Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Using comparative socio-ecological modeling to support Climate

Action Planning (CAP)
Haozhi Pan a, c, Jessica Page b, Le Zhang c, Si Chen d, **, Cong Cong e, Georgia Destouni b,
Zahra Kalantari b, *, Brian Deal c
a
School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
b
Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, Sweden
c
Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
d
Illinois Informatics Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
e
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We present a comparative socio-ecological modeling approach to identify possible improvement op-
Received 28 March 2019 portunities for Climate Action Plans (CAPs), focusing on two cities, Chicago and Stockholm. The aim is to
Received in revised form provide a tool for capturing and addressing deep-rooted behavioral and institutional preferences that
12 May 2019
may aggravate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in cities. Socio-economic activities, land use change, and
Accepted 24 May 2019
future urban forms are considered and forecast to the year 2040 on 30m
30m spatial grids. GHG
Available online 27 May 2019
emissions associated with these urban development aspects are calculated and compared between the
cities. Innovative policy instruments for growth control and zoning (GCZ) are simulated and tested
Keywords:
Greenhouse gas emissions
through the socio-ecological model, to determine their effectiveness when added to other interventions
Climate action planning included in the CAPs. Our findings show that behavioral/institutional preference for sprawl, its low-
Socio-ecological modeling density form, and resultant carbon sink losses are main factors driving current and future residential
Land use and transportation GHG emissions in Chicago. GCZ policies are shown to counteract and mitigate around
Urban planning 20% of these factors in the form of future GHG emissions.
Comparative urban study © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction can overcome the barriers to behavioral change in energy use,

