Understanding climate change policy and action in Portuguese municipalities: A survey

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Land

Use

Policy

j ou rn a l h om ep a ge : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l a n d u s e p o l

Understanding

climate

change

policy

and

action

in

Portuguese

municipalities:

A

survey

Inês

Campos

a,∗,1

_,

_João

_Guerra

b,2

_,

_José

_Ferreira

_Gomes

b,2

_,

_Luísa

_Schmidt

b,2

_,

_Filipe

_Alves

a,1

_,

André

Vizinho

a,1

_,

_Gil

_Penha

_Lopes

a,1

a_Centre_for_Ecology,_Evolution_and_{Environmental}_Changes_(CE3C)_University_of_Lisbon,_Faculty_of_Sciences,_Portugal b_University_of_Lisbon,_Institute_of_Social_Sciences,_Portugal

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received23June2016

Receivedinrevisedform4November2016 Accepted10December2016 Keywords: Climatechange Survey Municipalities

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Robuststrategiesandaction-plansareessentialintacklingclimatechange.Giventhelocaland context-speciﬁcnatureofclimateimpacts,theinvolvementofmunicipalitiesiskeyforeffectivemitigationand adaptationsolutions.Duetoitsvulnerabilityandlowlevelofadaptivecapacity,Portugaloffersinsights intoadaptationresearchandpracticeinEurope.ThisarticlehypothesizesthatNationalandEuropean climatechangeadaptationstrategiesarenoteffectivelyinvolvingmunicipalities,andarethuslosing outontheopportunitytotakestockoflocalresponsesforclimatechangemitigationandadaptation. Toaddressthisissue,asurveybyquestionnairewasdonetoPortuguesemunicipalities,anddatawas collectedregardingthefollowing:theimportanceattributedtoclimatechange;themitigationand adap-tationmeasuresplannedandimplemented;themaindrivers,concerns,andtriggerspromotingclimate policyandactions;andaccesstoinformationandknowledge.109validresponseswerecollectedacross thecountryfromauniverseof308municipalities.Resultsshowclimatechangeinplanningagendas isstill‘little’or‘notimportant’.Thereisalsoacleardifferenceinthedriversandconcernsmotivating climatepolicy,andactionbetweenLittoralandInlandregions.Overall,thereisagreaterfocuson mit-igationthanadaptation.Thediscussionhighlightstheneedforcapacitybuilding,theissueofequity, theroleofEuropeannetworks,andtherelevanceofculturaldifferencesbetweenLittoralandInland regions.Theconclusiondistilsthemainlessonslearnedconcerningthesechallengesandneeds,therole oftransnationalnetworks,andtheculturalcontextsforbuildingresilience,throughadaptation,across Europe.

1. Introduction

Thereis little doubt theworld readilyneeds ambitious cli-matechangemitigationandadaptationplansofaction.Asreported bytheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment (OECD,2015)thecombinedeffectofclimatechangeimpactson globalannualGDPisprojectedtobebetween1.0%upto3.3%,until 2060(basedonalikelyriseinglobaltemperatureof1.5◦Cto4.5◦C; OECD,2015).Climateinduceddamagesfromextremeevents(e.g. hurricanes),aswellasdamagesincurredduetoenergyandtourism,

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:isobralcampos@gmail.com(I.Campos),

joao.guerra@campus.ul.pt(J.Guerra),jose.ferreira@ics.ul.pt(J.F.Gomes), mlschmidt@ics.ulisboa.pt(L.Schmidt),fmalves@fc.ul.pt(F.Alves), afvizinho@fc.ul.pt(A.Vizinho),gppenha-lopes@fc.ul.pt(G.P.Lopes).

1 _Faculdade_de_Ciências,_Universidade_de_Lisboa,_1749-016_Lisboa,_Portugal. 2 _Avenida_Professor_Aníbal_Bettencourt_9,_1600-189_Lisbon,_Portugal.

areexpectedtohaveasigniﬁcantimpactonalocalscale(OECD, 2015,p.14).Suchevidencesuggeststherearestrongincentivesfor mitigationandadaptationactionsonmulti-scale;global,regional andlocalgovernancelevels(Hallegatteetal.,2011).

Actinginresponsetoclimatechangeis‘aboutadjustingtorisks, either in reactionto orin anticipation of changes arisingfrom changingweatherandclimate’(Adgeretal.,2012:112).Mitigation referstothereductionofglobalgreenhousegasemissionsoverthe comingdecades,andadaptationreferstotheabilityofhumanand ecologicalsystemstorespondtotheimpactsandeffectsofclimate change(Parryetal.,2007).

In Europe, several countries developed National Adaptation Strategies,yetonlyafewreachedanimplementationstage.There isaneedtolearnmoreaboutpoliciesandactionsbeingdeveloped atalocallevel,andhowthoseexperiencescanbesharedand/or supportedatthecountryandEuropeanlevels(HuntandWatkiss, 2011).ThelatestreportsfromtheEuropeanEnvironmentalAgency (EEA)foundthatitisachallengeforcountriestoinvolve municipal-http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.015

(2)

itiesinnationaladaptationpolicies,andhighlighttheimportance ofsharingexperiencesandlessonslearnedacrosslevelsof gover-nance(EEA,2014,2015).Portugalishighlyvulnerabletoclimate changeimpacts (from rising sealevels,toheat waves,ﬂooding anddroughts), withalow levelof adaptive capacity,withvery fewimplementedmeasures,andlittlepolicyintegrationand coor-dinationacrosslevelsandscalesofgovernance(O’Riordanetal., 2014;Carvalhoetal.,2014;Ciscaretal.,2011).Therequirement for implementing climatechangepoliciesis, in themajority of cases,voluntaryandnon-binding(Carvalhoetal.,2014).Thisarticle hypothesizesthatNationalandEuropeanclimatechange adapta-tionstrategiesarenoteffectivelyinvolvingmunicipalities,andare thuslosingoutontheopportunitytotakestockofthegrowing importanceoflocalresponsesforclimatechangemitigationand adaptation.

Toaddressitshypothesis,thisresearcharticledrawsfromthe Portuguesecaseandsurveysmunicipalmitigationandadaptation strategiesandaction-plansbeingdeveloped.Particularattentionis giventothemaindriversandtriggersleadinglocalresponses,as wellasthekeyconcernsand institutionalcapacity(i.e.existent organisationalstructures,accesstoinformation andknowledge, and participation in European networks). Still at the dawn of itsclimatepolicies,thePortuguese case shouldadd toa better understanding of local level adaptation processes, and provide insightsregardingthesynergiesbetweenmunicipalpolicy-making, NationalandEuropeanstrategies,andtheroleoftransnational net-works(Bulkeley,2010;Amundsenetal.,2010).

Learningmoreaboutmunicipalactioncanbeasteptowards promotingmoreadaptedsocietiesand moreequitablesolutions forclimatechange.Researchhasidentiﬁedsomedeterminantsfor incrementingadaptivecapacity(Brooksetal.,2005).Socialcapital isanimportantfactor(Adger,2003;PellingandHigh,2005),which referstoimmaterialassetsandresourcesincrementallydeveloped byindividuals andgroups, andreproducedthrough networking andlearningframeworks(Kay,2006).Socialcapitalstudies high-lightthatthedifferentdeterminantsorcapacitiesofasocietyto actinresponsetoclimatechangearestrengthened bya collec-tiveaction,buildinguponnetworksoforganizations,institutions andsocialgroups(Adger,2003).Then,societiescharacterizedby higherlevelsofsocialcapitaltendtoachievesuperiorperformance atnationalandlocalgovernancelevels(Putnam,2000).Collective action shouldboth leadand result fromhigher levelsofpolicy integration(theintegrationofclimatechangepoliciesinvarious sectorialand multi-level policies) (Lenschow,2002), and main-streaming(howclimatechangeentersdiversepoliticalandcivil societydiscourses)(SmitandWandel,2006).Sharingknowledge andthelessonslearnedareequallycentralformainstreaming(Cash etal.,2006).

Climate changeimpacts and therange of possible solutions are framed by spatial and temporal boundaries and are also a context-speciﬁcprocesses(Smit andWandel,2006);oftenmore resource-dependent communities will be affected by change (Adgeretal.,2006).Therefore,equityisakeyissue(Pellingand High,2005).Regardlessofwhoismakingdecisions,everyclimate changepolicyis likely tohave itslosers and winners(Agarwal etal.,2012;Pellinget al.,2014).Themore stakeholder’groups, organisationsandinstitutionsareincludedinthedecision-making process,themorelikelythesolutionsaretobeeffectiveandfair, andaidinpreventingtheexclusionofvulnerableandmarginalised groups(Olssonetal.,2006).Governanceframeworksshouldallow theintegrationofsharedgoalsbyawidevarietyofsocialactors, fromscientists,todecision-makersandpractitioners(Füssel,2007; AmaruandChhetri,2013).Yet,asinmostEuropeancountries,the coordinationofclimatechangepoliciesinPortugalhas tradition-allybeendonebyministriesandgovernmentagencies,withscarce involvementofotherstakeholders(O’Riordanetal.,2014),leaving

littlespaceforthebuild-upofsocialcapital,andeffectiveandfair strategiesinthelong-term.

