the integration of environmental practices and tools in the portuguese local public administration

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e12

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

The integration of environmental practices and tools in the Portugueselocal public administration

Luís Nogueiro, Tomás B. Ramos*

CENSE e Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, Departamento de Ciências e Engenharia do Ambiente, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia,Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus da Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 19 December 2011Received in revised form31 December 2013Accepted 30 March 2014Available online xxx

Keywords:Local public administrationEnvironmental practices and toolsSustainable developmentPortuguese municipalities

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ351 212948397; faxE-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. N

B. Ramos).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.0960959-6526/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Nogueiro,administration, Journal of Cleaner Productio

a b s t r a c t

The adoption of environmental practices and tools in overall management is an increasing occurrence inlocal public organisations. These institutions are shifting their management towards sustainability,although local governments are moving faster than other public sector levels regarding the integration ofenvironmental and sustainability aspects in operations and strategies. The main goal of this research wasto identify the environmental profile of local public administration using Portuguese municipalities as acase-study. This paper assesses how environmental and sustainability practices and tools have beenadopted in this sector based on self-assessment by the local public services. To accomplish this aim, aquestionnaire survey was forwarded to all of the municipalities in the country in order to identify andanalyse the environmental practices in the local public sector. An aggregate evaluation of the degree ofimplementation of certain environmental practices was also produced based on an index that wasdeveloped based on the data obtained from ten selected environmental practices variables in the na-tional survey. The overall results demonstrate a low adoption level of environmental practices and tools,concluding that new practices and public policies need to be adopted to invert the current trend.Nevertheless, there are positive signs of rising environmental integration and awareness, although manyof the processes are in the early stages of implementation or changing. This research can support mu-nicipalities in reviewing and analysing their environmental management, assessment and communica-tion practices to improve their environmental performance.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The public administration faces multiple challenges that compelit to continually make an effort to adapt to new organisationalforms capable of responding to the constant requirements of so-ciety. Curristine et al. (2007) state that governments of the Orga-nisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)countries are under pressure to improve public sector performance,while at the same time contain expenditure growth. Although themajority of OECD countries have engaged in some institutionalreforms through the adoption of several good practices and newapproaches, the demonstration of their results remains unclear.

Public sector performance could include several dimensionsbeyond the economic, financial and human resources aspects,including the environmental pillar, improving the public sector

: þ351 212948554.ogueiro), [email protected] (T.

L., Ramos, T.B., The integration (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10

efficiency and effectiveness, as endorsed by several authors (e.g.,GRI, 2004, 2010; PMSGO, 1999; Burritt and Welch, 1997). However,as demonstrated by Ramos et al. (2007a) and further discussed byLundberg et al. (2009), environmental assessment and manage-ment practices have most often been applied to manufacturingindustries and tangible products, while public organisations usu-ally neglect and/or omit their own environmental problems,excluding themselves from environmental integration in their ownactivities. Overall, the public sector has frequently been left out inresearch on the environmental and sustainability performancefollow-up of their different activities and operations, despite fewattempts, such as the one conducted by Lundberg (2011). These fewstudies can be justified in part by the natural attention that is givento sectors with a longer/greater history of environmental impacts,e.g., industry, agriculture and transport and with more pressurefrom stakeholders, customers in particular. However, the overallimpacts of government operations can exceed those of individualindustry sectors in a national context, as public agencies are majoremployers, providers of services and consumers of resources, asargued by GRI (2004).

n of environmental practices and tools in the Portuguese local public.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.096

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.096



L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e122

However, despite the abovementioned reality on environmentaland sustainability research initiatives in the public sector, localgovernment is part of a wider sustainability culture changemovement and is becoming widely recognised as an environmentalleader, advocating to other levels of government (Strengers, 2004).Local public institutions could play a central role in adopting sus-tainable initiatives, as discussed by Williams et al. (2011). Localgovernments are realising that they need to be part of the changetowards sustainability and integrate good practices to improvetheir own performance and inform stakeholders. Nevertheless, asalso indicated by Strengers (2004), the reasons justifying thesechanges are less clear, as well as theways andmeans inwhich thesechanges are occurring and the permanency of these changes.

The relevant amount of work conducted in the area of envi-ronmental and sustainability practices and tools being imple-mented by local governments (e.g., Dumay et al., 2010; Michelsenand de Boer, 2009; Lozano and Vallés, 2007) contains many expe-riences and case studies, demonstrating that many local publicadministrations worldwide already provide good examples forintegrating environmental initiatives into their operational activ-ities and strategic instruments. Despite the numerous theoreticaland empirical research initiatives discussing new approaches,methods or case study applications, the majority primarily focus ononly one main practice or issue (e.g., Environmental ManagementSystem e EMS; sustainability reporting; Local Agenda 21 e LA21)(see chapter 2). Therefore, there is a dearth of research on initiativesthat offer a coherent integrated environmental picture of a relevantset of adopted practices and tools by local governments.

This dearth is even more evident within the context of thePortuguese local government. Despite certain known initiativesconducted by the Portuguese local administration on environ-mental and sustainability issues, as identified by Fidélis andMoreno-Pires (2009) or Schmidt et al. (2006), little research hasfocused on the joint assessment of a set of significant practices andtools adopted or lead by the local governments of this SouthernEuropean country. To fill this research gap, a tailored local publicadministration assessment was conducted in this research, tryingto assess the extent to which Portuguese municipalities areadopting key environmental actions and procedures.

Themain goal of this researchwas to identify the environmentalprofile of local public administration through an analysis of theenvironmental practices and tools in Portuguese municipalitiesbased on a self-assessment. To accomplish this aim, a nationalsurvey of all of the Portuguese municipalities was performed spe-cifically to ascertain the following research questions: What is thegeneral state of environmental integration and engagement in thePortuguese municipalities? What is the extent of implementationfor a set of specific environmental practices and tools in the Por-tuguesemunicipalities? These practices include the appointment ofa designated environmental professional responsible for environ-mental issues, the environmental training of personnel, EMSimplementation, environmental and sustainability indicators andreporting, environmental standards for suppliers and LA21 imple-mentation, among others.

2. Overview of environmental practices and tools in the localpublic administration

As introduced in the previous section, public institutions aremoving towards to the integration of environmental and sustain-ability issues in their management (GRI, 2004; Ramos et al., 2007a,b). An important turning point was the recommendation of OECD(1996), stating that governments should develop and apply stra-tegies to continually improve environmental performance, inte-grating environmental considerations into all government

Please cite this article in press as: Nogueiro, L., Ramos, T.B., The integratioadministration, Journal of Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10

operations and facilities, including related decision-making pro-cesses. This recommendation was followed by other OECD initia-tives, such as the Workshop on Environmental ManagementSystems (EMS) for Government Agencies (OECD, 1998), theRecommendation of the Council on Improving the EnvironmentalPerformance of Public Procurement (OECD, 2002) and the Recom-mendation of the Council on Good Practices for Public Environ-mental Expenditure Management (OECD, 2006). It was understoodthat, like any other organisation, public services should haveenvironmental objectives, goals and targets.

Local governments are responsible for providing a large numberof services to their populations, independent of organisation size,territory location and social-cultural factors (USEPA, 1999). Asfocused on in this work of the United States Environmental Pro-tection Agency, a main issue when analysing local public admin-istration is the different types of local authority, the scope of theiractivities and operations, the related environmental aspects andimpacts (many of them are indirectly associated) and the regulatoryrequirements. These organisations face different roles beyond theusual specific daily activities of their facilities, which take placewithin each of these organisations. These organisations usuallyparticipate in many other tasks, e.g., local planning, regulation,surveillance and monitoring in the respective environmental, so-cial/cultural, economic and institutional systems operating withintheir jurisdiction. As highlighted by GRI (2004), indirect impactscan result from policies, plans and programs implemented by localauthorities that can have major strategic effects on society and theenvironment.

