4.7 Article

An inquiry into inter-provincial carbon emission difference in China: Aiming to differentiated KPIs for provincial low carbon development

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 754-765

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.029

关键词

Energy-related carbon emissions; Inter-provincial difference; Hybrid estimation method; Differentiated KPIs; China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41301648]
  2. Asia Research Center in Nankai University [AS1423]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reasonable formulation of carbon emission reduction strategies at sub-national scale is an important technique to realize the national target. However, a set of binding unified key performance indicators (KPIs) is usually not conducive to equitable regional development. Our study employs a hybrid carbon emission estimation method and a multi-index joint representation approach to explore the inter-provincial energy-related carbon emission difference in the year of 2012 in China. Stepwise regression method and hierarchical clustering model were used to classify 30 provinces into economically developed low-carbon region, industrially optimized low-carbon region, resource-abundant high-carbon region, and economically developing high-carbon region. Different regions should take differentiated measures and KPIs related to the local government's efforts to promote low carbon roadmap according to local conditions: The lack of natural resource provides the impetus to improve energy structure in the economically developed low-carbon region. The industrially optimized low-carbon region should place great importance on economic growth and per capita GDP improvement. The low-carbon transformation strategy of the resource-abundant high-carbon regions should focus on carbon emission reduction performance and carbon intensity decline. For economically developing high-carbon regions, decision makers should conduct a sound SWOT analysis of regional low carbon development. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据