Review of Policy Research - 2015 - Pablo Romero - Covenant of Mayors Reasons For Being An Environmentally and Energy

bs_bs_banner
576
Covenant of Mayors: Reasons for Being an

Environmentally and Energy Friendly Municipality
Marıa del P. Pablo-Romero
Department of Economic Analysis and Political Economy, University of Seville, Spain
Antonio Sanchez-Braza
Jos
e Manuel Gonzalez-Lim on
Abstract
The Covenant of Mayors (CM) is the mainstream European movement involving local authorities who
voluntarily commit to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources within their
territories with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions and meet the European Union objectives by 2020.
One country that has a greater number of signatories of this agreement is Spain. This article analyzes
which factors influence the decision of Spanish local authorities to join the ever-growing movement. An
empirical model is formulated to describe the behavior of Spanish local governments, this being a binary
choice model which is a function of various political, economic, and technical factors. Among the
prominent factors that influence this decision are population, availability of renewable energy, fiscal and
environmental stress, citizens’ political preference, the contagion effect of neighboring municipalities, the
existence of covenant coordinators, and finally, economic motivations.
KEY WORDS: Covenant of Mayors, local government decision, binary choice model, cities, Spain,
EU, European Union, intergovernmental, climate change
Introduction
The European Union (EU) energy and climate package has set goals to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20 percent by 2020, with an option to increase
the reduction target to 30 percent if a comprehensive international agreement is
reached (Council of the European Union, 2007). To meet these goals, national gov-
ernments should take energy cost-saving and energy-efficiency measures and
increase renewable energy consumption and production. These measures, accord-
ing to the Renewable Energy Directive (European Parliament and Council, 2009)
should be implemented at all territorial levels, with special importance given to the
local level. This is evidenced by a recent surge in reports from major international
organizations which consider cities as both a means and a target for climate actions
(Bose, 2010; OECD, 2010; The World Bank, 2010; UNEP SBCI, 2009; UN-
Habitat, 2011). Additionally, the Report of the Conference of the Parties on its 19th
session, held in Warsaw in 2013, underlines the importance of cities for reducing
emissions by identifying and implementing opportunities to mitigate GHG emis-
sions and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change (United Nations-
Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2014). In fact, it is estimated that cities
produce more than a third of total greenhouse emissions (Satterthwaite, 2008).
Urban areas concentrate people and businesses that are responsible for high levels
Review of Policy Research, Volume 32, Number 5 (2015) 10.1111/ropr.12135
C 2015 Policy Studies Organization. All rights reserved.
V
15411338, 2015, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12135 by Bursa Uludag University, Wiley Online Library on [16/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Covenant of Mayors 577
of energy consumption to satisfy residential, production, and mobility needs. They

