Testing the Prospective Rapid Impact Assessment Approach for Stakeholders Engagement in Municipality Action Planning: The Case of Tauragė

Abstract

Municipalities face increasing vulnerability to climate-related risks, giving rise to a set of different challenges and problems, ultimately threatening long-term sustainability. Addressing these challenges requires proactive adaptation measures, innovative solutions, and stakeholder engagement to enhance climate resilience at the municipal level. This study adapts the Prospective Rapid Impact Assessment (PRIA) approach for planning critical climate change actions, promoting environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Using a case study in Tauragė, Lithuania, the study explores the PRIA method’s application in municipal planning. Various stakeholders and experts participated in testing the method, emphasising the need for inclusive governance in sustainable urban development. The research identifies key climate challenges and corresponding adaptation actions across three tiers: individual (person), household, and municipal levels, underscoring a multi-scale approach to sustainability. A five-point Likert scale was used to evaluate challenges, with the five most significant ones highlighted for each tier. A comprehensive list of sustainability-driven climate actions was compiled, and experts prioritised the most impactful and feasible strategies. These recommendations were presented to Tauragė’s decision-makers to inform the development or revision of the municipal Action Plan, ensuring that climate resilience, resource efficiency, and social equity are embedded in local policies. Furthermore, the study demonstrates the effectiveness of the PRIA method and the practical utility of the InTo tool in assessing climate actions and identifying priority sustainability measures. By integrating sustainability considerations into municipal strategic planning, the findings underscore the necessity of proactive, forward-thinking approaches to safeguard communities and ecosystems against climate change. The study results confirm that the PRIA method can be successfully utilised as a robust framework for regional and municipal climate change action planning. It facilitates the identification of key issues, the prioritisation of actions, stakeholder engagement, and the integration of interdependencies within the climate change action planning process. This approach ensures that actions are well-founded, specifically tailored to the needs of various community levels, and account for the interdependencies among different climate change mitigation and adaptation options.

1. Introduction

As climate change accelerates, municipalities face significant challenges in both mitigating and adapting to its impacts. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and the rise in sea-levels pose significant threats to infrastructure, public health, and socio-economic stability at the local level. Climate change is a profound global challenge, affecting multiple aspects of human life. Climatologists have identified several key impacts, including vegetation shifts, intensification of droughts, alterations in rainfall patterns, and increased frequency of river floods. Furthermore, extreme phenomena such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, heavy rainfall, lightning, and heatwaves have been recorded [1,2,3,4,5]. Additionally, climate change may facilitate the outbreak and spread of new diseases [6].

Humans are intrinsically connected to the natural environment in which they live, work, and create. Climate and weather conditions significantly influence human well-being [7]. Consequently, climate change affects all individuals. Adaptation to climate change is a continuous and long-term process that involves both structural changes and public awareness initiatives. Should mitigation or adaptation be prioritised? Both processes must be implemented simultaneously, as they are inherently interconnected (Figure 1). For example, energy-saving measures and awareness-raising campaigns contribute to both mitigation and adaptation efforts [8].

Effective strategies must focus on sustainable solutions that account for environmental, social, and economic impacts [9]. A systematic approach is essential for addressing the complexity of climate change and its cross-sectoral interactions, which is particularly important when developing strategies and implementing measures at the municipal level. Typically, climate change risk assessments focus on individual sectors or hazards. However, interdependencies between climate risks manifest through multiple mechanisms, particularly at the municipal level. Dawson [10] identified six dimensions of interdependencies: functional, where systems such as energy and water supply rely on each other; physical, linked through shared attributes like hydrological processes; geographical, occurring at local and regional levels; economic and financial, affecting resource distribution; political and institutional, shaping governance structures; and social, influencing risk communication and adaptive capacity. These interdependencies can create either synergistic or antagonistic effects, meaning combined actions may enhance or undermine overall resilience. Recognising these interactions is essential for effective municipal climate adaptation and mitigation planning.

Various multi-criteria methods, including Portfolio Decision Analysis (PDA), have been developed to support systemic analysis and comparison of alternative strategies by considering multiple sustainability dimensions [11,12,13]. PDA provides structured support for identifying an optimal set of actions within given resource constraints. Ideally, PDA involves participants evaluating all actions against selected criteria and assessing interactions between all possible combinations of actions. However, this process can be labour-intensive when dealing with numerous actions and interactions. As an alternative, Durbach et al. 2020 [14] introduce fast and frugal heuristics to avoid assessing all possible interactions among actions. Moreover, concise assessment of the actions and especially their interactions necessitate specific expertise of the particular action fields, and it is challenging to obtain all necessary expertise involved in the decision-making process, especially in as multidisciplinary a context as municipality climate risk assessment.

