University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

514
which limits the adoption of better environmental practices. In addition, these results
could be also explained by the fact that some of the larger municipalities are
adopting EMSs and have more staff trained in environmental issues, among other
practices that occur more in large municipalities. This pattern could explain the
apparently better environmental performance of the large-sized local authorities
surveyed.
MEPE INDEX
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.22
0.42
Figure 3. MEPE Index by municipality size: workers.
Municipality Self-Assessment versus the MEPE Index
Comparison between the MEPE index and the municipalities' self-assessment shows
contradictory results (Figure 4). The results produced by the index shows that the
municipalities' environmental performance is very poor (51%) and poor (21%).
However, the self-assessment carried out by the municipalities reveals that they
consider themselves as having a good (47%) or medium (42%) environmental
performance.
These results may be explained by various factors, in particular the fact that many of
the environmental management practices considered for this evaluation are voluntary
and local government decision-makers will give priority to mandatory practices. On
the other hand, the optimistic self-assessment results could be also explained by the
need to report a very good performance, to protect the authorities’ image.
Additionally, as stressed by Ramos and Melo (2006) with reference to other public
sector organizations, it may also be explained by their poor knowledge of their actual
environmental and sustainability performance.
0.43
0.69
1001 workers
Classes of municipality workers