Promoting well-adapted societies (Folke et al., 2010) also refers toa capacity for “renewal, re-organization and develop-ment”(Folke,2006:253).Wellpreparedorganizationalstructures have beenfound to be important for encouraging adaptability (Folke et al., 2005; Lebel et al., 2006). Literature on adaptive co-management(Olssonetal.,2006;Armitageetal.,2008), empha-sizestheimportanceofrobust institutionsaskeydeterminants forbuildingadaptivecapacity.Stronginstitutionsarethoughtto contributetoahigherlevelofpolicyintegration,coordinationand mainstreaming,whilealsoleadingtomoreintegratedsolutionsin climatechange(Folkeetal.,2005).Guidedbythesenotions,the sur-veysoughttolearnmoreaboutthecurrentinstitutionalcapacity ofmunicipalities.

Theculturaldimensionofclimatechangeisanincreasingly rel-evantsubject,althoughithasnotyetbeenappropriatelyexplored inquantitativestudies,ithasbeenarguedthatculturemediates societalresponsestoclimatechange(Adgeretal.,2012).The under-standingof culture is strongly linkedto physicalspaces (Knez, 2005; Adger et al., 2012). Thisstudy hopes to also investigate howclimateadaptationis perceived,takingintoaccount possi-blespatial-culturaldifferencesbetweencoastalandinlandregions. Suchknowledgeshouldberelevantforresearchers,practitioners andpolicymakersinPortugalandacrossEurope.

Informedbytheseinsights,thepapercontinuesbydescribing thequantitativemethodimplemented.Theresultssectionwill pro-videthemainﬁndingsconcerningthecurrentstateofmitigation andadaptationpolicy,andactionsinthecountry.Thediscussion focusesonanalysingthespeciﬁcdynamicsofclimatepoliciesat thelocallevel,takingintoaccounttheissuesraisedinthis intro-duction.TheconclusiondistilsthemainlessonslearnedforPortugal andotherEuropeancountries.

2. Methodology

Thearticleresultsfromaﬁrstnationalsurveybyquestionnaire toPortuguesemunicipalitiesonthetopicofclimatechange.The aimwastoacquireabaselineknowledgeonlocalpolicystrategies andactionsregardingmitigationandadaptationstrategies.Data shouldalsoinvestigatehowclimateadaptationisperceived,taking intoaccountpossiblespatial-culturaldifferencesbetweencoastal andinlandregions.109validresponseswerecollectedthrougha questionnaire,correspondingto35.4%ofPortuguese municipali-ties,senttoall308municipalities.

Astratificationmethodwasusedtoensureaproportional rep-resentationofthesample(Waksberg,1978).Themostadequate variablesfortherepresentativenessofthesamplewereidentified, drawingfromstatisticaldatafromtheNationalStatisticsInstitute (INE,2011).Thefirstprimaryvariablewas“NUTSII”,whichisthe NomenclatureofTerritorialUnitsforStatistics(NUTS),developed bytheEurostatandusedforstatisticalpurposesinPortugal.NUTS IIcomprises thefollowing regions:North, Centre,Lisbon, Alen-tejo,Algarve,AzoresandMadeira.Theotherprimaryvariablesused weretheHabitatofthemunicipality(i.e.Numberofinhabitants), andtheleadingpoliticalparty(in2014/2015).Arelative weight (%)wasdeterminedforeachvariableinordertoformcategories of municipalities,withinthe universeof 308municipalities.To ensurethesameprobabilityintheselectionofmunicipalities,and tochoose(inthesameproportion)themunicipalitiesthat inte-gratedthefinalsample,arandomsamplingprocedurewasusedfor eachofthesamplecategories.Table1showsthesampleaccording tothethreemainselectionvariables.

To collectresponses,anonline survey byquestionnaire was implemented,andreinforcedthroughnumerousroundsofcontact

(3)

Table1

SampleofrespondentsfromPortuguesemunicipalities,accordingtoRegionNutsII;toLeadingpoliticalpartyandHabitat(numberofinhabitants).

RegionNUTSII Sample Universe PoliticalpartyoftheMayor Sample Universe Habitat(numberofinhabitants) Sample Universe

North 25.6% 27.9% SocialistParty 47.7% 48.7% <7500 22.% 29.5%

Centre 33.9% 32.4% Socialdemocraticparty 25.6% 27.9% 7500–20,000 22.9% 29.2%

Lisbon 6.4% 5.8% PCP-PEV(CDU) 13.7% 11% 20,000–50,000 29.3% 22.%

Alentejo 19.2% 18.8% CDS-PP 1.8% 1.6% 50,000–100,000 14.6% 11.3%

Algarve 5.5% 5.1% PSD/CDS/Others 8.2% 6.4% >100,000 11% 7.7%

Azores 6.4% 6.1% Independent 3% 4% – – –

Madeira 2.7% 3.5% – – – – – –

viatelephonewithMayorOffices,ensuringasystematicsupport andfollowupofthedatacollectionprocess.Contactswith munic-ipalitiesincreasedin proportiontothedifferencesbetweenthe sampleandtheuniverse,withinthedifferentcreatedcategories (accordingtotheselectionvariables).Morecontactsoccurredwith municipalities,thatfittedthecategorieswheredatawasmissing, untila representative sample wasachieved,which represented 35.4% of thetotal universe and provided a high level of confi-denceintheresults.Therelativeweightofthesevenregions,of thesixgroupscreatedbasedonthenumberofinhabitants,andthe fivepoliticalpartiesleadingPortuguesemunicipalitiesatthetime (2015),ismaintainedbothinthesampleandtheuniverse.

Throughoutthe survey, two analytical variables were taken equally into account: participation in European networks (e.g. theCovenantofMayors)andthemunicipality’slocation(Littoral versus Inland). These two variables were included in order to drawsomeinsightinto theroleof transnationalnetworks, and toexplorepossiblevariancesbetweenpolicyresponsesofcoastal andinlandregionsthatcouldberootedinspatial-cultural differ-ences.Accountingfortheroleofnetworkscoulddrawsomelight intothepotentialforcollectiveactionthroughthebuild-upof net-worksacrossEurope.35.8%ofrespondentsweresignatoriesofthe CovenantofMayors,whileintheuniverseofPortuguese municipal-itiesthepercentagewas34.41%.Similarly,23.9%ofresponseswere frommunicipalitieslocatedinLittoralregions,whichwasahigher percentagethantherepresentativeuniverseof16.2%.

Duetothenatureofthesurveybyquestionnairemethod,which presupposesaninflexibleformulationandsequenceofquestions, thereweresomelimitationstotheresponses,forthemostpart circumscribedtoforeseenhypotheses.Therefore,thesurveywas complementedbyacollectionofdocumentalandstatisticaldata fromofficialstatistics,aswellas,byinsightslearnedinthecontext ofqualitativecasestudyresearch(e.g.theCascaismunicipality,see Camposetal.,2016a).Excludingafirstintroductorysectionwith thegoalofcharacterizingthemunicipalityandrespondents(i.e. name,region,numberofinhabitants,politicalparty),the question-nairehadfoursectionsfocussingon:

(1)theimportanceofclimatechangemitigationandadaptation; existent organisational structures to support climatepolicy planning;

(2)climatepolicyandactionsbeingplannedandimplementedin Portuguesemunicipalities;

(3)drivers,concernsandtriggersforpolicyandaction,and (4)knowledgeandinformationonclimatechange.

Dataonthe proﬁleofrespondents wasimportanttoensure respondentswouldbeabletoadequatelyreplytoquestions per-tainingtolocalmunicipalpoliciesandactivities.Respondentswere eitherspatialplannersorpolicymakers.Plannersheldsigniﬁcant technicalandexpertknowledgeandwereleadingrelevant depart-mentsorworkgroupsrelatedtoenvironmentalandclimatechange policies.Policymakershelddecision-makingpowersand coordi-natedactivitieswithinthemunicipality.Inthemajorityofthecases (71.5%),thespatialplannersrespondedtothesurvey,the

remain-ing(28.4%).wereansweredbypolicymakers.Regardingplanners, 28.4%claimedtheywerehighlevelofﬁcersfromotherareas(not environmental),22%werehighlevelofﬁcerswithinthescopeof environmental policiesand 21.1% were head of environmental departments.Policymakerswereforthemostpart(18.3%)headsof environmentalpolicy,0.9%wereheadsofotherdepartments,and 9.2%wereMayorsofthemunicipality.Thestrategyofcontacting byphoneeachmunicipalityensuredthatthoserespondingwere wellinformedonthesurvey’stopic.

