Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Promoting and implementing urban sustainability in China: An integrationof sustainable initiatives at different urban scalesBao-Jie Hea,∗, Dong-Xue Zhaob, Jin Zhua, Amos Darkoc, Zhong-Hua Gouda Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australiab School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW, 2052, AustraliacDepartment of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 11 Yuk Choi Rd, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, ChinadGriffith School of Environment (Architecture), Griffith University G39, Parklands Drive, Gold Coast, QLD, 4215, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Sustainability transitionsRisks and uncertaintiesLow-carbon eco-cityGreen universityGreen buildingCity-community-building system

A B S T R A C T

Many uncontrollable risks and uncertainties emerge during transitions pathways. Previous studies have ex-amined the “formula” of successful sustainable initiatives (SIs), while there have been few attempts to explorethe reciprocities amongst them. Therefore, this study is to investigate the linkages among and mutual benefitsamong SIs at different urban scales for tackling their risks and uncertainties. The low-carbon eco-city, greenuniversity and green building in China are selected as the representatives at city, community and building scalesfor elaborating their linkages. In the city-community-building system, the GB implementation builds up theinternal momentum that can lead to the changes of sustainable interests, rules and beliefs at the communityscale, which then results in the changes on city structures, according to the theory of multi-level perspective.Akin to living organisms, cities witness the energy and materials flowing across different urban scales. Resourcesduring SI implementation at a specific level can be shared by SIs at other levels. Meanwhile, the output of an SIcan be transferred as the input of SIs at other levels. The commonalities among assessment systems of LCEC, GUand GB can upscale or downscale the successful experiments across different scales, contributing to the overcomeof political, financing and operating risks and certainties. This paper can inform people with understandings ofthe vertical integration of SIs for sustainability transitions on the one hand and can practically provide decision-makers with an approach to overcoming the barriers in SI implementation on the other.

1. Introduction

Urban sustainability has been regarded as a robust means over timeto guide human beings to cope with varieties of problems and issues.Therefore, many countries worldwide have promoted “green” in-itiatives, which is especially obvious in many Asian countries and re-gions that are undergoing rapid industrialisation and urbanisation butaccompanied by alarming population growth. However, sustainabilitytransitions are so complicated as combinations of multi-actors andmulti-factors in the context of multi-scales (Elzen & Wieczorek, 2005),that many risks and uncertainties emerge along the promotion andimplementation of sustainable initiatives (SIs). These risks and un-certainties are barriers to the achievement of social, economic, political,environmental benefits. For example, renewable energy has been apromising alternative to achieve energy efficiency and low-carbon so-ciety, while there are various environmental and biodiversity losses dueto impropriate governance and limited predictions.

Previous investigations have studied individual “successful” prac-tices, to comprehend drivers, barriers and mechanisms to their man-agement and transitions (Bai, Roberts, & Chen, 2010). Once the ob-stacles are resolved, the specific SI evolves to a higher version toembrace and absorb much more critiques in dynamic, evolutionary andupgrading processes, which will finally cause the regime change (Gou &Xie, 2017). Meanwhile, there have been attempts to identify char-acteristics of individual ‘successful’ practices, to draw lessons and ex-perience and then transfer them from a specific context to another onein the horizontal dimension (Bai, Wieczorek, Kaneko, Lisson, &Contreras, 2009; Ooi, 2008). However, each setting is composed ofvarious external and internal factors, the transferability of innovativepractices mostly impossible (Elzen & Wieczorek, 2005).

Although studies on individual practice evolvement and common-alities of successful cases, very little are known about what kinds ofoutcomes emerge if different SIs are integrated vertically. Nevertheless,the integration is robust if outputs of an SI adapt to promote the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.10.001Received 23 March 2018; Received in revised form 17 July 2018; Accepted 4 October 2018

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: baojie.he@unsw.edu.au, qtechhebaojie@yahoo.com (B.-J. He).

Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

Available online 11 October 20180197-3975/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T

transitions of another one (Kemp, Rotmans, & Loorbach, 2007), wherethe combination, therefore, might be the “formula of success” leadingto the success transitions (Bai et al., 2010). It is dependable since theinputs (i.e. energy, water, material, money) and outputs (i.e. products,emissions, knowledge) of the urban system are flowing complicatedlyacross different scales (i.e. globe, nation, region, city, community) (Baiet al., 2016). Meanwhile, according to the co-benefit approach, thepromotion and implementation of city-level innovative practices andcommunity-level innovative practices may generate benefits for eachother (Jiang, Dong, Kung, & Geng, 2013; Doll, Dreyfus, Ahmad, &Balaban, 2013).

Therefore, in this study, we preliminarily examine the potentials tointegrate SIs, and then to facilitate their transitions. In particular, weconsider the integration from the perspective of urban scale, since mostsustainability transitions connect changing process at various urbanscales. Across most successful innovative practices, local actors areoutstanding for the sustainability transitions, while macro actors atglobal, national and regional scales are less powerful (Bai et al., 2010;Zhu & Tang, 2018). Consequently, the context adopted to elaborate thevertical linkages of SIs is defined at different scales, including city,community and building scales. To make the concept more explicit, wetake SIs such as low-carbon eco-city (LCEC), green university (GU) andgreen building (GB) as the representatives at city, community andbuilding scales in China for further analysis. This study is of very sig-nificance to orientate sustainability actors with broader understandingsof how to realize sustainability transitions.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study context

In the past decades, the country of China had witnessed rapid ur-banisation, and a substantial number of infrastructures and serviceshave been constructed to meet the people's living demands. However,the rapid development leads to the growth in energy consumption andGHG emissions, as well as a series of other subsequent environmentalissues like overheating, heavily polluted air, polluted and undrinkablewater, soil loss, heavy metal contaminant etc. (Hu, Wu, & Shih, 2015;Zhao, He, Li, Wang, & Darko, 2017). These issues are much more severein cities, especially the increasing number of large-scale cities than everbefore with the people's continuous migration towards urban areas. Asa result, it is difficult to argue that China does well in developing sus-tainably (Bai et al., 2009).

2.2. Selection of the SIs at different urban scales

To promote the sustainable development, the government of Chinahas launched numerous SIs at different scales, ranging from thebuilding scale to the national one. At the city scale, for example, therehave been many green urban theories, e.g. low-carbon city, ecologicalcity, low-carbon eco-city, smart city, harmonious society, forest city,sponge city, climate-adaptive city, that are holistically implemented asthe solutions to economic, social and environmental problems (DeJong, Joss, Schraven, Zhan, & Weijnen, 2015). At the community scale,there are several concepts, such as the green residential community,green district, public green space and green campus, having capabilitiesto promote sustainable development (He & Zhu, 2018; Zhao, He, &Meng, 2015a). At the building scale, there also emerge many concepts,e.g., sustainable building, low/zero-carbon building, green building,energy-saving building, nearly zero energy building, for the pursuit ofenergy efficiency, ecology and sustainability in the building life cycle,compared with conventional buildings (Darko et al., 2017a; Marszalet al., 2011). These SIs at different urban scales make it complex toanalyze the influences of SIs’ integration on sustainability transitions.