are also end-users of goods and services, the production of which involves emis-
sions elsewhere (Satterthwaite, 2011). Thus, as stated in Neves and Leal (2010), the
“global” problem of climate change has its roots in the intensive use of energy,
which is in turn used “locally” to sustain local activities. Therefore, urban areas are
pivotal to global climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts due to the char-
acteristics of urban development (Acuto, 2013; Olazabal et al., 2014; Reckien et al.,
2014; Rosenzweig, Solecki, Hammer, & Mehrotra, 2010).
Some scientists have shown that local authorities are potentially major players in
climate policies due to their direct and indirect influence over GHG emissions, and
the tools for action that they possess (Bailey, 2007; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003; Kern
& Alber, 2008; Kern & Buckeley, 2009; Kousky & Schneider, 2003; MIES, 2003;
Wheeler, 2008). While others have agreed on the need for both centralized and
decentralized approaches to cope with today’s challenging climate goals (Beccali,
Cellura, & Mistretta, 2007; Comodi, Cioccolanti, Polonara, & Brandoni, 2012; Dha-
kal, 2009; Keirstead & Schulz, 2010; Sperling, Hvelplund, & Mathiesen, 2011).
The role of local authorities in tackling climate change can be traced in the emerg-
ing local sustainable energy and climate action plans (Bulkeley & Kern, 2006; Neves
& Leal, 2010). An increasing number of city mayors are recognizing the potential to
reduce emissions in their territories and are committing to voluntary reduction tar-
gets. Worldwide, local commitments on climate change are often spread by interna-
tional associations and city networks (Croci, Melandri, & Molteni, 2010). Such
networks are often described as a crucial element of sustainable development as they
provide numerous opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and innovation (Labaeye
& Sauer, 2013). Over the last 12 years, these city networks have increased in number.
In Europe, the number of those collaborative initiatives rose from 8 to 49 between
1984 and 2004 (Keiner & Kim, 2007). Nine of these city networks had disappeared
by April 2013, while ten new ones have emerged. According to Labaeye and Sauer
(2013), it seems that the development of networks is slowing down, with large net-
works consolidating their position, among them, the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the United Cities and Local Governments, the
Forum European Energy Awards, and the Climate Alliance.
The local commitments on climate change are also being spread in Europe by
voluntary agreements between local governments to reduce CO2. The Covenant of
Mayors (CM) is a voluntary agreement between local governments (mainly Euro-
pean) by which towns, cities, and regions voluntarily commit to reduce their CO2
emissions beyond the 20 percent target through policies promoting energy saving
and renewable energy. To this end, signatories undertake to develop specific action
plans.
This recent voluntary agreement has demonstrated strong local support for
active involvement in sustainable energy planning (Radulovic, Skok, & Kirincic,
2011), thereby showing that the power of a local community can become a signifi-
cant factor in the political decision process for energy management and sustainable
development. It could also be seen as the implementation of a “bottom-up” man-
agement approach and a decision-making process for energy questions regarding
the community (Radulovic et al., 2011). As Labaeye and Sauer (2013) point out,
the launch of the CM in 2008 marked an evolution in this EU influence, taking a
578 Marıa del P. Pablo-Romero et al.
more active role and directly addressing the municipalities (their mayors), getting
them to commit to the European energy and climate targets. Therefore, the launch
of the CM can be seen as an interesting evolution in the way European policies are
implemented.
Despite the potential importance of the CM for the development of these munic-
ipal energy programs, the decision of the municipalities to adhere to this agree-
ment is voluntary. In May 2012, there were 3,889 signatories, although in the EU-
27, there are still many who have not yet joined the CM. Knowing the causes that
drive municipalities to adhere to the CM is useful for developing policies that ani-
mate other European municipalities to adhere to it, and thus allow a greater inte-
gration between the supranational and local bodies in Europe to reach the
established emission reduction targets. In this sense, and in agreement with Acuto
(2013) and Johnson (2013), it is important to gain this knowledge because cities
respond to global environmental challenges since, as Dawson et al. (2014) affirm,
CM seemed conducive to successful mitigation planning. Similarly, Reckien et al.
(2014) consider it necessary to gain more knowledge concerning potential drivers
of, and barriers to, development plans in Europe. However, knowing the response
of cities is a complex matter (Olazabal et al., 2014), because spontaneous and
planned responses are due to many other nonclimate-related factors such as socioe-
conomic processes, land use or land cover change, technology evolution, and social
behavioral change, which directly or indirectly influence other sectors and climate
variables (Parry, Canziani, Palutikof, van der Linden, & Hanson, 2007). To date, as
stated by Reckien et al. (2014), much research has been published concerning the
Cities for Climate Protection Campaign in the United States, but little is known
about European-centered networks. This is partly due to the difficulty in finding
suitable data for such research. As detailed in the following section, some studies
have examined the motivations which lead local governments to join city-networks
and implement climate protection measures in a North American context, but, to
our knowledge, the only one that refers to Europe is the study by Hakelberg
(2014), which mainly focuses on the capacity of transnational municipal networks
to boost the implementation of local actions.
The aim of this article is to analyze the socioeconomic factors that have moti-
vated the Spanish municipalities to join the CM and, therefore, what the factors are
that may be acting as a barrier to other municipalities that have not yet signed up.
Therefore, the aim of the article is to analyze the factors that favor or hinder the
signing of the CM by Spanish municipalities, but not to answers the question con-
cerning why these municipalities would actually join the Covenant. On the one
hand, currently, Spain and Italy are the countries of the EU-27 with a greater num-
ber of CM signatory municipalities, with Spain having more people affected by
these accessions. On the other hand, at the Spanish level, it is possible to cross data-
bases on socioeconomic and other factors with the database provided by the CM
and deepen the research in a European framework, as proposed by Reckien et al.
(2014).
Thus, this article contributes to expanding the previous research focusing on
the motivations and barriers for the cities to make commitments and take actions
which promote energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources within
their territories, in line with Acuto (2013) and Johnson (2013). Furthermore, this
article applies this type of study to Spain, reflecting the motivations for local gov-
ernment to adhere to this voluntary agreement between local governments to
reduce CO2 in a European context.
An empirical model is formulated to describe the behavior of Spanish local gov-
ernments related to the accession to the CM, this being a binary choice model
which is a function of various political, economic, and technical factors. A cross-
section logit model is used with 2011 data, for which sufficient statistical informa-
tion is available. Probabilistic or logit models have been used in several previous
studies which analyze the behavior of local governments in relation to the adoption
of specific environmental decisions (Lyon & Yin, 2010; Matisoff, 2008; Sharp,
Daley, & Lynch, 2011).
This article is organized as follows. The next section provides a literature review.
The Covenant of Mayors section provides an overview of the CM and municipal sig-
natories in the EU-27, followed by a section that discusses the variables used to
explain the factors that affect the decision of local governments to join the CM. The
Methodology section analyzes the most suitable methodology to carry out empirical
analysis, followed by our results and a discussion and conclusion.
Literature Review
Research into reasons that explain the diffusion of policies across political jurisdic-
tions has given rise to a wide range of literature (Berry & Berry, 2007; Graham,
Shipan, & Volden, 2008). Recently, such research has been expanded to include
the diffusion and adoption of environmental measures. In the field of national
environmental policies, we can highlight the studies of Lyon and Yin (2010) and
Matisoff (2008), in which they analyze the factors that are considered by state gov-
ernments to adopt renewable portfolio standards (RPS). These factors include air
quality, interest in renewable energy, and unemployment rates.
In the field of local policies, there is a rapidly growing literature on local climate
actions, of which many studies focus on motivations and barriers for making com-
mitments and taking actions, decision-making processes, and policy implementa-
tion (Wang, 2013).
As stated by Hakelberg (2014), cities can be expected to play an increasingly
important role in a global climate governance system that analysts see moving away
from a centralized multilateral regime toward a more fragmented, polycentric, and
transnational regime complex, thus, it is becoming commonplace to include cities in
discussions on climate change governance (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013). Among these
studies may be mentioned Acuto (2013); Betsill (2001); Betsill and Bulkeley (2006);
Glaeser (2011); Gore and Robinson (2009); Owen (2011); Robinson and Gore
(2005); Rosenzweig, Solecki, Hammer, and Mehrotra (2011); Schreurs (2008); Selin
and VanDeveer (2007); and Tang, Brody, Quinn, Chang, and Wei (2010). Likewise,
some studies discuss if the collective action of networks of municipal or regional gov-
ernments are reshaping and challenging the character of national and global climate
governance (Andonova, Betsill, & Bulkeley, 2009; Bouteligier, 2011; Bulkeley &
Newell, 2010; Gordon, 2013; Gore, 2010; Kern & Bulkeley, 2009; Toly, 2008). Addi-
tionally, some studies have focused on the energy and environmental plans
development by some cities (Arteconi, Brandoni, Bartolini, & Polonara, 2010; Bran-
doni, Arteconi, Ciriachi, & Polonara, 2011; Butera, 1998; Holmgren & Henning,
2004; Hou, Zhang, Tian, Yuan, & Yang, 2011; Lin & Huang, 2009), while others
have compared the actions of a group of major world cities, group of cities of a par-
ticular country, or have undertaken comparative research projects that consider a
more geographically diverse range. Among them are Croci et al. (2010), Bulkeley
(2012), Bulkeley and Castan Broto (2013), Carbon Disclosure Project (2012), Castan
Broto and Bulkeley (2012), and Johnson (2013).
A small but growing number of studies statistically quantify the relationship
between the characteristics of local jurisdictions and their political will to take local
actions. Some studies have examined the motivations which lead local governments
to join city-networks, which promote climate change action, such as that created in
the early 1990s: ICLEI. The studies of Feiock, Kassekert, Berry, and Yi (2009);
Krause (2011a); Sharp et al. (2011); Wang (2010, 2012); Zahran, Grover, Brody,
and Vedlitz (2008); and Zahran, Brody, Vedlitz, Grover, and Miller (2008) refer to
U.S. cities or municipalities, or a particular area within the United States. Factors
which can influence this decision making include local sociodemographic charac-
teristics, political preference and institutions, the impact of interest group pressure,
environmentalism, fiscal capacity, and neighboring actions. Increasingly, studies
are also examining the factors that influence the implementation of climate protec-
tion, beyond its simple adoption via network membership (Feiock & Bae, 2011;
Krause, 2011b; Sharp et al., 2011). Additionally, the study by Krause (2012) quanti-
tatively examines the impact that city-networks have on the local implementation
of GHG-reducing, climate, energy, and transportation activities.
The increasing number of studies examining the motivations which lead local
governments to join these city-networks and implement climate protection meas-
ures which refer to North American cities, contrasts with the small number of stud-
ies related to European cities. Nevertheless, there has been a general positive trend
toward increased adoptions of local climate strategies in European cities since 1992
(Hakelberg, 2014).
Some studies related to the European context are the research by Dawson et al.
(2014), Heyvaert (2013), Keiner and Kim (2007), Kern and Bulkeley (2009), Lab-
aeye and Sauer (2013), and Reckien et al. (2014). Other studies analyze the envi-
ronmental measures adopted by some European cities and their main barriers to
implementation, among them, the studies by Yalçın and Lefèvre (2012); Christo-
foridis, Chatzisavvas, Lazarou, and Parisses (2013); Heidrich, Dawson, Reckien,
and Walsh (2013); Hoff and Strobel (2013); Sch€ onberger (2013); and Olazabal
et al. (2014). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, the study by Hakelberg is the only
one with a quantitative focus on the analysis of the impact of a range of determi-
nants on local action on climate change in Europe, mainly focusing on the gover-
nance capacity of transnational municipal networks (The Climate Alliance, Cities
for Climate Protection, Energy Cities, and C40) to steer member cities toward the
adoption of climate strategies. The study results show that these networks influ-
enced their member cities mainly by accelerating learning processes.
The CM is a voluntary agreement committing signatory cities to go beyond the
EU’s CO2 reduction target of 20 percent by 2020 through the establishment of a
local climate strategy. Therefore, the analysis of the factors that influence the
decision to join the CM is a way to understand the factors that influence the estab-
lishment of local climate strategies.
Understanding these motives could help to remove barriers and allow wider dis-
semination of local environmental and energy measures. As stated in Wang (2010),
understanding what truly drives the voluntary actions at the local level may help
policy makers design policies that are more compatible with local incentives. Conse-
quently, state support may increase the number of municipalities that join these
city-networks and thereby contribute to commit to energy-saving actions and
renewable-energy use to reduce emissions.
The Covenant of Mayors
Covenant signatory cities commit to implement sustainable energy action plans

(SEAPs). A SEAP is the key document in which the Covenant signatory outlines
how it intends to reach its CO2 reduction target by 2020. It defines the activities
and measures set up to achieve the targets, together with time frames and assigned
responsibilities. Covenant signatories are free to choose the format of their SEAP,
as long as it is in line with the general principles set out in the Covenant SEAP
guidelines with the aim of cutting CO2 emissions by increasing energy efficiency
and the use of renewable energy sources within their territories.
A Baseline Emission Inventory (BEI) needs to be prepared prior to the imple-
mentation of the SEAP. GHG emissions are calculated for several sectors, such as
building-specific heating, electric consumption, road transport, and so forth. Then,
the BEI will provide knowledge of the nature of the entities emitting CO2 within
the municipality’s territory, and will thus help select the appropriate actions (Monni
& Syri, 2011). Inventories conducted in later years will determine whether the
actions provide sufficient CO2 reductions and if further actions are necessary.
According to data provided by the organization of the Covenant of Mayors
(2012), by May 2012, a total of 3,889 had signed it, since 2008. In general, the sig-
natories are European cities, although there are also some entire countries, such as
Morocco.
In the area of the EU-27, in December 2011, there were a total of 2,950 signa-
tory cities. As shown in Table 1, Italy had 1,409 municipalities, representing 47.6
percent of the total. Spain, with the second most, had 30 percent of European sig-
natories. However, the population of Spanish municipalities undersigned repre-
sents just over 16.5 percent of the total population of the municipalities signed in
Europe, ahead of Italy with 13.57 percent; in Germany, with 13.69 percent; the
United Kingdom (12.7 percent); and France (12.2 percent). Therefore, Spain is
the country with the largest population that lives in signatory municipalities within
the EU-27; nearly 21 million people. This represents 45 percent of total Spanish
population, while according to the data shown in the last row of Table 1, the EU-27
has only 25 percent of its population living in municipalities that adhere to the CM.
Among the countries that have a higher population percentage within signatory
municipalities are Finland (59.8 percent), but with only six signatory municipalities,
Malta (58.6 percent), and Sweden (51.8 percent).
Table 1. Signatory Municipalities of the CM in the EU
% over % population with