3. Results

The results provide a ﬁrst diagnosis of climate change pol-icy planning and implementation in Portuguese municipalities. Respondentsweresurveyedon:theimportanceofclimatechange adaptation policiesin municipal planning agendas,the institu-tionalcapacitytodevelopclimatechangepolicies(e.g.existence of a municipal department), thetype of response being devel-opedorimplemented,relevantpolicyinstruments(e.g.European strategy),actionsbeingimplemented(includingthesectorialfocus, thedrivers,concernsandtriggersmotivatingtheadoptionof cli-matechangepolicies),andthesourcesandtypeofinformationand knowledgeonclimatechange.

3.1. Climatechangeinmunicipalplanningagendas

Themajorityofthemunicipalitiesdeclaredthatclimatechange isnotakeyissueinlocalpolicyagendas.56.9%ofnationalresponses weresituatedinthelowerﬁrstthreecategoriesofthescale.The importanceattributedtoclimatechangeadaptationisnotequally distributedintheterritory,norisitinrelationtothehabitatof themunicipality.Regions,witha higher number ofinhabitants (i.e.Centre;Lisbon;MadeiraIslands,theAlgarve)attributedmore importancethanthosewithalowernumberofinhabitants(see Table2).Valuesvaryequallyinrelationtothemunicipalities’ par-ticipationinEuropeannetworks.SignatoriesoftheCovenantof Mayors(CM)attributedimportancetoclimatechangepolicies(see Table2).

Regardinginstitutionalcapacity,thesurveyhighlightsalackof appropriateinternalorganicstructures(e.g.aspecificdepartment) withinmunicipalities,since97.2%ofmunicipalitiesdidnothave aspecificdepartmenttohandleclimatechangeresponses.15.7% claimedthereisadepartment,whichaccumulatesotherfunctions, and52.8%referredtherewasonlyanenvironmentaldepartment. The2.8%withaspecialdepartmentarelocatedintheCentreRegion, wheremunicipalitieshaveahighnumberofinhabitants.Significant differencesarenotedbetweensignatoriesandnon-signatoriesof theEuropeannetworks(seeTable2).

Respondentswereaskedifmitigationandadaptationactions,or both,werebeingdevelopedbythemunicipality.50.5%responded theyweredevelopingactions,43.1%claimedtherewasnoaction, and6.5%claimedthattheywerenotawareifactionswereorwere notbeingdeveloped.Regardingthetypeofaction(i.e.mitigation, adaptation,orboth),differencesarenotedbetweensignatoriesand

(4)

Table2

DiagnosisofclimatechangepolicyplanningandimplementationinPortuguesemunicipalities:importanceofclimatechange,strategiesbeingdeveloped,existenceof municipaldepartment,typeofresponse(beingdevelopedorimplemented),andmostmotivatingpolicyinstrument,bycountryregion,habitatofmunicipality(i.e..number ofinhabitants),andparticipationinEuropeanNetworks(i.e.signatoriesofCovenantofMayors/MayorsAdaptversusnon-signatories).

Isclimatechangeadaptationanimportantorientationofpublicpolicyplanninginyourmunicipality?

CountryRegion North Centre Lisbon Alentejo Algarve Azores Madeira

Noimportance1 22.2% 0% 0% 66.7% 0% 11.1% 0% 2 31% 24.1% 10.3% 17.2% 6.9% 10.3% 0% 3 20.8% 33.3% 0% 25% 4.2% 12.5% 4.2% 4 38.1% 42.9% 0% 9.5% 9.5% 0% 0% 5 17.6% 52.9% 11.8% 11.8% 0% 0% 5.9% Veryimportant6 11.1% 44.4% 22.2% 0% 11.1% 0% 11.1% x2₍₃₀₎₌_44.967,_p_<_0.05

HabitatofMunicipality <7.500M 7.500M–20M 20M–50M 50M–100M >100M Noimportance1 11.1% 11.1% 44.4% 33.3% 0% 2 20.7% 13.8% 41.4% 6.9% 17.2% 3 33.3% 41.7% 20.8% 4.2% 0% 4 33.3% 23.8% 23.8% 14.3% 4.8% 5 11.8% 23.5% 23.5% 11.8% 29.4% Veryimportant6 0% 11.1% 22.2% 55.6% 11.1% x2₍₂₀₎₌_41.159,_p_<_0.01

CovenantofMayors/MayorsAdapt Signatories Non-Signatories

Noimportance1 22.2% 77.8% 2 17.2% 82.8% 3 29.2% 70.8% 4 38.1% 61.9% 5 52.9% 47.1% Veryimportant6 77.8% 22.2% x2₍₁₎₌_14.785,_p_<_0.05

IsaClimateChangeAdaptationPlan/Strategybeingdeveloped?

No,noplanexists 27.3% 26% 5.2% 22.1% 7.8% 7.8% 3.9%

Aplanisbeingdeveloped 11.8% 70.6% 0% 11.8% 0% 5.9% 0%

Aplanisbeingimplemented 45.5% 27.3% 9.1% 18.2% 0% 0% 0%

Measuresintegratedinotherplans 0% 50% 50.0% 0.0% 0% 0% 0%

x2₍₁₈₎₌_32.421,_p_<_0.05

HabitatofMunicipality <7.500M 7.500M–20M 20M–50M 50M–100M >100M

No,noplanexists 28.6% 18.2% 28.6% 15.6% 9.1%

Aplanisbeingdeveloped 5.9% 23.5% 47.1% 17.6% 5.9%

Aplanisbeingimplemented 9.1% 45.5% 18.2% 0% 27.3%

Measuresintegratedinotherplans 0% 50% 0% 25% 25%

n/s

No,noplanexists 27.3% 72.7%

Aplanisbeingdeveloped 47.1% 52.9%

Aplanisbeingimplemented 72.7% 27.3%

Measuresintegratedinotherplans 25% 75%

x2₍₃₎₌_10.183,_p_<_0.05

Isthereadepartmentresponsibleforimplementingclimatechangemitigationand/oradaptationactions?

Yes,thereisaninter-departmentcommitteeforCC 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Yes,thereisaspeciﬁcdepartmentforCC 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Yes,thereisadepartment,whichaccumulatesotherfunctions 29.4% 41.2% 17.6% 5.9% 0% 0% 5.9%

No,butthereisanenvironmentaldepartment 21.1% 35.1% 5.3% 21.1% 8.8% 7% 1.8%

No,thereisnot 32.3% 25.8% 0% 25.8% 3.2% 9.7% 3.2%

(5)

Table2(Continued)

Yes,thereisaninter-departmentcommitteeforCC 0% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Yes,thereisaspeciﬁcdepartmentforCC 0% 100.0% 0% 0% 0%

Yes,thereisadepartment,whichaccumulatesotherfunctions 11.8% 23.5% 35.3% 11.8% 17.6%

No,butthereisanenvironmentaldepartment 19.3% 28.1% 28.1% 12.3% 12.3%

No,thereisnot 35.5% 12.9% 29.0% 19.4% 3.2%

n/s

Yes,thereisaninter-departmentcommitteeforCC 100% 0%

Yes,thereisaspeciﬁcdepartmentforCC 100% 0%

Yes,thereisadepartment,whichaccumulatesotherfunctions 76.5% 23.5%

No,butthereisanenvironmentaldepartment 24.6% 75.4%

No,thereisnot 25.8% 74.2%

x2₍₅₎₌_22.884,_p_<_0.001

Isthemunicipalitycurrentlydevelopinganyclimatechangemitigationoradaptationaction?

Yes 25.5% 49.1% 5.5% 9.1% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6%

No 17.0% 21.3% 8.5% 31.9% 8.5% 10.6% 2.1%

x2₍₆₎₌_16.349,_p_<_0.05

Ifyes,whattypeofactionisbeingdeveloped?

Mitigation 31,8% 45,5% 0% 13,6% 0% 0% 9,1%

Adaptation 30,8% 23,1% 7,7% 30,8% 0% 7,7% 0%

Both 14,8% 40,7% 11,1% 18,5% 11,1% 3,7% 0%

n/s

Habitatofmunicipality <7.500M 7.500M–20M 20M–50M 50M–100M >100M

Isthemunicipalitycurrentlydevelopinganyclimatechangemitigationoradaptationaction?

Yes 18,2% 23,6% 32,7% 10,9% 14,5%

No 23,4% 23,4% 27,7% 17% 8,5%

n/s

Ifyes,whattypeofactionisbeingdeveloped?

Mitigation 18,2% 27,3% 27,3% 9,1% 18,2%

Adaptation 23,1% 15,4% 30,8% 23,1% 7,7%

Both 18,5% 22,2% 29,6% 18,5% 11,1%

n/s

CovenantofMayors/MayorsAdapt Signatories Non-Signatories Isthemunicipalitycurrentlydevelopinganyclimatechangemitigationoradaptationaction?

Yes 45,5% 54,5%

No 19,1% 80,9%

n/s

Ifyes,whattypeofaction?

Mitigation 54,5% 45,5%

Adaptation 46,2% 53,8%

Both 40,7% 59,3%

n/s

WhatPolicyInstrumentwasmostrelevantforplanningand/orimplementingclimatechangeactions?

