatives under different conditions.

This study used Israel as a case study to test these two hypotheses, based on several factors: First, while it is relatively small, local authorities in Israel are highly varied, differing in terms of size, population, economy, and international orientation. Second, it has a relatively heterogeneous population, which enables an analysis of diverse social characteristics in a small physical area. Third, due to its highly centralized structure, all local authorities formally have similar (relatively limited) powers [70,71]. Consequently, it is possible to analyze the effects of local contexts on the advancement of LEPIs by different jurisdictions under similar governance conditions.

While Israel is not unique in terms of environmental policies, it has taken steps to address various environmental challenges, regularly participates in international conventions, and promotes primary environmental legislation. Hence, we examine LEPIs in “general” local authorities (including leading and “off the map” authorities) in an average developed state. Therefore, local authorities in Israel can be viewed as representing a wide variety of local jurisdictions, and thus our findings can be expected to be widely applicable.

3. Methods

To identify the entrepreneurial jurisdictions as well as the significance, of the environmental issues, we use both quantitative and qualitative methods. The first step included a comprehensive survey representing most local authorities in Israel. The survey was qualitatively analyzed using both descriptive statistics and multivariate model tools. The survey aims to provide a comprehensive overview of environmental initiatives within local authorities, as reported by the officials themselves, thereby offering insight into the breadth and scope of these LEPIs. For the second step, using the survey results, we selected 29 representative authorities (which fulfill a variety of characteristics) for in-depth interviews, qualitatively analyzed. Those included both “typical” authorities, representing the mainstream of entrepreneurial jurisdictions, as well as “outlier” ones. The interviews are designed to explore the practical approaches adopted by local authorities in fostering environmental initiatives, shedding light on the obstacles and opportunities encountered by authorities of varying characteristics, including these “outlier” authorities. Thus, to identify the abilities and motivations of seemingly unlikely local authorities to initiate LEPIs.

Israel, our case, is a unitary state with 257 local jurisdictions: 125 local councils, 76 cities, 54 regional councils, and 2 industrial parks (These are administrative units, with no residents, and hence they were excluded from the survey). They differ in size (cities are formally over 20,000 residents, while in local councils there are between 2000 and 20,000 residents), number of councilors, and geographical distribution. Regional councils are comprised of rural localities. Most powers lie with the central government. Therefore, all local jurisdictions are subject to the same legislation, share similar administrative structures, and have the same (limited) powers [70,72].

The survey elicited the profiles of entrepreneurial jurisdictions, in terms of six attributes (explanatory variables), based on the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and other formal categories: Jurisdiction type, whether cities, local councils, regional councils, or Environmental-Municipal Unions (EMUs) (Voluntary administrative units comprise two or more authorities: cities, regional, and local councils, addressing jointly environmental issues. These units derive their authority from the municipalities); Size (population), according to the Central Bureau of Statistics classifications: small (<25,000), medium (25,000–100,000), or large (>100,000) [73]; Population sector, i.e., Jewish (secular and Orthodox), ultra-Orthodox, Arab, or mixed (Jewish and Arab); Geographical, i.e., the degree of peripherality as determined by the CBS peripherality index. These are grouped into three levels: (1) peripheral (levels 1–4 in the CBS index), (2) semi-peripheral (levels 5–7), and (3) central (levels 8–10), Socioeconomic rankings, on the basis of the CBS index. The jurisdictions were merged into three clusters: low (clusters 1–4), medium (5–7), and high (8–10). Financial stability refers to the jurisdictions’ economic and managerial strength—based on a study conducted by the Ministry of the Interior [74]: (1) weak—jurisdictions in recovery or re-organization; (2) jurisdictions who just barely manage to keep even—medium; and (3) fiscally stable jurisdictions—strong.

