V. RESULTS
5.2 Scores of Indicator Performance
In this section, the performance of indicator scores are assessed in two aspects, including the breadth score and depth score. The results are developed and analyzed based on different categories as follows.
5.2.1 Category of Factual Basis
As shown in Figure 5-4, for the breadth score, the lowest breadth score is only 0.07, belonging to the indicator of Awareness of GHG emission. This means that few local jurisdictions are aware of GHG emission. Besides indicator of Awareness of GHG emission, there are five indicators that are scored less than 0.50. And only indicator of Inventory of energy consumption and resources is scored higher than 0.50. This means that merely more than half number of LCPs address this indicator.
Figure 5- 4: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicators in
For the depth scores of indicators in
is 0.97, belonging to the indicator of energy consumption and resources.
which are the indicator of Importance of Awareness of state mandates/guidelines on the category of Factual Basis
emission.
About the indicator performance, the highest which belongs to the indicator of
covering more than 75 percent of maximum score. performance is 0.82, belonging to
1.1.1. Inventory of Energy consumption and 1.1.2. Importance of EE 1.1.3. Awareness of state 1.1.4. Awareness of GHG emission
1.1.5. Energy utility Inventory 1.2.1. Prediction of future energy 1.2.2. Projection of population growth
: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicators in Category of Factual Basis
For the depth scores of indicators in the category of Factual Basis, the highest is 0.97, belonging to the indicator of energy utility and indicator of inventory
and resources. There are two more indicators that scored higher than 0.90, of Importance of energy efficiency and the
mandates/guidelines on energy efficiency. The lowest depth
of Factual Basis is 0.75, belonging to the indicator of Awareness of GHG
About the indicator performance, the highest score of indicator performance is 1.52, which belongs to the indicator of inventory of energy consumption and resources,
rcent of maximum score. The lowest score performance is 0.82, belonging to indicator of GHG emission.
0.55 0.48 0.37 0.07 0.25 0.32 0.43 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.75 0.97 0.76 0.83 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 1.1.1. Inventory of Energy consumption and …
1.1.2. Importance of EE 1.1.3. Awareness of state … 1.1.4. Awareness of GHG emission
1.1.5. Energy utility Inventory 1.2.1. Prediction of future energy … 1.2.2. Projection of population growth
Breadth Depth
of Factual Basis, the highest depth score inventory of energy here are two more indicators that scored higher than 0.90, the indicator of depth score in indicator of Awareness of GHG performance is 1.52, and resources, of indicator 1.80 2.00
5.2.2 Category of Goals and Objectives
There are four indicators in the
of indicators, according to the Figure 5
belongs to the indicator of controlling GHG emission, covering less than 20 percent of maximum score. The highest
indicator of Promoting energy conservation.
Figure 5- 5: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicators in
The depth scores of all four indicators are higher than 0.90, which means all the indicators are fully addressed
indicator of promoting energy conservation same score of 0.91.
The performance scores of four indicator in this category highest score is 1.76, belonging to
covers more than 80 percent of maximum score. indicator of Controlling GHG emission.
2.1. Promoting EC 2.2. Increasing renewable energy use 2.3. controling GHG emission 2.4. Developing compact urban form
5.2.2 Category of Goals and Objectives
the category of Goals and Objectives. For the breadth scores s, according to the Figure 5-5, the lowest breadth score is only 0.18, which of controlling GHG emission, covering less than 20 percent of maximum score. The highest score of indicator performance is 0.80, belonging to
r of Promoting energy conservation.