This paper presents a structured PDA approach that supports the analysis of multiple actions and their interactions. We test the Prospective Rapid Impact Assessment, i.e., PRIA to approach stakeholder engagement in municipality action planning in the Taurage municipality in Lithuania. The PRIA is a prospective impact assessment approach [15] applying the PDA method presented in Mustajoki [16]. The PRIA approach was selected because it enables the following process by providing a solid process and analysing method with appropriate labour intensity. A compact set of the most efficient individual actions is identified based on multiple criteria. Joint effects are then assessed within this refined set to reduce cognitive workload. Climate change presents significant challenges at the municipal level, necessitating proactive measures to mitigate its adverse effects and enhance community resilience [9]. Effective adaptation requires identifying emerging challenges, implementing essential actions, and embracing innovative approaches. Some climate change impacts are already inevitable, making adaptation a critical priority. Adaptation entails adjusting to changing climatic conditions, minimising potential losses, stabilising socio-economic systems, leveraging new opportunities, and mitigating adverse consequences. Well-planned pre-adaptation measures can substantially reduce losses and enhance public safety. Adaptation occurs in various forms: (1) Pre-adaptation—measures implemented before climate change impacts become apparent; (2) Response adaptation-actions taken after climate change effects have materialised; and (3) Spontaneous adaptation—unregulated, natural adaptation of ecological and human systems to changing climatic conditions [10].

The Resilience Matrix framework [17] outlines four phases of adaptation: prepare, absorb, recover, and learn. To support local climate action, the European Commission launched the Covenant of Mayors in 2008, encouraging municipalities to develop climate plans and invest in mitigation [18]. Tauragė District Municipality has joined this initiative, committing to climate and energy policy implementation. In 2015, the Covenant was expanded to integrate mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable energy goals. Its 2050 vision aims to accelerate CO₂ reductions, enhance adaptive capacity, and ensure energy sustainability [18]. Participating institutions pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 through coordinated mitigation and adaptation efforts.

The Tauragė District Municipality has developed the “Action Plan for the Development of Renewable Energy Use until 2030” [19]. Preparedness for climate change is of paramount importance. This paper aims to address the negative consequences of climate change and explore potential solutions through technological advancements and climate innovations. Climate threats can be categorised into direct and indirect impacts [20]. Direct threats include immediate effects on human health, ecosystem degradation, and increased frequency of extreme weather events. Indirect threats encompass socio-economic consequences, such as climate-induced migration, supply chain disruptions, and rising insurance costs. Direct threats are often predictable through climate forecasting, whereas indirect threats are more complex due to the interplay between natural and social systems. Climate projections for Tauragė District indicate significant trends, including rising temperatures, increased winter precipitation, heightened risk of heat extremes, reduced occurrence of extreme cold events, prolonged periods of heavy rainfall and drought, and decreased sunlight exposure. Assessing and preparing for these projected changes is essential for effective risk mitigation. While each region faces unique climate-related challenges, shared issues can be addressed through knowledge exchange and strategic learning from other municipalities. Researchers have assessed climate change impacts across environmental, social, and economic dimensions, as well as territorial concerns. Consequently, municipal administrations must develop and implement phased action plans to facilitate adaptation while capitalising on any potential benefits of climate change.

To enhance climate resilience, Tauragė Municipality actively participates in the “Adaptation to Climate Change” mission of the Horizon Europe programme (2021–2027), initiated by the European Commission. This initiative has provided a significant opportunity for public engagement in the municipality’s strategic planning process by formulating a set of measures that address current needs while enhancing adaptability to the impacts of climate change. Therefore, one of the objectives of this study is to evaluate and propose effective stakeholders and public engagement tools or instruments for the Tauragė municipality, enhancing the provision of information and the identification of potential solutions in the development of municipal activity plans.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tauragė District Short Description

The geographical location map of the Tauragė District is shown in Figure 2. According to data from the State Data Agency, an average of 37,403 people resided in the municipality of Tauragė in 2022, with 21,000 living in the city of Tauragė [21]. Over the past decade, the municipality’s population has declined by 12 per cent. Until 2022, the municipality experienced negative net migration; however, in 2022 and 2023, the overall migration balance turned positive (+411 and +71 inhabitants, respectively), driven by international migration, while internal migration remained negative.

As of the beginning of 2023, the number of economic entities operating in Tauragė District reached 1103, of which approximately 990 were small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). While business establishment activity in the municipality is relatively strong, the level of entrepreneurship among Tauragė District residents remains lower than the national average. At the start of 2023, there were 34.9 operating SMEs per 1000 residents nationwide, whereas the corresponding figure for Tauragė District was 26.4 SMEs per 1000 residents [22].

2.2. Research Design

The authors of the study hypothesise that municipalities do not sufficiently engage diverse stakeholders’ groups in the action planning process. Consequently, the resulting plans may fail to provide the necessary solutions to effectively address the needs of residents and the challenges posed by climate change.

The research has three main objectives: (1) to test the PRIA method using Portfolio Decision Analysis (PDA) to select the most critical climate actions for inclusion in the climate change adaptation plan of Tauragė District Municipality; (2) to identify the challenges arising from the adverse impacts of climate change on the living environment and to explore potential solutions to address these issues; and (3) to develop a procedure that incorporates diverse stakeholder groups into municipal action planning, ensures effective outcomes, and adheres to the bottom-up principle.