Behavioral nudging is receiving increasing attention for
reducing carbon emissions (Iyer et al., 2015; Millard-Ball, 2012; C.
Wang et al., 2019; Weidema et al., 2019). In behavioral economics, a
nudge affects behavior in a predictable way without a change in
economic incentive (Bhargava and Loewenstein, 2015). This is in
contrast to plans and policies, which are deliberate attempts to
change behavior through regulation or long-term restructuring of
incentives, which have been shown to have significant impacts on
carbon emissions (Dietz et al., 2009; Fuldauer et al., 2019; Huo et al.,
2019; Watson, 2012). Stern (1986) show that policy interventions
* Corresponding author. Inst fo € r naturgeografi, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.
** Corresponding author. Room 68, 1301 W Gregory Dr, Urbana, IL, 60801, USA.
E-mail addresses: hpan@illinois.edu (H. Pan), jessica.page@natgeo.su.se (J. Page),
lezhang3@illinois.edu (L. Zhang), sichen12@illinois.edu (S. Chen), ccong2@illinois.
edu (C. Cong), georgia.destouni@natgeo.su.se (G. Destouni), zahra.kalantari@
natgeo.su.se (Z. Kalantari), deal@illinois.edu (B. Deal).
while Millard-Ball (2012) and Shove (2010) describe how they can
alter social environmental attitudes and preferences toward
climate change. Cities, as major sources of carbon emissions, are
main targets for mitigation policy intervention (Anguelovski and
Carmin, 2011; X.-C. Wang et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018). This pa-
per focuses on climate action plans (CAPs) as key urban policy and
planning drivers for changing behaviors towards mitigation of
climate impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in cities.
CAPs have been an effective tool for stimulating climate
awareness and propelling collective motivation into action on a city
scale (Aall et al., 2007; Holgate, 2007). Numerous cities have
developed a CAP, including major international hubs such as Syd-
ney, New York, Chicago, Barcelona, Stockholm, Mexico City, Bogota,
and Curitiba (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Bassett and Shandas,
2010). Most CAPs are highly visible and aim to promote emissions
mitigation via policy implementation (Millard-Ball, 2012; Bassett
and Shandas, 2010). However, existing CAP formulations require
two notable improvements: a better-defined (and repeatable)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.274
0959-6526/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42
methodological norm (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Hamin and
Gurran, 2009); and a better understanding of the contextual dif-
ferences between places (Glaeser and Kahn, 2010; Millard-Ball,
2012). Developing a common methodological framework and un-
derstanding the site-specific conditions can help cities achieve
effectiveness in their policy implementations (Iyer et al., 2015) and
move beyond the current generic CAP approach (Birkmann et al.,
2010; Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010). This paper examines
whether an innovative comparative approach can significantly
improve CAPs for cities and provide deeper methodological insights
into further CAP developments.
A comparative approach is increasingly important as new forms
of urbanization unfold around the world, challenging inherited
conceptions of cities as bounded and universally generalizable
(McFarlane and Robinson, 2012; Brenner and Schmid, 2015).
However, a common failing in comparative urban analysis is that
the end-result is a parallel description of differences between cities,
without providing novel contextual insights on policy effectiveness.
To address this, we extend comparative urban methods by devel-
oping a comparative socio-ecological modeling framework. Socio-
ecological modeling is an emerging paradigm in complex urban
systems and sustainability policies (Pan et al., 2019, 2018b;
Urbaniec et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2019). It can help
reveal the complexity of environmental consequences in large ur-
ban systems (Kalantari et al., 2017; Keesstra et al., 2018; Mo €rtberg
et al., 2017), and can also (at least) partly uncover causal relation-
ships and feedbacks between system components (Pan et al.,
2018b; Engstro € m et al., 2017; 2019). In the process of construct-
ing socio-ecological models, data collection, data manipulation, and
model calibration can reveal deep-rooted behavioral preferences,
socio-economic functions, urban structure, and core development
patterns. The inclusion of comparative analysis can help address
one common shortcoming of the socio-ecological approach, that of
being overly context-specific (Pan et al., 2019), which prevents
useful and easy application to different sites.
This work combines comparative urban science and socio-
ecological modeling approaches to investigate possible improve-
ments to current CAPs in two cities, Chicago and Stockholm. Socio-
economic activities are accounted for through consideration of
official planning policies and forecasts of land use changes induced
by socio-economic activities, urban agglomeration, and sprawl.
GHG emissions are calculated based on land use type, use, and
intensity, along with transportation and offset potential. GHG
values modeled are compared with values estimated in official
CAPs that use conventional GHG emissions compilation methods.
Comparative analyses are conducted first by comparing forecast
GHG emissions and sources, and then by comparing calibrated
parameters in the socio-ecological models applied to the two cities.
These comparisons are connected, because analyzing differences in
the parameters (transportation networks, employment locations,
natural amenities) that affect urban growth can improve under-
standing of why GHG emissions differ between the cities and which
policies may be effective for emissions mitigation in each city.
The research questions addressed in this paper can be summa-
rized thus: 1) Can socio-ecological modeling and model calibration