: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicators in Category of Goals and Objectives
The depth scores of all four indicators are higher than 0.90, which means all the fully addressed in LCPs. The highest depth score is 0.96, belonging to
energy conservation. And the other three indicator
The performance scores of four indicator in this category are all higher than highest score is 1.76, belonging to indicator of Promoting energy conservation
covers more than 80 percent of maximum score. The lowest score is 1.09, belonging to of Controlling GHG emission. 0.80 0.48 0.18 0.58 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.1. Promoting EC
2.2. Increasing renewable energy use 2.3. controling GHG emission 2.4. Developing compact urban form
Breadth Depth
of Goals and Objectives. For the breadth scores is only 0.18, which of controlling GHG emission, covering less than 20 percent of performance is 0.80, belonging to the
of Goals and Objectives
The depth scores of all four indicators are higher than 0.90, which means all the is 0.96, belonging to . And the other three indicators receive the
higher than 1.00. The energy conservation, which he lowest score is 1.09, belonging to
5.2.3 Category of Policies and Strategies
The breadth and depth scores of indicator performance in the category of Policies and Strategies are shown in Figure 5-6. For the breadth scores, the top three indicators with lowest breadth scores in the category of Policies and Strategies are the indicator of green infrastructure, indicator of density bonuses, and the indicator of carbon tax credits. The lowest breadth score of indicator performance in the category of Policies and Strategies is only 0.06, belonging to the indicator of green infrastructure. The top three indicators with highest breadth scores in the category of Policies and Strategies are the indicator of urban bicycling/pedestrian development, indicator of energy-oriented zoning/subdivision, indicator of energy-efficient/alternative energy transportation.
For the depth scores of indicator performance in this category, the lowest depth score is 0.82, belonging to the indicator of flexible street design. The highest depth score is 0.95, belonging to the indicator of carbon tax/credits and the indicator of public facility efficiency.
For the indicator performance scores as shown in Table 5-7, only two indicators are scored lower than 1.00, both of which are 0.88. The two indicators are the indicator of green infrastructure and the indicator of density bonuses. The highest indicator performance score in this category is 1.70, belonging to the indicator of urban bicycling pedestrian development, which covers about 85 percent of maximum score that one indicator can get. Six indicators’ performance scores are higher than or equal to 1.50,
which covers 75 percent of maximum score. And about 13 indicators’ performance scores are higher than or equal to 1.00, and lower than 1.50.
(* means SG indicators)
Figure 5- 6: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicators in
3.1.1. Promoting renewable energy utilization* 3.1.2. Energy resource assessment* 3.2.1. Mixed land
3.2.3. Energy-oriented zoning /Subdivision standards* 3.2.4. Control of urban growth boundary 3.2.5. High density development* 3.3.1. Transit
3.3.2. Energy-efficient / alternative energy transportation 3.3.3. Urban bicycling/pedestrian development 3.4.1. Energy-efficient building codes/standards* 3.4.2. Energy efficiency design, construction and operation* 3.5.1. Environmental impact management* 3.5.2. Waste recycling management/programs* 3.7.2. Incentives for renewable energy usage/EE*
3 .1 E n e rg y R e so u rc e s 3 .2 L a n d U se 3 .3 T ra n sp o rt a ti o n 3 .4 U rb a n & B u il d i n g D e si g n 3 .5 E n vi ro n m e n t 3 .6 In fr a st r u ct u re & P u b li c F a ci li ti e s 3 .7 F in a n ci a l P ro g ra m s
: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicators in Category of Policies and Strategies
0.70 0.22 0.38 0.65 0.42 0.72 0.50 0.45 0.47 0.72 0.77 0.18 0.58 0.52 0.35 0.57 0.05 0.47 0.17 0.32 0.08 0.92 0.87 0.84 0.90 0.87 0.86 0.82 0.91 0.89 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.87 0.80 0.00 0.40 0.80
3.1.1. Promoting renewable energy utilization* 3.1.2. Energy resource assessment* 3.1.3. Locational efficiency 3.2.1. Mixed land-use/Cluster development* 3.2.2. Infill development* oriented zoning /Subdivision standards* 3.2.4. Control of urban growth boundary 3.2.5. High density development* 3.3.1. Transit-oriented development* efficient / alternative energy transportation 3.3.3. Urban bicycling/pedestrian development 3.3.4. Flexible Street design efficient building codes/standards* 3.4.2. Energy efficiency design, construction and operation* 3.5.1. Environmental impact management* 3.5.2. Waste recycling management/programs* 3.6.1. Green infrastructure 3.6.2. Public facility efficiency 3.7.1. Carbon tax/credicts 3.7.2. Incentives for renewable energy usage/EE* 3.7.3. Density Bonuses Breadth Depth 0.93 0.91 0.88 0.87 0.93 0.91 0.93 1.20 1.60 2.00
5.2.4 Category of Coordination and Education
Associated with the indicators in
breadth score of indicator performance is 0.55 (Figure 5
inter-organization/governmental communication/coordination. The other four indicators in this category are scored lower than 0.50.
the indicator of coordinating with private sectors. This means that about four fifth of selected LCPs do not mention
local energy efficiency.