Various studies have surveyed and identified the adoption ofenvironmental practices and management/assessment tools bycompanies, especially addressing EMSs, eco-design, sustainabilityperformance indicators, reporting practices and other corporateresponsibility-related research issues (e.g., Comoglio and Botta,2012; Lozano, 2012). Following the rising private sector trend,similar studies have been conducted for local public organisations,and several cases provide examples of these practices, manyvoluntary, where local governments are becoming aware and/orresearch is being produced (Table 1).

Despite being quantitatively less representative, other researchattempts to produce wider integrated analyses, not focussing onlyone single practice or tool, such as those previously mentioned(e.g., EMS), cover a broader scope. For example, Montesinos andBrusca (2009) surveyed Spanish local governments aiming toidentify which options are being used to improve local manage-ment in terms of financial and economic quality and environmentalmanagement. Enticott and Walker (2008) conducted a survey toanalyse the association between sustainable management andperformance in local English governments. Furthermore, the surveythat traced the environmental profile of the local government op-erations in the United States (USEPA, 1999) was presented earlier inthis chapter.

Other integrated approaches attempt to analyse the integrationof environmental or sustainability practices by local publicadministration using an index-based approach through the aggre-gation of different variables that provide an overall profile or pic-ture (e.g., Wilson and Grant, 2009; Barrera-Roldan and Saldivar-Valdes, 2002). Some authors, such as Frame and Vale (2006) andPulsellia et al. (2006), discussed applications of this type ofapproach, stressing some known advantages and limitations.

3. The Portuguese local administration

There are three distinct layers of government within Portugal:the national/central government; the two autonomous regions,which have their own political and administrative systems and


Table 1Examples of applications in the local public administration of environmental and sustainability practices.

Type of environmental and sustainability practice Applications in local public administration

Environmental training Environmental training assessment needs initiatives to train technical and managerial staff of municipalities(Martins et al., 2000; Demirer et al., 2003), amajor practice verymuch related to the greening of regular jobs. Thereis a growing and increasing interest in the promotion of trained jobs that add value to environmental andsustainability organisational performance in the private and public sectors, as explored by UNEP (2008); stafftraining is being assumed as a main driving force in implementing and managing environmental practices in localpublic organisations.

Environmental management system (EMS) Applying EMSs at local public organisation facilities analysing the organisation scopes and managementapproaches and features is one of the most studied environmental practices (e.g., Lozano and Vallés, 2007;Abubakar and Alshuwaikhat, 2007; Malmborg and Norén, 2004; Emilsson and Hjelm, 2002, 2004), as it isfrequently assumed that the adoption of environmental practices and issues is better integrated as a result of thepresence of an EMS; some of those works analyse the use of EMSs by local authorities, studying theirimplementation with case studies from European cities (Emilsson and Hjelm, 2004), or consider modifiedapproaches to incorporating an EMS in local public authorities. For instance, Abubakar and Alshuwaikhat (2007)incorporated strategic environmental assessment attributes and public participation processes into a corporateEMS.

Environmental auditing Environmental auditing conducted in local public facilities, including their infrastructures, equipment, activitiesand operations (e.g., Diamantis, 1999; Aall, 1995) is also a common practice for this type of organisation, outliningprocedures by which environmental auditing can be used and adopting municipal approaches of eco-auditing thatwere tried in cities; this practice is also frequently discussed in the context of EMS operation, as regular audits,external and internal, are part of the system.

Sustainable public procurement There are several sustainable public procurement initiatives and approaches developed for the local publicadministration context (e.g., Michelsen and de Boer, 2009; Jackson and Thomson, 2007; Günther and Scheibe,2006; Ryall and Warner, 2001), stressing their practical experiences and conceptual discussions as well as theunique role that local governments can provide as driving forces for greening consumption practices, asemphasised by Clement et al. (2003). As stated by Jackson and Thomson (2007), the greening of publicprocurement could be seen as a key initial step towards providing suppliers with a major incentive to reduce theirenvironmental impacts and stimulating the markets for sustainable products and services, where each localauthority has a different set of circumstances and priorities.

Environmental and sustainability reporting The practice of environmental and sustainability reporting conducted by municipalities or cities (Williams et al.,2011; Dumay et al., 2010; Dickinson et al., 2005; Keating, 2001) has been increasingly adopted to communicateorganisational or territory performance to internal and/or external stakeholders; wide works on sustainabilityreporting, such as that led by Keating (2001), stressed that a significant number of cities around the world (e.g.,Seattle) have or are developing environmental, sustainability or quality of life reports. The Global ReportingInitiative (GRI) is the only international reporting framework for organisational sustainability performance that isalso designed to be applicable to public agencies (GRI, 2004, 2010).

Sustainability indicators There are a significant number of initiatives on the development and use of sustainability indicators at the localscale (e.g., Petrosillo et al., 2012; Karam et al., 2008; Butelli et al., 2008; Scipioni et al., 2008; Holden, 2006;Eckerberg and Mineur, 2003; McMahon, 2002; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000), aiming to monitor, assess andreport local environmental and sustainability performance to stakeholders and support decision makingprocesses; despite the complexities and criticism surrounding this tool (e.g., Holden, 2013; Moreno-Pires andFidélis, 2012), this is a major practice when exploring sustainability initiatives conducted by local governments,assuming a central role in local public sector policies and activities.

Sustainable development strategies/communityprocesses e e.g., Local Agenda 21a

Some initiatives tend to provide a more general analysis of sustainability integration at the local level, with LocalAgenda 21 (LA21) being the most studied instrument (e.g., Fidélis and Moreno-Pires, 2009; Garcia-Sanchez andPrado-Lorenzo, 2008; Braun, 2008; Aguado et al., 2007; Schmidt et al., 2006; Miranda and Steinberg, 2005;Feichtinger and Pregernig, 2005; Selman, 2000; Grochowalska, 1998; Patton and Worthington, 1996) andfrequently being assumed as the sustainable development strategy of the local governments.

a The Local Agenda 21 is not a management practice, in the traditional sense, nor comparable to the most common practices such EMS or sustainability reporting. It is aninstrument that reflects the broad strategy of a local government to sustainable development, where usually the participation and involvement of local communities play a keyrole.

L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e12 3

governing bodies (the Atlantic islands of the Azores and Madeira);and the local authorities.

Providing an overview of the organisation and structure of thePortuguese local administration is a fundamental step to under-stand the target and scope of this study. At present, there are twolevels of local government: municipalities (municípios) and par-ishes (freguesias) (Table 2). The most basic local government unit inPortugal is the parish, which elects a local assembly via propor-tional representation for a four-year term. This body, in turn, electsan executive and president from its members (the president is atthe head of the winning party list). The tier immediately above theparish is the municipality, which is elected on the same basis as arethe parishes (with the municipal assembly electing a municipalcouncil and mayor).

The Portuguese municipalities were chosen for this research, asthey are the most important members of the Portuguese localpublic administration. These organisations are frequently the mainemployer, playing a central role in local development, regardless of


size, location or demographic characteristics. These organisationsare responsible for providing a great diversity of services, such aseducational facilities, environmental protection and management,land use planning, transportation, cultural events and social care, totheir populations.

Portuguese municipalities have significant asymmetries in theirlevels of development. Their diversity in valuable natural, socialand cultural assets, human pressures, importance for the Portu-guese public administrative structure and, in addition, governmentstrategic and operational responsibilities in connection with theiradvantageous position near local communities indicate how rele-vant the environmental profile assessment is for performancemanagement in public services.

According to Soares et al. (2003), there are four many clusters ofmunicipalities in terms of similar levels of socioeconomic devel-opment. (i) The first group is composed of mainly rural interiormunicipalities in northern and central Portugal, close to theSpanish border, as well as along the Southwest coast. This group is


Table 2Summary characterization of the Portuguese sub-national authorities.