The survey focused on three environmental issues: organic waste treatment; reducing the use of plastics; and non-motorized transport solutions (NMT). These LEPIs serve as dependent variables. While the focus on these three areas of environmental initiatives excludes other relevant types, it limits the variability between jurisdictions due to differences between environmental issues, thereby enabling us to identify the jurisdiction-specific attributes that led it to initiate environmental programs. All three issues are under the responsibility of local jurisdictions and are seen as mundane tasks of local authorities. Waste services (organic waste treatment) are typical local responsibilities [75], as well as maintaining public cleanliness and domestic waste disposables (including reducing plastic use) [71]. Non-motorized travel (NMT) requires local-level actions such as providing bike lanes or improvement of walkability [76,77].

In July–August 2020, an online survey was sent to 182 local environmental protection units presenting 248 out of 257 jurisdictions in Israel (9 did not have any such department or were unavailable). The survey was disseminated in three rounds, and over 50% (106) responded. A total of 96 cases were finally included in the statistical analysis (These 96 units enclose more than 180 local authorities, since EMUs are unions of two or more local authorities. Hence, they represent a greater share of locales in Israel). Though the survey includes all different categories of local jurisdictions (detailed in

Table 1. LEPIs by jurisdiction characteristics (N = 96).

Characteristic 1	Total No. of LEPI	Plastics Reduction	Organic Waste	NMT
General	(N = 96)	54.2%	58.3%	36.5%
Type	Local council (N = 17)	29.4%	47.1%	17.6%
	Regional Council (N = 33)	57.6%	66.7%	30.3%
	City (N = 28)	57.1%	50%	46.4%
	EMUs (N = 18)	66.7%	66.7%	50%
Size	Small (N = 44)	47.7%	56.8%	27.3%
	Medium (N = 32)	46.9%	46.9%	31.3%
	Large (N = 20)	80%	80%	65%
Population Sector	Arab (N = 13)	30.8%	30.8%	0%
	Mixed (N = 7)	71.4%	57.1%	42.9%
	Jewish (general) (N = 74)	60.8%	64.9%	42.5%
	Ultraorthodox (N = 2)	0%	0%	0%
Geographical Area	Periphery (N = 41)	53.7%	51.2%	22%
	Semi-periphery (N = 39)	46.2%	61.5%	35.9%
	Centre (N = 16)	75%	68.8%	75%
Socioeconomic Cluster	Low (N = 29)	51.7%	48.3%	24.1%
	Middle (N = 48)	52.1%	60.4%	41.7%
	High (N = 19)	63.2%	68.4%	42.1%
Financial Stability	Weak (N = 19)	37.5%	31.3%	0%
	Middle (N = 25)	50%	39.3%	35.7%
	Strong (N = 52)	61.5%	76.9%	48.1%

¹ The variables in the model were adjusted for logistic regression. Hence, the population size was not of clusters but numbers (of residents); the sector variable was a binary variable of Jewish-general-majority (n = 74)/non-Jewish majority (n = 22); we used 10 socioeconomic and peripherality clusters (instead of margins to 3 groups); financial stability categories divided into 2 categories (robust and stable/intermediate, re-organization or recovery program).

below), since the survey depends on officials’ willingness to participate, the sample of authorities is likely biased toward those with higher transparency. The survey included general questions about the departments’ purviews and whether there were any initiatives that were not within the usual purview, particularly in the three aforementioned areas (see Appendix A). We first conducted a descriptive analysis of the data to examine the frequencies and general trends. A multivariate logistic regression was then undertaken to evaluate the strength and direction (positive or negative) effect of each independent variable (local attributes) adjusted to all other variables collectively and their relationship with the dependent variable (“at least one LEPI” for each of the 3 issues):

$$P\left(LEPIs=Yes\right)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-xb}}$$

The level of statistical significance set at the p-value was * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01. Chi-square was used for the compression of dichotomous variables (1 = yes, at least one LEPI, 0 = no LEPIs). A t-test was used for the compression of normally distributed continuous variables. Statistical analyses of the collected data were performed with 17 JMPPRO software.