reveal deep-rooted differences in the development patterns of the
two cities? 2) Can these models be used to reveal the aggregated
climate impacts (GHG emissions, carbon sink losses) of urban land
use changes? 3) Can model comparison also explain differences in
development patterns and their climate impacts? and 4) How
effective are innovative policy instruments in mitigating GHG
emissions in each of the two cities? There are three main scientific
contributions of this work. First, the comprehensive socio-
ecological model can improve assessment of GHG emissions im-
pacts of urban land use changes in a city by determining growth in
31
residential buildings (especially single-family houses) as main
sources of GHG emissions (Wang et al., 2018; Yang and Zhang,
2016), and the emissions implications of associated changes in
transportation and travel demand (Hankey and Marshall, 2010),
and carbon sink losses. Second, the modeling framework can test
whether CAP assumptions are applicable to disparate cities and
identify key differences in GHG emissions. Third, it can reveal
causal relationships between socio-economic activities and
resulting GHG emissions in CAPs, leading to improved policy for-
mation and implementation.
The remainder of this paper is organized into four sections.
Section 2 provides a short problem background based on previous
studies in the literature on: a) compiling CAPs, b) constructing
socio-ecological models, and c) comparative urban study. Section 3
introduces the study area, data, and a socio-ecological modeling
framework, and describes the comparative analysis of Chicago and
Stockholm. Section 4 presents the results of the comparative socio-
ecological modeling and considers how innovative policy in-
struments can be applied in emissions mitigation. Section 5 re-
views the applications, discusses potential improvements, and
suggests next steps in comparative socio-ecological modeling for
CAPs.
2. Related works
2.1. Compiling CAPs
Climate Action Planning has been recognized as a promising
policy and planning tool for decarbonizing cities. CAPs arose as a
way for cities to use legislation to motivate and monitor climate
change mitigation and adaptation actions performed by govern-
ment agencies and by exogenous bodies (such as local businesses
and NGOs) (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). The content of a CAP
can range from broad policies to specific actions and is highly place-
dependent, so it can vary widely between different cities and re-
gions. Some CAPs are very innovative, while others rely on con-
ventional planning techniques and commonly include actions in
the transportation, energy, waste (emissions) management, and
land use sectors (Bassett and Shandas, 2010). In a study of CAPs in
885 European cities, Reckien et al. (2018) reveal great variation
between plans, although all focus on climate change mitigation,
climate change adaptation, or both. Studies on the efficacy of CAPs
in reducing the climate change impacts of/on cities have found that
these plans may be helpful in codifying actions, but that they need
improvement to ensure that the actions are significant enough to
have a meaningful climate change impact (Millard-Ball, 2012; Stone
et al., 2012).
Local climate (Phylipsen et al., 1998), building technology
(Williams et al., 2012), ordinances (Deangelo and Harvey, 1998),
types of energy sources (Panwar et al., 2011), and economic struc-
tures (Wood, 2009) are considered the most important factors
affecting GHG emissions in cities. One commonly overlooked factor
is how urbanization and land use change associated with socio-
economic behaviors and choices can affect carbon emissions.
Existing CAPs consider GHG emissions associated with aggregated
population growth (Tian et al., 2016), residential building stock
increase (Yang and Zhang, 2016), and establishment of new in-
dustries (Yu et al., 2019). However, GHG emissions inventories and
forecasts generally neglect three aspects of land use change and
urban form change associated with urbanization: carbon sink los-
ses, sprawl in low-density housing, and associated extension of
transportation networks. Carbon sink losses associated with the
expansion of built-up areas and urban land cover change have a
large impact on overall urban emissions (Han et al., 2017; Seto and
Shepherd, 2009). Han et al. (2017) report a significant increase in
32 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42
loss of carbon sinks associated with fast urbanization in the Yangtze
River Delta, China. Changes in household numbers also impact GHG
emissions greatly in urban areas. As non-nuclear and non-
traditional families increase, the number of physical dwellings
associated with each family also rises. Studies in the USA, including
those by Song and Knaap (2004) and Irwin and Bockstael (2007),
report sharp increases in single-family house construction without
increases in population, resulting in higher GHG emissions per
capita. Transportation emissions increase with a more sprawling
urban form. There are many studies describing urban form-
influenced increases in vehicle-kilometers traveled (VKT) in ur-
ban areas (Cervero and Murakami, 2010; Ewing et al., 2008; Liu and
Shen, 2011). For example, Hankey and Marshall (2010) and Liu and
Shen (2011) show that growth in transportation emissions in the
USA is largely induced by low-density growth. Socio-ecological
models can help explain how complicated urban spatial changes
affect GHG emissions and inform CAPs on growth management and
other planning strategies (Deal et al., 2017b, 2017a; Pan and Deal,
2019). This can help CAPs more effectively mitigate urbanization-
related and human-induced environmental risks and GHG
emissions.
2.2. Constructing socio-ecological models
Interactive modeling of knowledge and processes from these
fields reveals e.g., how human land uses connect to climate and
other environmental change, enhancing the ability to assess the
