Cn

NEC

a

KCLE

1

gniawa4T1af

tCe

B

h2

Sustainable Cities and Society 12 (2014) 110–121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journa l h om epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /scs

hina’s pilot low-carbon city initiative: A comparative assessment ofational goals and local plans

ina Khanna ∗, David Fridley, Lixuan Hongnergy Analysis and Environmental Impacts Department, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1yclotron Road, MS 90R2002, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:hinaow-carbon citynergy consumption

a b s t r a c t

In the past decade, China’s unprecedented urbanization has paralleled a 250% growth in primary energydemand and urban areas have emerged as the crux of energy and CO2 emissions reduction in China.In recognition of cities’ importance in mitigating future energy and CO2 emissions growth, the Chinesegovernment launched a demonstration program of 5 low-carbon pilot provinces and 8 pilot cities in 2010to promote low-carbon urban development. As one of the first national programs to promote low-carbonurban development, the recent plans and policies adopted by these 8 pilot low-carbon cities can shedlight on if and how low-carbon cities can shape China’s future energy and emission trajectories. Thispaper reviews the historical development and context for low-carbon urban development in China andthen presents an ex-ante comparative assessment of the low-carbon development plans and supporting

measures formulated for each of China’s 8 pilot low-carbon cities. We find that while the 8 pilot citieshave made progress in establishing low-carbon plans, key barriers such as a lack of explicit definitionfor low-carbon city, complexity and confusion resulting from several parallel programs, and insufficientsupporting policies and market-based instruments may hinder urban development that is truly lowcarbon.

Published by Elsevier B.V.

first cities to join a new World Wildlife Fund (WWF) initiative toexplore low carbon development strategies for China’s urban areas.

. Introduction

The Chinese government has started to emphasize greenhouseas and particularly carbon emission mitigation as part of itsational strategy for development in recent years. In 2007, China

ssued its National Climate Change Program (NDRC, 2007); in 2008, White Paper on China’s actions and strategy on climate changeas published (State Council, 2008); in 2009, the State Council

nnounced a target of reducing the carbon intensity of its GDP by0–45% by 2020 compared to the 2005 level (State Council, 2009).his emissions mitigation target was incorporated into the national2th Five Year Plan (FYP) for the very first time with the setting of

binding target of 17% reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of GDProm 2011 to 2015 (National People’s Congress, 2011).

As the centers of population, industry, transport and infrastruc-

ure, cities have a profound impact on global carbon emissions.ities and urban areas are estimated to use 75% of the world’snergy and produce up to 80% of its greenhouse gas emissions

∗ Corresponding author at: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, MS 90R2002,erkeley, CA 94720, USA. Tel.: +1 510 486 5263; fax: +1 510 486 6996.

E-mail address: xzheng@lbl.gov (N. Khanna).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.03.005210-6707/Published by Elsevier B.V.

(Williams, 2007). China has been undergoing fast urbanization,with the annual migration of approximately 13 million people fromrural areas to urban centers. The number of cities1 in China hasalso increased from 193 in 1978 to 657 in 2010. By the end of 2011,China’s urbanization rate, or the share of urban population, reacheda record 51.3%, and is expected to further rise to 75% by 2050.Because urban energy use per capita is estimated to be three timeshigher than that of rural areas (excluding non-commercial energysources such as biomass), and indirect energy use (i.e., embod-ied energy use) through infrastructure and urban consumption ofgoods is even higher, the development of low-carbon cities is cru-cial to mitigating the growth of carbon emissions in China.

At the beginning of 2008, Shanghai and Baoding became the

Domestically, the National Development Reform Commission

1 Chinese cities are defined by administrative boundaries and contain at least100,000 non-agricultural residents. City size classes, however, are defined by thenon-agricultural inhabitants only. Three administrative types of cities (provincial-level municipalities, prefecture-level cities and county-level cities) exist in China,and are designated based on non-agricultural population, total GDP and share ofGDP in tertiary sector and on-budget revenues.

ities a

(isittHad

litcdpctolCsoWeaeatlatcovC

tpeomTtCatdpppAmluicC

2p

Na

N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable C

NDRC) – China’s top planning agency responsible for formulat-ng and implementing national economic and social developmenttrategies – initiated a low carbon pilot province and city programn July of 2010, including five provinces and eight cities acrosshe country. The eight low carbon pilot cities are located acrosshe country and include the municipalities of Tianjin, Baoding,angzhou, Chongqing, Nanchang, Guiyang, Xiamen and Shenzhennd the five low carbon pilot provinces include Yunnan, Guang-ong, Hubei, Shaanxi, and Liaoning provinces (NDRC, 2010).

As low carbon urban development – and particularly the idea ofow carbon cities – is receiving greater attention from Chinese pol-cymakers, an increasing amount of literature has started to look athe theoretical concepts, tools and methods and case studies of low-arbon city development in China. For example, Yang and Li (2013)iscusses the motivation and concept of low carbon cities and pro-ose possible actions in different sectors for building a low-carbonity, while Li et al. (2012) reviews the development of low-carbonowns in China. Another group of recent literature has focusedn tools and methods for helping cities to plan and evaluate itsow carbon development actions, including Price et al. (2013) andao and Li (2011). There has also been increasing number of casetudies on individual cities’ efforts in promoting low-carbon devel-pment, with Feng and Zhang (2012), Bi, Zhang, Wang, Liu, andu (2011), Lehman (2012) and Lehmann (2013) focusing on the

missions implications for major cities including Beijing, Nanjingnd Shanghai on the path of its low-carbon development. How-ver, because low carbon development is a relatively new conceptnd policies have only been introduced within the last few years,here is very little academic literature evaluating the policy-drivenow carbon urban development efforts being implemented in Chinand the strategies and plans being considered and adopted by mul-iple cities in order to achieve the national goals of becoming lowarbon cities. Moreover, while there is ample literature on the the-ry and motivation behind low carbon cities, existing literature hasery limited analysis of the actual progress and challenges facinghinese cities seeking a path of low carbon urban development.

This paper addresses these gaps by specifically evaluating theargets, plans and strategies being adopted by the eight low-carbonilot cities under the NDRC’s pilot program. As part of a programstablished by China’s top policymaking agency, the experiencesf the eight low carbon pilot cities will likely serve as importantodels for the future development of low carbon cities in China.

his paper thus first reviews the historical development and con-ext for the pilot low-carbon cities and related eco-city initiatives inhina as strategies for addressing urbanization challenges. An ex-nte assessment of China’s pilot low-carbon cities is then conductedhrough comparative desk research and review of the low-carbonevelopment plans and supporting measures formulated for eachilot city. These plans are compared and evaluated in terms of theolicy scope, targets and focus areas as well as supporting localolicy measures, strategies and tools already put in place to date.

case study of the pilot city of Hangzhou’s planning and imple-entation process is used to illustrate progress in implementing

ow carbon plans. The paper ends with key findings from the eval-ation of the pilot city plans and discussion and conclusions on

mplications of these findings for the future development of lowarbon cities and the broader context of the future role of cities inhina’s CO2 emissions mitigation efforts.