A year later, the qualitative part was carried out. Based on the survey results, 29 representative jurisdictions (including 12 small and/or weak jurisdictions) were selected to serve as in-depth cases. In contrast to studies that focused on prominent and large cities, our case studies include outlier jurisdictions, i.e., small, average, and peripheral local authorities that advanced LEPIs. Over 35 semi-structured interviews were conducted with local officials and some environmental NGOs’ representatives, lasting an average of one hour each. The interviews were carried out either in person or via Zoom software 2020-21, implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions covered their local environmental policy, notable initiatives, areas of interest, challenges, courses of action, collaborations, mutual learning, and open questions based on the discussion that developed in the interview and the relevant answers (see Appendix B, interviews questions). The selected cases represent the spectrum of jurisdictions and environmental protection units, as well as local environmental NGOs, and the Ministry of Environmental Protection (i.e., the national level). All interviews were recorded, with responses transcribed simultaneously.

A content analysis was completed for the interviews, allowing us to gain further insights regarding the authorities’ motivations, to better understand the initiatives advanced, and to explain the differences between local actions, beyond the profile of the authority. We concentrated on authorities that are not among the leading cities (large, powerful, central). Diverse, less prominent cases can allow us to gain insights regarding LEPIs in “normal”, less conspicuous places. These authorities provide information about the motivations behind environmental/green projects and the opportunities they generate, beyond those gleaned from the survey.

The interview responses formed the basis for the initial content analysis, aimed at comprehending the environmental activities and local initiatives across different authorities. This involved identifying the types of initiatives, their promotion methods, entrepreneurship, local challenges, and interactions with government bodies. In the subsequent stage, the data were categorized by content areas to uncover similarities and differences among the authorities, informing our characterization of their motivations, action patterns, and strategies. Our focus extended to “outlier” authorities, challenging quantitative findings, to enrich our understanding beyond numerical data. Notably, significant interview quotes were incorporated directly into the analysis when pertinent. The list of interviewees can be found in Appendix C.

4. Attributes of Local Entrepreneur Jurisdictions

The survey served to compile a comprehensive data set of LEPIs across all jurisdictions and topics. The surveyed officials indicated whether there were relevant initiatives in their jurisdiction, and if so, what kind of initiatives were advanced. In this paper, we refer only to LEPIs in the three issues discussed. The jurisdictions were then sorted according to their characteristics, as per the six attributes mentioned above, following CBS and the Ministry of Interior clusters. Table 1 summarizes the percentage (out of the total N in each row) of authorities that have advanced at least one initiative in at least one of the three research areas (plastics, organic waste, and NMT).

The results show that there is a large variance in the number of initiatives between various types of authorities. In addition, the number of initiatives varies significantly depending on the environmental issue addressed, which means that some issues motivate more initiatives than others. This point is key to investigating the role of the issue in question in driving jurisdictions to initiate LEPIs.

Supporting our first hypothesis, we can see that in general, the larger the jurisdiction, the more entrepreneurial it is. Big cities, regional councils, and EMUs advanced more initiatives regardless of the environmental issue. A possible explanation could be the limited ability of small urban jurisdictions to advance environmental initiatives due to budgetary limitations [78]. This illustrates quite clearly that economies of scale provide jurisdictions with greater abilities to advance new initiatives and policies. In addition, we see that the environmental issue plays a significant role. Thus, and in accordance with our second hypothesis, regional councils lead in composting and plastics reduction (where 66.7% and 57.6% of the 33 councils advanced LEPIs on these subjects, respectively) but lag in non-motorized transport (only 30.3% of the councils). Regional councils consist of rural communities, spread over relatively large areas with low population density. Hence, they are less amenable to soft mobility. Within the rural communities themselves (mainly kibbutzim), mobility is indeed non-motorized, unlike between the communities. However, such LEPIs have not been reported in the survey but only in the interviews.