About the depth scores of indicators in this category, organization/governmental communication/coordination maximum score. This means that LCPs mentioning this this indicator. The lowest depth
other plans/programs.
Figure 5- 7: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicator Performance in Education
4.1. Integration with other plans/programs 4.3. Inter-organization/governmental
4.4. Conflict management 4.5. Coordinating with Private Sectors
5.2.4 Category of Coordination and Education
Associated with the indicators in the category of Coordination and Education, the highest performance is 0.55 (Figure 5-7), belonging to the
/governmental communication/coordination. The other four indicators lower than 0.50. The lowest breadth score is 0.23, belonging to of coordinating with private sectors. This means that about four fifth of
mention about the coordination with private sectors to
About the depth scores of indicators in this category, the indicator
/governmental communication/coordination is scored as 1.00, which is the score. This means that LCPs mentioning this indicator have fully addressed depth score is 0.86, belonging to indicator of integration with
: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicator Performance in Category of Coordination and
0.48 0.42 0.55 0.35 0.23 0.86 0.90 1.00 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60
4.1. Integration with other plans/programs 4.2. Public … organization/governmental … 4.4. Conflict management 4.5. Coordinating with Private Sectors
Breadth Depth
d Education, the highest the indicator of /governmental communication/coordination. The other four indicators is 0.23, belonging to of coordinating with private sectors. This means that about four fifth of about the coordination with private sectors to promote
indicator of inter- as 1.00, which is the
have fully addressed of integration with
of Coordination and
According to Table 5-8, the lowest
Coordination and Education is 1.16, belonging to private sectors. The highest
indicator of inter-organization
5.2.5 Category of Implementation and Monitoring
Figure 5- 8: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicator Performance in Monitoring
There are six indicators in the
scores of indicator performance, all the six indicators indicator, identification of costs or
The highest score is 0.23. And two indicators lowest breadth score is 0.07, belonging to measurable timelines.
About the depth scores of indicator
depth scores higher than 0.90, which are 5.1. Prioritization for actions with
5.2. Designating responsibilities of local 5.3. Identification of costs or fundings 5.4. Schedule of regular plan updates and
5.5. Tracking energy consumption on 5.6. Establishing an ongoing information
8, the lowest score of indicator performance in the
Coordination and Education is 1.16, belonging to the indicator of coordinating with he highest score of indicator performance is 1.55, belonging to organization/governmental communication/coordination.
5.2.5 Category of Implementation and Monitoring
: Breadth and Depth Scores of Indicator Performance in Category of Implementation and
the category of Implementation and Monitoring. For breadth performance, all the six indicators receive low scores. Only one
of costs or funding, receives the breadth score higher tha
The highest score is 0.23. And two indicators are scored lower than or equal to 0.10. The is 0.07, belonging to indicator of prioritization for actions with
indicator performance in this category, three indicators
scores higher than 0.90, which are the indicator of establishing an ongoing 0.07 0.10 0.23 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.75 0.92 0.75 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60
5.1. Prioritization for actions with … 5.2. Designating responsibilities of local … 5.3. Identification of costs or fundings 5.4. Schedule of regular plan updates and …
5.5. Tracking energy consumption on … 5.6. Establishing an ongoing information …
Breadth Depth
the category of of coordinating with performance is 1.55, belonging to the
of Implementation and
of Implementation and Monitoring. For breadth low scores. Only one score higher than 0.20. lower than or equal to 0.10. The of prioritization for actions with
in this category, three indicators receive of establishing an ongoing
information database for monitoring, indicator of tracking energy consumption on different levels, and indicator of designation responsibilities of local governments. The indicator of designation responsibilities of local governments is scored 0.92, which is the highest depth score in this category. Two indicators are scored lower than 0.80, which are the indicator of identification of costs or funding and indicator of prioritization for actions with measurable timelines.
Two indicators receive performance scores lower than 1.00. The lowest indicator performance score is 0.82, belonging to the indicator of prioritization for actions with measurable timelines, covering about 40 percent of maximum performance score that one indicator can receive. The highest performance score is 1.09, belonging to indicator of tracking energy consumption on different levels and indicator of establishing an ongoing information database for monitoring.