Municipalities Parishes

Area (km2) Largest 1721 (Odemira) 373 (Penamacor)Smallest 8 (São João da Madeira) 0.05 (Castelo)

Population Largest 545 245 (Lisbon) 66 250 (Algueirão)Smallest 430 (Corvo) 46 (Bigorne)

Populationrange

Less then 20 000: 181 (59%)20 000e100 000: 103 (33%)Over 100 000: 24 (8%)

Total (no.) 308 4259

Source: INE (2011).

Table 3Summary of questions to establish the Portuguese local administration sector’senvironmental profile.

Category Specific issue addressed

General characterisation ofthe municipality

� Geographic localisation; population (number of inhabitants and population density);land area

Environmental profileself-assessment

� Perception of the integration level of environmental practices in the municipality

Environmental practicesand tools (Pi) in themunicipality

� (P1) Existence of a coordinating structure forenvironmental matters

� (P2) Staff with environmentalresponsibilities and time allotted to theseactivities

� (P3) Staff submitted to training courses onenvironmental practices and tools

� (P4) EMS: current state of implementation,driving forces and scope

� (P5) Environmental audit conducted in municipality facilities

� (P6) Environmental and/or sustainabilityinformation communicated through formalreports

� (P7) Use of environmental performance indicators to measure, communicate andreport

� (P8) Use of environmental and/or sustainability criteria in local government publicpurchasing

� (P9) Application submitted to the ECO XXIaward system

� (P10) Implementation of LA21 or anothertype of local sustainable developmentstrategya

a Despite their different scopes in relation to the traditional management prac-tices of an organisation, Local Agenda 21 was also included as it could play a centralrole in the level of environmental and sustainability awareness and adopted man-agement practices in local public administration. Assuming that a Local Agenda 21can be considered the sustainable development strategy of a local government, itcan be the umbrella for several good environmental and sustainability practices.


characterised by low population density and a general low level ofsocioeconomic development. (ii) The second group includes a largenumber of municipalities from the northern and central regions ofPortugal, including some municipalities from the Alentejo andAlgarve regions in the South. This group is characterised by anaverage level of socio-economic development. (iii) The third groupintegrates municipalities from the coastal zone of Portugal,including the municipalities around Lisbon and Porto. These mu-nicipalities have a high population density and a generally highlevel of socioeconomic development, and they also have the highestvalue of environmental expenditures. (iv) The fourth group in-cludes Lisbon and Porto, the most developed municipalities interms of socioeconomic indicators.

4. Methodology

The raw data on local government environmental practiceswereobtained from a national questionnaire survey distributed amongall of the Portuguese municipalities. The survey questions coveredseveral major practices that were selected and designed consid-ering the literature analysed in Sections 1 And 2. The “environ-mental practices” definition and scope explored by several relatedworks at the organisation level, namely OECD (2003), Ramos andMelo (2005), Montabon et al. (2007) and Lozano (2012), werealso considered.

The questionnaire was developed and managed (design,administration and analysis) by the university research staff andwas emailed in November 2007 to the 308 Portuguese municipal-ities. The questionnaire contained 44 questions drawn from theo-retical scientific/technical literature focussing on approaches,concepts, frameworks and case study applications. The majority aremultiple-choice closed-ended questions with only one questiondesigned with a ranking scale to obtain the environmental profileself-assessment by the municipalities. Table 3 presents a summaryof the main issues addressed by the questions. A pre-test to thequestionnaire with a set of selected individuals from the local au-thority and the academic sectors was administered to assess theoverall quality of the draft questionnaire. The inputs received fromthe pre-test were analysed and weighted in the final version of thequestionnaire.

The statistical population represents all of the municipalities,totalling 308. Altogether, 95 municipalities returned usable re-sponses to the questionnaires, representing a response rate ofapproximately 31%. To infer the significance of the respondentmunicipalities for the entire surveyed population, the approachproposed by Scheaffer et al. (1996) was conducted. According to theconfidence interval for p of finite populations, the sample sizen ¼ 95 provides estimates with 95% confidence and a margin errorof approximately 8.4% in the most conservative situation. Thisfigure allows for a significant analysis of the main findings,assuming the identified margin error.


Furthermore, this response rate is considered high for thismethod, as Garcia-Sanchez and Prado-Lorenzo (2008) report. Ac-cording to these authors, a response rate of approximately 11% isslightly higher than usual for papers on municipalities inwhich therequested information can only be obtained through a tool such asa survey. Additionally, Montesinos and Brusca (2009) obtained a26% response rate for a similar questionnaire and context (Spanishlocal authorities), which they classify as a normal value for this typeof study. Nevertheless, any extrapolations of the current results torepresent all of the Portuguese municipality’s statistical populationshould be takenwith great care. The responses to the questionnairewere mainly given by the municipality technical staff in charge ofenvironmental and sustainability or related matters, includingplanning or engineering issues. Several respondent municipalitiesinternally distributed the document to more than one departmentto assure a more accurate response. In many municipalities, morethan one department usually covers these thematic domains.

Where there were important questions, in particular requestingadditional explanations for the data, therewere follow-up emails ortelephone calls to respondents. Additionally, the missing cases(non-responses) were dealt with in accordance with the recom-mendations of Rea and Parker (1997) by means of identification perresponse category and the estimation of adjusted frequencies.

Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the results in themunicipalities surveyed according to the recommendations ofWheater and Cook (2000) and Rea and Parker (1997). Whereappropriate, chi-square was used to test associations between fre-quency distributions in the groups of municipalities by size, interms of the number of inhabitants and number of workers, and in



the groups of municipalities by geographic location and the envi-ronmental practice variables.

The raw data obtained in this survey are quite extensive anddiverse. To synthesise, convey and process the environmentalpractice information in a simplified and useful manner, providing afriendly picture to local policy decision-makers and the generalpublic, an aggregation approach was adopted. Based on the selec-tion of a relevant set of variables from the survey questionnaire(Table 3) related to environmental practices and tools and consid-ering the method used by Ramos and Melo (2006),1 we adopted asimilar index named the Municipality Integration of EnvironmentalPractices (MIEP) index. This index measures the extent to whichthese selected practices have been adopted by municipalities. Itshould be highlighted that the index is mainly assumed as anaggregated complement to the deeper analysis provided by eachindividual survey variable.

Considering the theoretical background and analysis conductedin chapters 1 and 2, the main criteria to select the index variablescover the following: (i) to be relevant for the direct or indirectassessment of the environmental profile of municipalities; (ii) to berepresentative of known and used environmental practices by or-ganisations, in particular for local public organisations; (iii) to bepotentially adopted by any Portuguese municipality; (iv) to be easyto measure and integrate into an index; and (v) to be useful forcommunicating with stakeholders.

After this selection, a normalisation procedure was used totransform the original data of Pi variables into a single scale ofcontinual variation [0,.,1], which allowed the aggregation process.This scale varies between 0 (the worst environmental profile) and 1(the best environmental profile). The data manipulation of thechosen survey variables allows for the computation of a compositevariable provided by the MIEP index, which was calculated usingthe following equation:

MIEP ¼ 1m

Xmj¼1

"1n

Xni¼1

Pi

#j

(1)

where,

Pi ¼ the value of the environmental practice variable i derivedfrom the questionnaire;i ¼ the total number of variables i; i ¼ 1,.,10; andm ¼ the total number of municipalities j; j ¼ 1,.,95.

Five categories were established to classify the extent of envi-ronmental practices supplied by the index on a scale of 0e1 (verypoor: 0e0.20; poor: 0.21e0.40; medium: 0.41e0.60; good: 0.61e0.80; very good: 0.81e1.0). It should be stressed that theMIEP indexwas not designed to evaluate the individual level of environmentalintegration of each municipality, i.e., this evaluation does not rankthe respondent municipalities, and the analysis was conducted forthe entire Portuguese local administration sector as represented byall of the survey respondents. The analyses for this index consid-ered the geographic location and dimension of themunicipalities interms of the number of inhabitants and workers.

