Conditions influencing City-level adaptation and mitigation: A systematic review across high- and low-income country contexts

Cities are both major contributors to climate change and highly vulnerable to its impacts. The past two decades have seen a growing body of research on the conditions that influence city-level climate action; however, few literature reviews systematically distinguish between mitigation and adaptation or include low- and middle-income contexts (LMICs). This study addresses these gaps through a systematic review of 150 peer-reviewed studies published between 2003 and 2023, conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 protocol. The review synthesizes evidence across high-income and LMIC contexts and four domains—vertical governance, horizontal governance, internal governance, and contextual conditions. It systematically distinguishes between mitigation and adaptation and examines pathways of city-level climate action. For mitigation, city action may emerge where external incentives intersect with local champions, suggesting either a norms-driven or an incentive-driven pathway. For adaptation, two additional pathways may be observed: a risk-driven pathway, following extreme events that open policy windows, and a mandate-driven pathway, where higher-level planning requirements prompt action in the absence of local shocks. In LMICs, the combination of centralized governance and limited vertical support may lead to donor-led or co-benefits-driven pathways. Beyond mapping conditions, this review therefore advances an integrated framework and configurational understanding that situates urban climate action at the intersection of governance and context, while identifying conceptual and empirical gaps in the literature. • Reviews 150 studies (2003−2023) on conditions influencing city-level climate action • Categorizes vertical, horizontal, and internal governance and contextual conditions • For mitigation, norms and incentives dominate, for adaptation, mandates and risks • Donor-led and co-benefits pathways may arise in LMIC contexts • Identifies conceptual ambiguity, planning bias, and lack of LMIC evidence