In the process of applying a novel sustainable initiative, there pre-sent a number of challenges (e.g., multiple scales, geographies,

temporalities, risks and uncertainties, inertia and contested perspec-tives) when it leads to the change of social, technical, institutional andecological systems (Turnheim et al., 2015). The realization of the sus-tainability transitions always requires a long-term period of evolutionto overcome these problems. According to system approach, to makethe sustainability transitions progress, there should be the support fromeconomic, technical, social and policy and management measures inreal practice (Bai et al., 2009; Bolton, Foxon, & Hall, 2016). As a result,the LCEC, GU and GB were selected based on the criteria of long-termevolution, governmental support, well-structured standards/guidelines,extensive implementation and good popularity, as shown in Table 1.Although green residential community could obviously enhance thesocietal sustainability due to a closer relation to people daily living, theinitiative of GU was selected for analysis. This is because the greenresidential community was just formally issued in 2014 and underwenta slow and insufficient development trend. Comparatively, universitiesat the community level, can not only offer students and teachers placesto study and work but also impart them with basic understandings ofsustainable ideas and trends (Geng, Liu, Xue, & Fujita, 2013; Zhao et al.,2015a). Moreover, after a prolonged process of bottom-up developmentsince 1996, GU initiative has received national and local governments’great endeavours for disseminating and incentivizing from 2008.

2.3. Linkages among urban sustainability transitions

In understanding the changes of the social-technical systems, themulti-level perspective (MLP) has been extensively utilised (Geels,2011). This approach considers the societal function during the processof utilising science and technologies for sustainability transitions. Inthis study, therefore, the vertical linkages among LCEC, GU and GB atcity, community and building scales were emphatically investigatedbased on MLP theory.

Besides, standards and frameworks are flagships to instruct theconstruction of these SIs, so that the overlaps among these standardsand frameworks can also directly the integrations among LCEC, GU andGB. Therefore, assessment systems of LCEC, GU and GB were comparedto examine their commonalities and differences. For GU and GB, na-tional standards including CSUS/GBC 04-2013 and GB/T 50378-2014were selected for comparison, respectively (CSUS, 2013; MOHURD,2014). For the LCEC, the Key performance indicators framework2008–2020 for Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city (KPIF-SSTEC) rather theAssessment Standard for Green Eco-district (G/BT 51255-2017) wasadopted (SSTECAC, 2008). This is because the Sino-Singapore TianjinEco-city has been the most successful LCEC in China with the guidanceof KPIF-SSTEC (Yu, 2014), while the national standard has not beenexamined in practice. In specific, the comparison was carried out infour aspects: resources, environment, economy and society.

2.4. Risks and uncertainties of SIs

Sustainability transitions are framed as socio-technical changes in-terlinking economic, technological, institutional and socio-cultural as-pects, according to the theory of innovation system (Bai et al., 2009).Although the SIs of LCEC, GU and GC are underpinned by a series ofeconomic incentives, technical support, political will and commitment(Bai et al., 2009), these may be insufficient to realize the sustainabilitytransitions because of the numerous risks and uncertainties (Yin,Olsson, & Håkansson, 2016).

Overall, for a specific project, the risks and uncertainties arecommon in every stage of its life cycle. There have been numerousstudies concentrating on the investigations of risks and uncertainties inimplementing the initiatives of LCEC, GU and GB. Darko et al. (2017a;2017b) made a summarization of the barriers of GB initiatives andexamined them in the context of the United States and Ghana. Shen,Zhang, and Zhang (2017) reviewed the significant barriers hinderingthe green procurement in the context of China real estate development.

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

84

Table1

Ove

rview

ofinitiatives

ofLC

EC,G

Uan

dGBat

city,c

ommun

ityan

dbu

ildingscales.

Term

Scale

Long

-term

evolution

Tech

nica

lguide

lines/stand

ards

Gov

ernm

entals

uppo

rtEx

tensiveim

plem

entatio

nGoo

dpo

pularity

Exam

ples

Incentives

Man

agem

entmea

sures

LCEC

City

Evolving

from

the

philo

soph

yof

‘buildingto

unify

heav

enan

dhu

man

ity’

tothe‘urban

ecolog

ical

environm

ent’(197

8),a

ndthen

‘Nationa

lGarde

nCity’

(199

2),‘Ec

o-co

unty,c

ityan

dprov

ince’(20

03),

‘Harmon

ious

Society’

(200

4)an

d‘Low

-carbo

neco-city’(20

09)

•Key

performan

ceindica

tors

fram

ework20

08–2

020for

Sino

-Singa

pore

Tian

jinEc

o-city

•Assessm

entStan

dard

for

Green

Eco-district

(G/B

T51

255-20

17)

•Eac

hLC

ECin

thefir

stba

tch

ofde

mon

stratio

ncity

received

subsidies50

–80

millionyu

anfrom

theMOF

andMOHURD

•Loc

algo

vernmen

tsreleased

aseries

ofecon

omic

incentives,e

.g.,fin

ancial

fund

subsidies,flo

orarea

rate

awards,tax

redu

ctions,loa

ninterest

rate

conc

ession

s

Nationa

lgo

vernmen

tal

depa

rtmen

tscentralis

edLC

ECprojects:

•MOHURD

-provinc

eco

operation

•MOHURD

–city

coop

eration,

and

•MOHURD

pilotlow-carbo

neco-city

TheNationa

lDev

elop

men

tan

dRe

form

Commission

ofthePe

ople'sRe

public

ofCh

ina

(NDRC

)ha

slis

ted78

prefecturalc

ities

andfiv

eprov

incesas

thelow-carbo

ncity

pilots

sinc

e20

101

Thereare28

4prefectural

citie

screa

tingtheeco-citie

s.Aroun

d79

percen

tof

the

ecolog

ical

citie

sarein

the

healthyan

dve

ryhe

althy

cond

ition

,asindica

tedby

ecolog

ical

citie

shea

lthinde

x.Abo

ut97

percen

tof

the

prefecturalc

ities

have

expressedtheirintentions

toco

nstruc

tlow-carbo

ncity

orecolog

ical

city

1,2

•Sino-

Sing

apore

Tian

jinEc

o-city

•Tan

gsha

nBa

yEc

o-city

•She

nzhe

nWux

iTa

ihuNew

Town

•Wux

iTaihu

New

Town

•Meixihu

New

Town

•Cho

ngqing

Yuelai

Eco-city

•Kun

ming

Chen

ggon

gNew

District

•Guiya

ngFu

ture

Ark

Eco-city

2

GU

Commun

itySinc

etheCo

ncep

tof

gree

nun

iversity

was

introd

uced

into

Chinain

1996

,man

yun

iversitie

sha

veindividu

ally

prom

oted

sustaina

bilityin

campu

s.In

2011

,ten

universitie

san

dac

adem

icinstitu

tions

co-

spon

soredCh

inaGreen

Unive

rsity

Network(C

GUN)

andman

yothe

rinstitu

tions

laterap

pliedforen

rolm

ent

ofCG

UN

•Promotingtheco

nstruc

tion

ofecon

omical

campu

sin

colle

gesan

dun

iversitie

s:Su

ggestio

nson

streng

then

ingtheaim

ofen

ergy

-sav

ingan

dwater-

saving

•Twelfth

five-ye

arplan

for

build

ingen

ergy

conserva

tion

•Eva

luationstan

dard

for

gree

nca

mpu

s(C

SUS/

GBC

04-201

3)1

Ministryof

Fina

nce(M

OF)