2.3. Used Methods

The PRIA method is a general tool for prospective rapid impact assessment. It aims to address key questions such as whether the right actions are being taken and how they can be improved. The assessment can be conducted during or even before the implementation of activities, with the goal of enhancing performance during operation. The PRIA method consists of a framework, Portfolio Decision Analysis, and a participatory process and it has especially been developed in relation to climate action selection [16]. The initial phase involves collecting and co-creating insights with relevant stakeholders in relation to the defined context. A qualitative focus group survey method combined with qualitative PDA was employed to achieve the research objectives. This combination of methods is a research technique used to gather in-depth insights from a small, diverse group of participants through structured discussions. It involves facilitated group interactions where participants share their perspectives, experiences, and opinions on a specific topic enabling numerical evaluations and sensitivity analysis. The discussions were guided by two moderators from the survey implementation team, who ensured balanced participation and kept the conversation focused on key research objectives followed by concise numerical evaluation.

2.4. Selection of Experts

A fundamental criterion for the formation of an expert group is that participants must have knowledge of the problem under investigation. In the case of climate adaptation, the insights of the vulnerable social groups are particular important. According to Dalkey [23], the optimal number of respondents for an experts’ survey ranges between 25 and 30. For this study, experts from four stakeholders’ groups—municipal representatives, business representatives, municipal citizens, and researchers—were invited to participate. The municipal representatives and municipal citizen groups brought the vulnerable social groups insights into the discussion. In total, 50 experts took part in the study. The first discussion session included municipal representatives, business representatives, and municipal citizens, while the second session involved experts with a high level of knowledge on climate issues, including researchers and PhD students.

2.5. Step-by-Step Survey Process

Three different sessions were organised as follows: (1) Two discussion sessions with different focus groups were conducted to identify and evaluate issues and climate actions. (2) One evaluation session was held to assess the interdependencies between climate actions (Figure 3).

Initially, representatives from Tauragė District Municipality, local communities, and businesses identified 75 climate actions. Subsequently, experts identified an additional 10 actions, bringing the total to 85, and proceeded to evaluate them. Based on the results of the second session, the 15 most important actions were selected. In the final stage, experts assessed the interdependencies among these 15 preselected actions.

First Discussion Session (7 November 2023):

Location: Youth Leisure Centre, Tauragė city.

Participants: Representatives from municipality, community groups, and businesses.

Objectives: to identify issues related to climate change impacts.

Format: Three focus groups addressing climate-related challenges at the individual (person), household, and city levels.

Outcome: A prioritised list of issues and 75 proposed climate actions to address them.

Second Discussion Session (16 November 2023):

Location: Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Akademija, Kėdainiai District.

Participants: Researchers, lecturers, and PhD students from LAMMC and VTDK (now VIKO).

Objectives: To discuss the identified issues and, furthermore, to update and evaluate climate actions.

Format: Three discussion groups addressing key issues and ranking 75 and 10 newly identified climate actions.

Outcome: A refined list of 15 climate actions ranked by importance.

The first discussion session was held jointly with the Tauragė District Municipality on 7 November 2023, at the Youth Leisure Centre in Tauragė city. Representatives from the municipality, community groups, and businesses attended the session. Participants were divided into three groups to identify issues arising from the negative impacts of climate change. These issues were categorised into three tiers: individual (person), household, and city. The “Individual” tier encompasses issues directly affecting individuals due to the adverse effects of climate change. The “Household” tier highlights issues occurring within households as a result of climate change, while the “City” tier reflects issues at the city level caused by climate change impacts. With the assistance of moderators, participants discussed and listed various issues, which were then prioritised using a five-point Likert scale. The five most significant issues from each tier were selected from the comprehensive list. Climate actions were then proposed to address these key issues and enhance adaptation efforts.

The second discussion session was held jointly with the LAMMC and VTDK on 16 November 2023, at the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry. Representatives from researchers and lecturers to PhD students from both institutions attended the session. During the discussion, experts were divided into three groups to discuss issues identified during the first discussion session, focusing on the negative impacts of climate change and potential climate actions. Experts supplemented the already compiled list of climate actions and ranked them according to importance. Four criteria were utilised to evaluate the impact of climate actions: effects on nature, social threats, business threats, and territorial threats (Figure 4). The assessment was conducted using the InTo tool, which gauges the effectiveness of climate actions across the aforementioned criteria. The list of 85 climate actions was ranked using a five-point Likert scale.

The interrelationships of climate action were assessed in the third phase of survey. The set of 15 preselected climate actions were used. For evaluation purposes, an Excel matrix of interrelationships among climate actions was created. Experts assessed these interrelationships of the action pairs using a scale ranging from −3 to 3, where −3 represents the strongest negative impact, 0 indicates no impact, and 3 signifies the strongest positive impact. An example of the evaluation matrix is depicted in Appendix A.

2.6. Data Analysis Techniques

The data consists of the evaluation data of all 85 actions towards four criteria, namely natural consequences, social threats, threats to business and territorial threats and, in addition, the evaluation data of 15 preselected action interdependencies.

The data enables the PDA approach. PDA refers to the theory, methods, and practices developed to help in selecting a portfolio of actions [25]. The most common multi-criteria PDA approach is to use the additive preference model, where portfolio value is represented by the sum of multi-criteria values of the actions included in the portfolio [26]. The basic additive preference model does not allow modelling of the joint effects of implementing multiple actions simultaneously (i.e., synergies or antagonistic effects). In our approach, we introduce non-linearity to the portfolio value function so that the function can represent interaction effects associated with different subsets of projects [27]. This approach is based on a portfolio model that augments the additive portfolio value function with additional terms capturing interaction effects between pairs of actions. The overall value of each portfolio is obtained as the sum of values of linear additive value of those actions that are included in the portfolio as well as the interaction effects resulting from the inclusion of specific pairs of actions. The model enables sensitivity analysis by testing different magnitudes of interaction effects by changing the particular parameters.