. Overview of low carbon and eco-city developmentrograms in China

In addition to the low carbon pilot program launched by theDRC, parallel programs have also been initiated at both centralnd local government levels in recent years. By February 2011, 230

nd Society 12 (2014) 110–121 111

of 287 prefecture-and-above level cities have proposed plans todevelop new “eco-cities”, while 133 of these cities have gone astep further by setting targets to become “low-carbon cities.” Inaddition, China currently has 11 major indicator systems for low-carbon and eco-city development. Zhou, He, and Williams (2012)compared the major concepts of eco-city, low carbon city and lowcarbon eco-city and found the following defining traits:

Eco-city: enhances well-being of citizens and society throughintegrated urban planning and management that harness benefitsof ecological systems and protects and nurtures assets for futuregenerations.

Low carbon city: emphasizes the climate change challenges thatcities may be confronted to, decouples economic growth from fossilfuel use by shifting toward consumption characterized by energyefficiency, renewable energy and green transportation.

Low carbon eco-city: combines both concepts by featuringenergy-saving and environmentally friendly city symbolizing lowenergy consumption and low environmental impact (e.g., low pol-lution and low carbon emissions).

2.1. Eco-city program of the Ministry of Environmental Protection

To promote the scientific development of a “resources savingand environmental friendly society”, the Ministry of Environmen-tal Protection (MEP) initiated a program to establish eco-counties,eco-cities and eco-regions within China by issuing the “Develop-ment of Indicators for National Ecological County, Municipality andProvince (trial)” on December 13, 2003. The program requirementswere revised by the MEP in 2005. Under the revised plan, basicrequirements had to be met by cities to be considered eco-cities,including (MEP, 2007):

• Establishing an “eco-city construction plan”, promulgated andimplemented by the Municipal People’s Congress.

• Establishing independent environmental agencies.• Achieving energy saving levels of beyond government-assigned

targets.• Achieving eco-environmental quality evaluation index that is

among the best in the province.• 80% of counties (including county-level cities) must reach the

national ecological construction targets to be named NationalEnvironmental Protection Model City.

By July of 2011, 38 cities have been named “Ecological City(County)” under MEP’s guideline and assessment, including cities inJiangsu, Zhejiang, Shandong, Guangdong, Sichuan, Anhui, Shaanxi,Liaoning provinces and the municipalities of Shanghai, Beijing andTianjin.

2.2. Eco-garden city program of the Ministry of Housing andUrban–Rural Development

The Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development(MOHURD) initiated the National Garden City program as earlyas 1992 and by the end of 2010; MOHURD had announced theselection of 13 groups of National Garden Cities with a total of184 participating cities under this program. In June 2004, MOHURDdecided to initiate the establishment of Eco-Garden City based onthe program on National Garden City.

The general requirements to be qualified as an Eco-Garden Cityinclude (China Society for Urban Studies, 2010):

• Developing complete urban ecological development strategy,measures and action plans.

• Establishing a complete urban green space system.

1 ities a

••••

•

atmtmppus

2

zatfidpBfmUmpsw

pdptSdSYsc

2

pgaaoecemom

12 N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable C

Emphasizing both cultural landscape and the natural landscape.Improving city infrastructure.Providing environmentally friendly urban living environment.Active participation by the community and the general public inthe public interest policies and measures related to the formula-tion and implementation of the Eco-Garden City.Implementing exemplary national and local urban planning, eco-logical and environmental protection laws and regulations.

Those cities already awarded as “National Garden City” canpply to be nominated as Eco-Garden Cities. Going further thanhe requirements of a Garden City, an Eco-Garden City places

ore emphasis on the urban environmental quality. Compared tohe “Garden City” evaluation standards, “Eco-Garden City” assess-

ent includes additional indices such as measurement of ecologicalrotection, ecological construction and restoration standards, com-rehensive species index, index of native plants, the proportion ofrban heat island effect, urban ecological environment, and publicatisfaction evaluation.

.3. International programs

In addition to domestic government programs, many organi-ations and research institutions have partnered with governmentnd other stakeholder to start exploring the planning and best prac-ices of low carbon cities in China (The Climate Group, 2010). In theall of 2007, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund started to support a studyn order to develop a low-carbon economy roadmap for Guang-ong province and Hong Kong. In 2008, WWF launched its pilotroject on “low carbon city development program” and selectedaoding and Shanghai as the first two pilot cities in recognition

or their leadership. In October 2008, the United Nations Develop-ent Programme, the Government of Norway and the Europeannion jointly launched a project to support Chinese provincial cli-ate change programs and projects. By end of 2010, more than 30

rovinces, autonomous regions and municipalities in China havetarted to prepare for provincial level climate change action plansith cities identified for key parts of the program.

The United Kingdom Strategic Programme Fund (SPF) hasrovided support to Jilin City, Nanchang, Chongqing and Guang-ong province in its low carbon city development research andlanning. With support from the Energy Foundation’s China Sus-ainable Energy Program, Tsinghua University and Suzhou andhandong research institutions conducted preliminary studies ofeveloping a low-carbon strategy for Suzhou. In June 2010, thewitzerland–China Low Carbon Cities Project was launched, andinchuan, Beijing Dongcheng District, Dezhou and Meishan wereelected as pilot cities, with emphasis on city management, lowarbon economy, transportation and green buildings.

.4. Current status of eco- and low-carbon city programs

The recent launch of several domestic eco- and low-carbon cityrograms have resulted in some overlaps; the cities of Zhangjia-ang, Nanjing and Kunshan qualify and participate in both the MEPnd MOHURD programs while Hangzhou is in both the MOHURDnd NDRC programs. In addition, with the policy push by NDRCn low carbon development, many other cities have proposed

stablishing targets to become low carbon cities. By conductingity-wide low carbon planning and setting up city-level energy andmission targets, these cities aim to receive the central govern-ent’s policy and program support. Those efforts, along with the

ngoing efforts of international programs, have strengthened theovement to develop low carbon cities in China.

nd Society 12 (2014) 110–121

The implementation details of recent eco-city plans and tar-gets have not been adequately addressed and there is limitedpublic information on the plan implementation process, in partbecause of the relatively broad guidelines for all three domesticeco-city related programs. Moreover, because qualification for thethree domestic programs was based on mostly qualitative criteria,quantitative indicator systems have been developed for evaluatinglow-carbon eco-cities. However, Zhou et al. (2012) found that themethodology for selecting and using the indicators vary across sys-tems and are insufficient for helping meet the needs of low-carboneco-city development in China.