CountryRegion North Centre Lisbon Alentejo Algarve Ac¸ores Madeira

MunicipalStrategicPlansforCC 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 33,3% 0% 16,7% 0%

NationalAdaptationStrategy 18,2% 50,0% 13,6% 9,1% 0,0% 0,0% 9,1%

EuropeanAdaptationStrategy 40,0% 20,0% 20,0% 0,0% 20,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Other 66,7% 33,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

n/s

MunicipalStrategicPlansforCC 0% 33,3% 16,7% 33,3% 16,7%

NationalAdaptationStrategy 0% 27,3% 36,4% 22,7% 17.20%

EuropeanAdaptationStrategy 20% 0% 0% 40% 40%

Other 16,7% 33,3% 33,3% 0,0% 16,7%

(6)

Table2(Continued)

MunicipalStrategicPlansforCC 50% 50%

NationalAdaptationStrategy 50% 50%

EuropeanAdaptationStrategy 80% 20%

Other 83% 16%

Table3

Indexforeachsectorialsubgroup–AgricultureandForests;CoastalZones,Biodiversity,WaterResources,Health;SocietyandEconomy−ofresponsesregardingplanning andimplementationofmeasures.

Sectors Index No;noplans areforeseen measuresare beingstudied Aplanbeing developed Measuresare being implemented Measures implemented arebeing assessed Don’t know/cannot respond Meanvalue (scaleof1–5) Agricultureand Forests ␣=0.748 5.5% 21.1% 21.1% 7.3% 2.8% 42.2% 2.7 Coastalzones ␣=0.755 11.5% 15.4% 15.4% 19.2% 0.0% 38.5% 2.7 Biodiversity ␣=0.764 13.8% 14.7% 9.2% 4.6% 0.0% 57.8% 2.1 Water resources ␣=0.832 22.0% 22.9% 7.3% 0.0% 2.8% 55.0% 1.9 Health ␣=0.630 17.4% 20.2% 4.6% 2.8% 0.0% 55.0% 1.9 Societyand Economy ␣=0.694 18.3% 16.5% 10.1% 0.0% 49.5% 18.3% 2.6

non-signatories,aswellasbetween,LittoralandInland municipal-ities(seeTables2and3).

Explicitlyaboutclimatechangeadaptation,thesurveyasked if a strategy or plan was being developed or implemented by themunicipality.Only10.1%hadanadaptationplanbeing imple-mented.Amongotherrespondents,70.6%claimedthemunicipality didnothaveaclimatechangeadaptationstrategyoraction-plan, and15.6% referred thata planwasbeingdeveloped. Moreover, 3.7%claimedthatadaptationmeasureswereintegratedinother plans,suchasthemunicipalEnvironmentalPlan.Concerning pol-icyincentivesforlocalaction,thesurveyaskedwhatpoliciesor instrumentswererelevantmodelsfortheirmunicipality.Response options included: the Portuguese National Adaptation Strategy (PNAS),aMunicipalStrategicPlan(MSP),andtheEuropean Adap-tation Strategy (EAS), aswell as theoption, “other”. The PNAS wasthemostreferred instrument,with56.4% responses.15.4% responsespointedtotheimportanceofahavingamunicipal strat-egy, and an equal number referred to ‘other’ – specifying the importanceofbeingamemberofEuropeannetworkssuchasthe CovenantofMayorsandMayorsAdaptprogram.Lastly, Signato-riesoftheCovenantofMayors/MayorsAdaptattributedfarmore importance(80%)totheEuropeanStrategy,whencomparedwith non-signatories(20%)(seeTable2).

3.2. Climatepolicyandactionsinportuguesemunicipalities Respondentswereaskedtostateifanythreeactions(relatedto mitigationandadaptation,orboth)hadbeenimplemented.Since thiswasanopenquestion,resultswerecodiﬁedbasedonamatrix withtenthematiccategories,listedinFig.1.Amongtheoptions given,participantsmainlymentionedactionsrelatedtomitigation policiesunderthecategories:‘efﬁcientmanagementofbuildings’ and‘public lighting’.Asregardstoadaptation,themain typeof actionsreferred,relatedtothe‘plans,alertsystemsandrisk man-agement’category.

The categories and the habitat of the municipality were aggregatedtoshowthepredominanceofsometypesofactions implemented.Forinstance,responsesreferring‘plans,alerts sys-temsandrisk’(e.g.heatwavealertsystems)predominated(55.6%) inmunicipalitieswithlessthan7500inhabitants.Municipalities with7500and20,000residents,mainlyhighlightedmeasuresor

actionsrelatedtodevelopingan‘efﬁcientmanagementof munic-ipalbuildings’(78.6%).Municipalitieswithapopulationbetween 20,000and50,000inhabitants,centredtheirresponsesonthe top-icsof‘sustainableurbanmobility’(83.3%)and‘renovationofthe municipalﬂeetandroadmanagement’(50%).Sustainablemobility isfrequentlymentionedbymunicipalitieswithmorethan100,000 inhabitants.Thelatterreferredalsotoactionsconcerningthe devel-opmentof‘plans,alertsystemsandrisks’(83.3%),and50%ofactions reportedinthis groupareunderthecategoryof ‘collectingand disseminatinginformation’.

The Littoral prioritized actions related to ‘plans, alert sys-tems and risks’(52.9%), aswellas, ‘sustainableurbanmobility’ (52.9%);whileInlandregionsemphasizedactionsrelatedto ‘efﬁ-cient managementof municipalbuildings’(59.5%) and ‘efﬁcient publiclighting’(48.2%).

To identifythe scopeof climate changeactions (mitigation, adaptationorboth)thatmunicipalitiesfoundimportantto imple-mentinthemediumterm,therespondentswereaskedtospecify threetypesofactions.Resultswerecodiﬁedbasedonamatrixwith tenthematiccategories,asshowninFig.2.

Participantswereaskedtopointoutwhattheirmainconcerns wereregardingpossibleimpactsofclimatechangeintheirregion. Topconcernswere:‘increaseofextremeweathereventsandseason shift’(42.9%),and‘risingsealevel’(35.7%).

3.2.1. Climatechangeadaptationmeasuresimplemented

Regardingadaptationmeasures,thesurveyaskedwhat mea-sureswereimplementedorwerebeingimplemented.Thisquestion wassub-dividedintosixsectorialsubgroups,namelymeasuresfor: agricultureandforests,coastalzones,biodiversity,waterresources, health,societyandeconomy.Foreachsubgroupanumberof multi-choiceoptionswasgiven.Forinstance,forcoastalzones,options included: alertsystems, preventionof extremeweather events, monitoringﬂoodlevels.Responsecategoriesincluded:(1)‘No;and noplansareforeseen’;(2)‘Possiblemeasuresarebeingstudied’;(3) ‘Aplanisbeingdeveloped’;(4)‘Measuresarebeingimplemented’; (5)‘Measureshavebeenimplementedandarebeingassessed’;and ‘don’tknow/cannotrespond’.Anindexwascreatedbasedonthe responsesforeachsubgroup,inordertocompareresultsbetween thedifferentsectorialgroupsof measures.Table3shows these resultsforeachsectorialsubgroup.

(7)

7.4% 16.7% 20.4% 22.2% 27.8% 40.7% 66.7% 70.4% 85.2% 96.3%

Water resources and poluon Collect and share informaon Renovaon of the municipal ﬂeet and and road management Planng trees and carbon capture Protecon of vulnerable green infrastructures Awareness raising campaigns Plans, alert systems and risk management Sustainable urban mobility Public lighng Eﬃcient management of buildings

Fig.1. MitigationandAdaptationActionsbeingimplementedinPortuguesemunicipalities,codiﬁedundertenthematiccategories.

11.4% 14.3% 17.1% 17.1% 25.7% 28.6% 48.6% 51.4% 65.7%

Costal erosion and ﬂooding Environmental awareness raising Water resources Soil Air and emissions Consumpon and waste management Green infrastructures and forest Spaal planning Mobility and energy

Fig.2.Maincategoriesofclimatechangemeasureswhichmunicipalitieswouldliketoimplementinthemediumterm,codiﬁedunder10thematiccategories.

Everysectorialgrouphadahighnumber ofresponsesinthe categories‘no,andnoplansareforeseen’and‘don’tknow/cannot respond’(>80% of responses), resulting in a low level of valid responses.These ﬁndings reveal there are very few adaptation measurescurrentlybeingplannedorimplemented.Nevertheless, waterrelatedmeasures(incostalzonesandwaterresources sub-groups),environmentaleducationprogramsandcivilprotection(in thesocietyandeconomysubgroup)arethemostcommonamong thosebeingimplemented.

3.2.2. Factorstriggeringactiononclimatechange

Respondentswereaskedtochoose,amongasetoftriggersfor localaction,whichweretriggeringspeciﬁcclimatechange adap-tationactions.At thenationallevel, thetop 2relevant triggers were‘civicawarenessoftheimportancetoact’and‘futureimpacts expectedfortheregion’.Thereweresigniﬁcantdifferencesinthe triggersbetweenLittoralandInlandmunicipalities.IntheLittoral themaintriggerswere‘futureexpectedimpactsfortheregion’and

‘escalationofexistentproblems’.Althoughtheseareequally impor-tantforInlandregionsthereisadifferenceofrespectively23.3%and 43%inthetwocategoriesasshowninTable4.

