## Appendix A
\begin{tabular}{l r r r} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Green Policymaking Initiative Scale**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval**} \\ \cline{2-3}
**Games-Howell Post-Hoc Testing** & **Mean Difference** & **Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** \\ \hline Hokkaido vs. Kanagawa & \(-1.051\)** ** & \(-2.06\) & \(-0.04\) \\ \hline Hokkaido vs. Saitama & \(-0.876\)** ** & \(-1.47\) & \(-0.28\) \\ \hline Hokkaido vs. Shiga & \(-1.005\)* & \(-2.01\) & \(0.00\) \\ \hline Hokkaido vs. Shizuoka & \(-0.750\)* & \(-1.54\) & \(0.04\) \\ \hline Hokkaido vs. Tochigi & \(1.005\)* & \(0.00\) & \(2.01\) \\ \hline Hokkaido vs. Tokyo & \(-1.000\)** & \(-1.75\) & \(-0.24\) \\ \hline Hyogo vs. Nara & \(1.171\)** & \(0.08\) & \(2.26\) \\ \hline Kagoshima vs. Kanagawa & \(-1.101\)* & \(-2.21\) & \(0.01\) \\ \hline Kagoshima vs. Saitama & \(-0.926\)** & \(-1.71\) & \(-0.14\) \\ \hline Kagoshima vs. Shiga & \(-1.055\)* & \(-2.16\) & \(0.05\) \\ \hline Kagoshima vs. Tokyo & \(-1.050\)** & \(-1.95\) & \(-0.15\) \\ \hline Kanagawa vs. Nagano & \(1.306\)** & \(0.20\) & \(2.42\) \\ \hline Kanagawa vs. Nara & \(1.625\)** & \(0.40\) & \(2.85\) \\ \hline Kanagawa vs. Wakayama & \(1.292\)** & \(0.01\) & \(2.58\) \\ \hline Kumamoto vs. Saitama & \(-0.938\)** & \(-1.87\) & \(0.00\) \\ \hline Kumamoto vs. Tokyo & \(-1.062\)** & \(-2.10\) & \(-0.03\) \\ \hline Kyoto vs. Nara & \(1.435\)** & \(0.15\) & \(2.72\) \\ \hline Miyazaki vs. Saitama & \(1.027\)* & \(-0.03\) & \(2.08\) \\ \hline Miyazaki vs. Tokyo & \(-1.151\)** & \(-2.29\) & \(-0.01\) \\ \hline Nagano vs. Kanagawa & \(-1.306\)** & \(-2.42\) & \(-0.20\) \\ \hline Nagano vs. Kyoto & \(-1.116\)* & \(-2.31\) & \(0.07\) \\ \hline Nagano vs. Nara & \(1.121\)* & \(-0.02\) & \(2.27\) \\ \hline Nagano vs. Osaka & \(1.116\)* & \(-0.07\) & \(2.31\) \\ \hline Nagano vs. Saitama & \(-1.131\)** & \(-1.91\) & \(-0.35\) \\ \hline Nagano vs. Shiga & \(-1.260\)** & \(-2.36\) & \(-0.16\) \\ \hline Nagano vs. Shizuoka & \(-1.005\)** & \(-1.93\) & \(-0.08\) \\ \hline Nagano vs. Tokyo & \(-1.255\)** & \(-2.16\) & \(-0.35\) \\ \hline Nara vs. Niigata & \(-1.433\)** & \(-2.77\) & \(-0.10\) \\ \hline Nara vs. Osaka & \(-1.256\)** & \(-2.39\) & \(-0.13\) \\ \hline Nara vs. Saitama & \(-1.450\)** & \(-2.40\) & \(-0.50\) \\ \hline Nara vs. Shiga & \(-1.579\)** & \(-2.79\) & \(-0.37\) \\ \hline Nara vs. Shizuoka & \(-1.324\)** & \(-2.39\) & \(-0.25\) \\ \hline Nara vs. Tochigi & \(-1.440\)** & \(-2.69\) & \(-0.19\) \\ \hline Nara vs. Tokyo & \(-1.574\)** & \(-2.62\) & \(-0.52\) \\ \hline Nara vs. Yamaguchi & \(1.350\)* & \(-0.02\) & \(2.72\) \\ \hline Okinawa vs. Saitama & \(-0.907\)** & \(-1.77\) & \(-0.04\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Green Policymaking Initiative Scale**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Score 1**} & **Score 2** & **Score 3** & **Score 4** & **Score 5** & **Total** \\ \hline \(<\)50 & 31 & 16 & 13 & 1 & 0 & 61 \\
51–100 & 108 & 72 & 84 & 5 & 3 & 272 \\
101–200 & 103 & 74 & 172 & 20 & 9 & 378 \\
201–500 & 51 & 48 & 269 & 62 & 36 & 466 \\
501–1000 & 3 & 10 & 139 & 67 & 27 & 246 \\
1001–2000 & 2 & 1 & 30 & 32 & 34 & 99 \\
2001–5000 & 0 & 0 & 18 & 32 & 48 & 98 \\ \(>\)5001 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 42 & 43 \\ Total & 298 & 221 & 726 & 219 & 199 & 1663 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Post-hoc testing with mean differences for organization size.