% total Population population signatories over
Signatory over signatory signatory signatory Country total total country
municipalities municipalities municipalities municipalities population population
Austria 8 0.27 145,323 0.12 8,404,300 1.73

Belgium 10 0.34 2,273,831 1.81 10,918,400 20.83
Bulgaria 15 0.51 2,667,497 2.13 7,504,900 35.54
Cyprus 8 0.27 285,600 0.23 804,400 35.50
Czech Republic 1 0.03 41,891 0.03 10,532,800 0.40
Denmark 22 0.75 2,046,917 1.63 5,560,600 36.81
Estonia 3 0.10 445,567 0.36 1,340,200 33.25
Finland 6 0.20 3,219,237 2.57 5,375,300 59.89
France 135 4.58 15,217,993 12.13 65,075,300 23.39
Germany 61 2.07 17,176,738 13.69 81,751,600 21.01
Greece 78 2.64 1,697,375 1.35 11,329,600 14.98
Hungary 15 0.51 2,381,613 1.9 9,986,000 23.85
Ireland 3 0.10 867,977 0.69 4,480,200 19.37
Italy 1,409 47.76 17,030,186 13.57 60,626,400 28.09
Latvia 5 0.17 892,793 0.71 2,229,600 40.04
Lithuania 8 0.27 684,577 0.55 3,244,600 21.10
Luxemburg 1 0.03 2,229 0 511,800 0.44
Malta 37 1.25 244,783 0.2 417,600 58.62
Holland 17 0.58 3,903,149 3.11 16,655,000 23.44
Poland 23 0.78 2,348,150 1.87 38,200,000 6.15
Portugal 68 2.31 4,165,293 3.32 10,637,000 39.16
Romania 36 1.22 5,484,824 4.37 21,413,800 25.61
Slovakia 6 0.20 101,403 0.08 5,435,300 1.87
Slovenia 7 0.24 337,673 0.27 2,050,200 16.47
Spain 886 30.03 20,925,191 16.67 46,152,900 45.34
Sweden 51 1.73 4,880,089 3.89 9,415,600 51.83
United Kingdom 31 1.05 16,021,781 12.77 62,435,700 25.66
EU27 2,950 100 125,489,680 100 502,489,100 24.97
Source: Covenant of Mayors (2012) and authors’ elaboration.
The Model: Variables and Data
An empirical model is formulated in which the decision to join the CM is a function

of a set of explanatory variables that relate directly to environmental circumstances
and the sociopolitical context of the municipalities.
According to the previously cited literature (Feiock et al., 2009; Sharp et al.,
2011; Young & Sarzynski, 2009), the dichotomous variable Covenant of Mayors has
been created as the explained variable of the model using data from Covenant of
Mayors (2012). This variable takes the value 1 if the municipality participates in
this Covenant and 0 otherwise.
A total of 11 explanatory variables are included in the model. For a better
understanding, these variables have been grouped into six blocks.
Population and Availability of Renewable Energy
First, the context of each municipality is checked using the population variable, as has
been done in Feiock et al. (2009) and in Young and Sarzynski (2009). In Spain, there
are some small municipalities with only five inhabitants, in contrast to municipalities
with more than three million inhabitants, as shown by the data provided by SGCAL
(2012) for 2011. Thus, checking this aspect seems relevant for this research.
It is expected that this variable will prove positively related to the adoption of a
fiscal measure, as Lubell, Feiock, and Handy (2009) find that large cities are more
likely than smaller ones to have sustainability policies.
Conversely, in accordance with Lyon and Yin (2010), the presumable likelihood
that a state adopts the RPS will be directly determined by the availability of renew-
able energy in that state. In this regard, municipalities with more renewable
resources would, in principle, have favorable factors to make the decision to adopt
environmental programs and, therefore, to sign the CM.
It is considered that there are certain factors which favor the adoption of climate
change programs, including wind energy, biomass, and solar energy potential
(Elliott & Schwartz, 1993; Matisoff, 2008). At the state level, Lyon and Yin (2010)
find that the most important resources that motivate the United States to adopt
environmental programs are wind energy potential and solar energy. In this sense,
as stated in Matisoff (2008), there is a closer link between state resources and policy
tool choice.
Nevertheless, at the local level, the use of explanatory variables related to the
provision of renewable energy is not usual, probably because there is no data that
would allow its introduction. However, indirect indicators are often used, such as
some climatic characteristics (Wang, 2010; Zahran, Grover, et al., 2008). So, in this
article, solar intensity and biomass potential variables have been included as indicators
of renewable resource.
The solar intensity variable is set according to the criteria established in RD 314/
2006, by giving each municipality a value from 1 to 5. The biomass potential variable
is measured indirectly, whereas the municipalities that concentrated agricultural
and forestry activities have a greater potential of biomass. In this way, a continuous
variable is developed from the proportion of companies of these kind of activities
compared to the total number of companies in the municipality. The use of this
variable as an indicator of the biomass potential has the disadvantage of not being
able to measure the size of the companies. Therefore, one must be cautious when
evaluating these results. Notwithstanding the above, according to the INE (2015)
provincial database, the correlation between the number of agricultural and for-
estry companies existing in 2011 and those dedicated to these activities throughout
Spain is high. Data for the proportion of companies of these kind of activities has
been collected from Caja Espa~ na (2012) and refer to the values for 2011.
Fiscal Stress
Following Wang (2010), the overall capacity of a local jurisdiction affects the likeli-
hood of joining environmental programs, since richer local governments have
more funds available to enhance incentives to promote renewable energy.
Local taxes per capita have sometimes been used as an indicator to measure the
financial health of the municipal governments (Lubell et al., 2009). However, it
depends not only on these taxes, since municipalities have additional income
streams such as fees, nontaxed income, other taxes, and transfer payments received
from other public administrations or entities. So, broader indicators have been
used in other studies (Sharp et al., 2011). Therefore, total current income
(including taxes and additional income streams) per capita in the municipality (fis-
cal income variable) has been taken as an indicator of the fiscal stress.
However, the financial situation of the municipalities may also be conditioned by
the debts incurred in previous years. For this reason, the value of the debt of the
municipalities in per capita terms is also included by means of the debt variable.
The development of these two variables has been made from the data collected
in SGCAL (2012) and refer to the values for 2010 because of available data
Environmental Stress
In Lyon and Yin (2010), it is pointed out that a state’s pollution level was an impor-
tant factor for the adoption of RPS by the United States from 1997 through 2005.
Moreover, Matisoff (2008) states that the motivation for energy efficiency and
renewable energy adoption will primarily be because of the motivation to improve
air quality and reduce criteria air pollutants.
Likewise, at the local level, numerous studies consider air pollution as a factor
that is present in the decision making of municipal governments in undertaking cli-
mate programs and actions (Feiock et al., 2009; Wang, 2010). However, there is no
information available to directly measure the contamination of all the municipal-
ities concerned. Therefore, two variables have been used as included previously in
other studies.
In previous studies (Feiock et al., 2009; Sharp et al., 2011; Zahran, Grover, et al.,
2008), the population density variable has been included as an indicator of environ-
mental stress of a zone. It is considered that the densely populated areas have a
higher environmental stress, which are associated with higher levels of contamina-
tion, either by a higher concentration of contaminant vehicles or by the highest
concentration of heating systems. Nevertheless, this variable has not always been
significant, so the expected effect of this variable is initially uncertain.
Furthermore, in order to measure the pollution of the municipality, the propor-
tion of industrial companies in the municipality (industrial companies variable) has
also been included. A similar variable has been previously used in Sharp et al.
(2011), who consider that such companies generally perform activities which gen-
erate pollutants that cause environmental damage, thereby increasing the level of
environmental stress.
However, this variable has also been used to measure the organized interest
opposed to agreements on enhanced environmental programs being signed
(Lubell et al., 2009; Ramırez de la Cruz, 2009; Sharp et al., 2011). On the one
hand, manufacturing firms might be expected to resist policies intended to reduce
GHG because of cost implications for their industrial sector. On the other hand,
existing case study evidence reveals that industry actors sometimes support climate
protection, either to save money or to take advantage of new markets (Lubell et al.,
2009; Portney & Berry, 2010). For this reason, the expected sign of this variable is
also uncertain.
The development of these two variables has been carried out from the data in
Caja Espa~ na (2012) and which refer to the values for 2011.
Political Preference
In the early study of Sawyer and Friedlander (1983), as well as in subsequent stud-
ies such as Matisoff (2008), the political preference of the citizens appears as a
determining factor in the development of environmental promotion programs in
both state (Matisoff, 2008) and local (Wang, 2010) spheres. In this sense, they
found that the relative liberalness of the citizenry is an important factor in deter-
mining if these promotion programs are applied.
So, the liberal political preference variable has been developed as an indicator to
show the political preference of each municipality, measured as the percentage of
votes obtained by the parties of liberal political preference in the municipal elec-
tions of 2007 (Ministerio del Interior, 2007). It is expected that municipalities of
liberal political preference would show lower resistance to adopting these environ-
mental promotion programs.
Neighbors and Coordinators
The neighboring effect hypothesizes the positive correlation between a city and its
surrounding jurisdictions with respect to climate actions. This factor measures
whether municipalities are signing the CM more if they find that their neighbors
have already signed it. A similar effect has been reported in Feiock et al. (2009),
when estimating the effects of climate actions of neighboring jurisdictions, and the
career incentives of local officials on the adoption of climate policies in cities in
Florida.
In order to consider this effect, the neighboring effect variable has been developed
that shows the number of municipalities having signed the CM in the same prov-
ince. To this extent, there is a certain concentration of municipalities with the CM
signed in some provinces, which may suggest that this effect really exists.
In addition, this effect may be conditioned by the existence of Covenant Coordi-
nators. These coordinators are public administrations which provide strategic guid-
ance, financial, and technical support to municipalities signing up to the CM. The
existence of territorial administrations that support these programs may encourage
that municipalities with less technical and economic capacities adhere to environ-
mental programs (Committee of the Regions, 2011).
In this sense, small municipalities often do not have the institutional capacity,
political environment, or socioeconomic resources to pass and implement these
policies (Lubell et al., 2009). In order to evaluate if the existence of these territorial
Covenant Coordinators (subnational decentralized authorities) affects the decision
to join the CM, the Covenant Coordinators variable has been included. This variable
takes the value 1 if the municipality belongs to a province for which there is a pro-
vincial Covenant Coordinator and 0 otherwise. Both these variables have been cre-
ated using data from Covenant of Mayors (2012).
Economic Motivations
Finally included is the unemployment variable, which shows the level of unemploy-
ment of each municipality and has been created using data from Caja Espa~ na
Table 2. Variables and Their Descriptive Statistics
Variable Description Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
Explained variable
Covenant of 1 5 CM have been signed; 7,586 0.117 0.199 0 1
Mayors 0 5 otherwise
1. Population and availability of renewable energy
Population Number of inhabitants (in thousands) 7,586 5.805 48.759 0.005 3,273.049
Solar Intensity Level of direct solar radiation (from 7,586 3.213 1.021 1 5
1—lowest to 5—highest)
Biomass % of agricultural companies on the 7,586 17.508 19.897 0 100
potential total number of local companies
2. Fiscal stress
Fiscal Income Local current income per capita 7,586 248.451 387.620 0.000 19,071.630
Debt Local debt per capita 7,586 33.378 89.099 0.000 4,587.633
3. Environmental stress
Population Number of inhabitants divided by 7,586 161.659 871.246 0.340 30,750.003
density surface area km2 of the
municipality
Industrial % of industrial companies of the total 7,586 10.412 11.539 0 100
companies number of local companies
4. Political preference
Liberal political 1 5 if liberal political preference; 7,586 40.767 23.210 0 100
preference 0 5 otherwise
5. Neighbors and coordinators
Neighboring Number of municipalities signing the 7,586 16.198 35.807 0 151
effect CM in the same province
Covenant 1 5 if the municipality belongs to a 7,586 0.276 0.447 0 1
Coordinators province with a Covenant Coordi-
nator; 0 5 otherwise
6. Economic motivations
Unemployment Local unemployment rate 7,586 9.893 5.235 0 37.500
(2012) and which refer to the values for 2011. This variable serves as an indicator
of the economic motivation that may be behind the decision of the municipalities to
adhere to the CM.
Some previous studies have shown that the establishment of environmental pro-
grams at the local level can have positive economic effects (Feiock et al., 2009),
because it can be an opportunity for the development of new industries or to gen-
erate employment. Therefore, municipalities with a high unemployment rate may
be more likely to establish these programs (Rabe, 2007).
Nevertheless, it is possible to find empirical evidence showing the opposite
(Lyon & Yin, 2010). So, areas with higher unemployment rates may be preoccu-
pied with the task of stimulating economic growth, and have little interest in con-
sidering these measures, because they are a fundamental environmental policy
tool. Table 2 shows the main descriptive statistics of the described variables.
Methodology
The Model
After describing the variables, a microeconometric analysis is performed to assess