We calculated the value of the portfolio based on two components: the linear component based on the linear multi-criteria values of the actions and the non-linear interdependence value of the actions included in the portfolio. The non-linear component is based on the evaluated interdependence value of the action pairs included in the portfolio. The non-linear component also includes the sensitivity analysis parameter, when it obtains a value of 0, then, the non-linear component also obtains a value 0 and the whole portfolio value is based on the linear component. When the parameter value is increased, the portfolio value is based more on the non-linear interdependence component. For example, when the parameter obtains a value of 1.0, the pair of actions with the maximum positive interdependence add to the portfolio’s value equal to the average multi-criteria value of the evaluated actions.

PDA is a powerful approach for dealing with multiple objectives, targets, and budget constraints. The ability to make decisions to balance different aspects of sustainability is increasingly important in modern societies. Making these decisions requires overall understanding of the ecological, economic, and social systems as well as relationships within and among them. Such understanding can only be built through a dialogue between planners, scientists, stakeholders, and policy makers. Hence, there is a growing demand for methods that can facilitate interaction between relevant actors and support the structuring and analysis of environmental decision problems. One key aspect in any survey evaluation is that objectives are pursued through implementing a group or a portfolio of actions rather than a single action [12]. The main advantage of PDA is that it helps to consider a comprehensive set of actions and is not restricted to a small number of alternatives constructed unaided by stakeholders. It also helps identifying those action candidates, which are dominated by the other actions, and allows inclusion of incomplete information in the modelling. However, the quality of the results is strongly based on avoiding possible bias in expert assessments and challenges in participant engagement in the first place.

Mustajoki [16] presented a structured approach aimed at supporting the application of PDA in environmental management, particularly in situations where there are numerous potential actions with interactions between them. In the approach, they first identify a compact set of the most efficient single actions in terms of multiple criteria (e.g., only 10–20 actions), and then carry out the assessment of joint effects only within this set with the aim of reducing the cognitive load of carrying out the assessment. As a result, the analysis yields an efficient set of actions when taking the most relevant pairwise interactions into account. The approach also includes a way to analyse the sensitivity of the results to the intensity of taking the joint effects into account.

3. Results

The three stages of the study yielded three distinct yet interconnected outcomes. Figure 5 presents the data utilised and the results of each analysis.

In the first stage of the study, 85 climate actions were identified across three tiers: A (individual), N (households), and M (city). The results from the focus group workshop highlighted the most pressing issues arising from the adverse impacts of climate change. Participants also selected climate actions aimed at mitigating or addressing these challenges. In the second stage, experts selected 15 climate actions for interdependency analysis. The identified climate actions were evaluated based on four criteria: effects on nature, social threats, threats to businesses, and territorial threats. In the third stage, an interdependency analysis was conducted. The results of this analysis identified ten climate actions that provided the highest portfolio value, considering the added value generated by the interactions among the selected actions.

3.1. Critical Issues and Climate Actions Identification

The three stages of the study resulted in three distinct yet interconnected outcomes. Initially, during the first discussion phase, focus group participants identified the most pressing issues stemming from the adverse impacts of climate change. They also selected climate actions aimed at mitigating or resolving these issues. The participants assessed issues across three tiers: individual (person), household, and city.

Table 1. Most critical issues and climate actions.