Jurisdictions’ socioeconomic levels and financial stability are correlated [66,79]. In addition, lower socioeconomic levels are correlated with higher levels of religiosity (Muslim and Jewish). For example, both Jewish ultra-Orthodox and Arab municipalities lie in lower socioeconomic clusters [80]. Not surprisingly, jurisdictions with higher socioeconomic levels are more likely to initiate policies in any of the three environmental issues analyzed. Consequently, the higher the jurisdiction’s financial stability, the higher its likelihood of environmental entrepreneurship. Accordingly, it appears that Jewish jurisdictions (with the majority of secular and orthodox Jewish populations) advance LEPIs to a greater extent than do the other sectors. Mixed Jewish-Arab jurisdictions follow the Jewish ones. However, an in-depth examination of these mixed cities reveals that the LEPIs are largely advanced by the Jewish communities within those cities. Arab jurisdictions, suffering from many structural disadvantages [81], are the least active environmentally, particularly regarding NMTs, where they did not advance a single initiative. This is noteworthy, as Arab-majority localities suffer from acute transportation problems and high use of motorized travel [82]. Only two ultra-Orthodox jurisdictions participated in the survey but reported no initiatives (though in the qualitative part, some LEPIs were identified).

Jurisdictions in the central part of the country introduced more initiatives than did the semi-peripheral and peripheral ones. While in the plastics and organic waste fields, the gaps are minor, a wide disparity was found in NMT. Of the 16 central jurisdictions, 75% initiated one or more NMT initiatives, whereas in the semi-periphery (N = 39) and periphery (N = 41), only 35.9% and 22%, respectively, advanced such initiatives. This may be explained by the greater density in the center of the country, which is consequently more congested and thus more amenable to NMT proposals than the low-density periphery.

There is a correlation between socioeconomic ranking, geographical location, and sectorial clustering, since some of their characteristics overlap [66,83]. In order to evaluate the dominant factors in our case, we used multivariate logistic regression for our 96 cases (p = 0.01 * of the model), the results of which are presented in

Table 2. Multivariate model for “at least one LEPI” in any environmental issue, full model.

Characteristic	Chi-Square	p-Value (<0.05)
Type	0.286	0.962
Size (Log)	3.657	0.055
Population Sector (Binary)	1.295	0.255
Geographical Area	0.009	0.924
Socioeconomic Cluster	0.247	0.619
Financial Stability	10.096	0.038 *

Note: * represent the significance level of 5%.

.

In the full model, economic stability had significantly the greatest impact on the readiness to advance at least one LEPI (p = 0.03 *), when adjusting for socioeconomic clusters, peripherality, population size, population sector, and authority type. Population size is the second significant factor (p = 0.055). Since the variables for the type of local authority and the geographical area were not significant, we developed a reduced model. In this model, the significance of the population size increased, becoming more significant than the financial stability of the local authority (see

Table 3. Multivariate model for “at least one LEPI” in any environmental issue, reduced model.

Characteristic	Chi-Square	p-Value (<0.05)
Size (Log)	8.636	0.003 **
Population Sector (Binary)	1.643	0.199
Socioeconomic Cluster	0.326	0.568
Financial Stability	10.316	0.035 *

Note: ** and * represent the significance level of 1%, and 5%, respectively.

).

Logistic regressions were also run for each of the three environmental issues (see tables in Appendix D). Larger jurisdictions (in terms of population) have significant positive effects on plastic reduction LEPIs (p = 0.03 *), and economically stable jurisdictions had significantly more NMT LEPIs (p = 0.04 *). For Compost LEPIs, both of the factors are significant: economic stability (0.007 **) and population size (0.01 *).

To summarize, the multivariate model allows us to isolate the factors that most influence the promotion of LEPIs. We can see that a jurisdiction’s economic and demographic profile is a good predictor of its entrepreneurial potential. Larger, stronger, and Jewish-majority jurisdictions are generally more likely to advance LEPIs, with economic stability and size being significant factors. Nonetheless, there is variability in the level of entrepreneurship in the various areas: Initiatives in organic waste/composting (58.3%) and plastics reduction (54.2%) are more common across the board than NMT initiatives (36.5%). These findings raise the question of the specific role of environmental issues in motivating jurisdictions to advance LEPIs. Still, there are exceptional, unexpected cases, such as small communities leading NMT initiatives.