3. Assessment of NDRC low carbon pilot city plans

Besides the eco-city programs introduced in Section 2, China’sNDRC introduced its pilot program on low carbon developmentfor 5 pilot provinces and 8 pilot cities in 2010. These pilot citiesand provinces were selected based on geographic, social and eco-nomic diversity and representativeness, existing foundation and/orpreparation work in low carbon development and demonstratedinterest by the local regions to be a pilot location (NDRC, 2010).Fig. 1 shows the geographic distribution of the pilot locations andthe eight pilot cities’ announced energy and carbon-related reduc-tion targets. The carbon and/or energy intensity targets for each ofthe pilot cities were set by the local government, using the nationaltargets as a baseline.

As part of the pilot program, each pilot city was asked by NDRCto develop and propose a low carbon development plan, formu-late supporting policies, develop low carbon industry, establish CO2emission statistics and data management system and encouragelow carbon lifestyles and consumption. As a low carbon pilot cityunder both the WWF and NDRC programs, Baoding was the first topropose its low carbon action plan and program while Chongqing’slow carbon action plan was approved by NDRC as recently as March2012. In fact, half of the 8 pilot cities – namely Baoding, Hangzhou,Xiamen and Tianjin – had already developed plans for building alow carbon city two years prior to the launch of the pilot pro-gram. The other four cities – Guiyang, Nanchang, Shenzhen andChongqing – adopted action plans for becoming low carbon pilotcities between July 2010 and March 2012. The timeline of the devel-opment of low carbon city plans illustrates that he pilot cities are indifferent stages of developing and implementing their action plans.

Table 1 lists some key socioeconomic parameters of the eightlow carbon pilot cities in 2010. It illustrates the divergence of thesecities in terms of population size, urbanization, economic devel-opment and industrial structure. The urbanization rate of theseeight cities range from 38.9% in Baoding to 100% in Shenzhen, andthe per capita GDP of Shenzhen is almost 5 times that of Baod-ing. Additionally, the size of each city’s population varies vastlyamong the eight cities; the population of the provincial-level cityChongqing is approximately 8 times that of Xiamen. Agriculturecontributes a mere 0.1% of Shenzhen’s GDP compared to nearlyone-third in Chongqing, where the service sector remains relativelyundeveloped – 28% of total GDP – compared to over half in Guiyangand Shenzhen. Industry (including construction) accounts for morethan half of GDP in all cities except Hangzhou, Guiyang, and Shen-zhen. The divergences in socioeconomic indicators underscore thecities’ differing stages of urbanization and hint at possible differ-ences in priorities, focuses and strategies for pursuing a low-carbonpathway of development.

After briefly introducing some of the parallel low-carbon and

eco-city development programs currently being implemented inChina, this paper will focus primarily on the actions and progressto date of the eight NDRC low carbon pilot cities. The NDRC pro-gram requirements mandate that the pilot cities’ low carbon plans

N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 12 (2014) 110–121 113

of ND

iuecNoccpnbCCGNPCioam

T2

S

Fig. 1. Location and major targets

nclude clear targets as well as key achievements and specific meas-res for reducing CO2 emissions, industrial structure adjustment,nergy structure optimization (i.e., structural change), energy effi-iency improvement and the increase of carbon sinks. However, theDRC has neither provided a definition for a low carbon city nor rec-mmended specific guidance and methods on how to compile a lowarbon city plan. In order to highlight the key elements behind lowarbon city planning, we compare and assess the low carbon citylans of the eight pilot cities in terms of their targets, scope, plan-ing procedure and measures. The comparison and assessment isased on desk research of individual city action plans (Low Carbonity China Alliance, 2012; People’s Government of Chongqingity, 2012; People’s Government of Guiyang City, 2010; People’sovernment of Hangzhou City, 2009; People’s Government ofanchang City, 2011; People’s Government of Shenzhen City, 2012;eople’s Government of Tianjin City, 2010; Xiamen Municipalommission of Construction and Administration, 2010), discuss-

ons with local government officials involved in the developmentf low carbon plans and in-depth review of published reportsnd documents on the low carbon strategies in these eightunicipalities.

able 1010 socioeconomic indicators of low carbon pilot cities.

City Population Per capita GDP (RMBa) Primary sector % of GDP

Tianjin 12,938,224 72,994 2%

Baoding 11,194,379 18,462 15%

Hangzhou 8,700,400 68,398 4%

Chongqing 28,846,170 27,596 32%

Nanchang 5,042,565 47,174 6%

Guiyang 4,324,561 25,941 5%

Xiamen 3,531,347 71,808 1%

Shenzhen 10,357,938 95,000 0.1%

ource: National Bureau of Statistics (2011).a Note: In 2010, 1 Euro = 8.97 RMB according to the European Central Bank.

RC’s eight low carbon pilot cities.

3.1. Targets

Previous research has identified the crucial need for clear andmeasurable targets that can be evaluated in ensuring effectivepolicy implementation, particularly in China’s regulatory context.Yang and Li (2013) proposed setting clear and measurable evalu-ation indicators such as CO2 emissions per capita or per GDP unittargets to define low-carbon cities, while taking into considerationlocal differences in climate and industrial structure. Targets areparticularly important at the local level because of the implemen-tation gap between adopted policies and actual implementationobserved throughout China, where enhanced local autonomy in theeconomic reform period have resulted in greater implementationchallenges when policy targets are unquantifiable or immeasur-able (O’Brien & Li, 1999). This implementation gap results becauselocal officials are predisposed to promoting local economic growthand may not implement policies that are not conducive to local

growth. However, as demonstrated by the Energy ConservationTarget Responsibility System established during the 11th FYPperiod, establishing clear and quantifiable energy conservation tar-gets and linking achievement of these targets with local officials’

Secondary sector % of GDP Tertiary sector % of GDP Urbanization

53% 45% 79.6%52% 33% 38.9%48% 49% 73.3%69% 28% 53.0%56% 38% 65.7%41% 54% 70.2%51% 48% 52.7%48% 52% 100%

1 ities a

pl(ef

gosioolcpdf

oaXCgscMhfpp

tbFttsl2

cttteacmnaarbaFSSsa

ttcets

14 N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable C

erformance evaluation can overcome this gap by incentivizingocal governments to take drastic measures to meet their targetsLo, 2014). Quantifiable targets and the decomposition of overallnergy or carbon reduction targets into sectoral targets are there-ore very important to the development of low carbon cities.