Tier	Issues	Action
Individual (person)	A1. Health issues arising from temperature fluctuations	Access to healthcare services. Promotion of public health initiatives. Conservation of the natural environment. Enhancing psychological well-being.
	A2. Air pollution during the cold season (attributed to heating) or throughout the year (resulting from transportation) data.	Promote clean transportation (through educational campaigns and financial incentives). Encourage the adoption of renewable energy sources (through educational campaigns and financial incentives). Foster sustainability in industries (through educational campaigns and financial support). Expand and maintain green infrastructure (through educational campaigns and financial support).
	A3. The infrastructure for walking, cycling, rollerblading, and scooters is inadequately adapted.	Selection of sustainable materials (for infrastructure creation). Expansion of bicycle and pedestrian path networks.
	A4. Disruption of the food chain due to temperature changes.	Promote home gardening and cultivation of own produce. Implement pricing systems that discourage food waste, such as adjusting prices to incentivize buying smaller quantities (e.g., pricing 1 litre of milk at 1 € and 0.5 litres at 0.70 € to discourage overbuying and subsequent food waste).
	A5. A decline in income due to business challenges.	Encourage reduced consumption. Promote reuse. Encourage bartering. Encourage individuals to explore new sources of income (e.g., fostering entrepreneurship).
Household	N1. Taxes are being increased to fund measures aimed at mitigating climate change.	Publicising and disseminating information about the allocation of collected taxes to fund climate change prevention measures and their implementation (including details on amounts and recipients). Increased dissemination of information regarding the adverse effects of climate change.
	N2. Rainfall and high temperatures reduce yields, spreading diseases and pests. Chemical pesticides are banned, and natural methods of pest control are not sought.	Renovating irrigation systems and installing new ones. Revising land use (identifying areas unsuitable for agricultural crops). Enhancing certification and control systems (assessing the emergence of new pests and diseases due to climate change).
	N3. As a result of the heavy rain, cellars flood, and access to houses deteriorates.	Implement new solutions and utilise more resilient materials to counteract the detrimental effects of climate change. Enhance construction quality and bolster oversight measures. Encourage the construction of more durable structures and the utilisation of resilient materials.
	N4. Gale force winds can result in property damage and power outages, while electric current surges may cause harm to electronic devices. Additionally, strong winds have the potential to uproot trees.	Improved maintenance of electrical networks and the installation of underground lines. Removal of hazardous trees. Enhanced maintenance of urban green spaces. Increased utilisation of green infrastructure, such as windproof plant walls.
	N5. The expansion of electricity production from renewable natural resources is constrained by the limited available production capacity.	Implement renewable energy solutions in individual households.
City	M1. The lack of infrastructure adapted for the development of greenery and water bodies impacts the installation of infrastructure, the choice of materials, and the application of technologies, leading to an increase in air temperature.	Preservation and expansion of green spaces, with a focus on planting more trees, especially conifers. Renovation and adaptation of pathways to accommodate rollerblades, scooters, and bicycles. Adoption of sustainable materials for construction and infrastructure development.
	M2. Air pollution in the city, resulting from transportation and the use of solid fuels for residential heating, is a significant concern.	Establish a mandatory control system to regulate the amount of CO2 emissions from households heated by inefficient heating systems. Create clean car zones within the city. Encourage the use of clean vehicles. Foster the development of sustainable industry.
	M3. Waste sorting issues—littering in non-designated areas.	Introduce fines for incorrect sorting. Implement rewards for correct sorting. Initiate public education on sorting issues.
	M4. Insufficient attention towards preserving the natural environment.	Utilise only plants that naturally grow in the Lithuanian climate (reduce imported plants). Restrict excessive pruning. Expand existing forests.
	M5. Prioritisation of significant issues in the implementation of environmental protection measures is crucial. City residents and activists propose a myriad of measures; however, there is a lack of analysis and rational prioritisation, hindering the implementation of measures with the greatest impact.	Implement renewable energy solutions in individual households. Implement decisions based solely on the prepared and approved description of rules for addressing the most critical environmental problems.

illustrates the key issues identified by participants during the meeting, alongside proposed actions to mitigate these challenges and enhance adaptation to climate change. For each tier, the five most critical issues, as perceived by the participants, along with potential climate actions to address them, have been listed in the table.

3.2. Climate Actions Evaluation

The second stage involved evaluating the potential impact of actions in mitigating the adverse effects of climate change on nature, social threats, threats to business, and territorial threats. This stage occurred on 16 November 2023, at LAMMC, with the participation of both LAMMC and VTDK. The initial part of the meeting focused on discussing the outcomes of the 7 November 2023, discussions with representatives from Tauragė municipality, community groups, and youth, where the most pressing issues arising from the negative effects of climate change were identified, along with actions to address or adapt to them. During the subsequent meeting, experts supplemented the list of actions, resulting in a total of 85 actions. Evaluation was conducted based on four criteria: effects on nature, social threats, threats to business, and territorial threats. Each action was assigned to a corresponding layer (“Individual”, “Household”, “City”) and problem. Participants evaluated the strength of the action impact on a five-point Likert scale (1—very weak impact, …, 5—very strong impact). Following the assessment, the most critical actions were identified by the experts, with the highest marks assigned to 15 actions deemed most significant for the Tauragė District Municipality. These actions, outlined in

Table 2. Fifteen climate actions rated highest by experts.

Issues	Actions	Average	Stadart Deviation
A5	Promote the consumption of local products and services.	3.33	1.71
M2	Promote the development of sustainable industry.	3.22	1.70
A4	Choose to grow suitable crops according to the microenvironment.	3.19	1.59
M2	Development of a centralised heating system utilising renewable energy.	3.14	1.72
A1	Preservation of natural habitats.	3.14	1.71
A5	Implementation of new and innovative business models.	3.12	1.66
M2	Renovation programme for private households (municipal, state, private).	3.11	1.86
N3	To encourage the use of more durable construction materials and resilient designs.	3.09	1.68
N2	Promote the cultivation of resilient varieties.	3.09	1.74
A4	Promote the cultivation of produce and gardening in households.	3.08	1.72
A3	Selection of sustainable materials.	3.03	1.67
N2	Greater dissemination of information about ongoing scientific research and its results would enable society to adopt innovations more readily.	3.03	1.62
N5	Implementing renewable energy solutions in individual households.	3.01	1.65
N3	Improve construction quality and enhance control.	3.01	1.65
A2	Promote industrial sustainability.	3.01	1.58

, should receive heightened attention in the planning of various climate change adaptation measures. Table 2 presents the average scores assigned by experts to assess the impact of 85 climate actions against four criteria, highlighting the 15 highest-scoring actions. These scores are not based on a single measure but represent the collective judgement of experts across multiple dimensions. The results are fundamental to the subsequent stages of analysis. The list of climate actions rated the highest by experts is presented in Table 2.