To evaluate the potential differences between groups in theMIEP index, the non-parametric KruskaleWallis test (Gibbons,1993), a one-way analysis of variance using ranks, was used. This

1 A method developed to assess the Portuguese military sector’s environmentalperformance through an index, with raw data obtained from a questionnaire. Thealgorithm is composed of an average of the selected environmental variables forone single military unit, which is followed by a second average to aggregate severalunits and obtain the military sector profile.


test does not assume a normal population distribution, unlike theanalogous one-way analysis of variance. The test was applied todifferent types of groups, reflecting (i) the geographical location bythe NUTS2 II region: Alentejo, Algarve, Centre, Lisbon, North, Azoresand Madeira; (ii) the number of inhabitants considering an incre-ment of 25 000 individuals between consecutive classes (CL1 ¼ 0e25,000 individuals, CL2 ¼ 25,001e50,000,.); and (iii) the numberof workers considering an increment of 250 individuals betweenconsecutive classes (CL1 ¼ 0e250 individuals, CL2 ¼ 251e500, .).Having less than 250 employees is one of the criteria used to definesmall and medium enterprises according to the European Com-mission definition (European Commission, 2003).

Additionally, the index results and the municipalities’ self-assessment of their environmental profile (respondent’s percep-tion about the integration level of environmental practices in themunicipality) resulting from their answers to a particular surveyquestion were compared. The five categories in the MIEP indexwere the same as those used in the question requesting the self-assessment of environmental practices at the integration level us-ing numerical values associated with the ordinal categories (1e5,very poor to very good). The comparison was based on the trans-formation of the metric values of the MIEP index into non-metricordinal values for each class, allowing for the association with thesame discrete data obtained in the related question.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. General background

The population of the respondent municipalities ranged from2688 to 307444 inhabitants, thus revealing great variations in size.The average number of inhabitants for all of the respondents was34 320. The population density ranged from 3710 inhabitants/km2

to four inhabitants/km2, with an average of 325. The majority ofrespondent municipalities (58%) had less than 250 employees withthe actual figures ranging from a minimum of 73 to a maximum of1973 workers. The average was 368. These figures are generally in-linewith the average national data provided by the last census (INE,2011).

The total physical area of each municipality also varied greatly,indicating that these analyses focused on small, medium and largeterritories ranging from an area of 8e1332 km2, with an averagevalue of 302 km2. The geographic distribution of the respondentmunicipalities throughout the country showed a relatively repre-sentative participation of all of the NUTS II regions. All of the re-gions were represented, although themajority of respondents werelocated in the Centre (30.5%) and North (30.5%) regions.

5.2. The aggregate environmental practices profile

The MIEP index results for the Portuguese municipalitiesdemonstrated that the aggregate profile of environmental practicesof respondent Portuguese municipalities is poor (0.33) (Fig. 1).

The MIEP index by geographic location (NUTS II) showed nomajor differences among locations. The relative consistency amongregions was confirmed by the non-significant KruskaleWallis testresults. The Lisbon region had the highest MEPE value (0.49),registering a small difference compared with the other regions(Fig. 1), although the value was enough to reflect a medium level ofenvironmental practices integration compared with the poor levelobtained by the remaining regions.

2 European Union Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. Each NUTS IIregion includes a set of municipalities geographically related.


Fig. 1. MIEP Index by geographic location e NUTS II regions.


The aggregate environmental practices profile was higher inlarge municipalities (Fig. 2a and b). In municipalities with morethan 75 000 inhabitants and 1000 workers, the environmentalperformance was good (0.66 and 0.69, respectively). The differ-ences among municipality size classes (inhabitants and workers)were confirmed by the KruskaleWallis test (significant forp < 0.01). Overall, this result indicates some association with thefindings of Soares et al. (2003), where the municipalities that had ahigher population density also had the highest value of environ-mental expenditures and a generally high level of socioeconomicdevelopment, which could be correlated with the adoption of moreenvironmental practices and tools.

On account of severe environmental problems and/or intensecommunity pressure, large municipalities tend to lead in imple-menting environmental practices. Generally, small-sized Portu-guese public organisations tend to have few financial and humanresources, which could limit the adoption of better environmentalpractices. In addition, these results could also be explained by thefact that some of the larger municipalities are adopting Environ-mental Management Systems (EMSs) and havemore staff trained inenvironmental issues, among other practices that occur more inlarge municipalities (detailed discussion for each single practice ispresented in the next section). This pattern could explain theapparently better environmental integration of the large-sized localauthorities surveyed.

The comparison between theMIEP index and themunicipalities’self-assessment single question showed contradictory results(Fig. 3). The results produced by the index indicate that the mu-nicipalities’ environmental practice integration is very poor (51%)

Fig. 2. MIEP Index by municipality size


and poor (21%). However, the self-assessment carried out by themunicipalities reveals that they consider themselves as having agood (47%) or medium (42%) environmental profile.

These results may be explained by various factors, particularlythe fact that many of the environmental practices considered forthis evaluation are voluntary, and local government decision-makers will give priority to mandatory practices. However, theoptimistic self-assessment results could also be explained by theneed to report a very good level of environmental practices toprotect the authorities’ image. Additionally, as stressed by Ramosand Melo (2006) with reference to other public sector organisa-tions, these results may also be explained by the poor perceptionand knowledge of the actual environmental profile. The MIEP indexresults reflect a more robust picture of the aggregate environ-mental practices in place, compared with an overoptimistic viewprojected in the municipalities’ self-assessment.

Few similar works are available for other countries, i.e., researchwork that evaluates the environmental profile of municipalitiesthrough the integrated analysis of the different environmentalmanagement practices implemented by their services. Therefore,any attempts to compare other results are quite difficult. Never-theless, some of the comparable works showed some individuallymatching findings, such as the positive association between mu-nicipality size and the adoption of environmental reporting(Williams et al., 2011) and green public purchasing (Michelsen andde Boer, 2009), as well as contradictory findings such as EMS andsize (Montesinos and Brusca, 2009), which can demonstrate theexistence of different patterns despite certain geographic, culturaland socio-economic similarities.

: (a) inhabitants and (b) workers.


Fig. 3. Municipality self-assessment versus the MIEP Index.


Assessments based on the MIEP index seek to aid in commu-nication with local decision-makers and key stakeholders to un-derstand the municipalities’ environmental profile regarding thesepractices. The aggregation approach used with an index can beuseful in synthesising the surveyed information and conveying it inan easier and more comprehensible way. A similar study wasconducted for the Portuguese military organisation, focussing onthe analysis of the environmental practices implemented in thatsector (Ramos and Melo, 2005, 2006). Although this study is also ofnational scope, it does not allow for an easy comparison with theresults provided by the local public administration. However,considering the specificities allocated to each study, it is possible toadmit that the environmental practices profile of both types oforganisations is similar. The integration of environmental practicesinto these Portuguese public areas (defence and local publicadministration) is quite new and is still in a development stage,although with a positive trend when compared with other publicsector areas and levels.

Nevertheless, it should also be stressed that integrated envi-ronmental assessment in public services is a relatively under-explored and complex domain, as shown by Ramos et al. (2007a;2007b; 2009) and Lundberg et al. (2009). Aggregated assessmentapproaches to synthesise information, such as the MIEP index,could be useful but should be carefully used.

5.3. Environmental practices and tools surveyed in themunicipalities

5.3.1. Coordinating structure, staff and trainingThe majority of the municipalities (71%) have a coordinating

structure for environmental matters with the Department/Divisionbeing the most common administrative structure to manage thisdiverse domain. It should be stressed that the departments or di-visions that cover environmentally related matters could havedifferent structures and thematic scopes. Environmental domainsare quite diverse, and departments may vary from onemunicipalityto another. For example, waste management, water supply or greenspaces can be managed by independent departments outside of thescope of an environment department. This wide and diverse scopeof environmental matters often leads to disaggregated solutionsthat are not very efficient for the implementation of environmentalpractices and tools, which usually require integrated municipalstructures. Furthermore, this limitation is even worst when thesubject is focused on sustainability.


