## 5 Results
### Characterization and Comparison of Profiles
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Topics**} & **Categories** & \multirow{2}{*}{**n**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Profile 1 (in**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Profile 3 (in**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Profile 2 (in**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Profile 7 (in**} \\  & **(Sub-Topics)** & **n** & **Pattern A)** & **Pattern B)** & **Pattern C)** & **Pattern D)** \\ \cline{3-10}  & & \(\chi^{2}\) & **OR** & \(\chi^{2}\) & **OR** & \(\chi^{2}\) & **OR** & \(\chi^{2}\) & **OR** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Geographical location} & Fluvial & 44 & 1.195 & 0.51 & **7.533** & 11.47 & **8.174** & 0.08 & 0.327 & 0.59 \\  & Coast & 25 & 0.557 & 1.59 & - & 0.00 & **19.70** & 23.63 & 0.242 & 0.57 \\  & Interior & 14 & 0.455 & 1.64 & 0.523 & 0.46 & - & 0.00 & 2.084 & 3.72 \\  & Mountainous & 1 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Bio-geographical regions} & Mediterranean & 43 & **6.877** & 6.70 & - & 0.00 & 1.647 & 2.46 & **5.065** & \(\infty\) \\  & Atlantic & 24 & 3.285 & 0.17 & **7.626** & 5.76 & 0.409 & 0.59 & - & 0.00 \\  & Continental & 12 & 0.00 & **5.099** & 4.64 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 \\  & Boreal & 3 & 0.758 & 2.88 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 \\  & Mountain & 1 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 \\  & Arctic & 1 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 & **7.472** & \(\infty\) & - & 0.00 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Catastrophe declaration} & 21 & **6.826** & 4.75 & 0.872 & 1.88 & - & 0.00 & - & 0.00 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Climate Change Impacts} & Extreme Temperatures & 69 & **4.451** & 0.26 & 0.001 & 0.98 & 0.036 & 0.85 & 1.153 & \(\infty\) \\  & Water/Scarity & 33 & 1.694 & 0.41 & - & 0.00 & 0.410 & 0.63 & **8.211** & \(\infty\) \\  & Flooding & 58 & 0.446 & 1.60 & **5.671** & \(\infty\) & 0.005 & 1.05 & **5.9 Some relevant results obtained from the analysis of profiles are shown below, detailing the four main patterns found and the main profile within each of them:  
Pattern A, risk reduction from an economic and physical protection approach: a pattern composed of 24 cities that have often declared catastrophe caused by climate change, with expected climate change impacts due to flooding, with eminent economic protection motivation and low environmental motivation, and with risk reduction actions largely based on physical protection actions. As a dominant profile, the following stand out:  
* Profile 1, cities with risk reduction through physical protection: Cities in Portugal (OR = 5.7), Italy (OR = 2.2) and the Mediterranean region (OR = 6.7) often do not declare a disaster caused by climate change (OR = 4.8). A relatively small size of the effect of the impact of climate change by extreme temperatures (OR = 0.3) and droughs (OR = 0.2) compared to other effects such as flooding, sea level rise, etc. They have high economic motivation (OR = 9.0), with a very low focus on mitigation (OR = 19.41). Among the actions, those aimed at disaster reduction risk (OR = 8.3), such as the creation of dams, canals, or similar flood protections (OR = 18.2) and security against natural hazards (OR = 3.5) stand out. In this profile, we can find the good practices of the cities of Agueda, Anadia, Barreiro, Carmignano di Brenta, Glasgow, Granada, Ilhavo, Puerto Lumbreras, Rende, Stockholm, Treviso, Vagos and Vicenza. As secondary profiles or variants of Pattern A:
* Profile 15, mountain and forest cities, focusing on early warning and emission control: Smolyan and Valka. * Profile 6, mountain and/or river cities with high heritage value, focused on responsible land use: Craco, Udine, Valeggio sul Mincio and Vaxjo. * Profile 19, coastal heritage city, focused on protection against the rise of the sea and cultural goods: Dublin. * Profile 10, coastal cities, focusing on protection against rising sea levels through physical barriers and risk control areas: Copenhagen, Nastved and Roskilde. * Profile 13, cities focusing on private mitigation actions and economic protection for adaptation: Turin.