the factors that influence the probability that the CM will be or will not be
signed in a municipality. In this case, the binary variable Covenant of Mayors takes
the value 0 or 1.
For this purpose, we have to consider the case of binary outcome models, which
are used to estimate relationships between a dependent variable with only two pos-
sible outcomes, and the considered explanatory variables. The two commonly used
binary outcome models are the probit and the logit models which specify different
functional forms for the probability of observing one particular outcome (0 or 1) of
the explained variable as a function of regressors.
These models can be obtained by a latent-variable interpretation. Following
Cameron and Trivedi (2005), distinction is made between the observed binary out-
come y, and an underlying continuous unobservable (or latent) variable y*. Let the
underlying response model be:
yi ¼ a 1 x0i b 1ei
where I denotes the ith municipality of the N municipalities considered, x is the

k-dimensional column vector of explanatory variables, b is the column vector of
regression coefficients which we wish to estimate, a is the intercept, and e is the
error term.
Although y* is not observed, it should be noted that
(
1 if yi > 0
yi ¼
0 if yi 0
Variable p is defined as the probability of y being equal to 1 (that the CM will be

applied). Then, the probability of y being equal to 0 (that the CM will be not
applied) must be (1 2 p). p is modeled as a function of regressors x. The regression
model is formed by parameterizing the probability p to depend on the regressor
vector x and the parameter vector b. In standard binary outcome models, the con-
ditional probability is given by:

p ½yi ¼ 1 j x ¼ Pr a 1 x0i b 1u > 0 j x

¼ Pr 2u < a 1 x0i b j x

¼ F a 1 x0i b
where x0 is the transposed of the x vector of covariates and F is specified as a cumu-

lative distribution function on (21, 1) to ensure that the bounds 0 p 1 are
satisfied.
The probit model considers that F is the standard normal cumulative distribu-
tion function:
ð a1X0 b
1 2z2
p ½yi ¼ 1 jx ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2 dz for 21 < z < 1
21 2p probit
The logit model specifies F as the cumulative distribution function of the logistic
distribution:
e ða 1 xi b Þ
0
p ½yi ¼ 1 jx ¼ 0
11e ða 1 xi b Þ logit
The regression parameters b can be obtained using maximum-likelihood estima-

tion, maximizing the log-likelihood function (Wooldridge, 2002):
X
N
£ðbÞ ¼ yi ln F a1x0i b 1ð12yi Þln 12F a1x0i b :
i¼1
According to Cameron and Trivedi (2009), in binary outcome models, as in all

other discrete choice models, the sign of the regression parameters b can be imme-
diately interpreted as determining whether or not the dependent variable y
increases with the regressor.
Limitations of the Study
The adhesion of municipalities to the CM is a continuous process in two senses. On

the one hand, municipalities that adhere to the CM fulfill a series of steps to achieve
the goal of reducing emissions. At first, the signature adhesion is performed. With
this signature local authorities commit to prepare a BEI and submit a SEAP within
the year following adhesion. After submission, the consistency of the data is
checked by the Joint Research Centre. Once the SEAP has been reviewed, high-
lights of the information provided will be published on the CM website. Finally,
every 2 years after having submitted the SEAP, municipalities have to report on
their SEAP implementation. This study only refers to the first step. That is, this
study considers municipalities that have signed the CM, without differentiating
between those which are at a different stage of implementation.
Conversely, adherence to the CM is also an ongoing process because municipal-
ities adhere to the CM at different moments of time, in different years. Thus, the
number of Spanish municipalities that joined the CM was 92 in 2008, 512 in 2009,
168 in 2010, and 103 in 2011. This study refers to the total number of signatory
municipalities in late 2011, regardless of this evolution. Thus, some of the explana-
tory variables may have changed in value over the study period, especially those
related to unemployment, debt, and fiscal income.
Results
Previously, values of variance inflation factors (VIFs) have been analyzed in order to
test the possible interaction among the explanatory variables to be included in the
models. These VIFs quantify the severity of multicollinearity among explanatory
variables in a regression analysis. Obtained values of VIFs have been included in
Table 3. In general, it is recommended that for each explanatory variable the value
of VIF should not exceed the value of ten since, in such case, there were problems
with the efficiency of the estimators obtained. This is equivalent to a value of 0.1 for
the tolerance indicator (1/VIF). More stringent criteria recommend a maximum VIF
Table 3. Variance Inflation Factors
Tolerance
Variable VIF indicator: 1/VIF
Population 1.12 0.895

