Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy and Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Dr. John Byrne
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy and Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
This review explores the relationship between urban energy planning and smart city evolution, addressing three primary questions: How has research on smart cities and urban energy planning evolved in the past thirty years? What promises and hurdles do smart city initiatives introduce to urban energy planning? And why do some smart city projects surpass energy efficiency and emission reduction targets while others fall short? Based on a bibliometric analysis of 9320 papers published between January 1992 and May 2023, five dimensions were identified by researchers trying to address these three questions: (1) energy use at the building scale, (2) urban design and planning integration, (3) transportation and mobility, (4) grid modernization and smart grids, and (5) policy and regulatory frameworks. A comprehensive review of 193 papers discovered that previous research prioritized technological advancements in the first four dimensions. However, there was a notable gap in adequately addressing the inherent policy and regulatory challenges. This gap often led to smart city endeavors underperforming relative to their intended objectives. Overcoming the gap requires a better understanding of broader issues such as environmental impacts, social justice, resilience, safety and security, and the affordability of such initiatives.
In recent years, government–environmental NGO (ENGO) relations in China have evolved to a point where collaboration is now evident. For example, the government is now purchasing a variety of services from ENGOs and allowing ENGOs to bring environmental lawsuits on behalf of the public interest. This article explains why government–ENGO relations, which were previously characterised by strong government control, have undergone substantial changes recently. By relying on insights from historical institutionalism, this study develops a conceptual framework to explain the evolution of government–ENGO relations since the 1990s. It proposes three closely interrelated stages: environmental authoritarianism (the 1990s), consultative authoritarianism (2000s to 2012) and collaborative regulation (from 2013 onwards). Based on semi-structured interviews and extensive document analysis, this study uses the issue area of water pollution to apply and illustrate the framework. Central to this research is the use of empirical evidence gathered through a case study to establish the usefulness of the conceptual framework in examining the evolving role of ENGOs and the government in China’s environmental policy and governance. Our findings offer a useful perspective to understand the sources and mechanisms of change in social policy in China during the reform era.
This study uses a spatial Durbin error model (SDEM) approach to analyze adoption trends for residential energy-efficiency measures (EEMs) in New York state. Model results are based on socioeconomic, building, and household demographic characteristics during the 2012–2016 period. Our study’s results confirm that a positive correlation exists between EEM uptake and multifamily buildings, gas-heated homes, education effects, and spatial spillover effects among neighboring ZIP codes. The results show that building attributes hold a relatively high explanatory power over EEM adoption compared with socioeconomic characteristics. Our results show that energy-efficiency policies can create positive and significant neighborly effects in promoting EEM adoption. The developed SDEM methodological framework provides useful insights in identifying energy-efficiency opportunities that exist in rural, suburban, and urban communities, highlighting the need to review policy incentives periodically to address underlying changes in the built environment and spatial disparities in energy-efficiency investments.