Besides an overall energy and/or carbon intensity reduction tar-et as shown in Fig. 1, the low carbon city plans also include a seriesf sub-sectoral targets for industrial, building and transportationectors as well as ecological and other targets. The process for defin-ng and setting these sectoral targets is conducted at the discretionf the local city government leadership, typically by the local Devel-pment and Reform Commission (DRC), and may include otherocal agencies as seen later in the Hangzhou case study. Table 2ategorizes and summarizes the detailed low carbon targets pro-osed in the low carbon city plans of the eight pilot cities. Severalifferences among municipal low carbon plans can be identifiedrom the perspective of target setting and allocation.

The city government needs to decide whether to adopt a relativer absolute carbon target. Following the country’s commitment to

carbon intensity reduction target for 2020, all pilot cities exceptiamen have set a carbon intensity reduction target. Baoding andhongqing have both carbon intensity and emission reduction tar-ets. Xiamen has gone a step further than other cities by not onlyetting an overall municipal carbon emission target, but also spe-ific emission targets for industrial, building and transport sectors.ost pilot cities have set only a final target for 2020, but Shenzhen

as proposed both an intermediate target for 2015 and a final targetor 2020. Setting an intermediate target helps link the low carbonlan with the city’s 12th Five Year Plan and enables intermediateolicy evaluation and adjustment.

Because linkages between carbon intensity and energy intensityargets in the low carbon plans have not been clearly formulatedy the NDRC, only few pilot cities have set energy-related targets.or example, Tianjin and Xiamen have adopted energy intensityargets, while Chongqing, Nanchang and Shenzhen aim to improveheir share of non-fossil fuels in the future. In Shenzhen’s plan, thehare of natural gas, solar PV, biomass and wind energy will be ateast 50% and 60% of the total primary energy use in Shenzhen in015 and 2020, respectively.

The sectoral targets vary significantly among the eight pilotities. Even though the sectoral targets do not necessarily representhe comprehensive efforts required in each sector, they can never-heless reflect each municipality’s sectoral focus to some degree. Inhe industrial sector, Baoding, Hangzhou, Chongqing and Nanchangmphasize developing high-tech industry and increasing its value-dded share in the future; while Chongqing and Shenzhen have setlear targets for low carbon industry development, focusing on theanufacturing of wind, solar photovoltaic and electric and alter-

ative fuel vehicles. In the building sector, Shenzhen is the mostmbitious municipality in terms of green buildings, targeting a 40%nd 80% share of new certified green buildings by 2015 and 2020,espectively. In the transport sector, Hangzhou and Shenzhen haveoth actively promoted public transport and high efficiency andlternative fuel vehicles by creating a set of transport indicators.or instance, the modal share of public transport in Hangzhou andhenzhen is expected to reach 50% and 65%, respectively, by 2020.henzhen has also proposed other innovative and relevant targetsuch as the share of R&D investment in low carbon technologiesnd public awareness in its low carbon plan.

The energy, carbon and sectoral targets highlighted above reflecthe broad spectrum of areas that local policymakers have startedo consider in developing their low carbon action plans. As pilot

ities, local policymakers have an opportunity to consider or beginmphasizing different aspects of urban development beyond theraditional priority of economic growth. For example, some citiesuch as Tianjin and Chongqing have expanded the focus of local

nd Society 12 (2014) 110–121

targets beyond traditional demand sectors into the broader scopeof ecological targets. However, because there has not been cleartop-down direction or sufficient experience at the local level forcomprehensive target-setting, existing targets in the low carbonplans of these pilot cities appear inadequate and fragmented. Forexample, no single pilot city has formed a comprehensive indica-tor system, in part because an explicit definition of low carbon citywas missing. In addition, few cities adopted both energy and car-bon emission reduction targets, though the vast majority of a city’scarbon emissions are directly energy-related. Only two of the eightpilot cities have adopted some kind of targets for all three of themajor energy end-use sectors (industry, buildings and transport),illustrating that most cities are emphasizing only selected sectorsrather than focusing on all major end-use sectors.

A key possible reason for these weaknesses in target-settingin the low carbon city plans is the lack of city-scale benchmarksand carbon emission inventories in China. While greenhouse gasaccounting methodologies such as the International Council forLocal Environmental Initiatives’ have been applied to cities indeveloped countries such as the United States, there have beenvirtually no established bottom-up methodologies or studies ofenergy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions conducted toidentify and quantify the CO2 emissions sources and sectoral miti-gation potential in Chinese cities. In recognition of this informationgap, Bi et al. (2011) provided the first comprehensive, bottom-upaccounting of carbon emissions on a city-scale in China. Price et al.(2013) and Fridley, Zheng, and Zhou (2012) provided two additionalmethodologies for tracking energy consumption and carbon emis-sions for Chinese cities, and the World Resources Institute recentlylaunched a pilot version of their Greenhouse Gas Accounting Toolfor Chinese Cities in September 2013 (World Resources Institute,2013). The introduction of more methodologies and tools such asthese to city officials can help improve low carbon target-setting inthe future by clearly identifying and highlighting the close linkagesbetween carbon mitigation and energy conservation and the needfor coordinated policies.

3.2. Scope

The specific content and strategies of the municipal low carbonplans of the NDRC programme can be summarized and categorizedinto a total of 76 low carbon strategies within 10 different sec-tors, as listed in Fig. 2. The 10 categories of strategies shown inFig. 2 include education, dissemination and cooperation, citizenlifestyle, industrial structure adjustment, industrial energy effi-ciency, clean energy supply, transport, building, circular economy,urban ecology and spatial development and planning. The distri-bution of the strategies among the 10 sectors is illustrated by thebars in Fig. 2. The greatest diversity in low carbon strategies existswithin the sector of “clean energy supply”, which includes 13 dif-ferent strategies related to clean energy technologies. A relativelylarge variety of strategies can also be found in the transport, build-ing and industrial structure adjustment sectors. A similarly broadfocus also applies to urban ecology. Altogether, the proposed strate-gies within these five sectors account for 54 out of the 76 differentstrategies.

Identifying the most frequently cited strategies in low carbonplans helps shed light on how different local governments per-ceive and define low carbon development in the absence of nationalguidance. As seen in Fig. 2, popular strategies shown in red havebeen adopted by more than half of the pilot cities while the strate-gies shown in blue are less commonly adopted in low carbon

development plans. For example, in terms of industrial structureadjustment, 7 out of 8 municipalities included the developmentof high-tech and low carbon industries in their plans. Other inter-ests lay in developing modern service and cultural and creative

N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 12 (2014) 110–121 115

Fig. 2. Comparison of common strategies identified in low carbon plans. (For interpretation of the references to color in the text, the reader is referred to the web version ofthe article.)