Solar intensity 1.30 0.767
Biomass potential 1.11 0.898
Fiscal income 1.03 0.973
Debt 1.03 0.971
Population density 1.18 0.848
Industrial companies 1.07 0.938
Liberal political preference 1.12 0.895
Neighboring effect 1.72 0.582
Covenant Coordinators 1.69 0.591
Unemployment 1.23 0.815
of five (equivalent to a value of 0.2 for the tolerance indicator). Nevertheless, all val-
ues of VIFs are very low, thus ruling out possible problems of multicollinearity.
Finally, Table 4 shows the obtained results in the context of the variables from
Table 2. Regressions are carried out in stages by groups for a better understanding,
in order to take into account the development of the significance of the explanatory
variables and the explanatory levels of the whole model. Table 4 shows the results
of the logit specification, since it maximized the log pseudolikelihood compared to
a probit specification for all regressions made.
Column 1 illustrates the logit regression results; only the variables related to the
characteristics of the municipality and renewable potential are included. The three
explanatory variables are significant.
The coefficient of population is positive. This indicates that the larger the munici-
pality, the greater the probability of governments to join the CM. These results are
in line with Lubell et al. (2009), indicating that, generally, larger cities adopt favor-
able environmental policies. In that sense, Spanish results are in line with North
American results, showing the need of support for small cities to promote sustain-
able measures or join sustainable networks.
Likewise, solar intensity and biomass potential have a positive coefficient. It can be
considered that as the renewable potential increases, the technological systems are
more cost effective and raise the energy and environmental benefits of the policy.
Therefore, the assumptions of Wiser and Barbose (2008) and the results of Lyon
and Yin (2010) obtained at the state level and related to solar potential are verified
at local level. As stated by Gonzalez-Lim on, Pablo-Romero, and Sanchez-Braza
(2013), as the solar energy potential increases, the performance of technological
systems is higher and the cost-benefit ratio of the solar promoting measures is
more favorable. The positive and significant coefficient of biomass potential may be
considered a novelty, and as in the previous study in which this variable was used
(Lyon & Yin, 2010), it was not significant.
Considering the positive coefficient of both variables, it is confirmed that the
geographic characteristics affect the adoption of making policy decisions (Matisoff,
2008). Those municipalities with more favorable environmental characteristics
have higher probabilities of adhering to the CM, maybe because they see that the
implementation of certain measures of their environmental plans could be very
effective.
590
Table 4. Logistic Regression Models Summary: Estimating Probability of CM Being Signed
Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Population 0.017*** (0.003) 0.016*** (0.003) 20.013** (0.005) 20.012** (0.005) 0.008 (0.005) 0.009* (0.005)
Solar intensity 0.947*** (0.052) 0.956*** (0.052) 0.986*** (0.053) 0.905*** (0.052) 0.918*** (0.072) 0.849*** (0.075)
Biomass potential 0.008*** (0.001) 0.008*** (0.001) 0.008*** (0.002) 0.008*** (0.002) 0.003** (0.001) 0.004*** (0.001)
Fiscal income 0.0002*** (0.0001) 0.0002*** (0.0001) 0.0002*** (0.0001) 0.0002*** (0.0001) 0.0002*** (0.0001)
Marıa del P. Pablo-Romero et al.
Debt 0.001* (0.001) 0.001** (0.001) 0.001 (0.001) 0.0003 (0.0004) 0.0003 (0.0005)
Population density 0.0003*** (0.0001) 0.0003*** (0.0001) 0.0001*** (0.00003) 0.0001*** (0.00003)
Industrial companies 0.008*** (0.002) 0.008*** (0.002) 0.004** (0.002) 0.003* (0.002)
Liberal political preference 0.120*** (0.002) 0.020*** (0.003) 0.019*** (0.003)
Neighboring effect 0.028*** (0.001) 0.027*** (0.001)
Covenant Coordinators 1.590*** (0.166) 1.618*** (0.164)
Unemployment 0.047*** (0.011)
Constant 25.777*** (0.197) 25.901*** (0.197) 26.111*** (0.200) 26.372*** (0.214) 28.783*** (0.314) 29.055*** (0.331)
Number of obs. 7,586 7,586 7,586 7,586 7,586 7,586
Log. pseudolik. 22,127.465 22,118.913 22,055.608 22,037.097 21,246.512 21,238.454
Pseudo-R2 0.1936 0.1968 0.2208 0.2278 0.5275 0.5306
Wald Chi2 (p-value) 557.38 (0.000) 605.45 (0.000) 670.66 (0.000) 669.87 (0.000) 1,404.75 (0.000) 1,328.54 (0.000)
Notes: Standard errors robust to heteroskedasticity in brackets. One, two, or three asterisks indicate coefficient significance at the 10, 5, and 1 percent levels, respectively.
Column 2 shows the results obtained when adding a second set of explanatory
variables, which show the fiscal stress. First, the positive sign of income is consistent
with the results of Lubell et al. (2009). Environmental policies are carried out by
cities that are in good fiscal health, these being municipalities with higher revenues.
However, the positive sign of debt seems to indicate otherwise.
We may assume that the municipalities with less aversion to debt are those that
are ready to give up revenue, since they do not fear debt. However, we think that
in the current economic framework, the volume of debt may be an important limit-
ing factor for new cities to join the CM.
In any case, one should also keep in mind that signing up to the CM does not
imply the need to carry out any policy at the time of signing, but at later times. Per-
haps that is why the debt level is not a particularly important variable when decid-
ing to join the CM. This may explain the lack of significance of this variable in the
estimates including a larger number of explanatory variables.
Also, one should note that many of the measures which can be performed in the
municipalities are saving costs. So the most indebted municipalities may be more
willing to take these measures, which will lead them to reduce their energy costs
and thereby improve their budgets in the future. In this sense, Kousky and Schnei-
der (2003) find that the most frequently expressed motivation for joining ICLEI
was the potential for cost-savings, by, for example, retrofitting municipal buildings,
replacing traffic light bulbs with LEDs, and so forth.
Column 3 shows the results obtained when adding environmental stress varia-
bles. Both variables are significant and positive. Thus, with increasing levels of pol-
lution, municipal governments have higher probabilities of adhering to the CM.
There are many studies showing the positive relationship between pollution and
environmental decisions, such as Lyon and Yin (2010) and Matisoff (2008).
Conversely, the positive sign of Industrial Companies may indicate that indus-
tries do not act as an interest group organized to oppose accession to the CM, con-
trary to previous studies (Sharp et al., 2011), which argue that industries are going
to act that way because agreements to enhance environmental programs could
involve increases in their costs. In this sense, we must consider that the local indus-
try emissions can be drawn from the commitments of the CM, so that municipalities
are committed to reducing emissions without having to compute those by local
industry, although in some cases they undertake to do so. Therefore, industries
would not suffer from higher costs, and consequently they will not have reasons to
organize to oppose accession to the CM, which may explain that in this case, the
sign is not negative.
The positive sign may also indicates that they are not opposed to the CM, and
may even encourage it, because they foresee business opportunities related to new
technologies required to develop environmental measures or to use renewable
energies, as also shown by Lubell et al. (2009) and Portney and Berry (2010).
Column 4 illustrates the results when the liberal political preference is included. It
has a positive coefficient, in line with previous studies (Lyon & Yin, 2010; Matisoff,
2008), meaning that local governments have a higher probability of adopting such
environmental measures in municipalities with a prevalence of liberal political pref-
erence. In this sense, and because a change of government with a different political
preference may alter previously undertaken policy, the commitments acquired by
the local governments to adhere to the CM could impede a different government