This result also shows a significant association between the sizeof the municipality (number of inhabitants and workers) and theexistence of this type of administrative structure (confirmed by thechi-square test, p < 0.01) (Table 4). This finding seems to indicatethat larger municipalities that usually have more resources (humanandmaterial) could havemore complete and diverse organisationalstructures, covering a wide scope of domains in which the envi-ronment is almost always present, as confirmed by the re-spondents. However, it should be stressed that this scenario couldbe quite different if the question aimed at sustainability instead ofthe environment. Mascarenhas et al. (2010), in the context ofsouthern Portuguese municipalities, state that there is a lack ofcoherent municipal structures in charge of sustainability activitiesand that a non-integrated vision of this intersectoral domain existswith poor inter-departmental cooperation.

Approximately 68% of the local authorities surveyed state thatthey do not have any type of employee training courses on envi-ronmental management practices in the organisation. These resultsare consistent with the main figures identified by Martins et al.(2000) on green jobs and environmental training in Portugal,where municipalities include some of the organisations that mostrequire environmental training, in particular for the personnel withlower-medium academic skills who are responsible for manyoperational activities. Thus, the local authorities in Portugal pri-marily need environmental training, education and awareness-raising for their staff, especially those with more operationalfunctions, as training is a fundamental step towards improving anorganisation’s environmental performance. Practical training pro-jects for municipalities such the one presented by Demirer et al.(2003) on Preventive Environmental Management Training forMunicipalities could be an example of a first step to support theadoption of environmental practices by local governments.

The association between the trained staff and the size of themunicipality was significant for the variables of workers (signifi-cant for p< 0.01) and inhabitants (significant for p< 0.05) (Table 4).Therefore, it seems that larger organisations are more aware ofenvironmental training needs, although they are generally moreaware or have better resources to provide this service to theiremployees, independent of the subject.

5.3.2. Environmental Management System (EMS)Only 12% of municipalities have implemented or are imple-

menting an EMS (according to the ISO 14001 definition (ISO, 2004)or to the definition of the European Regulation Eco-Management


Table 4Environmental practices and tools surveyed in the Portuguese municipalities: summary of questionnaire responses.

Question Category label Total

Absolute frequency (number) Relative frequency (%)

Coordinating structure for environmental matters YesNo

6728

70.529.5

Chi-square test:InhabitantsWorkersGeographic location

Significant for p < 0.01Significant for p < 0.01Non significant

Employee training courses on environmentalmanagement practices

YesNo

3065

31.668.4



Environmental Management System YesImplementingIntention to doNo intention to doDo not know EMS

5664154

5.36.468.116.04.3



Environmental Audit YesNoDon’t know

186013

19.865.914.3



Environmental or sustainability reports YesNoDon’t know

12783

12.983.93.2


Significant for p < 0.05Non significantNon significant

Environmental or sustainability indicators YesNoDon’t know

26644

27.768.14.3



Green purchasing YesNoDon’t know

344414

37.047.815.2


Significant for p < 0.05Non significantNon significant

ECO XXI Award YesNoDon’t know

20683

22.074.73.3



Local Agenda 21 YesImplementingIntention to doHave other planHave an EMPNo intention to doDon’t know

336375463

3.238.339.45.34.36.43.2


Non significantNon significantNon significant


and Audit Scheme (EMAS), (EC, 2009)). The majority (64%) statetheir intention to do so (Table 4), indicating that EMS is apparentlya widely known or popular environmental management tool in thepublic organisations analysed. However, 4% of the respondents still


do not know what an EMS is. Approximately half of the EMSsalready implemented or now being implemented include theorganisation as a whole, while the remainder include only parts ofthe organisation, e.g., a facility, department or operating sector.



In all, four of the respondent municipalities that have imple-mented an EMS are certified by ISO 14001, and one municipality iscertified by EMAS. The main motivations identified by the munic-ipalities surveyed for implementing an EMS were to improve theoverall environmental performance of the organisation, todemonstrate local authority commitment to the environment andto present the best possible image and reputation of the munici-pality to local communities and all interested parties.

The degree of EMS implementation in the Portuguese munici-palities is generally low, indicating that changing these figures willtake a long time. EMS could play a central role in the local publicorganisations and in the local economic activities, as it could act asan “umbrella” scheme and as a main driving force to implementother practices and tools. In line with this argument, Comoglio andBotta (2012) show that EMS implementation provides support forthe adoption of other environmental practices, increasing thecommitment towards environmental performance improvement.As also stressed by Delmas and Toffel (2004), EMS in local gov-ernments could play an important role in encouraging local com-panies to implement an EMS. For example, EMS can facilitateadoption by reducing information and search costs linked to theadoption of the standard by providing technical assistance to po-tential adopters. Therefore, local authorities should demonstratethat they know this tool quite well and adopt it in their facilities,thereby exerting significant influence on the local society andeconomy.

Despite the significant differences between the public and pri-vate sectors, the motivation drivers identified by the respondentsare verymuch related to some of the common identified reasons forthe implementation of EMS in private sector organisations, such asimage andmarketing. As stressed by Ramos et al. (2009), onewouldexpect these drivers to be different, as public organisations pursuepolitical and social goals rather than commercial and profit objec-tives, but the data did not confirm this assumption. Regarding thecomparative benefits of EMS in local public services, it is clear thatthe economic and environmentally positive impacts derived fromthe EMS go beyond the activities that the municipality is in chargeof, as stated by Lozano and Vallés (2007). These authors stressedthat these systems could have effects on all of the economic ac-tivities settled in the municipal territory, which could be amplifiedin the medium- and long-term perspectives.

The dependence/correlation between the municipality size andEMS is confirmed (significant for p < 0.01). Montesinos and Brusca(2009) registered the opposite trend, with no significant differ-ences with regard to the size of the council and the adoption ofenvironmental international standards, such as the EMAS or ISO14001, with only 21% of the respondent Spanish local administra-tions confirming their implementation.

5.3.3. Environmental auditingIn the great majority of municipalities (66%), an environmental

audit (or an equivalent environmental review) of their installationhas never been conducted. The municipalities that already haveapplied this practice generally use external consultants for this typeof work and in many cases use mixed teams that include internalstaff and private consultants or researchers from universities.

The association between municipality size and environmentalaudits is confirmed by the chi-square test (p < 0.01). Once again,municipality size (workers and inhabitants) seems to influence theadoption of this environmental practice. When an EMS is in place,environmental audits are more likely, as these two practices arevery much related. When an EMS is in operation, the municipalitymust conduct periodic environmental audits. In addition, beforethe EMS design and implementation, an initial review or audit ofthe organisation should be accomplished.


5.3.4. Environmental and sustainability reportingOnly 13% of the municipalities surveyed stated that they pro-

duce environmental/sustainability reports that are mainly pub-lished annually (Table 4). However, after a careful analysis of thereport titles, this result is probably overvalued: these are mainlyannual activities reports with thematic sections on environmen-tally related issues instead of stand-alone environmental/sustain-ability reports. Both findings are aligned with results, such as thosereported by Williams et al. (2011) for the Australian reality, inwhich more than 50% of the local authorities surveyed respondednegatively on reporting sustainability information mainly due toinsufficient resources. Environmental reporting by the surveyedPortuguese municipalities is mainly targeted at the local commu-nity and administration and private and public organisations. Mu-nicipalities publish their reports on paper and in electronic formatso that they are available over the intranet and Internet.

The results also show that there is a positive relationship be-tween reporting and municipality size (significant for p < 0.05),indicating that larger organisations have the resource availability toadopt this environmental practice.