3.2.3. Developmentfactorsencouragingdecisionstoact

Regardingdevelopmentfactorsencouragingthedecisiontoact onclimatechange,Table5showsthemeanvaluesattributedto eachfactor.Although‘protectionandsecurity’haverankedﬁrst, ‘politicalwill’and‘economicdevelopment’appearwithhighmean values(onascaleof1–‘notanimportantfactor’to6–‘very Impor-tantfactor’),while‘civilsocietypressure’appearswiththelowest meanvalue.

Attheregionallevel,Littoralmunicipalitiesrankedhighon stat-ing‘geographicvulnerability’asadriverforaction,asthemajority (60%)respondedthatthiswasa‘veryimportantfactor’.Conversely, 58.5% ofInland regions considered‘geographic vulnerability’as beingan ‘important factor’ (5) or a ‘very important factor’ (6). Similarly, ‘climatic vulnerability’ has a higher concentration of Table4

TriggersleadinglocalactioninPortugueseMainlandandIslands,comparisonofLittoralandInlandmunicipalities.

Triggers National Littoral Inland

Futureexpectedimpactsfortheregion 55.0% 61.5% 38.2%

Escalationofexistentproblems 45.0% 61.5% 18.4%

Experiencedandperceivedimpactsintheregion 30.0% 38.5% 23.7%

Socialawarenessoftheimportancetoact 28.0% 30.8% 61.8%

Availableﬁnancialmechanisms 24.0% 15.4% 23.7%

Resultsofscientiﬁcresearch 22.0% 11.5% 1.3%

(8)

Table5

Developmentgoalsencouragingthemunicipalities’decisionto actonclimate changeatthenationallevel(meanvaluesbetween1-notanimportantfactorto 6–veryimportantfactor).

Developmentgoals encouragingdecisiontoact onclimatechange

Meanvalue[1–6]

Protectionandsecurity 5.2

Politicalwill 4.8 Economicdevelopment 4.7 Geographicvulnerability 4.4 Conservationofthe patrimony 4.3 Climaticvulnerability 4.2

Equityandsocialjustice 4.1 Pressurefromcivilsociety 3.8

responsesintheLittoral, with96%of responsesincategories 5 and6,comparedto62%ofresponsesinthesamecategoriesfor Inlandregions.However,‘politicalwill’isequallyimportantinboth regions.Theweightattributedto‘politicalwill’increasesaccording tothehabitat(numberofinhabitants)ofmunicipalities.

3.3. Informationandknowledge 3.3.1. Informationonclimatechange

Concerning the level of information on climate change and sustainabledevelopment,81.6% respondedin thecategories ‘no availableinformation’(1);‘littleinformation’(2);and‘some infor-mation’(3).Municipalitieswithahighernumberofinhabitants(i.e. >50,000residents)claimedtohavemoreinformationonclimate changeandsustainabledevelopment.Yet,themostrelevant dif-ferencewhencrossingthesedatawithothervariablesisbetween the municipalities developing mitigation or adaptation actions andthosenotdevelopinganypolicyoractionsrelatedtoclimate change.Thosedeveloping actionsarebetterinformed,although mostmunicipalitiesstatedalackofinformation(seeTable6).As forthesourcesofinformation,theinternetisthemostusedsource (70.4%),followedbyinformationprovidedbypublicadministration services(36.6%),andscientiﬁcpublicationsandstudies(32.4%),as showninFig.3.

3.3.2. Knowledgeonclimatechange

Concerningthelevelof knowledgeonclimatechangeissues, namelyonglobalimpacts,localimpacts,mitigationand adapta-tionmeasures,responseswerepredominantlyinthecategories: (1)‘noknowledge’,and(2)‘littleknowledge’.Thelevelof knowl-edgeonclimatechangeimpactsandmeasuresappearstodepend

onthestructuresalreadyexistentwithinthemunicipality.Lackof knowledgeonclimatechangeimpactsatthelocallevelwasgreater whentherewasnotaspeciﬁcdepartment.Conversely,thelevelof knowledgereportedwashigherinthemunicipalitieswithaspecial department.Finally,therewerecleardifferencesbetweenthelevel ofknowledgeinmunicipalitieswithaspecialdepartmentor com-missionforclimatechangeandthosewhereclimatechangeissues aredealtwithbyanenvironmentaldepartment(seeTable6).

4. Discussion

Ananalysisof thesurvey’sfindings confirms thehypothesis that localpolitiesare notappropriatelyinvolved norguidedby NationalandEuropeanstrategies.Yet,climatechangemitigation and adaptation appear to be less important at the local level than hypothesized. In Portugal, municipalitiesgenerally do not findclimatechangetobeanimportantissue.Those municipali-tiesdevelopingmitigationand/oradaptationprogramsarebetter equipped to do so and have a special department or commis-sionleadingtheprocess.Theabsenceofappropriateorganisational structures, which occurs mostly in Inland small municipalities, where social capital is scarce, islikely tocompromise effective policy-makingprocesses(HuntandWatkiss,2011).Nationaland Europeanadaptationstrategies seemtoholdsomeinfluenceon localplanningagendas.However,bothstrategiesarenon-binding policiesanddonotprovideclearguidelinesforlocallevel adapta-tion.Yet,guidanceisimportant,andlocalinstitutionalattentionto adaptationishighlydrivenbycentralgovernmentstrategies(Baker etal.,2012;Dannevigetal.,2012).

‘Futureimpactsexpectedfortheregion’werethesecondhighest triggerforaction.However,tolearnaboutfutureimpactsintheir region,municipalitieswillneedtodeveloprobuststudiesonlocal risksandvulnerabilities.Thesestudiesshouldincludedownscaling socio-economicandclimatechangescenariostoaddresscontextual speciﬁcities(Berkhoutetal.,2014)andproducinglocalclimate pre-dictions(Seinetal.,2014;DiasandAlves,2013).Thedownscaling ofclimatescenariosshouldequallyaccountforlocalclimate diver-sity(StewartandOke,2012;Lenoiretal.,2013),andhowclimatic changescouldaffectdifferentareasandsectorswithinmunicipal boundaries(FlintandFlint,2012;Nilesetal.,2015).Otherrelevant factorsindirectlyrelatedtoclimatechange(e.g.erosion,land degra-dation)shouldequallybeconsidered.Onceadetailedpredictionof localclimaticchangesispresented,planningadaptationcanbea complexprocess(Wiseetal.,2014).Amulti-methodapproachis importanttodevelopsustainableadaptationplans,whichcan ben-eﬁtfromusingGeographicInformationSystemmapsandprovide localstakeholderswithaclearvisualrepresentationofrisks(Wood Table6

Levelofknowledgeonclimatechangeglobalandlocalimpacts,andonmitigationandadaptationmeasures;andknowledgeonclimatechangeincomparisonwiththe existenceofaspeciﬁcdepartment/commissionforclimatechangeissues.

Levelofinformationformunicipalities: 1.Noinformation 2.Little 3.Some 4.Average 5.Good 6.LotsofInformation

Developingactions/policies 5.5.% 20% 41.8% 18.2% 12.7% 1.8%

Notdevelopingactions/policies 19.1% 36.2% 40.4% 4.3% n/a n/a

Knowledgeofclimatechange 1.NoKnowledge 2.Little 3.Some 4.Average 5.Good 6.Highlevelofknowledge

Adaptationmeasures 9.3% 24.7% 34.0% 16.5% 13.4% 2.1%

MitigationMeasures 9.1% 27.3% 32.3% 16.2% 11.1% 4.0%

LocalImpacts 4.0% 20.8% 31.7% 21.8% 15.8% 5.9%

GlobalImpacts 3.0% 18.8% 29.7% 26.7% 16.8% 5.0%

Knowledgeofclimatechangeandmunicipalstructures 1.NoKnowledge 2.Little 3.Some 4.Average 5.Good 6.Highlevelofknowledge Yes,thereisaspeciﬁcdepartment/commissionforclimatechangeissues 66.7% 33.3%

Yes,thereisadepartment,whichalsoaccumulatesotherfunctions 11.8% 29.4% 17.0% 29.4% 11.8% No,butthereisanenvironmentaldepartment 17.0% 24.5% 37.7% 17.0% 3.8%

(9)

2.8% 12.7% 16.9% 19.7% 29.6% 32.4% 36.6% 70.4% Internaonal Instuions Mass media Universies, Experts, NGOs Workshops, technical meengs Municipality, associaons, agencies Books, scienﬁc arcles and study reports Public administraon

Internet

Fig.3. SourcesofInformationregardingclimatechangeimpacts,adaptation,andmitigation.

andStocker,2009;Camposetal.,2016b).Oncepotentialmeasures areidentiﬁed,theplanningprocesscouldincludeaprioritization ofmeasuresandanassessmentofcostsandbeneﬁts,takinginto accountfutureclimaticuncertaintiesandthesocialand environ-mentalimpactsofdifferentmeasures(Hallegatte,2009;Haasnoot etal.,2013).Despitetheneedfortheseclimatestudiesand ser-vices,Portuguesemunicipalitiesseemtobeunrealisticconcerning thedepthandscopeofresearchrequiredtoproduceeffectivelocal responses.Itislikelythatthemajoritycannotadequatelyassess localclimatechangeimpacts,whichmaygenerallyjustifythelow importanceattributedtotheissue.Inaddition,thesestudiesmay betooexpensiveformost.InPortugal,thetworichest municipali-ties(CascaisandSintra)arealsothemostadvancedintheirclimate changepoliciesandeachhasspentanaverageof150.000eurosin researchonlocalimpactsandadaptation(Carvalhoetal.,2015).