116 N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 12 (2014) 110–121

Table 2Comparison of overall and sectoral targets in low-carbon pilot cities.

Target TJ BD HZ CQ NC GY XM SZ

Overall targetsCarbon intensity (CO2 per unit GDP) X X X X X XCarbon emissions X X XEnergy intensity (tce per unit GDP) X XShare of non-fossil fuels X X XEnergy saving X

Industrial targetsIndustry emissions XHigh-tech industry’s share of total value-added X X X XService sector’s share of total value-added X XCultural/creative industry’s share of total value-added XLow carbon industry’s share of total value-added X X

Building targetsBuilding emissions XGreen buildings’ share of total new construction X

Transport targetsTransport emissions XShare of public transport in modal split X XBuses per 10,000 people XElectric bus share XMetro length XIncrease in number of alternative energy cars by 2015 X XIncrease in number of free public bicycles by 2015 X

Ecological targetsForest coverage rate X X X XWetland coverage rate XNumber of natural reserves X XWater saving X XPollution control XPer capita public green area X

Other targetsR&D investment in low carbon technologies X

N uiyan

igrmiwtlilomdbtdcuaaierwte

cgs

Information dissemination

otes: TJ, Tianjin; BD, Baoding; HZ, Hangzhou; CQ, Chongqing; NC, Nanchang; GY, G

ndustry sectors. Regarding the clean energy supply sector, bio-as and solar PV are the two most popular technological optionsecognized in low carbon city plans, followed by biomass, geother-al and waste incineration power plants. In addition, there is also

ncreasing awareness and emphasis on utilizing industrial solidaste and preserving forestry carbon sinks. Surprisingly, despite

he central government’s ardent energy efficiency efforts over theast five year, energy efficiency improvement measures includ-ng industrial energy efficiency, fuel economy standards, buildingabels and building energy conservation standards have receivednly modest coverage in low carbon city plans. Although thisay reflect the city’s relative inability to affect programs that are

riven by central government policy, it is nevertheless problematicecause various studies as summarized in the Intergovernmen-al Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Fourth Assessment Reportemonstrated that improved energy efficiency has been and willontinue to play a vital role in reducing CO2 emissions. The fail-re to recognize the important linkages between energy efficiencynd CO2 emissions reduction in low carbon policy formulationlso misses out on the many co-benefits associated with CO2 mit-gation through efficiency improvements, including poverty andnergy poverty alleviation, improved productivity and energy secu-ity (Ürge-Vorsatz and Metz, 2009). Lastly, the awareness for solidaste and waste water treatment and recycling is also low, and

here is a lack of diversified strategies for developing a circularconomy.

Overall, the scope of existing measures and strategies for lowarbon city development is very broad. Most measures and strate-ies are also still at the infancy stage and lack explicit targets,pecific program and implementation mechanisms. Therefore, the

X X

g; XM, Xiamen; SZ, Shenzhen.

effectiveness and potential impacts of these measures and strate-gies in promoting low carbon city development may be limited andinsufficient. This suggests that detailed plans focused on renew-able energy and energy efficiency and conservation are needed toevaluate and prioritize a multitude of technologies and measuresbased on their respective contributions to the overall carbon tar-get. Xiamen has exemplified this approach by supplementing itslow carbon development plan with separate plans for renewableenergy, building energy conservation, underground space devel-opment and utilization, urban ecology, green transport as well aslow carbon campus.

3.3. Supporting measures adopted in low carbon city plans

Supporting measures are crucial component to the effectiveimplementation of low carbon city plans. These supporting meas-ures can be categorized as administrative, planning and legal,financial and tax-based, market, scientific research and other meas-ures.

Table 3 lists the main supporting measures mentioned in lowcarbon city plans of the eight pilot cities. It shows that local gov-ernments rely more on administrative, planning and legal measuresrather than market-based measures to implement the low carboncity plans. All eight municipalities created a low carbon advisorygroup to plan and implement their low carbon city plans andmost have incorporated the plan’s targets into the performance

evaluation system for government officials. Even though the estab-lishment of greenhouse gas emission statistics, verification andmanagement are prerequisites for the implementation and eval-uation of low carbon city plans, there is actually little information

N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 12 (2014) 110–121 117

Table 3Comparison of main supporting measures in low carbon city plans.

Measure TJ BD HZ CQ NC GY XM SZ

AdministrativeAdvisory group X X X X X X X XPerformance evaluation system X X X X XGHG emission statistics, verification and management X X X X XEnergy audit and label X X X XLow-carbon industrial park enterprise requirements X

Planning and legal frameworkSpecial planning X X X X X X X XRegulation X XPreferential policies (land, fiscal, procurement policies) X X X X

Financial and tax-basedLow-carbon fund X X XFinancial incentives XFinancial funding X X X XConsumption tax XEnergy price X

MarketCDM X X XEnergy and carbon trading market X X X X X XIndustry and technology trading center X

Scientific researchLow carbon research center X X X XLow carbon service center X XTalent introduction X X X

OtherInformation disclosure X X X XInternational collaboration X X X X X X X X

X

N uiyan

aclpfphcnapr

ml1mntfipahTshafiitbfte

Public awareness and promotion X

otes: TJ, Tianjin; BD, Baoding; HZ, Hangzhou; CQ, Chongqing; NC, Nanchang; GY, G

vailable on detailed arrangements for this task, such as the allo-ation of personnel, funding or task timelines. Similarly, almost allow carbon plans have emphasized the need for relevant supportinglans but most municipal governments have not defined the roleor special plans in supporting the low carbon city plan or laid out arocess for comprehensive planning and implementation. Xiamenas developed the most comprehensive supporting plans for lowarbon city development while Chongqing and Shenzhen are pio-eers in formulating energy efficiency regulations. Both Chongqingnd Shenzhen issued regulations on building energy conservationrior to finalizing their low carbon city plans, with Chongqing’segulation being published as early as 2007.

The financial and tax measures aimed at promoting the imple-entation of low carbon programs are generally ambiguous and

ack program diversity. As illustrated by policies adopted in the1th FYP and 12th FYP period, regulations and administrativeeasures continue to be favored policy instrument and eco-

omic instruments are less common (Lo & Wang, 2013). Althoughhe central government has looked increasingly to adopting newnancial measures including subsidies for energy conservationrojects run by energy service companies, energy-efficient appli-nces, equipment, and electric vehicles, few local governmentsave adopted financial measures in their low carbon city plans.ianjin, Chongqing and Nanchang have committed to establishingpecial funds for low carbon city development in their plans, butave not released any follow-up documents on the total amount orllocation of the special funds. Hangzhou stated that it will providenancial incentives of 0.5–1 million RMB for exemplar government

nstitutions (rather than enterprises) that are successfully choseno be a national low-carbon industrial park pilot project authorizedy the State Council or ministries. This financial incentive will come

rom special funding of industrial plan but it is unclear how effec-ive this financial incentive will be and if potential financial conflictsxist with other projects in the industrial plan. In addition, the low

X X X

g.

carbon plan encourages diversifying financial sources for low car-bon projects such as asset financing, venture capital/private equityinvestment, public stock as well as low bank interest rates. Guiyanghas promised to lower the consumption tax for low carbon projectsbut there have been no other regulations or preferential policiesfor ensuring that low carbon projects can enjoy financial and taxbenefits.