There is an apparent relationship between the implementationof other environmental practices, such as EMS or Local Agenda 21(LA21), and environmental reporting. For example, according toGRI (2004), a number of local governments in countries such asItaly have started to examine sustainability reporting as anoutgrowth of their LA21. This and other tools (e.g., EMS, environ-mental audits and sustainability indicators) not only assist publicagencies in sustainability planning and goal setting but are alsoused to identify and collect data/information for reporting.

Although sustainability reporting is growing, the public sectorstill develops a complex mixture of disclosures and reports onseveral themes, from operations, policies and strategies to the localeconomic, environmental and social context of a given area. Forexample, in the Australian context, Williams et al. (2011) deter-mined that local administration reporting favours social issues overany other theme. It seems then, as Dumay et al. (2010) andDickinson et al. (2005) mentioned, research on public sectorreporting is still very much in its infancy and is certainly an issuethat deserves future work.

5.3.5. Environmental and sustainability indicatorsThe majority of municipalities (68%) do not use environmental

or sustainability indicators, indicating that the implementation ofindicator systems is generally poor. The respondents that use in-dicators identify the main aspects covered by them: training ini-tiatives on environmental education and awareness, wastemanagement and energy consumption. Overall, indicators arerelated to the goals and targets defined in the local strategicinstruments.

These findings are generally in-line with the general picturedescribed by Moreno-Pires and Fidélis (2012) in the Portugueselocal context, revealing a poor monitoring culture concerning localsustainable development. These authors stressed that there are fewand relatively recent local sustainability indicator initiatives inPortugal, indicating an early stage of development compared withthat of other realities. At the international level, there are numerousinitiatives on local sustainability indicators, most of which arerelated to monitoring the reporting of LA21, as the ICLEI (2002)stressed. The Portuguese experience also demonstrates that localsustainability indicators are frequently related to LA21, as stressedby Mascarenhas et al. (2010).

The survey results also show that sustainability indicator ini-tiatives are mainly used by larger municipalities, as confirmed bythe significant results for workers (p < 0.05) and inhabitants(p < 0.01).



5.3.6. Green purchasingOverall, 36% of respondent municipalities adopt environmental/

sustainability criteria in public purchasing (Table 4). The publicservices that have implemented these procedures generally statethat for purchasing certain goods they require suppliers to presentenvironmental criteria or certification labels as demonstrated bythe contracts. These results are far below the findings obtained inthe survey conducted by Michelsen and de Boer (2009) for theNorwegian local administration, where 74.3% of the municipalitieson a regular basis put forward demands on environmental perfor-mance when calls for tender were announced and/or when po-tential vendors were contacted.

The larger municipalities are those that implement this practicemost often (significant for p < 0.05 only for the inhabitants vari-able). Michelsen and de Boer (2009) also argue that larger munic-ipalities may find it easier than smaller ones to obtain a certainminimum level of knowledge on both purchasing and environ-mental issues and on the collaboration between the environmentaland purchasing units in the municipalities.

There is a growing international interest in green purchasing inlocal government. However, as demonstrated by the results, Por-tuguese municipalities are just becoming aware of this practice,with few exceptions (e.g., one of the respondent municipalities is akey partner in an international project that is developing guidelinesfor environmentally friendly public purchases in local government).

5.3.7. ECO XXI awardThe initiative ECO XXI is an award inspired by the underlying

principles of Agenda 21. This awardwas developed andmanaged bya Portuguese non-governmental and non-profit organisation(Associação Bandeira Azul da Europa, a member of the Foundationfor Environmental Education) to recognise good sustainabilitypractices in municipalities. In this way, ECO XXI intends to raise theimportance of a set of aspects considered basic to the constructionof local sustainable development based on two pillars: education insustainability and environmental quality. The existence of thisaward is intended to foster pedagogical activities among munici-palities, which are considered privileged agents in the promotion ofsustainable development (ABAE, 2007).

Only 22% of the respondent municipalities participated in theECO XXI award (Table 4). With the implementation of this volun-tary scheme, the NGO responsible for this initiative intends toidentify and report the sustainability measures and practices car-ried out by the municipalities and demonstrate the good exampleto other public services and the entire society. As earlier, therespondent larger municipalities are those mainly responsible forthe positive results in the adoption of this tool (significant associ-ation for workers, p< 0.05, and inhabitants, p< 0.01). The paymentof a registration fee could be one of the barriers to justify thisrelatively small number of participating municipalities, along withbeing just one more voluntary scheme in competition with otherenvironmental certification awards (e.g., EMS) that are more well-known and probably have a wider impact or more visible benefits.

5.3.8. Local Agenda 21 (LA21)Only 3% of the respondents confirm that they have implemented

an LA21. Approximately 38% state that they are in the course ofimplementing this sustainability tool, and 39% report their inten-tion to do so. Those that had or are implementing an LA21 generallyuse mixed teams, including internal staff and private consultants orresearchers from universities. Approximately 44% of the LA21s thatare in place are in the phase of developing an Action Plan that willenable practical implementation on the ground (Table 4). The greatmajority of respondents (98%) involved in LA21s report that publicparticipation has been part of the process, which was carried out


mainly through collaborative workshops initiated in the earlystages of the process.

As is observed by Schmidt et al. (2006), despite the growinginterest in LA21s in almost the whole country, many of these Por-tuguese strategic processes are in their early stages. Nevertheless,according to Fidélis and Moreno-Pires (2009), an increase in LA21implementation has been identified since 2005, stressing that theseprocesses are mainly recent and are making the journey toimplementation.

In the international context, LA21 implementation is diverse, asthere are many factors that influence LA21 development. Othercountries, such Germany or the United Kingdom, present quitedifferent performances and figures. For example, according to Kernet al. (2007), by the year 2006, 2610 local authorities (includingapproximately 170 counties) in Germany had initiated an LA21process, representing more than 20% of all of Germany’s local au-thorities and more than half of its counties.

According to the statistical tests, no significant associationswere identified between the municipality geographic location byNUTS II regions and each environmental practice analysed. Onereason for this result could be the fact that in one single NUTS IIregion, there are many municipalities with different environmentalprofiles, indicating that the use of these non-homogeneous spatialunits would not be a good option to make geographic comparisons.Soares et al. (2003) argued that NUTS II regions are not the bestspatial units to evaluate inter-regional socio-economic indicatorspatterns, as they aggregate very different municipalities. Theseauthors state that for a deeper analysis, we must consider smallergeographic units.

6. Conclusions

Until now, many Portuguese local authorities have not inte-grated environmental concerns into their own operational andstrategic activities as part of their responsibilities. The results ob-tained for each individual environmental practice or tool adoptedby the municipalities indicate that the level, for the majority ofthem, is poor. Nevertheless, some initiatives have been undertakenby the Portuguese municipalities, revealing a rising interest inachieving better environmental and sustainability performance.Overall, the general state of environmental integration andengagement in the surveyed municipalities is poor.

There is a significant association betweenmunicipality size and theintegration of several environmental practices. The possibility thatlarger local public municipalities have greater chances related to re-sources, willingness or ability to adopt environmental practices, suchas those surveyed, could have implications for a system such as that ofthe Portuguese, which is largely a system of small governments.

The aggregate environmental practices profile (MIEP index)evaluates the overall extent to which a set of environmental prac-tices has been adopted by the local authorities surveyed. Thisapproach tries to synthesise the gathered information from thesurvey and to improve communication with local decision-makersin the understanding of the local public services’ environmentalprofile. The index confirms that environmental performance isgreater in the larger municipalities. This association with munici-pality size (workers and inhabitants) seems to influence theadoption of the majority of each individual environmental practiceanalysed.

The comparison between the aggregate environmental practicesprofile and the municipalities’ self-assessment of environmentalperformance (a single survey question about the respondent’sperception of the integration level of environmental practices inthe municipality) showed contradictory results, with a dispropor-tionately positive self-assessment carried out by the municipalities.