Lackofknowledgeandinformation,lackofaccesstofunding sources and thenature ofmitigation versus adaptationactions mayexplainalsowhyadaptationweighslessthanmitigationin thePortuguese case. Richer municipalitieswith a higher num-berofinhabitants(SchmidtandGuerra,2010),aremoreproneto deviseaclimatechangestrategy,possiblybecausetheyhavemore resources, and access to available information and knowledge. Projectfundingisamong themostimportantﬁnancing mecha-nismforadaptationinEuropeancountriesandtendstobemainly targetedatimplementingmeasures(EEA,2015:9).Whenapplying forfunds,municipalitiesshouldhave alreadyinvestedin devel-opinga risk andvulnerability assessment, andhave knowledge onpotentialadaptationmeasures.Uncertaintyandlackof knowl-edgemake it hardertomeasureprogress onadaptation,which isequally important forﬁnancing measures(Fordet al., 2013). Therefore,richermunicipalitiesarelikelytobebetterequippedto receiveextrafundsforadaptation.Thelowimportanceattributed toadaptationincomparisonwithmitigationmayalsobeexplained bythe fact that mitigationseems tobe betterunderstood and haveamoreimmediateoutcomeandshort-termpolicyguidance (Carvalhoetal.,2014).Conversely,adaptationislikelytohavea long-termgoal(Pelling,2010)andmaybemorechallengingfor pol-icymakers,givenelectiondynamics;butalsoduetoatendencyfor ashort-termfocus,andaperceptionthatthreatsarenoteminent andcanbedealtwithatalatertime(Füssel,2007;Berrang-Ford etal.,2011).

Amongthemunicipalitiesdevelopingclimatechangepolicies andactions,theroleofEuropeannetworkshasbeenhighlighted, throughtheexamplesoftheCovenantofMayorsandtheMayors Adaptinitiatives.Signatoriesofthesenetworksaremoreproneto developingclimatechangepoliciesandactions,andappearbetter prepared,fromtheadministrativeandinstitutionalpointofview, andbetterinformedtorespondanddevelopbothmitigationand adaptationstrategies.Yet,thesenetworkshavebeenfoundtobe ‘pioneersforpioneers’(KernandBulkeley,2009:309).It’s difﬁ-culttoassesswhethermembersoftransnationalnetworksjoined

becausetheyweremoreprogressiveorbecamepioneersinclimate policiesduetotheinfluenceofthenetworks.Signatoriesof net-worksarealsoamongtherichestmunicipalities,whichraisesthe questionofequity.Transnationalnetworksoffersourcesof knowl-edgeexchangeandinformation,aswellasopportunitiesforproject funding(BetsillandBulkeley,2004).Ifbeingamemberisaresultof beingaricherandamoreprogressivemunicipality,itseems impor-tanttoreachouttosmallermunicipalities,whomaybelessable tofinancelocalstudies,andcanbenefitfromtheshared knowl-edge,experiences,lessonslearned,andfunding,whichisprovided throughthesenetworks.Lastly,sincethedominantsourceof infor-mationistheinternet,itseemsimportanttodeliverweb-based opensourcepublications,methods,toolsandresearchdataon cli-matechange.

Asadriverforactionandasatriggerforpolicymaking, pub-licparticipationappearswithlowvalues.Municipalpolicymakers andplanners,althoughrecognizingtheimportanceof‘politicalwill’ inpromotingclimatechangeaction,attributea lowimportance to‘participationandcivilsociety’.Theseresultsreinforcefindings fromotherstudies,whichconcludedtoppoliciesinPortugalhave notbeenpublicized,nordiscussedorvalidatedbysocietyatlarge (O’Riordanetal.,2014;Carvalhoetal.,2014).Theabsenceof stake-holderengagementresultsinapoorsocialbasisofsupportforthe existentpoliciesandplans.Portuguesemunicipalitiesareneither benefitingfromaclearverticalguidance(e.g.specificguidelines fromtheNationalAdaptationStrategy),norfrompartnershipswith awidersetofsocialactors,suchascivilsocietygroups,local resi-dentsorbusinessowners.Therefore,thereisaclearopportunityfor astrongerinteractionwithsocialactorsatmultiplescalesandlevels ofgovernance(Adgeretal.,2005)inordertosupportthebuild-up ofsocialcapital(Adger,2003;JuholaandWesterhoff,2011).

Thesurveyprovidesequallysomeinsightsintocultural differ-ences,rootedinthecharacteristicsofspaceattachments (Adger et al., 2011)between Littoraland Inland regions. Recent stud-ies,doneinPortuguesecoastalcommunities,indicateagrowing awarenessofthevulnerabilitiesandrisksregardingclimatechange (O’Riordan et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2014).Not surprisingly, coastalregionsgavemoreimportanceto‘futureexpectedimpacts fortheregion’and‘escalationofexistentproblems’astriggersfor action,whencomparedwithInlandregions.Resultsshow adap-tationismoreimportanttocoastalmunicipalities,andmitigation toInland.ThePortugueseNorthernAtlanticcoastisalready expe-riencingsomedegree ofclimatechangeimpacts. Asthesevere wintersof2014leftseveralareasﬂooded;vulnerabilitiesandrisks (notpreviouslyconsideredasimportant)arenowhittingcoastal regions.ThePortuguesemediahavenodoubtplayedan impor-tant role in framing this issue(Schmidt et al., 2014), although fomentingclimatechangeresponsesfromatechnical,managerial andglobalperspective(Carvalhoetal.,2014).Conversely,Inland regionsinthePortuguesemainlandhavealwaysdealtwithclimatic changesaffectingsoilproductivity,andwithsocialandecological

(10)

consequences,suchas,landabandonment,ruralexodusandland degradation(Truningerand Freire, 2014).Coastal communities, however,arefacedincreasinglywiththepossibilityofimpactsthat threatentheirwayoflife.Consideringthatthepracticeofadapting toachangingenvironmentisembeddedinlocalculturalmeanings (Flora,1998),climatecanbeameaningattributedtoplace(Knez, 2005),andthereforeamotivatorforthinkingaboutadaptationas awayofdeterringthefutureandtheundesirablepossibilityof re-locationincoastalareas.Conversely,overthepastdecades,Inland regionsinPortugalhavedealtwithruralexodusandland abandon-mentproblems(TruningerandFreire,2014),resultinginalackof socialcapitalthathinderscivilsocietyandmunicipalaction.Inthis contextachangingclimateisaconcernthatmayaggravate well-knownlanduseproblems,butwouldnotbeenoughtochallenge localculturalperceptionsofdeeplyagedanddependent commu-nities(SchmidtandGuerra,2010).Thus,thelandinruralregions willcontinue tobeperceivedasavulnerableandunforeseeable territory(Ambrosio-AlbaláandBastiaensen,2010;Cheshireetal., 2015).

5. Conclusion

InPortugal,theimportanceofclimatechangeinthe munici-palpolicyagendasvariesbetweenNorthandSouth,Littoraland Inlandregions,andbetweenmunicipalitieswithahighernumberof inhabitantsandthosewithlessinhabitants,aswellasbetween, sig-natoriesandnon-signatoriesoftheCovenantofMayorsandMayors Adaptinitiatives.Europeanandnationalstrategiesshouldprovide clearguidanceformunicipalitiesonhowtodesignandimplement mitigationandadaptationactions.Participationisnotbeing val-uedbymunicipalitiesasadriverforclimatechangepolicies.There isstillanuntappedpotentialforbuildingsocialcapitalby promot-ingmultilevelpolicyguidanceandmulti-stakeholderpartnerships. EuropeanandNationalstrategiesshouldencourageparticipation andpromotethemainstreamingoftheclimatechangetopicacross socialgroups,frompolitical,tocivilsocietyandmarketspheres.

Interestinclimatechangeseemstobehigherwhen municipal-itiesbeneﬁtfromknowledge,materialandimmaterialresources thatinformand supportpolicy-making.Transnationalnetworks couldreachouttosmallerandlessprogressivemunicipalitiesas a strategy in raisingawareness of climatechange,and support theimplementationofpoliciesinmorevulnerableregionsthrough projectfunding.