3.3. Evaluation of the Most Significant Actions Based on Climate Change Impact Assessment Criteria

The 15 most critical actions are used to examine interdependencies between actions, identify high-impact ‘super actions’, and conduct a sensitivity analysis to evaluate how these interactions influence an optimised portfolio. Key actions highlighted by the experts for inclusion in strategic planning and the provision of appropriate measures include the following: (1) Promote the consumption of local products and services (average—3.33); (2) Promote the development of sustainable industry (average—3.22); (3) Choose to grow suitable crops according to the microenvironment (average—3.19); (4) Development of a centralised heating system utilising renewable energy (average—3.14); and (5) Preservation of natural habitats (average—3.14).

After the data analysis, the most crucial actions for each category of climate change effects, i.e., evaluation criteria, were further identified (

Table 3. The most significant actions based on climate change impact assessment criteria for the most critical issues.

Tier	Issue	Climate Action	Criterion 1		Criterion 2		Criterion 3		Criterion 4
			Nature		Social		Business		Territorial
			Avg.	St. Dev.	Avg.	St. Dev.	Avg.	St. Dev.	Avg.	St. Dev.
Individual (person)	A1	Enhancing psychological well-being.	1.82	1.25	4.61	0.95	3.25	1.52	2.13	1.41
	A2	Foster sustainability in industries	4.67	0.82	3.00	1.03	2.78	1.23	3.12	1.45
	A3	Selection of sustainable materials	4.39	0.95	3.53	1.33	2.44	1.17	3.31	1.49
	A4	Select appropriate crops based on the microenvironment	3.82	1.25	3.69	1.4	3.29	1.4	3.65	1.19
	A5	Promote the consumption of locally sourced products and services	4.18	1.15	4.00	1.17	3.88	1.36	3.07	1.57
Household	N1	Public education on food preparation and purchasing planning	3.71	1.02	3.94	1.21	2.13	1.02	2.53	1.02
	N2	Greater dissemination of information about ongoing research and its results would enable society to adopt innovations	3.71	1.32	3.53	1.26	3.75	1.03	3.13	1.26
	N3	Improve the quality of construction and enhance control measures	3.19	1.42	3.69	1.45	3.29	1.45	3.75	1.03
	N4	Ensure better maintenance of electrical networks and install underground lines.	2	1.27	3.71	1.56	4.00	1.14	2.94	1.59
	N5	Implement renewable energy solutions in individual households	4.29	1.07	3.75	1.3	2.81	1.38	3.12	1.02
City	M1	Preservation of green spaces	4.67	0.79	4	1	2	0.88	3.21	1.26
	M2	Renovation programme for private household holdings (municipal, state, private)	4	1.46	4.07	1.24	3.13	1.59	3.31	1.65
	M3	Separate containers for food/bio waste	4.19	1.42	2.93	1.28	2.43	1.18	2.67	1.4
	M4	Development of protected areas and the creation of green spaces around the city	4.13	1.11	3.57	1.24	2.07	1.03	3.8	1.33
	M5	Involvement of urban communities and business entities in the process of evaluating ideas	3.13	1.5	3.75	1.25	3.47	1.15	3.47	1.36

).

When selecting the most important actions according to the evaluation criteria, the principle of selection was applied, wherein the action with the highest score was chosen as the most significant for each problem. According to the experts, the five most important actions with the greatest influence on criterion 1 “Consequences of nature”, the three most important actions for criterion 2 “Social threats”, the four most important actions for criterion 3 “Threats to business”, and the three most essential actions for criterion 4 “Territorial threats” were distinguished. The promotion of industrial sustainability, the development of sustainable industry, and the choice of sustainable materials, according to experts, would most effectively reduce the impact on nature. Actions such as “Enhancing psychological well-being” and “Renovation programme for private household holdings (municipal, state, private)” would most effectively reduce social threats. Meanwhile, addressing threats to business includes actions like “Ensure better maintenance of electrical networks and install underground lines” and “Promote the consumption of locally sourced products and services”. According to experts, territorial threats would be most effectively reduced by the development of protected areas and green zones around the city. Improving the quality of construction and strengthening control would also significantly reduce territorial threats.

3.4. Interdependencies Analysis

The actions listed in Table 3 were selected for the interdependencies analysis. Experts evaluated all possible pairs among the 15 actions, resulting in 210 pairwise evaluations (15 × 14 = 210) (Appendix A). However, when interpreting the interdependence results, the action pairs are considered symmetrically, meaning that the joint effect of implementing two actions together is assessed equally from both directions. To account for this symmetry, the results were consolidated into a half-matrix by averaging the respective pairwise evaluations. The half-matrix is presented in Figure 6. The column total expresses the sum of the action’s interdependency evaluation results with all the other actions. In the evaluation matrix we can see positive interaction pairs (>0), neutral (=0), and negative interaction pairs (<0). In general, positive interactions area are bigger and more dominant that negative interactions. The biggest positive interaction is among actions A2 and A3 (2.75) and among A4 and M1 (2.70). The biggest negative interaction can be seen among actions N4 and M3 (−0.7). The analysis of this matrix reveals specific strong interactions. The most significant interactions were identified between actions A2 “Promote the development of sustainable industry” and A3 “Selection of sustainable materials”, with a score of 2.75, and between A4 “Choose to grow suitable crops according to the microenvironment” and M1 “Preservation and expansion of green spaces”, with a score of 2.70. These positive interactions suggest potential synergies where implementing these actions together could yield greater benefits. Conversely, the strongest negative interaction was observed between actions N4 “Ensure better maintenance of electrical networks and install underground lines” and M3 “Separate containers for food/bio waste”, with a score of −0.7. This negative interaction implies potential competition or logistical conflicts, which may hinder effective implementation if both actions are pursued simultaneously.