The self-assessment reveals that the municipalities consider theirenvironmental profile to be good or medium, in contrast to the verypoor and poor classifications obtained with the index. The poorknowledge of their actual environmental profile and the fact thatthis evaluation is mainly supported by non-mandatory practicescould explain, in part, this optimistic self-view on the part of themunicipalities. There is a lack of theoretical and practical knowl-edge or perception about the environmental affairs in manymunicipalities.

This research can increase awareness and support Portuguesemunicipalities in assessing the integration of certain environmentaland sustainability practices and tools to adopt new policies andmeasures to improve their performance.

Further research should seek to follow-up on the integration ofenvironmental practices and tools (at strategic and operationallevels) in the Portuguese local public administration and includeother areas and data collection approaches. These areas include (i)content analysis of municipality’s main reports, including sustain-ability reports of the organisation, and selected public policies,plans and programs; (ii) interviews with key stakeholders engagedin the local public administration; (iii) evaluation of environmentaland sustainability training needs, as well as education andawareness-raising initiative requirements for the staff, includingthe top decision-makers; and (iv) explore what role national andregional authorities should play in guiding municipalities inadopting these practices. Additionally, in future developments,comparisons among different levels of public administration (local,regional and national public organisations) could be considered.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude for theconstructive comments provided by the anonymous reviewers.

References

Aall, C., 1995. Municipal eco-auditing in Norway. Eco-Manag. Audit. 2, 32e35.ABAE, 2007. Associação Bandeira Azul da Europa. Accessed: 15.12.07. Available.

http://www.abae.pt.Abubakar, I., Alshuwaikhat, H., 2007. Towards a sustainable urban environmental

management approach (SUEMA): incorporating environmental managementwith strategic environmental assessment (SEA). J. Environ. Plan. Man. 50 (2),257e270.

Agenda21Local, 2007. Agenda 21 Local em Portugal. Escola Superior de Bio-tecnologia da Universidade Católica do Porto. Accessed: 15.12.2007. Available.www.agenda21local.info.

Aguado, I., Barrutia, J.M., Echebarria, C., 2007. Networking for Local Agenda 21implementation: learning from experiences with Udaltalde and Udalsarea inthe Basque autonomous community. Geoforum 38, 33e48.

Barrera-Roldan, A., Saldivar-Valdes, A., 2002. Proposal and application of a sus-tainable development index. Ecol. Indic. 2 (3), 251e256.

Braun, R., 2008. Regional environmental assessment (REA) and local Agenda 21implementation. Environ. Dev. Sustain 10, 19e39.

Burritt, R.L., Welch, S., 1997. Accountability for environmental performance of theAustralian commonwealth public sector. Acc. Audit. Acc. J. 10, 532e561.

Butelli, P., Canziani, R., Marchesi, R., Perotto, E., 2008. Environmental performance,indicators and measurement uncertainty in EMS context: a case study. J. Clean.Prod. 16, 517e530.

Clement, S., Plas, G., Erdmenger, C., 2003. Local experiences. Green purchasingpractices in six European cities. In: Erdmenger, C. (Ed.), Buying into the Envi-ronment. Experiences, Opportunities and Potential for Eco-procurement. In-ternational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) GreenleafPublishing, Sheffield, pp. 69e93.

Comoglio, C., Botta, S., 2012. The use of indicators and the role of environmentalmanagement systems for environmental performances improvement: a surveyonISO 14001 certified companies in the automotive sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2, 92e102.

Curristine, T., Lonti, Z., Joumard, I., 2007. Improving public sector efficiency: chal-lenges and opportunities. OECD J. Budg. 7 (1), 1e41.

Delmas, M., Toffel, M.W., 2004. Stakeholders and environmental managementpractices: an institutional framework. Bus. Strat. Environ. 13, 209e222.

Demirer, G.N., Uludag-Demirer, S., Arikan, Y., 2003. Integrated preventive envi-ronmental management training for municipalities: a case study from Turkey.Environ. Qual. Manage. 13 (2), 67e75.


Diamantis, D., 1999. The importance of environmental auditing and environmentalindicators in Islands. Eco-Manag. Audit. 6, 18e25.

Dickinson, J., Leeson, R., Ivers, J., Karic, J., 2005. Sustainability reporting by PublicAgencies: International Uptake, Forms and Practice. The Centre for PublicAgency Sustainability Reporting, Melbourne.

Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., Farneti, F., 2010. GRI sustainability reporting guidelines forpublic and third sector organizations. Publ. Manag. Rev. 12 (4), 531e548.

Eckerberg, K., Mineur, E., 2003. The use of local sustainability indicators: casestudies in two Swedish municipalities. Local Environ. 6 (8), 591e614.

Emilsson, S., Hjelm, O., 2002. Mapping environmental management system initia-tives in Swedish local authorities e a national survey. Corp. Soc. Responsib.Environ. Manag. 9, 107e115.

Emilsson, S., Hjelm, O., 2004. Different approaches to standardized environmentalmanagement systems in local authorities e two case studies in Gothenburg andNewcastle. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 11, 48e60.

Enticott, G., Walker, R.M., 2008. Sustainability, performance and organizational strat-egy: an empirical analysis of public organizations. Bus. Strat. Environ.17 (2), 79e92.

European Commission, Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC). Off. J. Eur. Union, 20 May 2003, L 124/36, 36–41

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2009. Regulation (EC)No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November2009 on the Voluntary Participation by Organisations in a Community Eco-management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), 22 of December.

Feichtinger, J., Pregernig, M., 2005. Participation And/Or/Versus sustainability?Tensions between procedural and substantive goals in two Local Agenda 21processes in Sweden and Austria. Eur. Environ. 15, 212e227.

Fidélis, T., Moreno-Pires, S., 2009. Surrender or resistance to the implementation ofLocal Agenda 21 in Portugal: the challenges of local governance for sustainabledevelopment. J. Environ. Plan. Man. 52 (4), 497e518 (22).

Frame, B., Vale, R., 2006. Increasing uptake of low impact urban design anddevelopment: the role of sustainability assessment systems. Local Environ. 11(3), 287e306.

Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., 2008. Determinant factors in the degreeof implementation of Local Agenda 21 in the European Union. Sustain. Develop.16, 17e34.

Gibbons, J.D., 1993. Nonparametric Statistics e an Introduction. In: University PaperSeries on Quantitative Applications in the Social SciencesSage, Newbury Park,CA series no. 07-090.

GRI, 2004. Public Agency Sustainability Reporting e a GRI Resource Document inSupport of the Public Agency Sector Supplement Project. Global ReportingInitiative, Amsterdam: Netherlands.

GRI, 2010. GRI Reporting in Government Agencies. Global Reporting Initiative,Amsterdam: Netherlands.

Grochowalska, J., 1998. The implementation of Agenda 21 in Poland. Eur. Environ. 8,79e85.

Günther, L., Scheibe, L., 2006. The hurdle analysis. A self-evaluation tool for mu-nicipalities to identify, analyse and overcome hurdles to green procurement.Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 13, 61e77.

Holden, M., 2006. Revisiting the local impact of community indicators projects:sustainable seattle as prophet in its own land. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 1, 253e277.

Holden, M., 2013. Sustainability indicator systems within urban governance: us-ability analysis of sustainability indicator systems as boundary objects. Ecol.Indic. 32, 89e96.

ICLEI, 2002. Second Local Agenda 21 Survey (conducted with support from UNSecretariat for WSSD, and in collaboration with UN Development ProgrammeCapacity 21) (Freiburg, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives(ICLEI) European Secretariat).

INE, 2011. CENSOS 2011 e Resultados Provisórios. Instituto Nacional de Estat, Lis-boa, Portugal.