Future studies should map knowledge and technical needs (e.g. local risk and vulnerability assessments, economic and multi-criteriaassessmentsofmeasures,participatoryplanningof adaptation) and produce a needs-based assessment of climate servicesand studiesfor upholdingclimate changestrategies in municipalities.

Ratherthanrepresentingmeretechnicalfixes,responsesto cli-matechangeatthelocallevelhavethepotentialtoincrementally shapepolicypathwaystowardsmoresustainableoutcomes. Con-sideringthegeographicdifferencesacrossthecountry,theanalysis ofclimatepoliciesandactionsinthePortuguesecaseindicatesthe material,technocraticdimensionsofrespondingtoclimatechange (i.e.throughmitigationand/oradaptationpolicyand measures) areconceptualizedunderthescopeofimmaterialperceptionsand values,whichinfluencelocalinterestsandthedecisionstoact. Dif-ferentculturalperceptions ontheimpactsofclimatechangeon thelocalwayoflife,constrainedbydifferingsocio-economic con-ditions,appeartobeinfluencingthetype ofresponsesbetween coastalandinlandregions.OtherEuropeancountries,particularly thosefacingsimilarimpactswithAtlanticcoastalregionsand/or Mediterraneaninlandregions,shouldconsiderhowtoaddress cli-matechange,whiletakingintoaccounthowculturalperceptions

andattachmentstoplacesmaybeeitherenablersorbarriersto takingaction.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorswouldliketothankallthosewhorespondedto thissurvey.TheauthorsthanktheEuropeanCommissionforthe fundingoftheFP7project“Bottom-upClimateAdaptation Strate-giestowardstheSustainableEurope”(GrantAgreement308337), under which this survey was developed. The authors equally thanktheFundação paraaCiênciaeTecnologia forthefinancial supportofGilPenha-Lopes(scholarshipSFRH/BPD/65977/2009), of Filipe Alves (PD/BD/113934/2015)and AndréVizinho (grant PD/PB/113929/2015), andof Ce3C(Ref.UID/BIA/00329/2013).The research developed has not in been influenced by the funding received,andthearticledoesnotreflectinanyformtheopinions ofthefundinginstitutions.

References

Adger,W.N.,Arnell,N.W.,Tompkins,E.L.,2005.Successfuladaptationtoclimate changeacrossscales.GlobalEnviron.Change15(2),77–86,http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005.

Adger,W.N.,Barnett,J.,ChapinIII,I.F.S.,Ellemor,H.,2011.Thismustbetheplace: underrepresentationofidentityandmeaninginclimatechange

decision-making.GlobalEnviron.Pol.11(2),1–25,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvp.2005.03.003.

Adger,W.N.,Barnett,J.,Brown,K.,Marshall,N.,O’Brien,K.,2012.Cultural dimensionsofclimatechangeimpactsandadaptation.Nat.Clim.Change3(2), 112–117,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1666.

Adger,W.N.,2003.Socialcapital,collectiveaction,andadaptationtoclimate change.In:DerKlimawandel.VSVerlagfürSozialwissenschaften,pp.327–345, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92258-419.

Agarwal,A.,Perrin,N.,Chatre,A.,Benson,C.S.,Kononen,M.,2012.Climatepolicy processes,localinstitutions,andadaptationactions:mechanismsof translationandinﬂuence.WileyInterdiscip.Rev.Clim.Change3(6),565–579, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.193.

Amaru,S.,Chhetri,N.B.,2013.Climateadaptation:institutionalresponseto environmentalconstraints,andtheneedforincreasedﬂexibility,participation, andintegrationofapproaches.Appl.Geogr.39,128–139,http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.006.

Ambrosio-Albalá,M.,Bastiaensen,J.,2010.TheNewTerritorialParadigmofRural Development:TheoreticalFoundationsfromSystemsandInstitutional Theories.IOB,Availablefrom:http://www.researchgate.net/proﬁle/Mateo Ambrosio-Albala/publication/228381936Thenewterritorialparadigmof ruraldevelopmenttheoreticalfoundationsfromsystemsandinstitutional theories/links/54227c000cf238c6ea67a7d8.pdf.

Amundsen,H.,Berglund,F.,Westskog,H.,2010.Overcomingbarrierstoclimate changeadaptation—aquestionofmultilevelgovernance?Environ.Plann.C: Govern.Policy28(2),276–289.

Armitage,D.,Marschke,M.,Plummer,R.,2008.Adaptiveco-managementandthe paradoxoflearning.GlobalEnviron.Change18(1),86–98,http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002.

Baker,I.,Peterson,A.,Brown,G.,McAlpine,C.,2012.Localgovernmentresponseto theimpactsofclimatechange:anevaluationoflocalclimateadaptationplans. LandscapeUrbanPlann.107(2),127–136,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2012.05.009.

Berkhout,F.,vandenHurk,B.,Bessembinder,J.,deBoer,J.,Bregman,B.,van Drunen,M.,2014.Framingclimateuncertainty:socio-economicandclimate scenariosinvulnerabilityandadaptationassessments.Reg.Environ.Change14 (3),879–893,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0519-2.

Berrang-Ford,L.,Ford,J.D.,Paterson,J.,2011.Areweadaptingtoclimatechange? GlobalEnviron.Change21(1),25–33,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha. 2010.09.012.

Betsill,M.M.,Bulkeley,H.,2004.Transnationalnetworksandglobalenvironmental governance:thecitiesforclimateprotectionprogram.Int.Stud.Q.48(2), 471–493.

Brooks,N.,Adger,W.N.,Kelly,P.M.,2005.Thedeterminantsofvulnerabilityand adaptivecapacityatthenationallevelandtheimplicationsforadaptation. GlobalEnviron.Change15(2),151–163,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha. 2004.12.006.

Bulkeley,H.,2010.Citiesandthegoverningofclimatechange.Annu.Rev.Environ. Resour.35,229–253, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-072809-101747.

Campos,I.,Alves,F.M.,Dinis,J.,Truninger,M.,Vizinho,A.,Penha-Lopes,G.,2016a. Climateadaptation,transitions,andsociallyinnovativeaction-research approaches.Ecol.Soc.21,13http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss1/ art13/.

Campos,I.,Vizinho,A.,Coelho,C.,Alves,F.,Truninger,M.,Pereira,C.,Santos,F.D., Lopes,G.Penha,2016b.Participation,scenariosandpathwaysinlong-term

(11)

planningforclimatechangeadaptation.Plann.TheoryPract.,1–20,http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1215511.

Carvalho,A.,Schmidt,L.,Santos,F.D.,Delicado,A.,2014.Climatechangeresearch andpolicyinPortugal.WileyInterdiscip.Rev.Clim.Change5,199–217,http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.258.

Carvalho,J.,Fernandes,M.J.,Camões,P.,Jorge,S.,2015.AnuárioFinanceiroDos MunicípiosPortugueses[FinancialAnnuityofPortugueseMunicipalities]. Edic¸ãodaOrdemdosContabilistasCertiﬁcados,Lisbon.

Cash,D.W.,Adger,W.N.,Berkes,F.,Garden,P.,Lebel,L.,Olsson,P.,...PritchardL., andYoung,O.,2006.Scaleandcross-scaledynamics:governanceand informationinamulti-levelworld.Ecol.Soc.11(2),8http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/.

Cheshire,L.,Esparcia,J.,Shucksmith,M.,2015.Communityresilience,socialcapital andterritorialgovernance.Ager:Revistadeestudiossobredespoblacióny desarrollorural=J.Depopul.RuralDev.Stud.18,7–38,http://dx.doi.org/10. 4422/ager.2015.0.

Ciscar,J.C.,Iglesias,A.,Feyen,L.,Szabó,L.,VanRegemorter,D.,Amelung,B., Nicholls,R.,Watkiss,P.,Christensen,O.B.,Dankers,R.,Garrote,L.,Goodess, C.M.,Hunt,A.,Moreno,A.,Richards,J.,Soria,A.,2011.Physicalandeconomic consequencesofclimatechangeinEurope.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.108(7), 2678–2683,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.014.

Dannevig,H.,Rauken,T.,Hovelsrud,G.,2012.Implementingadaptationtoclimate changeatthelocallevel.LocalEnviron.17(6-7),597–611,http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/13549839.2012.678317http://hdl.handle.net/10535/3412.

Dias,J.M.,Alves,F.L.,2013.RiscoDeCheiasEEstratégiasDeAdaptac¸ãoParaaZona CosteiraELagunarDaRiaDeAveiro.[FloodRisksandAdaptationStrategiesfor theCoastalZoneandtheRiaDeAveiroLagoon.].AveiroUniversity:CESAM– CentrodeEstudosdoAmbienteedoMar,Retrievedfrom:http://la.cesam.ua. pt/Documentos/RiscodeCheia.pdf.