5. The Drivers of Local Entrepreneurial Jurisdictions

To identify the motives that lead local jurisdictions to initiate LEPIs, 29 diverse cases were selected from the survey (with some of the authorities selected being locales within the EMU/regional councils). Besides highly entrepreneurial authorities, the selected cases also include outliers—smaller, weaker, and peripheral cases that did advance LEPIs in order to reveal local challenges and capabilities that are not detectable by a large N analysis. The in-depth interviews allow us to unveil the intricacies of initiating LEPIs in a wide variety of jurisdictions and the strategies employed to this end (see Appendix B).

The interviews indicate that, indeed, large economically and socially powerful authorities are promoting more LEPIs, and on a larger scale. These authorities described several initiatives in each of the three areas studied. Moreover, each of these authorities prepared an environmental strategic plan. Their motivation is to promote environmental values as an end in itself. Tel Aviv (the core of the country’s main metropolitan area and economically strong area) stands out as an environmentally leading city, with a large budget for environmental improvements. Nevertheless, we do not focus on it since it is a (positive) outlier in the Israeli scene. As a global city [84], Tel Aviv is closer to other iconic, flagship, cities in the world. The focus of this study is rather on “non-glamourous” jurisdictions. Hence, two other cities in the center of the country were chosen to represent the group of “normal” big and strong cities: Kfar-Saba and Herzliya (see Figure 1).

Kfar-Saba, a large, strong socioeconomically city in the center of Israel, branded the city as a green and sustainable city. This included, among other things, establishing an urban sustainability center that advances various community projects, a local waste separation system with a pilot for organic waste treatment by household garbage grinders, as well as walking and cycling paths. In addition, the city became a member of the EU renewable energy project and signed the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. Importantly, the interviews highlighted that enhancing efficiency in a specific environmental field enables further initiatives. As a senior member of the environmental department articulated,

“The establishment of the urban sustainability center was made feasible due to the preservation of operational expenses associated with waste disposal, with the city’s adoption of waste separation at the source of organic waste. This was also a significant value decision. A decision you take knowing that you will not see the financial savings from day one… or you must preserve it over time…”

Herzliya, also a large city in the central region, with a high socioeconomic index has been running a “city without plastic” program since 2018, in collaboration with an NGO (“Zalul”), to prevent the use of disposable plastic throughout the city and on beaches. They promote household and neighborhood composting facilities (since the national program of waste separation at the source has failed). Within the next few years, the city will increase bicycle paths in the city from 20 km to 80 km as well as establish a collaborative bicycle system throughout the city. The city seeks to become environmentally proactive, rather than just respond to hazards.

We also examined authorities at the other end of the socioeconomic scale, which are struggling with many challenges, such as social and geographical peripherality, the non-majority population (Arab/ultraorthodox), and less populated areas. Despite these characteristics, some of the jurisdictions are successfully leading LEPIs. Moreover, some LEPIs were identified in the interviews, despite not reporting such initiatives in the quantitative survey. In fact, the interviews provided an opportunity to deeply understand these authorities’ strategies and motivations.

The main strategy taken by these disadvantaged jurisdictions for promoting LEPIs is framing and terming. Problem framing is key to promoting a policy initiative [29,85,86]. Terming is a specific version of framing, which we identified in our research. It refers to using terminology [87] that has a particular meaning within a specific cultural context. In these cases, cultural and religious terminology was used to advance measures to address environmental issues. One example of framing is the city of Eilat, which is the most peripheral city in Israel, right-wing oriented, and located in the Gulf of Aqaba. It is a medium-sized city, general-Jewish sector, with a medium socioeconomically ranking, but it is weak financially. The municipality enacted an ordinance banning disposable plastic from its beaches. Although the environmental unit aimed to protect the gulf and its natural resources, its presentation to the council framed it as an economic solution. As the director of the environmental unit explained the process,