International Organisation for Standardization ISO, 2004. International Standard ISO14001: environmental Management Systems e Requirements with Guidancefor Use. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Jackson, T., Thomson, J., 2007. Sustainable procurement in practice: lessons fromlocal government. J. Environ. Plann. Man. 50 (3), 421e444.

Karam, N., Nader, M.R., Salloum, B.A., 2008. Environment and sustainable devel-opment indicators in Lebanon: a practical municipal level approach. Ecol. Indic.8 (5), 771e777.

Keating, M., 2001. Review and Analysis of Best Practices in Public Reporting onEnvironmental Performance. A report to Executive Resource Group, Birming-ham. Research paper #9.

Kern, K., Koll, C., Schophaus, M., 2007. The diffusion of Local Agenda 21 in Germany:comparing the German federal states. Environ. Polit. 16 (4), 604e624.

Lozano, R., 2012. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems:an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 14e26.

Lozano, M., Vallés, J., 2007. An analysis of the implementation of an environmentalmanagement system in a local public administration. J. Environ. Manage. 82,495e511.

Lundberg, K., Balforsa, B., Folkesona, L., 2009. Framework for environmental per-formance measurement in a Swedish public sector organization. J. Clean. Prod.17 (11), 1017e1024.

Lundberg, K., 2011. A systems thinking approach to environmental follow-up in aSwedish central public authority: hindrances and possibilities for learning fromexperience. Environ. Manag. 48 (1), 123e133.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(14)00336-9/sref1


http://www.abae.pt






http://www.agenda21local.info



















































































































































Malmborg, F., Norén, H., 2004. Are standardized EMSs useful in local authorities? Astudy of how a tool from the private sector is used in the public sector. Bus.Strat. Environ. 13, 187e197.

Martins, A., Rodrigues, V., Ramos, T.B., Direitinho, F., 2000. Guia para a Criação de“Empregos Verdes” a Nível Local. Editado pela Direcção Geral do Emprego eFormação Profissional, Lisboa.

Mascarenhas, A., Coelho, P., Subtil, E., Ramos, T.B., 2010. The role of common localindicators in regional sustainability assessment. Ecol. Indic. 10, 646e656.

McMahon, S.K., 2002. The development of quality of life indicators e a case studyfrom the City of Bristol, UK. Ecol. Indic. 2, 177e185.

Michelsen, O., de Boer, L., 2009. Green procurement in Norway; a survey of practicesat the municipal and county level. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (1), 160e167.

Miranda, L., Steinberg, F., 2005. Local Agenda 21, capacity building and the cities ofPeru. Habitat Int. 29, 163e182.

Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., Narasimhan, R., 31 2007. An examination of corporatereporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. J. Oper.Manag. 25 (5), 998e1014.

Montesinos, V., Brusca, I., 2009. Towards performance, quality and environmentalmanagement in local government: the case of Spain. Local Gov. Stud. 35 (2),197e212.

Moreno-Pires, S., Fidélis, T., 2012. A proposal to explore the role of sustainabilityindicators in local governance contexts: the case of Palmela, Portugal. Ecol.Indic. 23, 608e615.

OECD, 1996. Recommendation of the Council on Improving the EnvironmentalPerformance of Government. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation andDevelopment, Paris. C(96)39/Final.

OECD, 1998. Workshop on Environmental Management Systems for GovernmentAgencies. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris.C(96)39/FINAL.

OECD, 2002. Recommendation of the Council on Improving the EnvironmentalPerformance of Public Procurement. Organisation for Economic Co-Operationand Development. C(2002)3, Paris.

OECD, 2003. An Overview of Corporate Environmental Management Practices. JointStudy by the OECD Secretariat and EIRIS (Ethical Investment Research), Paris,pp. 1e22.

OECD, 2006. Recommendation of the Council on Good Practices for Public Envi-ronmental Expenditure Management. Organisation for Economic Co-Operationand Development. C(2006)84, Paris.

Patton, D., Worthington, I., 1996. Developing Local Agenda 21: a case study of fivelocal authorities in the UK. Sustain. Dev. 4, 36e41.

Petrosillo, I., Marcoa, A., Bottab, S., Comoglio, C., 2012. EMAS in local authorities:suitable indicators in adopting environmental management systems. Ecol.Indic. 13, 263e274.

PMSGO (Committee on Performance Measurement for Sustainable GovernmentOperations), 1999. Environmental Performance Measures for Government Op-erations e a Guidance Document (version 1.0). Prepared by Marbek ResourceConsultants for the Committee on Performance Measurement for SustainableGovernment Operations, Canada, pp. 1e41.

Pulsellia, F.M., Ciampalinia, F., Tiezzia, E., Zappiab, C., 2006. The index of sustainableeconomic welfare (ISEW) for a local authority: a case study in Italy. Ecol. Econ.60 (1), 271e281.


Ramos, T.B., Melo, J.J., 2005. Environmental management practices in the defencesector: assessment of the Portuguese military’s environmental profile. J. Clean.Prod. 13 (12), 1117e1130.

Ramos, T.B., Melo, J.J., 2006. Developing and implementing an environmentalperformance index for the Portuguese military. Bus. Strat. Environ. 15, 71e86.

Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., Melo, J.J., 2007a. Environmental pressures and im-pacts of public sector organisations: the case of the Portuguese military. Progr.Ind. Ecol. 4 (5), 363e381.

Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., Melo, J.J., 2007b. Environmental performance policyindicators for the public sector: the case of the defence sector. J. Environ.Manage. 82, 410e432.

Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., Melo, J.J., 2009. The state of environmental perfor-mance evaluation in the public sector: the profile of the Portuguese defencesector. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (1), 36e52.

Rea, L.M., Parker, R.A., 1997. Designing and Conducting Survey Research. Jossey-BassInc, California.

Ryall, C., Warner, K.E., 2001. Greener purchasing activities within UK local author-ities. Eco-Manag. Audit. 8, 36e45.

Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W., Ott, L., 1996. Elementary Survey Sampling. PWSPublishing Company, Boston.

Schmidt, L., Nave, J., Guerra, J., 2006. Who’s afraid of Local Agenda 21? Top-downand bottom-up perspectives on local sustainability. Int. J. Environ. Sustain.Dev. 5 (2), 181e198.

Scipioni, A., Mazzi, A., Zuliani, F., Mason, M., 2008. The ISO 14031 standard to guidethe urban sustainability measurement process: an Italian experience. J. Clean.Prod. 16, 1247e1257.

Selman, P., 2000. A sideways look at Local Agenda 21. J. Environ. Pol. Plan. 2, 39e53.

Soares, J.O., Marquês, M.M.L., Monteiro, C.M.F., 16 2003. A multivariate methodologyto uncover regional disparities: a contribution to improve European Union andgovernmental decision. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 145 (1), 121e135.

Strengers, Y., 2004. Environmental culture change in local government: a practisedperspective from the international council for local environmental ini-tiativesdAustralia/New Zealand. Local Environ. 9 (6), 621e628.

UNEP, 2008. Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World.Reported funded by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), aspart of the joint UNEP, ILO, IOE, ITUC Green Jobs Initiative. Produced byWorldwatch Institute with Technical Assistance of Cornell University, GlobalLabor Institute, Nairobi.

USEPA, 1999. Profile of Local Government Operations. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, Washington, D.C. EPA310-R-99e001.

Valentin, A., Spangenberg, J.H., 2000. A guide to community sustainability in-dicators. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20, 381e392.

Wheater, C.P., Cook, P., 2000. Using Statistics to Understand the Environment.London: Routledge.

Williams, B., Wilmshurst, T., Clift, R., 2011. Sustainability reporting by local gov-ernment in Australia: current and future prospects. Acc. Forum 35, 176e186.

Wilson, J., Grant, J.L., 2009. Calculating ecological footprints at the municipal level:what is a reasonable approach for Canada? Local Environ. 14 (10), 963e979.





































































































































the integration of environmental practices and tools in the portuguese local public administration

Documents