Actions can be evaluated based on their outcome potential and innovation-enabling capacity, as outlined in ISO/FDIS 56008 [28]. Outcome potential refers to an action’s potential impact, while enabling capacity relates to its interaction with other actions. In Figure 7, the 15 actions are mapped onto a two-dimensional graph, where the x-axis represents outcome potential—determined by the impact across four equally weighted evaluation criteria—and the y-axis represents the enabling factor, calculated as the sum of interdependencies with other actions (Figure 6). Both dimensions are scaled between 0 and 1. Outcome potential is determined by the action’s impact across the four equally weighted evaluation criteria: consequences for nature, social threats, threats to business, and territorial threats. These data comes from the evaluation conducted in the second discussion session and summarised in Table 3.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate that all 15 actions exhibit significant outcome potential, which is expected as they were selected based on their impact potential. However, the enabling potential varies considerably. The mapping of actions in Figure 6 and Figure 7 helps identify “super actions”, which are characterised by both high outcome and high enabling potential. Actions N2 “Greater dissemination of information about ongoing research and its results would enable society to adopt innovations” and M5 “Involvement of urban communities and business entities in the process of evaluating ideas” are classified as “super actions”. This suggests that these actions not only have a significant direct impact but also positively influence the effectiveness of other climate actions. The interaction between actions N2 and M5 primarily influences economic and social relationships through their enabling potential, whereas action A3 affects process and physical relationships. According to expert evaluations, actions M3 “Separate containers for food/bio waste” and N4 “Ensure better maintenance of electrical networks and install underground lines” exhibit the strongest negative interaction (Figure 6). This is likely due to economic (financial) constraints, as these actions may compete for the same investment funds. Consequently, it is recommended that actions identified as having high enabling potential, particularly the “super actions”, receive special attention during implementation to maximise their benefits. Additionally, potential negative interactions should be carefully considered to mitigate unintended adverse consequences.

A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to examine interdependencies. This was achieved by calculating the optimal portfolio of actions selected from the 15 analysed. The portfolio value was determined as the sum of impact potential—based on four equally weighted criteria—along with the added value derived from interactions among the selected actions within the portfolio. The magnitude of the interaction effect was varied from 0 to 1.2 relative to the average impact potential value of an individual action. The results are presented in Figure 9.

The results, (Figure 9) indicate that slight changes occur in the optimal portfolio as the magnitude of interactions increases. Specifically, actions A1 “Health Issues Arising from Temperature Fluctuations” and M4 “Insufficient attention towards preserving the natural environment” are incorporated into the optimal portfolio when interaction effects are considered, while actions A5 “A decline in income due to business challenges” and M2 “Air pollution in the city” are excluded.

This sensitivity analysis highlights the importance of considering the interdependencies between actions when making decisions about which climate actions to prioritise for implementation. Ignoring these interactions could lead to a suboptimal selection of actions and a lower overall impact.

4. Discussion

Testing of the new method demonstrated its potential as a valuable tool for regional or municipal planning. The method is particularly effective when the involvement of diverse interest groups is a priority in the planning process, making it more sustainable and ensuring a more precise selection of climate actions. The separation of network tiers enables a more effective identification of climate change-related problems and facilitates the provision of appropriate solutions to be integrated into municipal action plans. However, testing also highlighted certain weaknesses that should be addressed when applying or refining this methodology in the future. To ensure that the proposed solutions accurately reflect the current environment, it is essential to involve a sufficient number of qualified experts who meet the fundamental requirements. These experts must possess the necessary competence to address the questions posed to them effectively. Given the broad scope of challenges and issues associated with climate change, encompassing a wide range of specialised knowledge, expert selection must be conducted with great care. It is crucial to involve diverse interest groups to achieve comprehensive and balanced insights. The selection of experts necessitated consideration of academic qualifications, research experience, and diverse expertise, particularly in the environmental, social, economic, and territorial impacts of climate change, as well as the ability to engage effectively with stakeholders.

The test showed that experts are able to evaluate interdependencies among 15 climate actions, even having a challenging cognitive burden. Evaluating interdependencies among 15 climate actions was demanding for experts, potentially leading to biases like anchoring, confirmation bias, and fatigue-induced heuristics [29,30]. To enhance robustness, decision support software can streamline assessments, structure inputs, and reduce cognitive overload. Structured elicitation methods, such as pairwise comparisons or Delphi processes, improve consistency. Segmenting tasks, integrating breaks, and using interactive tools help mitigate fatigue. Sensitivity analysis further ensures reliable outcomes. These strategies can make decision-making more efficient, accurate, and manageable for experts.