“It was a structured process, since we are a tourist city that relies on tourism, which employs 90% of Eilat’s residents... when its main resource is the bay and the natural values protected in the Red Sea, with diving tourism to the last vital reef that left here, this requires preserving the natural values on the one hand and also taking more steps…”

They framed the ordinance as important for economic and job retention reasons, claiming that the most immediate risk to the gulf’s natural features (coral reefs, flora, and fauna) is sea pollution, including plastic pollution. In this way, they obtained full council agreement for the ordinance. Thus, though plastic pollution is indeed an environmental threat, the driving force behind the municipality’s LEPI was economic concerns. This finding corroborates Krause’s [19] results in the U.S.

Similar measures were implemented in the northern regional council of Upper Galilee. It is a small authority, ranked in a medium socioeconomic cluster. It contains many of Israel’s freshwater streams. Consequently, it is highly attractive for internal tourism, especially during the hot summer months [88], making tourism a major source of jobs and income. To address the annual expenditure of 6–7 million NIS on plastic waste removal from the streams and enhance the visitor experience, the council introduced an ordinance prohibiting disposable plastic products in the streams. This initiative, once again, demonstrates the council’s approach to framing environmental issues as economic and tourism considerations.

Religious terminology was used in ultra-Orthodox jurisdictions, and cultural terminology was used in Bedouin-Arab jurisdictions to advance LEPIs. While no LEPIs were identified in ultra-Orthodox authorities in the survey, several local projects that do promote environmental values were identified in the interviews. Officials in ultra-Orthodox authorities (Elad, Bnei Brak, and Kiryat Ya’arim, all of which are socioeconomically weak) noted that there is a low awareness of the environment among the public. The climate crisis discourse and environmental values are not prominent in this community, as one of the interviewees called it “environmental disorientation” of the population. Hence, their strategy for promoting environmental initiatives is to tie the issues to religious terminology. For example, instead of environmental education to “save the planet”, they use the verse from Genesis (2, 15), “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it”. Meaning that a religious person should care for nature based on their religious beliefs. Another example is the connection between the separation of organic waste and observing the sanctity of the food remains during the shemita (the Jewish shemita year requires the separation of food waste based on the principle of the land resting in the biblical sabbatical year) year. In this case, the separation is completed for the religious motives of the commandment, but separation is used to achieve environmental benefits by turning leftovers into compost for fertilizing public gardens.

Another example is Bir-al-Maksur, a small Bedouin-Arab local council in northern Israel, which is socioeconomically low in status and weak financially. The head of the environmental department is leading an initiative to establish a “Bedouin Culture Center”. The center is designed to be a green building, offering environmental education to the local community. Visitors will learn about Bedouin culture and how traditional solutions can help meet environmental challenges. This center is inspired by the 2015 Paris Conference call that adaptation actions should be based and guided by traditional indigenous knowledge [89] (Article 7: 5), in this case, traditional Bedouin culture. The head of the environmental department argues that motivations such as reducing pollution, preserving, and recycling are not sufficient and do not harness the residents to action. Therefore, basing actions on tribal, traditional, and cultural motivations is more effective, reflecting the core concept of the center.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Environmental policy initiatives are advanced by a wide variety of local authorities. While there is a tendency to focus on salient cases and high-visibility initiatives, LEPIs are usually not extensive but local actions with a local orientation, which only occasionally relate to broader motivations for global change. As can be seen in the cases discussed herein, in practice, both small and large authorities undertake initiatives based on their capabilities and locale characteristics. It is the overall aggregation of these initiatives that may lead to significant change, made up of many small incremental changes, raised from the local level upwards. Therefore, it is critical to investigate these “ordinary” jurisdictions taking small and local steps rather than focusing exclusively on large globally prominent cities.