from nullifying the environmental measures already implemented or underway,
avoiding the change of political preference having a negative effect in the long
term (Gonzalez-Lim on et al., 2013).
Column 5 shows the results including neighboring effect and Covenant Coordinators
variables. Their signs are positive and significant in both cases. The positive sign of
neighboring effect shows that there is a spillover effect among neighboring munici-
palities, either by the mere effect of following the mainstream, or for the conven-
ience of local environmental actions to be taken jointly with nearby municipalities,
as stated in Sharp et al. (2011).
The positive sign of Covenant Coordinators indicates that the existence of public
administrations which provide strategic guidance and financial and technical sup-
port to municipalities increases their likelihood to adhere to the CM. As stated in
Lubell et al. (2009), there is a group of less developed cities that probably do not
have the institutional capacity, political environment, or socioeconomic resources
to pass and implement these policies. So, the existence of public administrations
which help them to have a fundamental effect, encourages them to adopt such
energy measures. Therefore, as stated in Brandoni and Polonara (2012), the coor-
dinator role played by the regional government is fundamental, and can guarantee
that municipalities concentrate their efforts in the right direction.
It is worth noting that the explanatory power of the model increases markedly
when introducing these two variables. R2 goes from 0.22 to 0.52. This may indicate
the particular relevance of the existence of administrations to encourage and sup-
port municipalities to make energy plans. It may also denote the importance of the
existence of some collective consciousness that favors the adoption of such measures.
Finally, Column 6 shows the results by including unemployment, which is signifi-
cant and positive. This shows that municipalities with higher unemployment rates
have more probabilities of signing the CM, perhaps because these energy policies
may contribute to strengthen an industry that generates growth and employment,
as indicated in Rabe (2007). Energy policies may be seen not only as an environ-
mental policy tool as stated by Lyon and Yin (2010) but also as a tool for economic
growth. In that sense, it is worth noting the study by Lund and Hvelplund (2012),
which shows how the economic crisis enables the implementation of essential ele-
ments of future sustainable energy solutions, which generate jobs without having a
negative influence on government expenditure.
Discussion
In the EU-27, most of the municipalities that have joined the CM are large cities.
These municipalities are more likely to adhere to this agreement. Small municipal-
ities have little administrative structure to perform the SEAP and the BEI. For this
reason, higher public administrations must acquire a commitment to support and
foster these small municipalities.
The common perception of reducing pollution underlies the decision to join the
pact. Large cities often have a more conscientious population that generates a con-
tagious atmosphere of heightened awareness. As a result, cities that join the CM
are concentrated in certain areas. In this sense, information campaigns and visibil-
ity of the actions implemented may have a beneficial effect.
The availability of natural resources that allow its energy use also has a substan-
tial effect on the decision of the municipalities. In this regard, it is worth noting
that local actions may have a beneficial effect for the more efficient use of resources
because each municipality shall establish measures to manage their natural resour-
ces to their specific energy needs (solar, biomass, wind, geothermal, and so forth).
In a world designed to not rely solely on one source of energy, the energy mix can
be defined, at least in part, by the local energy use, adapted to their environment.
€
As stated in Larsen, Gunnarsson-Ostling, and Westholm (2011), it is necessary that
nation-states integrate the synergies between local and regional initiatives with
national action agendas and international climate change objectives.
However, local policies can be found today with a problem, the problem of
financing. This is true at least for the municipalities in some countries, like Spain.
In a context of budgetary constraints, the adoption of measures to promote renew-
able energy or energy efficiency measures has a cost that may be unaffordable in
some cases. In this sense, the measures carried out must have not only the purpose
of reducing emissions but also be saving energy and thus lead to cost-savings for
municipalities. Thus, measures must be investments which have profitability meas-
ured in terms of future cost-savings. This may influence the entry of private com-
panies investing in certain energy saving measures in government, getting
municipalities’ long-term profitability, so-called Energy Service Companies.
Also, if the measures taken are linked to the environment, they will generate
local business development, as well as wealth and employment, which eventually
become larger municipal revenues. In this sense, the development of economic
studies showing the relationship between specific local measures and profitability
of local investments made are of special interest. It may be said that although to
date there have been several studies assessing the effect of renewable energy on a
general level (APPA, 2009; Frondel, Ritter, Schmidt, & Vance, 2010; Varun, Pra-
kash, & Bha, 2009), there is great lack of studies evaluating these energy measures
in specific municipalities.
Conclusions
Nowadays, local authorities are considered as important players in climate policies.

An increasing number of city mayors are recognizing the potential to reduce emis-
sions in their territories and have started to define local environmental action
plans. In the field of local policies, there is a rapidly growing literature on local cli-
mate actions. Some of these studies have examined the motivations and barriers
for making commitments and taking actions, decision-making processes, and policy
implementation that promotes climate change action. Nevertheless, although
much research has been published concerning the motivations which led local gov-
ernments to the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign in the United States, little
is known concerning European cities, perhaps partly due to the difficulty in finding
suitable data for such research. To our knowledge, no previous studies have ana-
lyzed the reasons of the European local governments to adhere to these networks.
This article contributes to expand the previous research focusing on the motiva-
tions of the cities to join city-networks in a European context by studying the moti-
vations of Spanish local government to adhere to the CM.
The CM is the mainstream European movement involving local authorities who
voluntarily commit to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy
sources within their territories. Spain is one of the countries with a high number of
signatory municipalities. The population of these Spanish municipalities represents
more than 16.5 percent of the total population of the signatory municipalities in
Europe. Consequently, Spain has the greatest population of municipalities that
have signed this Covenant within the EU-27.
This article analyzes which reasons influence the decision of Spanish municipal
governments to join the CM by estimating a cross-section logit model. For this pur-
pose, we take as reference the previous literature that explores local government
behavior with respect to sustainability initiatives and involvement in climate
change. The obtained results show that municipalities with higher probabilities of
adhering to the CM are mostly large in size, with a high endowment of renewable
resources, with high environmental stress, with low fiscal stress, whose citizens have
a more liberal political preference, surrounded by municipalities that have also
adhered to the CM, which have territorial Covenant Coordinators, and with higher
unemployment rates. It is also found, although weakly, that the most indebted
municipalities are more likely to sign the CM. This may be associated with the
hypothesis that signing of the agreement helps to take cost-saving energy
measures.
This study confirms that some of the previous results obtained for North
American networks are applicable to Spain, which suggests that the same type of
cities, in relation to the variables considered, face similar problems in these two
places in the world, and therefore, the findings of previous studies can be applica-
ble to cities in the European context. In this sense, very similar results are
obtained regarding the size of the city, municipal income levels, and political
preference.
Other results present new evidence in favor of certain hypotheses that remain
controversial or not significantly proven in prior literature. First, this study
obtained positive results at the local level on the availability of renewable energy
and the decisions of the cities to join environmental networks. The Spanish munici-
palities may see joining the CM as a possible aid to exploit their energy resources,
thus making clear the match between the possible local measures, intrinsically
related with its environment, and the supranational objectives.
Second, it is also found that the most indebted municipalities are more likely to
sign the CM, which may seem paradoxical in relation to the positive value between
income and belonging to the CM. In this sense, being part of the CM may be seen
by the municipalities as the opportunity to carry out certain policies that could rep-
resent cost savings. Making the municipalities aware that being part of the CM can
represent a support for implementing efficiency measures that generate future sav-
ings could be a route to encourage the cities to adhere to the CM and to contribute
to the emission reduction targets of the EU.
Third, the results relating to environmental stress show significant positive signs.
The most densely populated Spanish cities have significantly greater probability of
joining the CM. Furthermore, the positive sign of industrial companies may indi-
cate that industries do not act as an interest group organized to oppose accession to
the CM in Spain, but foresee business opportunities related to new technologies
required to develop environmental measures or to use renewable energies.
Fourth, the results of the study reveal the enormous importance that the deci-
sions and actions of nearby municipalities have on the probability of adhering to
the CM, especially highlighting the important positive role played by the Covenant
Coordinators in expanding the network to make it more successful in terms of the
number of signatories in Europe. With that in mind, it would be interesting to pro-
mote these Coordinators in those parts of Spain and Europe where there is still not
an important number of signatories.
Finally, the results show that at the Spanish level, municipalities with higher
unemployment rates have more probabilities of signing the CM, perhaps
because CM is seen as a route to encourage the development of energy policies
that may contribute to strengthen an industry which generates growth and
employment.
The adoption of these local policies can encourage the implementation of energy
efficient measures as they may be closely linked with renewable resources of their
environment and energy needs. However, administrative and technical difficulties
of the smaller municipalities may be a barrier to adhesion to the CM. In this sense,
the support of higher administrations is considered essential, as well as the devel-
opment of a favorable environment by viewing the activities undertaken and the
obtained achievements.
The financial difficulties currently experienced by many municipalities may be
another significant barrier. In this regard, the development of studies that analyze
the economic effects arising from the measures taken in terms of energy cost-
savings, generating local economic activities that generate wealth and employment
may be appropriate.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support received by the Catedra de la Economıa de la
Energıa y del Medio Ambiente (Chair of Energy and Environmental Economics) of the Uni-
versity of Seville and the Fundaci
o Roger Torne, and by the SEJ-132.
About the Authors
Marıa del P. Pablo-Romero is an Associate Professor in the Department of Eco-