laun

ched

specialfun

dsfor

energy

-sav

ingof

office

build

ings

andlargepu

blic

build

ings

tosupp

ortg

reen

university

construc

tion

•Amix

ofna

tiona

lgo

vernmen

t,prov

incial,

loca

lgov

ernm

ents

andcity

coun

cilp

romoted

theGU

deve

lopm

ent

•MOHURD

andMOE

laun

ched

man

yregu

latio

nslik

een

ergy

mon

itoring

system

,ope

ratio

nman

agem

ent,en

ergy

consum

ptionau

dita

ndassessmen

tindica

tors

MOHURD

projectedto

construc

t72co

nserva

tion-

oriented

campu

sde

mon

stratio

nprojects

throug

hthreestag

es

Untilno

w,m

orethan

200

colle

gesan

dun

iversitie

sha

vebe

encertified

asgree

nun

iversity

•Tsing

hua

Unive

rsity

•Sha

nxi

Agricultural

Unive

rsity

•Ton

gji

Unive

rsity

•Zhe

jiang

Unive

rsity

•Sou

thCh

ina

Unive

rsity

ofTe

chno

logy

•Tianjin

Unive

rsity

•Cho

ngqing

Unive

rsity

•Hon

gKo

ngPo

lytech

nic

Unive

rsity

(continuedon

nextpage)

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

85

However, these are far from holistic and comprehensive. Moreover,some individual risks are interconnected, so that the risk and un-certainty mitigation activities may, unfortunately, aggravate others(Wu et al., 2017).

Likewise, the construction of GU encountered a variety of risks anduncertainties. Dahle and Neumayer (2001) identified the barriers tocampus greening into financial, awareness, cultural and urban spaceaspects in the context of universities in London, UK. Many others likethe limited importance of GU for sustainability, poor collaborationsamong universities, insufficient governmental policies and stake-holders’ inadequate experience for GU implementation, the lack ofimplementing interdisciplinary approach and a lack of policies andoperational readiness were also criticized (Leal Filho et al., 2017). Inthe context of China, although many educational institutions have at-tended some GU alliances, how to realize the green campus remainsquestionable because of the insufficient well-evidenced practices. Forinstance, only some universities are famous for its discipline of archi-tecture and urban planning have witnessed the significance of greencampus (Tan, Chen, Shi, & Wang, 2014).

Moreover, the sustainable transitions at the city scale are challen-ging to attain. Most cities have been evolved into their current physicalforms after several hundred years’ developments so that to change ex-isting infrastructures into refreshed eco-cities requires sufficient tech-nological and economic integrations. Since an LCEC physically includesvarious aspects like energy, water, land, building and transportation,the immature advanced technologies with low efficiency and the pro-hibitive cost will be a challenge to the LCEC. LCEC can fundamentallyalter the city from its traditional nature to a sustainable one, requiringsupport from materials, labors and technologies. However, these re-quests are so tremendous that many local governments are reluctant topay for or even cannot afford LCEC (Suzuki, Dastur, Moffatt, Yabuki, &Maruyama, 2010). Moreover, the initiative of LCEC does not onlypursue the physical upgrading of cities but also the enhancement ofsocial concerns, including employment, housing, health, education andequality, presenting challenges to political and social management.Macroscopically, the technological, economic, political and social in-tegrations are beyond the capabilities of current cities. Moreover, lackof clear definition, standards and targets, overreliance of technologiesand economic investments, inadequate governmental guidance and theignorance of the coherence of technical, institutional and cognitionalperspectives have also deteriorated the LCEC performances (Zhou et al.,2015).

Nevertheless, it is still very hard to capture and predict all risks anduncertainties of LELC, GU and GB, and it has difficulties in controllingand mitigating them (Heckmann, Comes, & Nickel, 2015). Jaafari(2001) defined the risk variables into twelve aspects, including pro-motion, market, political, technical, financing, environmental, cost es-timate, schedule, operating, organizational, integration and force ma-jeure risks. These risks and uncertainties can be interconnected andinter-influenced. For instance, financing risks may deter stakeholders’enthusiasm and proper application of technologies, further aggravatingoperating risks. In this study, the risks and uncertainties were discussedin political, financing and operating aspects.

3. Integration of LCEC, GU and GB

In practice, it is a praxis to promote GB adoption during the LCECimplementation, where the case of SSTEC has been a successful ex-periment. The SSTEC prescribes the proportion of GBs should be 100%and takes stringent measures to realize the renewable energy utiliza-tion, waste disposal and recycling, water saving and carbon emissionreduction (Hu et al., 2015). The SSTEC has significantly stimulated theGB market of Tianjin, with 68 buildings accounting for more than one-third of all GB projects. Moreover, 64 out of 68 GBs are certified withtwo-star and three-star, indicating the higher quality of GB construc-tion. Based on the SSTEC case, we can assert that the LCECTa

ble1(continued)

Term

Scale

Long

-term

evolution

Tech

nica

lguide

lines/stand

ards

Gov

ernm

entals

uppo

rtEx

tensiveim

plem

entatio

nGoo

dpo

pularity

Exam

ples

Incentives

Man

agem

entmea

sures

GB

Build

ing

From

theprom

otionof

energy

efficien

cyof

build

ings

in19

80sto

the

introd

uctio

nof

LEED

-certified

gree

nbu

ildingin

2004

,and

theGBL

-certifi

edgree

nbu

ildings

in20

07

•Assessm

entStan

dard

for

Green

Build

ing”

(GB/

T503

78-200

6)(G

B/T5

0378

-201

4)

•Ene

rgyco

nserva

tionde

sign

stan

dard

forne

whe

ating

reside

ntialb

uildings

(JGJ-

95)

•Designstan

dard

foren

ergy

efficien

cyof

reside

ntial

build

ings

inho

tsum

mer

andco

ldwinterzo

ne(JGJ

134-200

1)

•Designstan

dard

foren

ergy

efficien

cyof

reside

ntial

build

ings

inho

tsum

mer

andwarm

winterz

one(JGJ

75-200

3)

With

theco

llabo

ratio

nof

MOF

andMOHURD

,eco

nomic

incentivepo

licieswere

implem

entedto

upgrad

equ

ality

ofgree

nbu

ildings,w

here

45an

d80

Yuan

RMBwou

ldbe

subsided

tope

rsqua

remeter

oftw

o-star

andthree-star

gree

nbu

ildings.

Basedon

thena

tiona

ltechn

ical

andecon

omic

supp

orts,m

any

prov

incesan

dloca

lcities

establishe

dloca

lstand

ards

and

regu

latio

nsforestablishing

loca

lgree

nbu

ildings.

•From

2005

to20

11,

certified

gree

nbu

ilding

casesincrea

sedfrom

only

twoca

sesin

2005

to22

6ca

sesin

2010

.

•The

GBL

-certifi

edgree

nbu

ildings

reac

hed45

15ca

sesdu

eSe

ptem

ber

2016

.

•The

GBL

-ceritfi

edgree

nbu

ildingarea

reac

hed

522.91

millionsqua

remetersdu

e20

16.

Apa

rtfrom

Tibe

tAuton

omou

sRe

gion

,all

othe

rPr

ovinces/

mun

icipalities/a

uton

omou

sregion

s/Sp

ecial

administrativeregion

sha

veco

nstruc

tedgree

nbu

ildings

Allca

sesav

ailable

from

http://w

ww.

cngb

.org.cn

Referenc

e:1CS

US,

2013

;2Yu

,201

4.