Obviously, there is a wide gap between large highly capable jurisdictions and smaller and weaker ones. Larger entities tend to advance a greater number of LEPIs, notably covering a wider array of environmental issues. Conversely, smaller authorities typically undertake a more limited scope of initiatives, focusing on selected issues that align with their resources and priorities. Particularly, our research reveals a distinct disparity in the attention given to certain issues; for instance, NMT initiatives are markedly absent in smaller, peripheral municipalities. Consequently, economic strength and size, allowing for economies of scale, emerged as the most important factors in all environmental fields. Yet, our study highlights two complementary approaches. One, following Bedsworth and Hanak’s [56] work, the results suggest that the formation of EMUs encompassing multiple small jurisdictions, and pooling resources, may have positive implications for LEPIs. The EMUs allow smaller (and sometimes weaker) authorities to leverage opportunities they cannot undertake on their own to advance LEPIs. Two, by terming LEPIs in culturally sensitive language, professionals in ultra-Orthodox and Arab communities in Israel managed to advance some LEPIs within them. Hence, by utilizing culturally sensitive approaches, actions can be taken even in locales where awareness is low and there are limited capabilities.

While we hypothesized that the socioeconomic level would be a main factor in driving LEPIs, the multivariate analysis found it to be less significant compared to the economic and managerial stability of the authority. This indicates that the ability of authorities to advance LEPIs depends more on the strength of the jurisdiction as an administrative and organizational body than on the economic status of the residents (the socioeconomic index).

From a methodological perspective, the study shows the limitations of large quantitative N analyses and the need to use mixed methods by integrating qualitative analyses. A quantitative analysis is essential for identifying the general trends, in our case of the localities that advance LEPIs. However, it fails to capture the factors underlying the advancement of LEPIs, as well as the cases that do not fit the overall pattern. The complementary qualitative research enabled us to examine the outlying cases, which may be particularly insightful for widening the scope in which LEPIs are advanced. By incorporating different framing to ensure relevance for the residents and suitability for the local conditions, LEPIs can be advanced also in localities where environmental awareness is lacking. Successful local environmental policy is thus not one-size-fits-all but rather locally tailor-made and culturally sensitive.

By understanding the various abilities, motivations, and strategies, we were able to gain insights regarding the potential actions of small and weak authorities. These authorities, suffering from structural barriers of limited budget, personnel shortage, along with cultural barriers, largely fail to promote local environmental action while struggling to supply basic needs. We find that by identifying conditions and local problems and couching environmental initiatives in relevant cultural terminology, local executives, acting as policy entrepreneurs, can advance environmental policies in a wide array of settings. This conclusion holds particular significance, given that the majority of authorities worldwide fall into the category of being average and unremarkable yet influential. Uncovering strategies that empower these authorities to drive environmental change within their regions is pivotal for extending the impact from a local to a global scale—a transformative shift toward comprehensive and far-reaching environmental change.

This research has several limitations. One, from the environmental content point of view, the study focused only on three environmental issues. Though these issues represent different angles of local environmental concern, there are still many other issues that may lead to various LEPIs. For instance, the promotion of green energy initiatives is a prevalent focus among local authorities in Israel and globally. It would be compelling to observe the diverse strategies employed by various authorities in advancing initiatives related to this topic. Two, methodologically, there may also be a self-selection bias as the survey responses were mainly from intermediate and strong authorities (both socioeconomically and administratively), which usually have more and better-educated personnel and thus may be more aware of the benefits of cooperating with academia. Finally, in terms of representativeness, the selection of jurisdictions for the in-depth case studies does not allow a randomized group of authorities. Naturally, officials are more likely to participate in the study if they are environmentally aware and engaged. Still, we were able to obtain insights also from outlying jurisdictions.

Further research on small and weak authorities is needed in other settings and on additional environmental issues. It is necessary to understand how central governments are supporting or enabling such initiatives. Can such support help bridge the gap between large and small, strong and weak, authorities? Another question concerns the impact of central government structures on local entrepreneurship. How do LEPIs differ between countries with centralized government (such as Israel, where local government powers are limited) and federal government (where most powers are in the hands of local government)? What governmental structure promotes more local initiatives? By addressing these questions, the potential of LEPIs to contribute to wider environmental issues, such as climate change, can be better assessed.