EEA[EuropeanEnvironmentalAgency],2014.NationalAdaptationPolicy ProcessesinEuropeanCountries.ReportNo4/2014,Availablefrom:http:// www.eea.europa.eu/publications/national-adaptation-policy-processes. EEA[EuropeanEnvironmentalAgency],2015.NationalMonitoring,Reportingand

EvaluationofClimateChangeAdaptationinEurope.ReportN020/2015, Availablefrom: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/national-monitoring-reporting-and-evaluation.

Füssel,H.M.,2007.Adaptationplanningforclimatechange:concepts,assessment approaches,andkeylessons.SustainabilitySci.2(2),265–275,http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11625-007-0032-y.

Flint,L.E.,Flint,A.L.,2012.Downscalingfutureclimatescenariostoﬁnescalesfor hydrologicandecologicalmodelingandanalysis.Ecol.Processes1(1),1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-1-2.

Flora,J.L.,1998.Socialcapitalandcommunitiesofplace.RuralSociol.63(4), 481–506,http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00689.x. Folke,C.,Hahn,T.,Olsson,P.,Norberg,J.,2005.Adaptivegovernanceof

social-ecologicalsystems.Ann.Rev.Environ.Resour.30(1),441–473,http:// dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.

Folke,C.,Carpenter,S.R.,Walker,B.,Scheffer,M.,Chapin,T.,Rockström,J.,2010. Resiliencethinking:integratingresilience,adaptabilityandtransformability. Ecol.Soc.15(4),20,Availableonlineat:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol15/iss4/art20/.

Folke,C.,2006.Resilience:theemergenceofaperspectiveforsocial–ecological systemsanalyses.GlobalEnviron.Change16,253–267,http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

Ford,J.D.,Berrang-ford,L.,Lesnikowski,A.,Barrera,M.,Heymann,S.J.,2013.Howto trackadaptationtoclimatechange:atypologyofapproachesfornational-level application.Ecol.Soc.18(3),40,http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05732-180340. Haasnoot,M.,Kwakkel,J.H.,Walker,W.E.,Maat,J.,2013.Dynamicadaptivepolicy pathways:amethodforcraftingrobustdecisionsforadeeplyuncertainworld. GlobalEnviron.Change23,485–498,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha. 2012.12.006.

Hallegatte,S.,Przyluski,V.,Vogt-Schilb,A.,2011.Buildingworldnarrativesfor climatechangeimpact,adaptationandvulnerabilityanalyses.Nat.Clim. Change1(3),151–155,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1135. Hallegatte,S.,2009.Strategiestoadapttoanuncertainclimatechange.Global

Environ.Change19(2),240–247,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008. 12.003.

Hunt,A.,Watkiss,P.,2011.Climatechangeimpactsandadaptationincities:a reviewoftheliterature.Clim.Change104(1),13–49,http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s10584-010-9975-6.

INE[NationalStatisticsInstitute],2011.SynthesisReports,NationalPopulation Census,Availablefrom:http://censos.ine.pt/xportal/

xmain?xpid=CENSOS&xpgid=censosﬁcheirosintese(lastaccessedonJuly, 2015).

Juhola,S.,Westerhoff,L.,2011.Challengesofadaptationtoclimatechangeacross multiplescales:acasestudyofnetworkgovernanceintwoEuropean countries.Environ.Sci.Policy14(3),239–247,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2010.12.006.

Kay,A.,2006.SocialCapital,thesocialeconomyandcommunitydevelopment. Commun.Dev.J.41(2),160–173,http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi045. Kern,K.,Bulkeley,H.,2009.Cities,Europeanizationandmulti-levelgovernance:

governingclimatechangethroughtransnationalmunicipalnetworks.JCMS:J. CommonMarketStud.47(2),309–332.

Knez,I.,2005.Attachmentandidentityasrelatedtoaplaceanditsperceived climate.J.Environ.Psychol.25(2),207–218,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp. 2005.03.003.

Lebel,L.,Anderies,J.M.,Campbell,B.,Folke,C.,Hatﬁeld-Dodds,S.,Hughes,T.P., Wilson,J.,2006.Governanceandthecapacitytomanageresilienceinregional social-ecologicalsystems.Ecol.Soc.11(1),19,Availableonlineat:http:// digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.

cgi?article=1051&context=smsfacpub.

Lenoir,J.,Graae,B.J.,Aarrestad,P.A.,Alsos,I.G.,Armbruster,W.S.,Austrheim,G., Bergendorff,C.,Birks,H.J.B.,Bråthen,K.A.,Brunet,J.,Bruun,H.H.,Dalhberg,C.J., Decocq,G.,Diekmann,M.,Dynesius,M.,Ejrnæs,R.,Grytnes,J.,Hylander,K., Klanderud,K.,Luoto,M.,Milbau,A.,Moora,M.,Nygaard,B.,Odland,A., Ravolainen,V.T.,Reinhardt,S.,Sandvik,S.M.,HøistadSchei,F.,Speed,J.D., Tveraabak,L.U.,Vandvik,V.,Velle,L.G.,Virtanen,M.Z.,Svenning,J.-C.,2013. Localtemperaturesinferredfromplantcommunitiessuggeststrongspatial bufferingofclimatewarmingacrossNorthernEurope.GlobalChangeBiol.19 (5),1470–1481,http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12129.

Lenschow,A.,2002.EnvironmentalPolicyIntegration:GreeningSectoralPolicies inEurope.Routledge,London.

Niles,M.T.,Lubell,M.,Brown,M.,2015.Howlimitingfactorsdriveagricultural adaptationtoclimatechange.Agric.Ecosyst.Environ.200,178–185,http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.010.

O’Riordan,T.,Gomes,C.,Schmidt,L.,2014.Thedifﬁcultiesofdesigningfuture coastlinesinthefaceofclimatechange.LandscapeRes.39(6),613–630,http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2014.975108.

OECD,2015.TheEconomicConsequencesofClimateChange.OECDPublishing, Paris,http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235410-en.

Olsson,P.,Gunderson,L.H.,Carpenter,S.R.,Ryan,P.,Lebel,L.,Folke,C.,Holling,C.S., 2006.Shootingtherapids:navigatingtransitionstoadaptivegovernanceof social-ecologicalsystems.Ecol.Soc.11(1),18http://hdl.handle.net/10535/ 3412.

Parry,M.L.,Canziani,O.F.,Palutikof,J.P.,vanderLinden,P.J.,Hanson,C.E.(Eds.), 2007.ContributionofWorkingGroupIItotheFourthAssessmentReportofthe IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.

Pelling,M.,High,C.,2005.Understandingadaptation:whatcansocialcapitaloffer assessmentsofadaptivecapacity?GlobalEnviron.Change15(4),308–319, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.02.001.

Pelling,M.,O’Brien,K.,Matyas,D.,2014.Adaptationandtransformation.Clim. Change,1–15,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0.

Pelling,M.,2010.AdaptationtoClimateChange:FromResilienceto Transformation.London,Routledge.

Putnam,R.,2000.BowlingAlone:TheCollapseandRevivalofAmerican Community.Simon&Schuster,NewYork.

Schmidt,L.,Guerra,J.,2010.DaGovernanc¸aGlobalàSustentabilidadeLocal −PortugaleoBrasilemPerspetivaComparada.RevistadeCiênciasSociais41 (2),106–124.

Schmidt,L.,Gomes,C.,Guerreiro,S.,O’Riordan,T.,2014.Areweallonthesame boat?ThechallengeofadaptationfacingPortuguesecoastalcommunities:risk perception,trust-buildingandgenuineparticipation.LandUsePolicy38, 355–365,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.008.

Sein,D.,Cabos,W.,Jacob,D.,2014.FutureClimateChangeRCP4.5andRCP8.5 ScenariosDownscalingfortheNorthernEuropewiththeFocusontheNorth andBalticSeas,3.InternationalBalticEarthSecretariatPublications,pp.59–60, 10013/epic.45009.d001.

Smit,B.,Wandel,J.,2006.Adaptation,adaptivecapacityandvulnerability.Global Environ.Change16(3),282–292,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006. 03.008.

Stewart,I.D.,Oke,T.R.,2012.Localclimatezonesforurbantemperaturestudies. Bull.Am.Meteorol.Soc.93(12),1879–1900, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00019.1.

Truninger,M.,Freire,D.,2014.UnpackingtheMediterraneandiet:agriculture,food andhealth.In:Domingos,N.,Sobral,J.M.,West,H.(Eds.),FoodBetweenthe CountryandtheCity:EthnographiesofaChangingGlobalFoodscape. Bloomsbury,London.

Waksberg,J.,1978.Samplingmethodsforrandomdigitdialing.J.Am.Stat.Assoc. 73(361),40–46.

Wise,R.M.,Fazey,I.,Smith,M.S.,Park,S.E.,Eakin,H.C.,VanGarderen,E.A., Campbell,B.,2014.Reconceptualisingadaptationtoclimatechangeaspartof pathwaysofchangeandresponse.GlobalEnviron.Change28,325–336. Wood,D.,Stocker,L.,2009.Coastaladaptationtoclimatechange:towards