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

86

implementation will be an excellent opportunity which contributes tothe increase of both GB number and quality. GBs can be divided intoseveral categories, such as residential, industrial, public and educationbuildings. We statistically analyzed the number of GBs that stand inuniversity, based on the existing GB projects. Across China, in total,more than 140 buildings have been labelled as GBs. Moreover, con-structing GBs in campuses has been a well-acknowledged trend asuniversities in 22 provinces have built GBs (available from http://www.cngb.org.cn/). The most promising highlight of GU for GB promotionlies in that many universities are currently retrofitting their old build-ings and starting to create GBs.

3.1. Urban sustainability

The MLP theory is composed by three levels, namely the niche at themicro-level, the regimes at the meso-level and the landscape at themacro-level. The niches at the lowest level are deemed as the incuba-tion rooms where the radical innovations start, while the regimes arethe currently deep structures (e.g., institutions, associations and gov-ernance) that may keep the system stable, as shown in Fig. 1 (Geels,2002; Osunmuyiwa, Biermann, & Kalfagianni, 2018). The landscape atthe highest level is the external pressure like the fiscal crisis generallyregulating the sustainability transitions. For cities, they are also com-posed by several vertical scales from the building scale to the globalone. According to system thinking, each system at an individual scale iscomplex, encompassing physical/built, social/economics and ecolo-gical components (Bai et al., 2016). These components are interlinkedwhere the changes of a component may lead to the changes of anothertwo. Akin to niches, these urban systems are embedded in specific re-gimes, including ecological, economic, technical, institutional, legaland governance (Bai et al., 2016). Moreover, the external landscapescan also influence the urban systems. Because cities are dynamic andevolving, they are able to connect with urban systems at other scales.

Adopting the initiatives of LCEC, GU and GB that are at differenturban scales, for the purpose of urban sustainability promotion andimplementation, is spatially consistent with the sustainability transi-tions in MLP theory. The LCECs stand at the highest level in the hier-archy, while the GBs are the unit, holding at the lowest position. In thebottom-up pattern, the successful GB experiments can be upscaled toGUs and LCECs, at which time GBs’ functions and performances shouldbe dominant, determining developments of GU and LCEC. In this city-

community-building system, GB construction and promotion build upthe internal momentum through the improvement of constructiontechnologies, the enhancement in building performance and the re-duction in environmental impacts. Furthermore, the environmental,social, economic and technical benefits of GB achieved can interveneGUs, leading to the changes in sustainable interests, rules and beliefs atthe community scale. As a result, sustainability transitions included inGUs can be synergistically achieved in building dimension. Moreover,the GB can motivate the private action and public policy (e.g., uni-versity stakeholders interests and movements) at a larger scope(Rotmans, Kemp, & Van Asselt, 2001). With the transitions of com-munities, changes will happen in various city structures, e.g., ecolo-gical, economic, technical, institutional, legal and governance aspects(Bai et al., 2016).

In other aspect, cities have been emulated as living organisms withenergy and materials flowing into and out these areas. In general, acomprehensive urban metabolism of these living organisms is com-prised of four parts: the total input including natural, capital and in-formation resources, the total output consisting of products, knowledge,services and emissions, the distribution pattern of resources in cities,and the governance anthropogenic activities (e.g., provision, design andgovernance, lifestyle and consumption activities) that mobilize andshape the input and output (Bai, 2016; Bai & Schandl, 2010). In thecity-community-building system, although the distribution pattern ofresources, the governance and anthropogenic activities determine theoperation mechanisms in specific urban contexts, the total input andoutput are inter-influenced.

In particular, with the individual resource input to LCEC, GU andGB at different levels, these SIs can complete their functions of en-vironmental protection and resource efficiency. Many resources can beshared during the implementation of SIs at various levels. During theLCEC implementation, there are abundant natural, capital and in-formation resources invested for the sustainability transitions over sucha large spatial area. These resources are separated and dispatched to theSI implementation at a lower level, which can provide GUs with a stableatmosphere, namely the sufficient resource input. Following this pat-tern, the GU can also endue GB implementation with adequate materialand immaterial resources. The GB implementation can step across GUto share the resources in LCEC implementation. An obvious evidence isthe SSTEC provision that all buildings should be GB-certified, whereinvestments will be inherently used for GB (SSTECAC. 2008). Likewise,

Fig. 1. The linkages and interactions among different urban scales. The red arrows indicate the dynamic flow of material and immaterial elements, and the blackarrows represent the transitions upscaling (Geel, 2002; Bai et al., 2016). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred tothe Web version of this article.)

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

87

the input for the implementation of SIs at lower scales can be includedby SIs at higher levels spatially. The output of SIs at a specific level canbe delivered to other levels, being the input of SIs. At the city scale, theLCEC implementation can generate varieties of environmental, eco-nomic, social and technical benefits that can be input for GU and GBconstruction. For instance, the elevated environmental awareness is animportant driver to the acceptance of GBs (Darko et al, 2017a; 2017b)and the environmental sustainability promotion in campuses (Leal Filhoet al., 2017). From the bottom to up, the extensive GB promotion hasalso influenced people's cognitions to environmental protection, so thatthe environmental sustainability at community and city scale takesroots.

Apart from the environmental impact mitigation and the resourceefficiency enhancement, the LCEC initiative has potentials to offer asustainable context to orientate GU and GB strategically. A mastermanagement plan and vision of the LCEC has effects on connectingintrinsic elements. An LCEC is a mix of artificial elements, such ascommercial, institutional, educational uses as well as housing styles,sizes and prices, and natural elements. The community is the unit toserve citizens’ basic living requirements, through a series of functionslike dwelling, industry, entertainment, healthcare and culture.Sustainable and livable communities protect historic, cultural, and en-vironmental resources, while economic effects are embodied, in in-direct relation to advantages of water-saving, energy-saving, land-saving and material-saving and carbon emissions. Moreover, a GU isone of the city components, bridging GB and LCEC, where GBs are thesmallest unit achieving environmental protection and resource-savingvia technical approaches, while social and economic benefits are rea-lized indirectly.

3.2. Linkages among assessment criteria of SIs

3.2.1. ResourceIn the resource dimension, the linkages among LCEC, GU and GB

can be found in water, land, energy and material, as shown in Table 2.The utilization of non-traditional water sources has been emphasized,where reclaimed water and rain water should be employed in GU andGB operation, while seawater desalination is required when con-structing LCEC. The water efficiency at the building scale is the moststringent, while municipal water for daily life and non-municipal watercampus landscape have been regulated with a relatively loose pattern.At university and building levels, water-saving appliance and equip-ment, and water-saving design are required, indicating that the focus ofGB and GU on techniques. For public green land, LCEC and GU setthresholds for greening rate, while the GB initiative combines greenarea per capita and greening rate. Moreover, the GU and GB regard theunderground spaces as an effective way to save the land. For urbanecology, land protection is a mandatory rule in creating LCEC, GU andGB. In LCEC, a wetland that must be exploited for other use should becompensated via recovery and developing other lands, to maintain a netloss of natural wetland zero. More strictly, GU and GB cannot be de-veloped over natural water bodies, wetlands, agricultural lands, forestsand other reserves. To critically cope with global climate change, theLCEC,GU and GB initiatives have prescribed the renewable energyutilization, although the utilization ratio required is different. Both GUand GB resorts help in envelope design, HVAC, lighting and applianceand energy recovery techniques. Although the LCEC initiative has notincluded material-saving as an independent indicator, it is reflected bythe complete GB production. Moreover, the low-carbon promotion in

Table 2Comparison of SIs in resource criterions.