nomic Analysis and Political Economy, Faculty of Economics and Business, Univer-
sity of Seville, Spain.
Antonio Sanchez-Braza is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economic
Analysis and Political Economy, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of
Seville, Spain.
Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Lim on is an Associate Professor in the Department of Eco-
nomic Analysis and Political Economy, Faculty of Economics and Business, Univer-
sity of Seville, Spain.
REFERENCES
Acuto, M. (2013). The new climate leaders? Review of International Studies, 39(4), 835–857.
Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational climate governance. Global Environmen-
tal Politics, 9(2), 52–73.
APPA (Spanish Renewable Energy Association). (2009). Study of the macroeconomic impact of renewable energies
in Spain. Barcelona: APPA, Asociaci on de Productores de Energıas Renovables.
Arteconi, A., Brandoni, C., Bartolini, C. M., & Polonara, F. (2010). Assessment of local energy policies impact
in reducing GHG emissions. In K. Aravossis & C. A. Brebbia (Eds.), Environmental economics & invest-
ment assessment (vol. III, pp. 51–62). Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
Bailey, J. (2007). Lessons from the pioneers: Tackling global warming at the local level. Minneapolis, MN: Institute
for Local Self Reliance.
Beccali, M., Cellura, M., & Mistretta, M. (2007). Environmental effects of energy policy in Sicily: The role of
renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(2), 282–298.
Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. Sabatier (Ed.),
Theories of the policy process (pp. 169–200). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Betsill, M. M. (2001). Mitigating climate change in US cities: Opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment,
6(4), 393–406.
Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2006). Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Global
Governance, 12(2), 141–159.
Bose, R. K. (Ed.). (2010). Energy efficient cities. Assessment tools and benchmarking practices. Washington, DC:
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
Bouteligier, S. (2011). Cities, networks, and global environmental governance. Spaces of innovation, places of leader-
ship. New York: Routledge.
Brandoni, C., Arteconi, A., Ciriachi, G., & Polonara, F. (2011, September 25–29). Evaluation of municipal
energy planning contribution for the fulfilment of regional energy planning strategies. Proceedings of
the 6th Dubrovnik Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Sys-
tems, SDEWES, (No. 0957). Dubrovnik.
Brandoni, C., & Polonara, F. (2012). The role of municipal energy planning in the regional energy-planning
process. Energy, 48(1), 323–338.
Bulkeley, H. (2012). Governance and the geography of authority: Modalities of authorisation and the trans-
national governing of climate change. Environment and Planning A, 44(10), 2428–2444.
Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2003). Cities and climate change: Urban sustainability and global environmental gov-
ernance. New York: Routledge.
Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics,
22(1), 136–154.
Bulkeley, H., & Castan Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of cli-
mate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.
Bulkeley, H., & Kern, K. (2006). Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and
the UK. Urban Studies, 43(12), 2237–2259.
Bulkeley, H., & Newell, P. (2010). Governing climate change. New York: Routledge.
Butera, F. M. (1998). Moving towards municipal energy planning—The case of Palermo: The importance of
non-technical issues. Renewable Energy, 15 (1-4), 349–355.
Caja Espa~ na. (2012). Datos economicos y sociales de las unidades territoriales de Espa~
na. Valladolid: Caja Espa~
na.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Carbon Disclosure Project. (2012). Measurement for management. CDP cities 2012 global report–Including special
report on C40 cities. London: Carbon Disclosure Project.
Castan Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2012). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global
Environmental Change, 23(1), 92–102.
Christoforidis, G. C., Chatzisavvas, K. C., Lazarou, S., & Parisses, C. (2013). Covenant of Mayors initiative–
Public perception issues and barriers in Greece. Energy Policy, 60, 643–655.
Committee of the Regions. (2011). Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on “The EU Energy Action
Plan for 2011-2020.” Official Journal of the European Union, C 42, 6–11.
Comodi, G., Cioccolanti, L., Polonara, F., & Brandoni, C. (2012). Local authorities in the context of energy
and climate policy. Energy Policy, 51, 737–748.
Council of the European Union. (2007). Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council, March
8/9, 2007, 7224/1/07, Rev. 1.
Covenant of Mayors. (2012). Signatories. Retrieved from http://www.pactodelosalcaldes.eu/.
Croci, E., Melandri, S., & Molteni, T. (2010). A comparative analysis of global city policies in climate change mitiga-
tion: London, New York, Milan, Mexico City and Bangkok. Working Paper No. 32. Milan: IEFE, The Centre
for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy at Bocconi University.
Dawson, R. J., Wyckmans, A., Heidrich, O., K€ ohler, J., Dobson, S., & Feliu, E. (2014). Understanding cities:
Advances in integrated assessment of urban sustainability. Final Report of COST Action TU0902. Newcastle,
UK: Centre for Earth Systems Engineering Research, CESER.
Dhakal, S. (2009). Urban energy use and carbon emissions from cities in China and policy implications.
Energy Policy, 37(11), 4208–4219.
Elliot, D. L., & Schwartz, M. N. (1993). Wind energy potential in the United States. Richland, WA: Pacific North-
west Laboratory.
European Parliament and Council. (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the
use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/
EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 140, 16–62.
Feiock, R. C., & Bae, J. (2011). Politics, institutions and entrepreneurship: City decisions leading to inven-
toried GHG emissions. Carbon Management, 2(4), 443–453.
Feiock, R. C., Kassekert, A., Berry, F., & Yi, H. (2009). Institutional incentives and early adoption of sustain-
able energy innovations. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association’s Annual Meet-
ing, September 3–6, Toronto.
Frondel, M., Ritter, N., Schmidt, C. M., & Vance, C. (2010). Economic impacts from the promotion of
renewable energy technologies: The German experience. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4048–4056.
Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and hap-
pier. New York: Penguin Press.
Gonzalez-Lim on, J. M., Pablo-Romero, M. P., & Sanchez-Braza, A. (2013). Understanding local adoption of
tax credits to promote solar-thermal energy: Spanish municipalities’ case. Energy 62, 277–284.
Gordon, D. J. (2013). Between local innovation and global impact: Cities, networks, and the governance of
climate change. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 19(3), 288–307.
Gore, C. D. (2010). The limits and opportunities of networks: Municipalities and Canadian climate change
policy. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 27–46.
Gore, C. D., & Robinson, P. J. (2009). Local government response to climate change: Our last, best hope?
In H. Selin & S. VanDeveer (Eds.), Changing climates in North American politics: Institutions, policymaking,
and multilevel governance (pp. 137–158). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Graham, E., Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008, August 28–31). The diffusion of policy diffusion research.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Boston.
Hakelberg, L. (2014). Governance by diffusion: Transnational municipal networks and the spread of local
climate strategies in Europe. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), 107–129.
Heidrich, O., Dawson, R. J., Reckien, D., & Walsh, C. L. (2013). Assessment of the climate preparedness of
30 urban areas in the UK. Climatic Change, 120(4), 771–784.
Heyvaert, V. (2013). What’s in a name? The Covenant of Mayors as transnational environmental regulation.
Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 22(1), 78–90.
Hoff, J., & Strobel, B. W. (2013). A municipal “climate revolution”? The shaping of municipal climate
change policies. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 12(1), 4–16.
Holmgren, K., & Henning, D. (2004). Comparison between material and energy recovery of municipal
waste from an energy perspective. A study of two Swedish municipalities. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 43(1), 51–73.
Hou, J., Zhang, P., Tian, Y., Yuan, X., & Yang, Y. (2011). Developing low-carbon economy: Actions, chal-
lenges and solutions for energy savings in China. Renewable Energy, 36(11), 3037–3042.
Johnson, C. A. (2013). Political science: New climate alliances. Nature Climate Change, 3(6), 537–538.
Keiner, M., & Kim, A. (2007). Transnational city networks for sustainability. European Planning Studies,
15(10), 1369–1395.
Keirstead, J., & Schulz, N. B. (2010). London and beyond: Taking a closer look at urban energy policy.
Energy Policy, 38(9), 4870–4879.
Kern, K., & Alber, G. (2008, October 9–10). Governing climate change in cities: Modes of urban climate
governance in multi-level systems. Proceedings of OECD Conference on Competitive Cities and Climate
Change. Milan.
Kern, K., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance: Governing climate
change through transnational municipal networks. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(2), 309–332.
Kousky, C., & Schneider, S. H. (2003). Global climate policy: Will cities lead the way?. Climate Policy, 3(4),
359–372.
Krause, R. M. (2011a). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protec-
tion initiatives by US cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45–60.
Krause, R. M. (2011b). Symbolic or substantive policy? Measuring the extent of local commitment to climate
protection. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(1), 46–62.
Krause, R. M. (2012). An assessment of the impact that participation in local climate networks has on cities’
implementation of climate, energy, and transportation policies. Review of Policy Research, 29(5),
585–604.
Labaeye, A., & Sauer, T. (2013). City networks and the socio-ecological transition. A European inventory.
Working paper N . 27. Viena: Welfare, Wealth and Work for Europe.
€
Larsen, K., Gunnarsson-Ostling, U., & Westholm, E. (2011). Environmental scenarios and local-global level
of community engagement: Environmental justice, jams, institutions and innovation. Futures, 43(4),
413–423.
Lin, Q. G., & Huang, G. H. (2009). Planning of energy system management and GHG-emission control in
the municipality of Beijing—An inexact-dynamic stochastic programming model. Energy Policy, 37(11),
4463–4473.
Lubell, M., Feiock, R., & Handy, S. (2009). City adoption of environmentally sustainable policies in Califor-
nia’s Central Valley. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(3), 293–308.
Lund, H., & Hvelplund, F. (2012). The economic crisis and sustainable development: The design of job cre-
ation strategies by use of concrete institutional economics. Energy, 43, 192–200.
Lyon, T. P., & Yin, H. (2010). Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards? An empirical investiga-
tion. The Energy Journal, 31(1), 133–157.
Matisoff, D. C. (2008). The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards:
Regional diffusion or internal determinants? Review of Policy Research, 25(6), 527–546.
MIES. (2003). Prevenir le changement climatique, memento des decideurs: les collectivites territoriales engagees dans la
ma^ıtrise des emissions de gaz a effet de serre. Paris: Mission Interminist
erielle de l’Effet de Serre.
Ministerio del Interior. (2007). Resultados de las Elecciones Municipales 2007. Madrid: Ministerio del Interior,
Gobierno de Espa~ na.
Monni, S., & Syri, S. (2011). Weekly greenhouse gas emissions of municipalities: Methods and comparisons.
Energy Policy, 39(9), 4755–4765.
Neves, A. R., & Leal, V. (2010). Energy sustainability indicators for local energy planning: Review of current
practices and derivation of a new framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 2723–2735.
OECD. (2010). Cities and climate change. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Olazabal, M., De Gregorio Hurtado, S., Olazabal, E., Pietrapertosa, F., Salvia, M., Geneletti, D., . . . Reckien,
D. (2014). How are Italian and Spanish cities tackling climate change? A local comparative study, BC3 Working
Paper Series 2014-03. Bilbao: Basque Centre for Climate Change.
Owen, D. (2011). Green metropolis: Why living smaller, living closer, and driving less are the keys to sustainability.
New York: Penguin.
Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J., & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.). (2007). Climate
change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Portney, K. E., & Berry, J. M. (2010). Participation and the pursuit of sustainability in US cities. Urban Affairs
Review, 46(1), 119–139.
Rabe, B. (2007). Race to the top: The expanding role of US state renewable portfolio standards. Sustainable
Development Law & Policy, 7(3), 10–17.
Radulovic, D., Skok, S., & Kirincic, V. (2011). Energy efficiency public lighting management in the cities.
Energy, 36(4), 1908–1915.
Ramırez de la Cruz, E. E. (2009). Local political institutions and smart growth: An empirical study of the
politics of compact development. Urban Affairs Review, 45 (2), 218–246.
Reckien, D., Flacke, J., Dawson, R. J., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, M., Foley, A., . . . Pietrapertosa, F. (2014). Cli-
mate change response in Europe: What’s the reality? Analysis of adaptation and mitigation plans from
200 urban areas in 11 countries. Climatic Change, 122(1–2), 331–340.
Robinson, P. J., & Gore, C.D. (2005). Barriers to Canadian municipal response to climate change. Canadian
Journal of Urban Research, 14(1), 102–120.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Hammer, S. A., & Mehrotra, S. (2010). Cities lead the way in climate-change
action. Nature, 467(7318), 909–911.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Hammer, S. A., & Mehrotra, S. (Eds.). (2011). Climate change and cities: First
assessment report of the urban climate change research network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Cities. Contribution to global warming: Notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas
emissions. Environment and Urbanization, 20(5), 39–49.
Satterthwaite, D. (2011). How urban societies can adapt to resource shortage and climate change. Philosophi-
cal Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1942), 1762–1783.
Sawyer, S. W., & Friedlander, S. C. (1983). State renewable energy tax incentives: Monetary values, correla-
tions, policy questions. Energy Policy, 11(3), 272–277.
Sch€onberger, P. (2013). Municipalities as key actors of German renewable energy governance: An analysis of
opportunities, obstacles, and multi-level influences. Wuppertal Papers, No. 186. Wuppertal, Germany:
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
Schreurs, M. A. (2008). From the bottom up: Local and subnational climate change politics. The Journal of
Environment & Development, 17(4), 343–355.
Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2007). Political science and prediction: What’s next for U.S. climate change
policy? Review of Policy Research, 24(1), 1–27.
SGCAL. (2012). Base de Datos General de Entidades Locales. Madrid: Ministerio de Hacienda y Administra-
ciones P ublicas, Secretarıa General de Coordinaci on Auton
omica y Local, Gobierno de Espa~ na.
Sharp, E. B., Daley, D. M., & Lynch, M. S. (2011). Understanding local adoption and implementation of cli-
mate change mitigation policy. Urban Affairs Review, 47(3), 433–457.
Sperling, K., Hvelplund, F., & Mathiesen, B. V. (2011). Centralisation and decentralisation in strategic
municipal energy planning in Denmark. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1338–1351.
Tang, Z., Brody, S. D., Quinn, C., Chang, L., & Wei, T. (2010). Moving from agenda to action: Evaluating
local climate change action plans. Journal of Environmental Planning Management, 53(1), 41–62.
The World Bank. (2010). Cities and climate change: An urgent agenda. Washington, DC: The International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
Toly, N. (2008). Transnational municipal networks in climate politics: From global governance to global poli-
tics. Globalizations, 5(3), 341–356.
UNEP SBCI (United Nations Environment Programme Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative).
(2009). Buildings and climate change: Summary for decision-makers. Paris: UNEP DTIEs.
UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). (2011). Cities and climate change: Global report
on human settlements. London: Earthscan.
United Nations-Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2014). Conference of the Parties Report of the Con-
ference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, Addendum Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the
Parties at its nineteenth session. FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1, November 11–23, 2013, Warsaw.
Varun, Prakash, R., & Bha, I. K. (2009). Energy, economics and environmental impacts of renewable energy
systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2716–2721.
Wang, R. (2010). Leaders, followers and laggards: Committing to local climate actions in California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Transportation Center.
Wang, R. (2012). Leaders, followers, and laggards: Adoption of the US Conference of Mayors Climate Pro-
tection Agreement in California. Environment and Planning C, 30(6), 1116–1128.
Wang, R. (2013). Adopting local climate policies. What have California cities done and why? Urban Affairs
Review, 49(4), 593–613.
Wheeler, S. M. (2008). State and municipal climate change plans. Journal of the American Planning Association,
4(4), 481–496.
Wiser, R., & Barbose, G. (2008). Renewables portfolio standards in the United States: A status report with data
through 2007. LBNL-154E. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yalçın, M., & Lefèvre, B. (2012). Local climate action plans in France: Emergence, limitations and conditions
for success. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(2), 104–115.
Young, G., & Sarzynski, A. (2009). The adoption of solar energy financial incentives across the states, 1974–2007.
WP039. Washington, DC: George Washington Institute of Public Policy.
Zahran, S., Brody, S. D., Vedlitz, A., Grover, H. & Miller. C. (2008). Vulnerability and capacity: Explaining
local commitment to climate-change policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(3),
544–562.
Zahran, S., Grover, H., Brody, S. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Risk, stress, and capacity: explaining metropolitan
commitment to climate protection. Urban Affairs Review, 43(4), 447–474.