The establishment of market mechanisms in support of lowcarbon development is even newer and still in the trial stage. InOctober 2005, carbon trading under the Clean Development Mech-anism began in China, administered at the national level by theNDRC. In 2008, several environmental and carbon trading schemeswere established, including the Tianjin Climate Exchange, ChinaBeijing Environment Exchange and Shanghai Environment andEnergy Exchanges. In 2009–2010, additional environmental andcarbon trade exchanges were created, covering Wuhan, Hangzhou,Kunming, and Guiyang. In August 2010, the NDRC encouragedlow carbon pilot provinces and cities to include carbon tradingas part of the overall development strategy. In November 2011,China approved pilot carbon trading in seven provinces and cities –Beijing, Chongqing, Guangdong, Hunan, Shanghai, Shenzhen andTianjin. Some of the pilot regions can start trading as early as2013–2014 and a national trading scheme is expected by 2016.Given that the pilots are all under design and will not be opera-tional for some time, it is impossible to evaluate the contributionof carbon trading to low carbon city development.

Scientific research, international collaboration, information anddissemination are other important aspects of supporting measuresin low carbon city plans. Tianjin, Baoding, Chongqing and Nanchanghave plans to establish low carbon research centers, while Nan-chang and Shenzhen are interested in building low carbon service

centers to provide technical support for enterprises. All pilot citiesalso mentioned strengthening international collaboration in termsof scientific research, technology transfer, and information sharing

1 ities a

aiftcA

4

mwiipaHscHp

pHcs

idPpaoo3htmdslaisdHflicRcNeftgm9gctots

18 N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable C

nd financial resources. For example, Tianjin has been collaborat-ng with Singapore to build an eco-city since September 2008, andurther established low carbon economic demonstration districthrough collaboration with Japan in the beginning of 2009. Nan-hang has also initiated cooperation projects with the U.S., UK andustria.

. Case study: Hangzhou’s low carbon city planning process

While all eight pilot cities have adopted low carbon city develop-ent plans, very few have provided details on the process throughhich the plan was developed and the framework and processes for

mplementing the measures and targets in the plan. One exceptions the city of Hangzhou, which was one of the earliest cities to pro-ose a low carbon city plan to the NDRC and has already formed

comprehensive top-down framework for low carbon planning.angzhou provides a good case study of how local government

upport and actions have supported and promoted the city’s lowarbon plan. There is far much information publicly available forangzhou than for other pilot cities since a multitude of relevantlans have already been made public.

Fig. 3 shows Hangzhou’s model for low carbon developmentlanning. It is mainly based on the decision-making process of theangzhou municipality government in response to the NDRC’s lowarbon pilot city program. However, this model can also representome common characteristics of other pilot cities.

The low carbon planning process begins first with the munic-pality government expressing its interest in low carbon cityevelopment to NDRC. NDRC then issued the Notice on Low-carbonilot Provinces and Cities on July 19, 2010 and requested each pilotrovince/city to submit a low carbon plan (steps 1 and 2). Typically,

low carbon advisory group consisting of the mayor and leadersf other relevant departments is established and placed in chargef planning and implementing the low carbon city program (steps

and 4). After discussions and negotiations with different stake-olders, a more detailed low carbon plan is compiled and submittedo NDRC for further evaluation (step 5 and 6). The involvement of

ultiple local departments and stakeholders in the planning andevelopment process is essential because recent literature and casetudies of city initiatives in energy conservation have shown thatocal support is key to effective implementation. Khare, Beckman,nd Crouse (2011) argued that successful sustainable partnershipn addressing climate change requires benefits to the three majortakeholders of local governments, businesses and consumers andemonstrated with three Canadian examples. In China, Kostka andobbs (2012) demonstrated that efficiency policies were success-

ully implemented in Shanxi by aligning the efficiency policies withocal interests through policy bundling, interest bundling and pol-cy framing. Similarly, Lo (2014) demonstrated that of three energyonservation programs launched in Changchun, only the Buildingetrofit Program was successful because it addressed local con-erns with inadequate heating and was widely accepted. Once theDRC has approved the city’s low carbon plan, the municipal gov-rnment then issues the low carbon plan to each bureau as guidanceor formulating their respective 12th FYP special plans and releaseshe plan to the public (steps 7 and 8). The low carbon advisoryroup is also responsible for decomposing the overall target andeasures of the low carbon plan into the annual action plan (step

). Together with the sectoral 12th FYP special plans, annual tar-ets will then be allocated to lower levels of governments (district,ountry and local governments) and enterprises (step 10). In addi-

ion, the municipal evaluation office will evaluate the performancef each level of government and enterprises and submit a reporto the municipal government (steps 11–13). The evaluation reportummary is published online and open to the public for review and

nd Society 12 (2014) 110–121

oversight. Table 4 shows the timeline of Hangzhou’s low carboncity plan.

Hangzhou illustrates a transparent example of a comprehen-sive planning process that is not representative of other pilot cities.With the exception of Hangzhou and Xiamen, other pilot cities havenot considered adopting sector-specific 12th FYP special plans tocomplement their low carbon city plans. Furthermore, most of thepilot cities have not gone as far as to decompose the overall targetsinto specific annual targets and projects for local governments andenterprises. Some pilot cities such as Nanchang and Baoding haveset specific programs but not annual targets, which are important inimproving the efficiency of project implementation as well as per-formance evaluation. Last, even though most pilot cities pledged tostrengthen oversight and supervision of their low carbon city planimplementation, few have actually appointed a specific institutionto take on this responsibility. Without third-party monitoring andevaluation of the low carbon city plan implementation or stronglocal support for the plan, local competing priorities for economicgrowth may delay or hamper the implementation of the proposedstrategies.

5. Key findings and discussion

Although the multiplicity of domestic and international low car-bon and eco-city programs in China creates duplicative efforts andmay not be the most efficient approach, it nevertheless allows Chinato try different approaches rather than adopt a single program forpromoting low carbon urban development. Along the same lines,NDRC’s low carbon city pilot program also allows local govern-ments to experiment with and develop tailored local pathwaysof low carbon urban development rather than require all cities tofollow a generic top-down mandated action plan. Key conclusionscan be drawn from an in-depth comparison of these eight NDRCpilot cities in terms of their low carbon city plans’ target, scope,planning procedures and supporting measures.