Criterion Similarities Differences

LCEC GU GB LCEC GU GB

Water Non-traditional Non-traditional Non-traditional Seawater Municipal water Non-municipal water

Appliance &equipment

Appliance &equipment

Water cooling technology

Water-saving system Water-saving system Construction management

Daily waterusage

Daily water usage

Land use Public green land Green land ratio Green land Green building

Plot ratio Plot ratio

Underground space Underground space Wasteland redevelopment Rainwater collection;Ecological compensation

Land protection Land protection Land protection Wetland Water bodies, agricultural land,wetland, forests and reserves

Reserves

Energy Renewableenergy

Renewable energy Renewable energy Low-carbon operation;Carbon emission

Building andenvelope

Building andenvelope

(outdoor) Natural ventilation (indoor) Natural ventilation

HVAC HVAC

Lighting & appliance Lighting & appliance

Energy recovery Energy recovery

Material Material savingdesign

Material savingdesign

Material selection Material selection Local materials

Based on KPIF-SSTEC (for LCEC), CSUS/GBC 04-2013 (for GU) and GB/T 50378-2014 (for GB).

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

88

LCEC can synthetically exhibit the efforts to realize energy structuretransition, green transportation and green material. Material-savingdesign and material selection are adopted to fulfil GU and GB.

3.2.2. EnvironmentTo support people's daily living, and local biodiversity, many cri-

teria including the quality of water, light, air and sound, waste disposal,wind environment and infrastructures have been defined, as shown inTable 3. LCEC, GU and GU have all agreed that water quality should becompulsory, because of the current water pollution and water scarcityof China. LCEC commits to upgrade urban water environment from thequality of surface water and centralised drinking water, while GU aimsat adopting non-traditional water avoiding generating adverse impactson human health and surrounding environments. Water quality ofrainwater collected should be maintained by ecological water treatmenttechnology, in case of runoff pollution to landscape water. Air pollu-tants should be controlled when constructing LCEC, GU and GB, whichmeans these SIs at different scales can counterbalance atmosphericpollution. Human thermal comfort is another important concern in GUand GB, which can be achieved by building arrangement and shadingdevices. Urban heat island has not been mentioned in LCEC concept,while GU and GB have paid attention to UHI effects, through landscapeconstruction, greenery and cool material utilization respectively. A re-cycling solid waste disposal pattern is expected in LCEC, GU and GB.Solid waste recycled should account for more than 60 percent of thetotally urban waste in LCEC, while GU and GB only consider the wasteproduced during the construction period. Consistently, all these SIshave highlighted the significance of waste control, although themethods encouraged are different. For light, it has not been clearlydefined in LCEC, while GU and GB have requested to create good indoorlight environment. Noise control is consistently required by SIs at threescales. As a significant part of people's living, public services for en-tertainable, cultural, healthcare and accessibility facilities should beoffered in all three SIs. At both community and building levels, naturalventilation has been an effective strategy to improve indoor and indoor

air quality.

3.2.3. EconomyThe economy dimension has been stipulated in aspects of employ-

ment, research and development and environmental impacts, as shownin Table 4. The environment can lead to indirect effects on economicdevelopment, while the societal developments are driven by technolo-gical development. LCEC implementation by upgrading proportion ofscientists and engineers promotes knowledge and innovations. GUdraws on students’ advantages to conduct research for green technologyutilization, while GB is the main part of adopting advanced technolo-gies. On environmental impacts, LCEC pays attention to carbon au-diting in order to form the low-carbon atmosphere. For the initiative ofGB, it highlights the significance of carbon analysis. For the environ-mental purpose, the LCEC pursues a circular economy, which can fur-ther drive the economic developments of surrounding areas. For GB,economic analysis is required through the improvement of energy ef-ficiency and building performance. Overall, the LCEC can not onlyconsider the resource and environmental impacts but also can keepeconomy development at the core.

3.2.4. SocietyFor societal dimension, the transport, housing quality, culture and

their possible social influences have been highlighted, as shown inTable 5. The SIs at city, community and building scales all consider thesignificance of public transport, where cycling is especially invigoratedby LCEC and GB. On housing quality, LCEC has firstly consideredproviding people with a place of residence. Therefore, the affordablehousing ratio has been set as an independent criterion. Meanwhile,housing and income balance have been included. GU and GB emphasizethe quality people live via land use area per capita. The item that urbandevelopment cannot be the price of destroying historical and culturalheritage is commonly considered by LCEC, GU and GB. As sustainablemodels, LCEC and GU both exert their potentials to influence otherareas, where the former emphasizes the surrounding regions and thelatter focuses on the surrounding communities.

Table 3Comparison of SIs in environment criterions.

Criterion Similarities Differences

LCEC GU GB LCEC GU GB

Water Quality Security Quality Drinking water; surface water Non-traditional water Runoff pollution control

Light Indoor lighting Indoor lighting Lighting pollution Outdoor vision

Air Pollutants control Pollutants control Pollutants control Natural ventilation Construction management

Thermal comfort Thermal comfort Relative humidity

Urban heat island Urban heat island Landscape construction Tree and cool material

Solid waste Recycling Recycling Recycling Garbage collection Construction waste Construction waste

Waste control Waste control Waste control Garbage production per person;waste disposal

Away from waste sources Construction management

Noise Noise control Noise control Noise control City level City & indoor level City & indoor level

Wind Naturalventilation

Naturalventilation

Comfort

Community Public service Public service Public service Available in 500m radius; University-communities’cooperation

Educational & industrialresources

Biodiversity Local vegetation coverage

Based on KPIF-SSTEC (for LCEC), CSUS/GBC 04-2013 (for GU) and GB/T 50378-2014 (for GB).

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

89

4. Discussion on the risk and uncertainty mitigation via the city-community-building system

4.1. City-community-building system

Integrations of LCEC, GU and GB are realistic, because of evidencein three separated dimensions. Overall, the city-community-building isspatially interdependent. The building is not only the basic unit to sa-tisfy people's numerous living requirements, but also essential parts ofcommunities and cities. Reversely, communities and cities are indis-pensable backgrounds fulfilling people's requirements in wider scopes.Communities are composed of various functional buildings and openspaces, allowing people to realize residential, education, healthcare,transport, commercial activities. Cities include distinct function-or-iented communities, e.g., industry, resident, business zone, entertain-ment area, maintaining sound operation and ensuring citizens' re-quirements in housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, andcommunication through continual input and output of each commu-nity. For Caofeidian Eco-city, it cannot ensure what communities ba-sically require, like commuting, medical care, education, employmentand social security, resulting in most people leaving (Joss, Cowley, &Tomozeiu, 2013). Sustainability at different urban scales is also inter-dependent. City sustainability is always implemented based on politicalwill and commitment (Yin et al., 2016), which can strategically providecontexts for community and building sustainability. This creates thestrong certainty for sustainability transitions, which can lower the in-stability and uncertainty of GU and GB promotion, especially for theirprohibitive costs and investments. Building and community sustain-ability are much more achievable, being the micro-drivers to stabilize

city sustainability. Moreover, the assessment system at city scale coverswider scopes than those at community and building scales, such asemployment, atmospheric environment, sea-water desalination, urbanbiodiversity, circular economy, social influences and housing afford-ability. Nevertheless, the LCEC assessment system has mainly focusedon master items without particular clauses, while community andbuilding assessment systems have offered technical provisions to in-struct how to achieve them concretely.