When conducting similar research, it is important to acknowledge that the method may be challenging to implement when dealing with numerous actions and complex interdependencies without adequate support. The analysis enabled identification of the actions having the biggest enabling potential based on the positive interaction among actions. Moreover, it enabled the identification of potential negative interactions among actions. Taking these into account might lead to more effective implementation of the climate actions.

The PRIA approach, as opposed to traditional top-down planning, takes a bottom-up approach that starts by identifying problems at the individual (person), household, and city levels. This allows a better understanding of the problems on the ground and ensures that solutions are relevant and tailored to the specific circumstances. By analysing problems at different levels, the PRIA approach ensures that planned actions are not limited to broad, city-wide problems. As compared to the ideal PDA, where all actions and their interactions are carefully assessed and to the fast and frugal PDA [14], where only heuristics are utilised to avoid the workload, the PRIA is located in between them. Not all actions with all interdependencies are assessed, nor only heuristics applied.

The Tauragė study identified specific problems and actions for each level. At the individual level, problems such as health problems caused by temperature fluctuations or inadequate active transport infrastructure were identified. Actions included improving access to health services, promoting green transport and developing walking and cycling paths. At the household level, issues such as higher taxes to mitigate climate change, reduced harvests due to extreme weather events and damage to property caused by storms were addressed. Actions focused on upgrading irrigation systems, the use of resilient materials and the introduction of renewable energy solutions in individual households. At the city level, issues such as a lack of green infrastructure, air pollution, and waste separation were addressed. Actions included the development of green spaces, the establishment of CO₂ emission controls, and public education on sorting. The analysis of interdependencies, as presented in Figure 6 and visualised in Figure 7 and Figure 8, offers valuable insights into the potential synergies and conflicts among various climate actions. The sensitivity analysis in Figure 8 further highlights the critical role of these interactions in shaping the most effective portfolio of actions for enhancing climate resilience and achieving sustainability goals in Tauragė Municipality.

The identification of “super actions” with high enabling potential is particularly significant for strategic planning, as these actions can amplify the benefits of other related measures. Conversely, recognising potential negative interactions enables proactive planning to mitigate adverse consequences, ensuring a more balanced and effective implementation of climate strategies.

This multi-level perspective is a key strength as it recognises that the impacts of climate change are not uniform and that solutions need to be tailored to specific circumstances. The multi-level approach of the PRIA method allows for a better understanding of the complex interactions between climate change impacts and the community. In addition, by involving a wide range of stakeholders from each level (municipality, community groups, and businesses), the PRIA approach ensures that different perspectives and experiences are considered.

The results of testing this approach indicate that this method is well-suited for incorporating various stakeholder groups into the planning process. The organised discussions demonstrate significant potential for identifying challenges at multiple levels, as climate change-related issues were categorised into three distinct levels. However, one of the primary challenges that must be considered is the capacity to engage diverse stakeholders effectively in the discussion process. Municipalities have a crucial role in establishing and maintaining stakeholders’ network. Such a network can be utilised not only for planning but also for addressing other critical tasks that necessitate public engagement or the involvement of diverse stakeholder groups.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the results indicate that the methodology can be effectively applied to the development of regional or municipal action plans, particularly when the involvement of diverse interest groups is a priority in the planning process. The tested methodology introduces new opportunities by incorporating analysis stages across multiple levels. Typically, municipal-level action plans do not sufficiently account for the nature of challenges or problems unique to specific levels, particularly at the individual (person) level. Planned actions aimed at addressing climate-related challenges or problems are often focused on municipal-level issues, neglecting the individual level. This approach fails to adhere to the classic bottom-up planning principle, which better captures localised problems compared to the top-down approach. This approach prioritises the involvement of different stakeholders in the planning process, ensuring that adaptation measures are in line with the objectives of sustainable urban development. The latter tends to rely on generalised measures to address issues faced by residents, without adequately addressing their specific needs or circumstances. The study highlights the practical usefulness of the InTo tool and the PRIA approach for assessing climate action and identifying sustainability-oriented priority actions.

The study also acknowledges some of the limitations of the approach, such as the importance of involving qualified experts with a wide range of backgrounds to ensure that the solutions proposed accurately reflect the current environment. The selection of experts needs to be carried out carefully as the range of challenges and issues related to climate change is very broad.

The PRIA method could be challenging to implement when dealing with a larger number of actions and more intricate interdependencies without adequate support. This implies a potential scalability issue of the PRIA method in more complex scenarios.

Overall, the PRIA method provides a robust framework for regional and municipal climate change action planning as it helps to identify key issues, prioritise actions, involve stakeholders and integrate the interdependencies of climate change actions into the action planning process. This ensures that actions are well-founded and specifically targeted to the needs of the different levels of the community, and takes into account the interdependencies between different climate change action options. Special emphazise should be put on the insights of vulnerable social groups into the discussion.

The study is confined to Tauragė Municipality, which could limit generalizability to other regions. This limitation suggests future studies ought to test the PRIA method under various geographical and organisational settings. Moreover, interesting future research would also be testing different ways to minimise sources of bias, like anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and fatigue-induced heuristics when evaluating interdependencies among climate actions. Examples of these are interactive decision models (developing a visual and interactive model where experts can explore interdependencies dynamically rather than relying on static lists) or AI-assisted analysis (introducing machine learning or AI-driven pattern detection to highlight overlooked interdependencies, countering confirmation bias).