First, the absence of explicit definitions for low carbon cityand the multitude of parallel programs appears to have createdcomplexity, confusion, and overlaps in the development of low car-bon cities. Some cities belong to several pilot programs, driven toparticipation by administrative pressure for recognition and prac-tical needs for additional financial resources. While it might bebeneficial to receive technical and financial support through dif-ferent programs, the overlap of programs has led to fragmentedtarget-setting, overly broad policy scopes and repetitive planningprocesses in low carbon development planning. The large diver-gence observed among the low carbon plans in terms of targets,scope, content and planning procedures suggests that there is asignificant need for the central government to provide explicitdefinitions and consistent guidelines and methodologies for estab-lishing municipal low carbon plans. Clear definitions, guidelines,methodologies and tools could help provide a much needed com-prehensive framework with clearer targets and better focusedscope for low carbon development planning for municipal govern-ments, particularly for those that are relatively new to the energyand carbon field. Another possible policy recommendation couldbe to further differentiate the key goals and principles of the differ-ent low carbon eco-city programs or possibly consolidate programsthat are too similar in order to help cities clarify their planningobjectives and strategies.

Second, given the demonstrated need for energy efficiencyimprovements in reducing CO2 emissions and the significant con-

tribution of energy-related CO2 emissions to the total, the overalltargets of the low carbon city plan would ideally include bothcarbon emission and energy consumption targets that corre-spond to 12th FYP and 2020 targets. This can help minimize the

N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 12 (2014) 110–121 119

Fig. 3. Hangzhou’s model for low carbon planning.

Table 4Regulatory timeline of Hangzhou’s low carbon city plan.

Institution Plan/action Date of issue

State Council CO2 emissions intensity reduction target set for 2020 November 25, 2009Hangzhou Municipal Committee Hangzhou municipal committee and government’s views on building

low-carbon city is issuedDecember 29, 2009

Hangzhou Municipal Committee Advisory group for low-carbon city development May 25, 2010NDRC Notice on Low-carbon Pilot Provinces and Cities July 19, 2010Hangzhou Development and Reform

Committee, Development andPlanning Institute Expert GroupReview

Hangzhou’s 12th Five year Plan for Low-carbon City Development July 31, 2010

Leading group for low-carbon citydevelopment

Hangzhou’s Action plan for Low-carbon City Development in 2011 March, 2011Implement 12th FYP for low-carbon city developmentImplement 12th FYP for building energy conservationFormulate support regulations for building energy conservationmanagementImplement the 12th FYP for transportationDecompose the municipal emission target to districts, counties andkey enterprisesEstablish the performance evaluation mechanismsEstablish emissions data statistic and management systemEstablish the indicator system for low-carbon cityCarbon label pilot project

Hangzhou Development and ReformCommittee, MunicipalTransportation Bureau, MunicipalConstruction Committee, UrbanPlanning Bureau

12th FYP for Transportation August 28, 2011

Hangzhou Municipal ConstructionCommittee

12th FYP for Building Energy Conservation November 25, 2011

Hangzhou Municipal Government Notice on Hangzhou’s 12th FYP for Low-carbon City Development December 14, 2011Office of Hangzhou Performance

Measurement CommissionMonitor and evaluate low-carbon plan implementation in relatedbureaus

Annually

1 ities a

iiripttditromi

ctvmiraspoccotfpeidtpd

bamprpptlmrtootmtt

A

uGtt

20 N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable C

mplementation gap by tapping into existing incentives for meet-ng the targets such as the target responsibility system while alsoeaping the wide-ranging co-benefits of CO2 mitigation throughmproved efficiency. The case study of Hangzhou represents oneossible approach to develop a comprehensive low carbon city planhat can be effectively implemented. As demonstrated in Hangzhou,he roadmap for the low carbon city plans can be improved byecomposing overall energy and CO2 emission reduction targets

nto sector-based targets, which help facilitate better implementa-ion, performance evaluation and policy adjustment. As part of theoadmaps, a series of supportive special plans can also be devel-ped to help achieve the sectoral targets, while special projects andeasures proposed in the special plan can help to ensure effective

mplementation of low carbon city plan.Third, in terms of policy instruments for carrying out the low

arbon city plans, the pilot low carbon city plans reviewed continueo strongly favor regulations and administrative measures withery few local governments adopting financial or tax measures andarket mechanisms limited to the trial stage. Among the admin-

strative measures adopted, there also appears to be paucity inegulations and policies on energy conservation, efficiency, energyuditing and monitoring. Because previous research has demon-trated the importance of local government buy-in and publicarticipation in effective policy implementation, the introductionf more market-based, rather than administrative, instrumentsan help facilitate greater public education and awareness of low-arbon concepts and practices and more effective implementationf low carbon city plans. In addition, because the implementa-ion gap still exists and local economic interests are often stillavored, third-party monitoring and evaluation of low carbon citylan implementation and linkages to local officials’ performancevaluation at the different levels of governments can help addressmplementation challenges. Similarly, greater public disclosure andissemination of information can help facilitate public participa-ion and involvement in implementation of the low carbon citylans, thereby helping align local interests with low carbon cityevelopment.

In conclusion, this paper found that many of the current low car-on city plans under the NDRC program have a very broad scopend may not necessarily address key concepts related to carbonitigation (e.g., energy efficiency). One underlying reason for the

lans’ broad scopes and insufficient focus on energy and carboneduction could be the differing stages of urbanization that theilot cities are undergoing and their need to address a multitude ofressing issues simultaneously. Another reason could be that theop-down approach of developing low-carbon action plans in theocal governments limits input from stakeholders and the public,

aking it difficult to develop a comprehensive plan that adequatelyepresents the various aspects of urban development. Other con-ributing factors could include the relatively new government pushn promoting low carbon and local city planners’ subsequent lackf knowledge in low-carbon policies and practices. This suggestshat for a city to be truly low carbon, city planners and local policy-

akers need to not only clearly define goals and priorities specifico their city in formulating the low carbon plan but also have accesso clear guidelines and tools to help develop suitable policies.

cknowledgments

This work was supported through the U.S. Department of Energy

nder Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We are grateful to Heang of LBNL for reviewing an earlier draft of this paper, and to the

wo anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and sugges-ions.

nd Society 12 (2014) 110–121

References

Bi, J., Zhang, R., Wang, H., Liu, M., & Wu, Y. (2011). The benchmarks of carbon emis-sions and policy implications for China’s cities: Case of Nanjing. Energy Policy,39(9), 4785–4794.