4.2. LCEC transitions at the city scale

Around the world, numerous SIs at different urban scales have beenproposed with considerable investments and efforts. However, becauseof the complex and intricate risks and uncertainties, it is difficult toundoubtedly achieve the success of LCEC projects. Akin to Dongtan Eco-city of Chongming Island in Shanghai and Caofeidian Eco-city inTangshan of China, the Songdo International Business District inIncheon of Korea, Masdar City in Abu Dhabi of UAE and Babcock Ranchin Florida of the United States are criticized as failure cases (Chang &Sheppard, 2013; Joss & Molella, 2013; Sze, 2015). To achieve the LCECsuccess, its connections between SIs at community and building scalesshould be strengthened. The certainties at the lower scales can flow upto the city scale, enhancing the certainties of LELC. The LCEC can bedivided into three categories (1) A city built from scratch, i.e. Caofei-dian Eco-city and Dongtan Eco-city; (2) Expansion of existing urbanarea, i.e. a new district or neighborhood, i.e. Rizhao Eco-city andSSTEC; (3) Retrofitting development, namely sustainability innovation/adaption within existing urban infrastructure, i.e. Sino-French WuhanEcological Demonstration City (Joss, 2010).

Table 4Comparison of SIs in economy criterions.

Criterion Similarities Differences

LCEC GU GB LCEC GU GB

Employment Workers (Employment)

Research anddevelopment

Sustainabletechnology

Greentechnology

Performance improvementand innovation

Scientists and Engineers Students

Environmental impacts Carbon auditing Carbon analysis Carbon emission per GDPunit

Carbon emission intensity

Circular economy Economic analysis Economic development ofadjacent areas

Energy efficiency and buildingperformance

Based on KPIF-SSTEC (for LCEC), CSUS/GBC 04-2013 (for GU) and GB/T 50378-2014 (for GB).

Table 5Comparison of SIs in society criterions.

Criterion Similarities Differences

LCEC GU GB LCEC GU GB

Transport Public transport, cycling Public transport Public transport, cycling Public participation Campus and gatelocation

Gate and parkinglocation

Housing quality Land use area per capita Land use area per capita

Affordable housing ratioHousing and incomebalance

Culture Historical and culturalheritage

Historical and culturalheritage

Historical and culturalheritage

Social influence Surrounding areaenvironment

Surroundingcommunity

Based on KPIF-SSTEC (for LCEC), CSUS/GBC 04-2013 (for GU) and GB/T 50378-2014 (for GB).

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

90

For the newly-constructed cities, with the supervision of the na-tional and local government, the pursuit of economic development andthe application of technologies are somewhat the primary principles (Ji,Li, & Jones, 2017). However, political will and commitment highlightthe risks and uncertainties in social aspects. The government must firstgive higher priorities to social problems, in building attractive com-munities and buildings and improving public participation, precisely byproviding inhabitants with sound residential, educational, medical,social security, etc. Only when all people are well-settled can a newlyconstructed survive. However, the political will and commitment areless significant in many other countries, while the stakeholders’ en-vironmental choices may be resisted by the general public, which turnsinto other risks and uncertainties hindering the sustainability transi-tions (Yin et al., 2016). From this perspective, buildings and commu-nities are still required to maintain the city stability. Although DongtanEco-city was infinitely postponed due to a wide range of reasons, ithighlighted the significance of constructing attractive residential placewith westernized communities and buildings, which received positiveresponses from domestic residents and labors. It seems to see the dawnwhen Chongming island pursues future industrial development (Chang& Sheppard, 2013). For the case of SSTEC, new settlers are concernedabout good conditions of accommodation, excellent value of GBs aswell as high quality of education for the next generation. More im-portantly, these advantages have offset negative impacts of incompletedevelopment of basic facilities (Flynn, Yu, Feindt, & Chen, 2016). Forthe expansion or the retrofitting development, the LCEC undergo alower failure possibility because the already existing buildings andcommunities may be reluctant to change. The primary consideration atthis moment lies in how to incubate the social innovation in buildingand community contexts, following which some other performanceslike environmental friendliness, economic benefits and resource effi-ciency can be then considered.

4.3. GU transitions at the community scale

The campaign for campus sustainability has been launched by manyuniversities and schools around the world. It is indicated that thiscampaign at a community level suggests the significant benefits of en-vironmental, economic, societal and health aspects (Alshuwaikhat &Abubakar, 2008). However, the political, financial and operating risksand uncertainties have discouraged the GU transitions. According to theintegration of the city-community-building system, on the one hand,the GU can receive the delivery of governmental policies and financialsupports from the top; on the other hand, the can be consolidated by theGB at the bottom. In cities that have implemented LCEC, the GU at thecommunity scale witness abundant opportunities to develop. A soundeducation resource which is concerned by inhabitants, not only dependson teachers’ experience and ability to teach students knowledge butalso relies on a well-performed environment (Zhao et al., 2015a). Directenvironmental and resource performances, as well as indirect economicand social benefits, are of vital importance, since the dual roles ofuniversities in supporting students daily living and shaping their be-haviors towards sustainability. The improved investments from gov-ernments is a trusted tool to practically boost newly constructing ormostly retrofitting GU. Overall, the expected LCEC transitions bring theGU with solid investments, reinforced political will and commitment.

In operation, GU transitions encounters the risks and uncertaintiesincluding the lack of operational readiness, environmental awareness,lack of interest towards environmental improvements, restricted urbanspaces for waste disposal and new and more energy efficient buildings,and poor collaborations among universities (Dahle & Neumayer, 2001;Leal Filho et al., 2017). In the city-community-building system, theconstruction of LCEC receive the various governmental priorities, sothat the LCEC can transfer these priorities to the GU at the communitylevel. The open seminars and public advertising televisions that aregenerally held for LCEC dissemination can enhance university

stakeholders’ awareness and interests towards environmental im-provements (Bai et al., 2009). A city-level advocation can also en-courage the formation of GU alliance, and the GU are readily receivingthe priority of land appropriation. In parallel, the GB implementation incampuses that makes the rhetoric to action is actually the start of ra-dical innovations, overcoming the obstacle of lack of operationalreadiness. Meanwhile, GBs are pilots that can deliver the informationand knowledge of sustainability to stakeholders, increasing the intereststowards environmental improvements.

4.4. GB transitions at the building scale

At present, GB is one of the most important initiatives to achieve thesustainable development, through minimizing buildings' impacts on theenvironment, improving returns to developers and local communityand improving occupants’ health conditions in the building life cycle(Robichaud & Anantatmula, 2010). In the city-community-buildingsystem, the building is the minimum physical unit of a city, its con-struction, operation and maintenance seem to be a process of socio-economic metabolism, consuming energy, water and materials, andthen consequently producing a series of solid, liquid and gaseouswastes. Compared with SIs at community and city scales, buildings arethe incubation rooms to realize sustainability transitions.

When including GB construction into GU and LCEC implementation,the political will and commitment and financial investments at theupper scale can flow to the lowest one. This can further enhance theoperation of GB in practice. For GU, the operation of green campusdesign delivers its sustainability philosophy to the building scale, suchas the improvement of indoor air quality, the removal of toxic materialsfrom places where children learn and play, the improvement of class-room acoustics, the encouragement of waste management, etc. (Zhao,He, Johnson, & Mou, 2015b). For LCEC, the compulsory specification ofconstructing in SSTEC has been a successful experiment to promote GBtransitions. The governmental investments and financial incentives areessential to alleviate uncertainties and risks of GB market, to persuadestakeholders to choose GBs and to enable scientists and researchers todevelop new energy efficient technologies (Zhou, He, & Williams,2014). Meanwhile, private-sector investors are suggested to participatein GB market, in a stable context of LCEC construction. This is con-ducive to realize the smooth transition of building market from con-ventional one to green one (Khanna, Fridley, & Hong, 2014). Moreover,the sufficient financial investments and strong political support canhelp overcome the risks and uncertainties in other aspects includingpromotion, market, integration, technical, environmental and cost es-timate. For instance, there have been many arguments on the technical,economic, environmental and social performance of existing GB pro-jects, the GB number and popularity of GB are still increasing for itssustainability transitions (Darko et al., 2018; Khoshbakht, Gou, Lu, Xie,& Zhang, 2018; Zhao et al., 2015b).

4.5. Assessment standards for city-community-building integration

The LCEC assessment standard comprehensively decides environ-mental, resource, energy and societal indicators at a master level, whileGU and GB assessment systems focus more on technical issues in re-source and energy aspects. There are many commonalities among as-sessment systems of LCEC, GU and GB. For resource, non-traditionalwater, public green land, land protection and renewable energy havebeen all considered in LCEC, GU and GB. For the environment, waterquality, pollutant control, solid waste recycling, water control, noisecontrol and public service are required by all SIs. These commonalitiesare beneficial to upscale or downscale successful experiments acrossdifferent scales. On water management, for example, the political willand commitment and financial investments can be easily conveyedfrom the top to down, while the operation at the lower scale can spurthe transitions of the upper one. Since the assessment standards are the

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

91

most instructive guidelines for the LCEC, GU and GB implementation,the integration of assessment standards of these SIs can further practi-cally facilitate the dynamic flows among different urban scales. Theintegrative ‘overlaps’ provide the breach to manage and further miti-gate the risks and uncertainties in sustainability transitions (Mangla,Kumar, & Barua, 2014).

However, there are still many differences among these three SIs. GUand GB have only defined urban heat island and natural ventilation.The local vegetation coverage in LCEC is the most characteristic, dif-ferent from GU and GB. For economy, sustainable technologies havebeen required by all projects, and both LCEC and GB have requiredcarbon auditing and economic development. Most importantly, LCECemphasizes providing more employment opportunities and scientistsand engineers’ attendance of research and development. In societyscenario, the LCEC initiative focuses on improving public participationin green transport, while GU and GB technically suggest locations ofentrance and parking. Furthermore, some leakages exist, which may actas risks and uncertainties deterring the formation of the city-campus-building system. In SSTEC assessment standard, only the success tips ofhousing affordability and living conditions are considered, while theeducation clause has not been reflected. The social community clause,e.g. health care and social security, has also not been included. Othersocial issues, like how to improve low-paid workers living quality andwhat people can do for these migrant labors after they have made ex-ceptional contributions to SSTEC (Caprotti, 2014), are still quite com-plicated to resolve.

Nevertheless, this study has yielded some implications for LCECassessment standard. First, the social aspect should be highlighted tocater to inhabitants' requirements, i.e. residency, health care, educa-tion, employment, social security, living quality. Second, clauses on GUand GB should be included, since these clauses can give extra supportsto sustainability transitions at community and building scales. For GUassessment standard, an improved version should be issued, since cur-rent one shares so many similarities with GB/T 50378-2014.Communities should have wider scopes and more functions thanbuildings. Student-related clauses should be added, such as students’sustainable awareness, participation and actual behaviors. GB shouldplay more roles in stabilizing LCEC by improving living conditions(Flynn et al., 2016). To deepen sustainable level, assessment standardcan include social clauses like enhancement of sustainable knowledgeof building users. To stimulate GB technologies adoption, a clause toassess the number of innovative technologies employed can be furtherincluded.

5. Conclusions

Promoting sustainable development through specific SIs has beenvery popular all over the world, while how to overcome emerging risksand uncertainties during the promotion is still under consideration. Thispaper has examined integrations among LCEC, GU and GB in the con-text of China, corresponding to the city, community and building scales.A city has potentials to strategically provide stable and specific contextsfor SIs at both community and building scales, while GU and GB canmaintain solidities of city sustainability. The implementation of LCECcan obviously deliver the sufficient financial investments, strong poli-tical will and commitment to GU and GB at the lower levels, whichfurther enthuses the GU and GB operation. The GU and GB imply thestart radical innovations of the LCEC sustainability transitions. Thewell-constructed GU and GB are of significance to enhance the socialstability of LCEC, with more people to settle down, which may reversethe defeat of failed LCEC. To build a robust city-campus-buildingsystem, more efforts should be made to strengthen the linkages of theassessments standards for SIs at diverse levels, although there havebeen many commonalities among LCEC, GU and GB assessment stan-dards. This study has only examined the city-community-buildingsystem based on LCEC, GU and GB, while the integration of LCEC, GU

and GB can also enlighten the understandings of the vertical integrationof SIs at different urban scales.

Acknowledgement

Many thanks go to the support from the Australian GovernmentResearch Training Program.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.10.001.

References

Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campussustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management prac-tices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1777–1785.

Bai, X. (2016). Eight energy and material flow characteristics of urban ecosystems. Ambio,45(7), 819–830.

Bai, X., Roberts, B., & Chen, J. (2010). Urban sustainability experiments in asia: Patternsand pathways. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(4), 312–325.

Bai, X., & Schandl, H. (2010). In D. Ian, D. Goode, M. Houck, & R. Wang (Eds.). Urbanecology and industrial ecology. Handbook of urban ecology (pp. 26–37). .

Bai, X., Surveyer, A., Elmqvist, T., Gatzweiler, F. W., Güneralp, B., Parnell, S., ...Toussaint, J. P. (2016). Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainablecities. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 23, 69–78.

Bai, X., Wieczorek, A. J., Kaneko, S., Lisson, S., & Contreras, A. (2009). Enabling sus-tainability transitions in asia: The importance of vertical and horizontal linkages.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(2), 255–266.

Bolton, R., Foxon, T. J., & Hall, S. (2016). Energy transitions and uncertainty: Creatinglow carbon investment opportunities in the UK electricity sector. Environment andPlanning C: Government and Policy, 34(8), 1387–1403.

Caprotti, F. (2014). Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-SingaporeTianjin eco-city, China. Cities, 36, 10–17.

Chang, I. C. C., & Sheppard, E. (2013). China's eco-cities as variegated1 urban sustain-ability: Dongtan eco-city and Chongming eco-island. Journal of Urban Technology,20(1), 57–75.

CSUS (2013). Evaluation standard for green campus. Beijing: Chinese Society for UrbanStudies.

Dahle, M., & Neumayer, E. (2001). Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A surveyamong higher educational institutions in London, UK. International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, 2(2), 139–160.

Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Ameyaw, E. E., He, B. J., & Olanipekun, A. O. (2017a).Examining issues influencing green building technologies adoption: The United Statesgreen building experts' perspectives. Energy and Buildings, 144, 320–332.

Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Gyamfi, S., Olanipekun, A. O., He, B. J., & Yu, Y. (2017b).Driving forces for green building technologies adoption in the construction industry:Ghanaian perspective. Building and Environment, 125, 206–215.

Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Yang, Y., Shan, M., He, B. J., & Gou, Z. (2018). Influences ofbarriers, drivers, and promotion strategies on green building technologies adoption indeveloping countries: The Ghanaian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200,687–703.

De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015).Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of amultitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of CleanerProduction, 109, 25–38.

Doll, C. N., Dreyfus, M., Ahmad, S., & Balaban, O. (2013). Institutional framework forurban development with co-benefits: The indian experience. Journal of CleanerProduction, 58, 121–129.

Elzen, B., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Transitions towards sustainability through systeminnovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 651–661.

Flynn, A., Yu, L., Feindt, P., & Chen, C. (2016). Eco-cities, governance and sustainablelifestyles: The case of the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City. Habitat International, 53,78–86.

Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.

Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses toseven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40.

Geng, Y., Liu, K., Xue, B., & Fujita, T. (2013). Creating a “green university” in China: Acase of shenyang university. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 13–19.

Gou, Z., & Xie, X. (2017). Evolving green building: Triple bottom line or regenerativedesign? Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 600–607.

Heckmann, I., Comes, T., & Nickel, S. (2015). A critical review on supply chainrisk–Definition, measure and modeling. Omega, 52, 119–132.

He, B., & Zhu, J. (2018). Constructing community gardens? Residents' attitude and be-haviour towards edible landscapes in emerging urban communities of China. UrbanForestry and Urban Greening, 34, 154–165.

Hu, M. C., Wu, C. Y., & Shih, T. (2015). Creating a new socio-technical regime in China:Evidence from the Sino-Singapore Tianjin eco-city. Futures, 70, 1–12.

Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects:

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

92

Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2),89–101.

Jiang, P., Dong, W., Kung, Y., & Geng, Y. (2013). Analysing co-benefits of the energyconservation and carbon reduction in China's large commercial buildings. Journal ofCleaner Production, 58, 112–120.

Ji, Q., Li, C., & Jones, P. (2017). New green theories of urban development in China.Sustainable cities and society, 30, 248–253.

Joss, S. (2010). Eco-cities: A global survey 2009. The sustainable city VI: Urban regenerationand sustainability. Southampton: WIT Press239–250.

Joss, S., Cowley, R., & Tomozeiu, D. (2013). Towards the ‘ubiquitous eco-city’: An ana-lysis of the internationalisation of eco-city policy and practice. Urban Research &Practice, 6(1), 54–74.

Joss, S., & Molella, A. P. (2013). The eco-city as urban technology: Perspectives onCaofeidian international eco-city (China). Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1),115–137.

Kemp, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2007). Assessing the Dutch energy transitionpolicy: How does it deal with dilemmas of managing transitions? Journal ofEnvironmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 315–331.

Khanna, N., Fridley, D., & Hong, L. (2014). China's pilot low-carbon city initiative: Acomparative assessment of national goals and local plans. Sustainable Cities andSociety, 12, 110–121.

Khoshbakht, M., Gou, Z., Lu, Y., Xie, X., & Zhang, J. (2018). Are green buildings moresatisfactory? A review of global evidence. Habitat International, 74, 57–65.

Leal Filho, W., Wu, Y. C. J., Brandli, L. L., Avila, L. V., Azeiteiro, U. M., Caeiro, S., et al.(2017). Identifying and overcoming obstacles to the implementation of sustainabledevelopment at universities. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 14(1),93–108.

Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2014). Flexible decision approach for analysingperformance of sustainable supply chains under risks/uncertainty. Global Journal ofFlexible Systems Management, 15(2), 113–130.

Marszal, A. J., Heiselberg, P., Bourrelle, J. S., Musall, E., Voss, K., Sartori, I., et al. (2011).Zero Energy Building–A review of definitions and calculation methodologies. Energyand Buildings, 43(4), 971–979.

MOHURD (2014). Assessment standard for green building. Beijing: Ministry of Housing andUrban-Rural Development.

Ooi, G. L. (2008). Cities and sustainability: Southeast asian and european perspectives.Asia Europe Journal, 6(2), 193–204.

Osunmuyiwa, O., Biermann, F., & Kalfagianni, A. (2018). Applying the multi-level per-spective on socio-technical transitions to rentier states: The case of renewable energytransitions in Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 20(2), 143–156.

Robichaud, L. B., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Greening project management practices

for sustainable construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(1), 48–57.Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution:

Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31.Shen, L., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, X. (2017). Key factors affecting green procurement in real

estate development: A China study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 372–383.SSTECAC (2008). Key performance indicators framework 2008-2020. Tainjin. Sino-

Singapore Tianjin Eco-city Administrative Committee.Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., Moffatt, S., Yabuki, N., & Maruyama, H. (2010). Eco2 Cities:

Ecological cities as economic cities. World Bank Publications.Sze, J. (2015). Fantasy islands: Chinese dreams and ecological fears in an age of climate crisis.

Univ of California Press.Tan, H., Chen, S., Shi, Q., & Wang, L. (2014). Development of green campus in China.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 646–653.Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., et al. (2015).

Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches toaddress governance challenges. Global Environmental Change, 35, 239–253.

Wu, K. J., Liao, C. J., Tseng, M. L., Lim, M. K., Hu, J., & Tan, K. (2017). Toward sus-tainability: Using big data to explore the decisive attributes of supply chain risks anduncertainties. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 663–676.

Yin, Y., Olsson, A. R., & Håkansson, M. (2016). The role of local governance and en-vironmental policy integration in Swedish and Chinese eco-city development. Journalof Cleaner Production, 134, 78–86.

Yu, L. (2014). Low carbon eco-city: New approach for Chinese urbanisation. HabitatInternational, 44, 102–110.

Zhao, D. X., He, B. J., Johnson, C., & Mou, B. (2015b). Social problems of green buildings:From the humanistic needs to social acceptance. Renewable and Sustainable EnergyReviews, 51, 1594–1609.

Zhao, Z. Q., He, B. J., Li, L. G., Wang, H. B., & Darko, A. (2017). Profile and concentriczonal analysis of relationships between land use/land cover and land surface tem-perature: Case study of shenyang, China. Energy and Buildings, 155, 282–295.

Zhao, D. X., He, B. J., & Meng, F. Q. (2015a). The green school project: A means ofspeeding up sustainable development? Geoforum, 65, 310–313.

Zhou, N., He, G., & Williams, C. (2014). China's development of low-carbon eco-cities andassociated indicator systems. China Energy Group, Energy Analysis & EnvironmentalImpacts Department. Environmental Energy Technologies Division.

Zhou, G., Singh, J., Wu, J., Sinha, R., Laurenti, R., & Frostell, B. (2015). Evaluating low-carbon city initiatives from the DPSIR framework perspective. Habitat International,50, 289–299.

Zhu, J., & Tang, W. (2018). Conflict and compromise in planning decision-making: Howdoes a Chinese local government negotiate its construction land quota with higher-level governments? Environment and Urbanization, 30(1), 155–174.

B.-J. He et al. Habitat International 82 (2018) 83–93

93