Review of Policy Research - 2015 - Pablo Romero - Covenant of Mayors Reasons For Being An Environmentally and Energy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Policy Research - 2015 - Pablo Romero - Covenant of Mayors Reasons For Being An Environmentally and Energy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

bs_bs_banner

Covenant of Mayors: Reasons for Being an

of energy consumption to satisfy residential, production, and mobility needs. They

The Covenant of Mayors

Covenant signatory cities commit to implement sustainable energy action plans

Table 1. Signatory Municipalities of the CM in the EU

% over % population with

Austria 8 0.27 145,323 0.12 8,404,300 1.73

The Model: Variables and Data

An empirical model is formulated in which the decision to join the CM is a function

Population and Availability of Renewable Energy

Neighbors and Coordinators

Table 2. Variables and Their Descriptive Statistics

Variable Description Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.

After describing the variables, a microeconometric analysis is performed to assess

yi ¼ a 1 x0i b 1ei

where I denotes the ith municipality of the N municipalities considered, x is the

Variable p is defined as the probability of y being equal to 1 (that the CM will be

where x0 is the transposed of the x vector of covariates and F is specified as a cumu-

The regression parameters b can be obtained using maximum-likelihood estima-

According to Cameron and Trivedi (2009), in binary outcome models, as in all

Limitations of the Study

The adhesion of municipalities to the CM is a continuous process in two senses. On

Table 3. Variance Inflation Factors

Population 1.12 0.895

Table 4. Logistic Regression Models Summary: Estimating Probability of CM Being Signed

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

the local governments to adhere to the CM could impede a different government

Nowadays, local authorities are considered as important players in climate policies.

About the Authors

Marıa del P. Pablo-Romero is an Associate Professor in the Department of Eco-

You might also like