Cao, S., & Li, C. (2011). The exploration of concepts and methods for Low-CarbonEco-City Planning. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 5, 199–207.

China Society for Urban Studies. (2010). The progress report on China’s Low-CarbonEco-City Development (2010 ed.). Beijing: China Building Industry Press (in Chi-nese).

Feng, Y., & Zhang, L. (2012). Scenario analysis of urban energy saving and carbonabatement policies: A case study of Beijing city, China. Procedia EnvironmentalServices, 13, 632–644.

Fridley, D., Zheng, N., & Zhou, N. (2012). Urban RAM: Assessing the energy impact ofhaving people in cities. In Proceedings: American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy 2012 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings Pacific Grove,August 12–17, 2012.

Khare, A., Beckman, T., & Crouse, N. (2011). Cities addressing climate change:Introducing a tripartite model for sustainable partnership. Sustainable Cities andSociety, 1, 227–235.

Kostka, G., & Hobbs, W. (2012). Local energy efficiency policy implementation inChina: Bridging the gap between national priorities and local interests. The ChinaQuarterly, 211, 765–785.

Lehman, S. (2012). Can rapid urbanization ever lead to low carbon cities? The case ofShanghai in comparison to Potsdamer Platz Berlin. Sustainable Cities and Society,3, 1–12.

Lehmann, S. (2013). Low-to-no carbon city: Lessons from western urban projectsfor the rapid transformation of Shanghai. Habitat International, 37, 61–69.

Li, Z., Chang, S., Ma, L., Liu, P., Zhao, L., & Yao, Q. (2012). The development of low-carbon towns in China: Concepts and practices. Energy, 47(1), 590–599.

Lo, K. (2014). China’s low-carbon city initiatives: The implementation gap and thelimits of the target responsibility system. Habitat International, 42, 236–244.

Lo, K., & Wang, M. (2013). Energy conservation in China’s Twelfth Five-Year Planperiod: Continuation or paradigm shift? Renewable and Sustainable EnergyReviews, 18, 499–507.

Low-Carbon City China Alliance. (2012). Baoding, Hebei province. http://www.low-carboncity.org/index.php?option=com flexicontent&view=items&cid=45%3Abaoding&id=205%3Alow-carbon-achievements&Itemid=8&lang=en. Accessed10.04.12.

Ministry of Environmental Protection. (2007). Notice on the insurance of indicatorsfor ecological county, ecological city, and ecological province. Beijing: MEP (inChinese).

National Bureau of Statistics. (2011). China statistical yearbook 2010. Beijing: ChinaStatistics Press.

National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). (2007). China’sNational Climate Change Programme. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/ga/president/61/follow-up/climatechange/China-KeyElements.pdf

NDRC. (2010). The notice of piloting low-carbon provinces and low-carboncities. Retrieved from: http://www.sdpc.gov.cn/zcfb/zcfbtz/2010tz/t20100810365264.htm (in Chinese)

National People’s Congress. (2011). The Twelfth Five-Year Plan on nationaleconomy and social development. Retrieved from: http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2011-03-17/055622129864.shtml

O’Brien, K., & Li, L. (1999). Selective policy implementation in rural China. Compar-ative Politics, 31, 167–186.

People’s Government of Chongqing City. (2012). The action plan forChongqing’s low carbon pilot city. Retrieved from: http://www.cq.gov.cn/gw/FaguiQuery/GwShowWithLogo.aspx?gwz=%E6%B8%9D%E5%BA%9C%E5%8F%91&gwnh=2009&gwqh=95 (in Chinese)

People’s Government of Guiyang City. (2010). The city of Guiyang’s low car-bon development action plan framework (2010–2020). Retrieved from: http://www.gygov.gov.cn/gygov/1442563657983590400/20100731/252024.html (inChinese)

People’s Government of Hangzhou City. (2009). The views of the people’s gov-ernment of Hangzhou on building low-carbon city. Retrieved from: http://www.hzls.gov.cn/Html/201005/13/103730.html (in Chinese)

People’s Government of Nanchang City. (2011). Notice on the action plan ofNanchang’s national low-carbon pilot city. Retrieved from: http://xxgk.nc.gov.cn/fgwj/qtygwj/201111/t20111116 395269.htm (in Chinese)

People’s Government of Shenzhen City. (2012). Medium and long-term plan forShenzhen’s low carbon development (2011–2020). Retrieved from: http://city.sz.net.cn/city/2012-02/28/content 2900181.htm (in Chinese)

People’s Government of Tianjin City. (2010). Notice on Tianjin’s climatechange program. Retrieved from: http://www.tjzb.gov.cn/system/2010/05/05/000243884.shtml (in Chinese)

Price, L., Zhou, N., Fridley, D., Ohshita, S., Lu, H., Zheng, N., et al. (2013). Developmentof a low-carbon indicator system for China. Habitat International, 37, 4–21.

State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2008). China’s policies and actionsfor addressing climate change. Retrieved from: http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File419.pdf

State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2009). China to cut 40 to

45% GDP unit carbon by 2020. Retrieved from: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-11/26/content 9058731.htm

The Climate Group. (2010). Low carbon cities – An international perspective. London:The Climate Group.

ities a

Ü

W

W

N. Khanna et al. / Sustainable C

rge-Vorsatz, D., & Metz, B. (2009). Energy efficiency: how far does it getus in controlling climate change? (editorial). Energy Efficiency, 2, 87–94.

illiams, B. (2007). Statement on climate change at the UN Commission on sustainabledevelopment 15th session. New York, 30 April–11 May 2007. Retrieved from:http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/habitat 2may cc.

pdf

orld Resources Institute. (2013). New Greenhouse Gas Accounting Tool will helpChina’s cities pursue low-carbon development. Retrieved from World ResourcesInstitute: http://www.wri.org/blog/new-greenhouse-gas-accounting-tool-will-help-china%E2%80%99s-cities-pursue-low-carbon-development

nd Society 12 (2014) 110–121 121

Xiamen Municipal Commission of Construction and Administration. (2010). Theoverall planning framework for low-carbon city of Xiamen. Retrieved from:http://www.csuaee.com.cn/UpFiles/FckFiles/%E5%8E%A6%E9%97%A8–%E5%8E%A6%E9%97%A8%E5%B8%82%E4%BD%8E%E7%A2%B3%E5%9F%8E%E5%B8%82%E6%80%BB%E4%BD%93%E8%A7%84%E5%88%92%E7%BA%B2%E8%A6%81.pdf (inChinese)

Yang, L., & Li, Y. (2013). Low-carbon city in China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 9,62–66.

Zhou, N., He, G., & Williams, C. (2012). China’s development of low carbon eco-citiesand associated indicator systems. LBNL Report 5873E. Berkeley: Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory.