Interlocal collaboration on energy efficiency, sustainability and climate change issues

详细信息   

• 作者：Chen ; Ssu-Hsien ; Ph.D.
• 学历：Ph.D.
• 年：2011
• 关键词：Energy policy ; Climate change ; Interlocal collabor
• 导师：Feiock, Richard C., Yang, Kaifeng
• 毕业院校：The Florida State University
• 专业：Climate Change, Public administration, Public policy, Sustainability, Energy, Urban planning
• ISBN：9781124983509
• CBH：3483675
• Country：USA
• 语种：English
• FileSize：3241723
• Pages：133

文摘

Interlocal energy collaboration builds upon network structures among local policy actors dealing with energy, climate change and sustainability issues. Collaboration efforts overcome institutional collective action (ICA) dilemmas, and cope with the problems spanning jurisdictional boundaries, externalities, and free-rider problems. Interlocal energy collaboration emerges as the agreements in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction, pollution control, land use, purchasing, retrofits, transportation, and so forth. Cities work collaboratively through contractual mechanisms (i.e. formal/informal agreements) and collective mechanisms (i.e. regional partnerships or membership organizations) on a variety of energy issues.
    
    
    What factors facilitate interlocal energy collaboration? To what extent is collaboration through interlocal contractual mechanisms different from collective mechanisms? This dissertation tries to answer these questions by examining: city goal priority on energy related issues as well as other ICA explanatory factors. Research data are drawn mainly from the 2010 national survey "Implementation of energy efficiency and sustainability program" supported by National Science Foundation and the IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
    
    
    The research results show that city emphasis on common pool resource, scale economies and externality issues significantly affect individual selection of tools for energy collaboration. When expected transaction costs are extremely high or low, the contractual mechanism of informal agreement is more likely to be selected to preserve most local autonomy and flexibility; otherwise, written and formal tools for collaboration are preferred to impose constraints on individual behavior and reduce the risks of defection.