consequences of various policy scenarios (Pan et al., 2018b). An
integrated system modeling approach using complex systems in-
teractions and impact models that can feed back information to
affect system parameters is the most effective means of revealing
the implications of changing complex urban environments (Pan
et al., 2019). Socio-ecological assessments of ecosystem services
(Goldenberg et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2019) and of hydrology (Pan
et al., 2018b) generally reveal higher levels of resulting environ-
mental impacts than modeling the system parts alone. One iden-
tified shortcoming of the socio-ecological approach is that the
model can be overly context-specific, with low reusability and
transferability across different applications (Banos-Gonzalez et al.,
2015; Hong et al., 2009). This study combines context-heavy
socio-ecological models with comparative analysis techniques to
address this issue.
2.3. Comparative urban studies
Existing evidence on urbanization and land use change-induced
GHG emissions are typically based on case study analysis. It is very
likely that differences in institutional structures, cultural prefer-
ences, and development patterns between regions will result in
different outcomes from similar analyses, so comparative studies
are needed to better assess place-based policy instruments (Davis,
2005). Comparative methods can be an important tool for urban
planners, who need to understand the complexity in both the
physical and social worlds before making policy decisions (Tao
et al., 2019). Brenner and Schmid (2015) point out that densifica-
tion of inter-metropolitan networks, restructuring and reposition-
ing of “hinterlands” of production activities, and spatial extension
of large-scale land use systems are key new forms of urbanization,
and thus that there is a need to develop a new “epistemology” of
cities through comparative studies. Others claim that comparative
methods could lead to more sustainable low-carbon policy solu-
tions (McFarlane, 2010).
An important theoretical debate within the field of comparative
urban studies concerns their generalizability. Brenner and Schmid
(2015) point out that this “urban studies crisis” stems from
uncertainties about the actual sites and focal points of urban the-
ory. McFarlane (2010) raises the dilemma that comparisons be-
tween cities within a country allow sustainability strategies to be
compared with constant national factors, but fail to reveal multi-
scale structural factors that lead to changes. This dilemma is also
noted by Amelang (2007) and Scott and Storper (2015), who point
out the difficulty in avoiding exaggerating the scope of urban the-
ory and in assuming that every individual city is an irreducible
special case. To address these issues, McFarlane and Robinson
(2012) present a set of methods for comparisons between
different cities, including: tracing a connection between different
locations, exploring the replication of similar phenomena across
different contexts, and comparing similar or different outcomes
across more than one city. Zhong and Li (2016) and Xiao et al. (2018)
apply a similar methodological framework to show that transit
projects have opposing outcomes on urban developments for
Chongqing and Barcelona. These previous contributions highlight
the necessity of a generalizable method framework for comparative
urban studies that can also fit to contextual specificities. Some
other limitations of comparative studies include lack of systematic
methods (McFarlane and Robinson, 2012), lack of operational re-
sults for policy makers and planners (Urbaniec et al., 2018), and
failure to combine social and natural (environmental) sciences to
better inform sustainable development (Watson, 2012).
In this paper, we combine comparative methods with socio-
ecological modeling as a solution to generate scientifically sound
and complexity-considering information that is useful to policy
makers and urban planners from different backgrounds.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Study regions, data, and climate action plans
The two cities of interests of this study are Stockholm and Chi-
cago. The metropolitan Stockholm region (also known as Stor-
Stockholm, hereafter referred to as ‘Stockholm’), is divided into
five areas and several other municipalities in the northern and
southern suburbs. It is the largest urban area in Sweden (6519 km2).
The Chicago metropolitan area (hereafter ‘Chicago’) occupies
10,545 km2 of land within seven counties in the US state of Illinois.
Both cities feature large, complex urban systems and are the hub of
their respective region. Moreover, each city is geographically
defined by its connection and orientation to water. Table 1 presents
a summary of socio-economic data, climate action planning goals,
sources of data, and the variables calibrated and compared in this
study. The goals in Stockholm's CAP include an ambitious
commitment from Stockholm City to become fossil-fuel free by
2040. Chicago is also committed to cutting is current GHG emis-
sions by two-thirds by 2040.
3.2. Method overview
The primary goal of this study is to construct a comparative
socio-ecological model to understand the cause and policy effects
of urban GHG emissions in support of CAPs for Chicago and
Stockholm. This is structured around the systematic data needed to
support the socio-ecological modeling system applied to each city.
Model data provide the foundation for a statistical narrative that
can then be compared to determine causal processes, mechanisms,
and patterns. While it may be impossible to compare complex
systems around any single objective metric, such systems share
elements that allow for objective analysis, making it possible to
apply such analysis to a specific domain, in this case GHG emis-
sions. Complex models require data to be collected in a very specific
way, for a very specific purpose. This process of structured data
 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42 33

Table 1
Overview of study regions, data sources, and calibrated variables used in the analysis.

Stockholm Chicago

Land Area (km2) 6519 10,545

Base Year Population (million)1 2.34 8.50
Projected 2040 Population (million) 3.39 9.88
Base Year GHG Emissions (mtCO2e) 1 7.97 132.00
2040 GHG Emissions Goal (mtCO2e) 0.00 47.00

Data Sources

Data Type Provider Source2 Provider Source

13
Socio-economic TRF Link Permission US Census Link
Land Use Land Survey Authority Zipped files NLCD4 Link
Policy Zoning Stockholm County Council Link CMAP DataHub Link
Emissions Data Official CAP Link Multiple5 Link
Carbon Sink Sources Land Survey Authority Zipped files NLCD Zipped Files

Calibrated Variables

Variable Type Provider Source Provider Source

Population center TRF Link US Census Link

Employment center TRF Link D&B Hoovers Link Permission
Transportation network TRF Link US Census Link
Forest Land Survey Authority Zipped files NLCD Link
Water Land Survey Authority Zipped files NLCD Link

Notes: 1Base year is 2015. Some data do not have exact 2015 values and values for the closest year values are used; 2Data sources provided as: 1) Link: a digital link is provided
with the online version of the manuscript; 2) Permission: a digital link is provided, but additional permission (fees or requests) may be needed to acquire the data; 3) Zipped
files: zipped data files are provided with the online version of the manuscript. 3Growth and Regional Planning Authority (Tillva €xt och regionplanefo
€rvaltningen); 4National Land
Cover Database; 5Multiple sources for Chicago emissions include 2015 Chicago Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Chicago Metropolitan Agency of Planning
(CMAP) Community Data Snapshots, Chicago Transportation Authority (CTA), and CMAP GO TO 2040 Plan.

acquisition and manipulation leads to a deep understanding of how
the components interact in the specific context of the application.
This understanding enables and permits comparisons of compo-
nent between contexts, enhancing real learning about socio-
cultural and socio-physical phenomena.
The comparative socio-ecological model consists of five steps, as
described in more detail in the following sections and illustrated in
Fig. 1. First, data on the relationships between past land use growth
(2000e2010) and current socio-economic and biophysical param-
eters are collected and calibrated. Second (section 3.3), these data
are used, along with official plans in CAPs for the two case cities,
within a complex systems modeling framework (described below)
to forecast locations of future commercial and residential activities
to the year 2040. Third, data on future land use and development
locations for the two cities are used to calculate GHG emissions,
which includes areas with carbon sinks that are converted into
built-up land, types of new building stocks based on zoning and
adjacent development type information, and estimated total VKT,
based on new urban forms and density changes (section 3.4).
Fourth, model results are compared against official CAPs to verify

Fig. 1. Flow chart showing the five steps of the comparative socio-ecological system model.
34 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42
emission protocols and to assess how future spatial and land use
changes would alter GHG emissions forecasts. Five, tests are per-
formed on how innovative policy instruments can mitigate GHG
emissions compared with initial forecasts (section 3.5).
Inter-city comparisons occur in two points in the five-step
process. In step 2, differences in calibrations for the two cities are
compared. Specifically, comparisons are made of functional forms
and parameters that relate socio-economic and biophysical vari-
ables to land use change. This enables comparison of development
patterns and processes across the two cities. It might help address
questions on whether commuting time to job centers has different
influences on residential location choices for Stockholm and Chi-
cago, for example. The second comparison occurs in step 4, when
the outcomes of model forecasts of GHG emissions in both cities are
compared. Official projected population and employment growth
are also compared in this step, in order to normalize the compar-
ison to per capita figures so that per capita emission trends for each
city can be analyzed. The comparison of emission trends is also
connected back to the calibration comparison on development
patterns, to examine how urban development patterns shape GHG
emissions for each city.
3.3. Socio-ecological model
A socio-ecological model is constructed for each study site. In
this study, the Landuse Evolution and Impact Assessment Model
(LEAM) is used to simulate land use change for both cities, with a
base year of 2010 and an end-year set to 2040. Details of the model
construct, calibration, and validation of LEAM are provided in
Supplementary Material S1. Here, we outline the critical model
construct and calibration steps that lead to the comparative studies.
LEAM is a dynamic spatial model based on a mixture of state-
change and cellular automata approaches. It is capable of esti-
mating the probability of future commercial and residential
development at 30m
30m patch level and one-year intervals, as a
result of biophysical and socio-economic factors. Factors influ-
encing the location choices of future developments are defined as
“attractors”. Typically, the development probability of each land
use cell from undeveloped land to developed land is defined as:

 X


Pk;t ¼ f Lk;t g ci;k;t þ N qk;t1 (1)
where Pk;t is the development probability for land use cell k at time
step t; f ðLk;t Þ is the function of land use zoning effect that restricts
or promotes growth on certain types of land for land use cell k at
time step t; ci;k;t is the connectivity of cell k to urban attractor type i;
gð▪Þ is the function of mapping the connectivity value to probability
of land use change; and Nðqk;t1 Þ is the function that converts
number of cells neighboring cell k at time step t 1 to a probability
number. Adding probability to cells neighboring existing de-
velopments can result in a more organic growth pattern according
to Li et al. (2017), and their function of linking number of neigh-
boring cells to probability is referenced in this study. The type of
data and method used to measure connectivity ci;k;t and calibration
and identification of the gð▪Þ function are key in comparative
studies.
Through calibrating both models, the influences of key socio-
economic (population, employment, and transportation) and bio-
physical (forest and water) factors on residential and commercial
development choices are compared. Comparison of calibrations
reveals answers to several questions. For example, both study cities
are characterized by proximity to a large water body, but do com-
mercial and residential developments value proximity to water
differently? Do residential developments value proximity to
locations of job centers (less commuting time), or do they prefer
better natural amenities? And, more simply, do American cities (i.e.,
Chicago) tend to sprawl more than European cities (i.e., Stock-
holm)? The variables (attractors) used for calibration are listed in
Table 1.
Our hypothesis of possible types of gc;i;t ð▪Þ includes polynomial
functions with possible degrees of powers ranging from 1 to 3.
Polynomial functions suggest the coexistence of attraction and
dispersion effects from any attractors to residential and commercial
land use. The mechanisms for this can be determined by examining
the patterns of first- and second-order derivatives. In this study, we
fit all possible functional candidates for each attractor, land use, and
city combination (20 in total). Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) is
used for model selection and calibrated models for the two cities
are cross-compared to determine development pattern differences
between the cities.
3.4. Carbon emissions evaluations based on socio-ecological models
3.4.1. Carbon sinks
We calculate carbon sink losses associated with future land use
changes based on how many land cover cells (on 30m
30m grid)
with originally high-value carbon sinks are forecast to be converted
into urban built-up areas (residential or commercial) by the LEAM
model. The numbers are aggregated to calculate total carbon sink
losses associated with urban growth in each city. Carbon sink maps
are created based on latest available land cover and net primary
productivity data (with data from TRF and the Swedish Land Survey
Authority for Stockholm, and NLCD for Chicago), accounting for six
land cover classes: forest, shrubs, grass, cultivated crops, pastures,
and wetlands (including both woody wetlands and herbaceous
wetlands). For forests, carbon sink values are also assigned
considering different vegetation type and age, given the different
carbon sequestration potential of young and productive forests and
established or naturally occurring forests. The final carbon sink
maps for both cities are uploaded as ‘Supplementary Data’ to this
paper.
3.4.2. Building emissions
We classify new residential developments based on LEAM
spatial-explicit simulations to specific zones, using both historical
density and development pattern information and future official
planning and zoning documents (and maps) to determine probable
density and ‘housing type’. This information is used to assess future
residential building stock growth by ‘type’ and their associated
emissions. For example, new residential growth that occurs in
suburban zones is more likely to be low-density single-family
housing types, while re-developments and infill zones in urbanized
areas are more likely to be high-density multi-family apartment-
type housing.
The household emissions are evaluated for each residential land
use development scenario forecast in each city. CAPs for both cities
are used for projected carbon emissions and energy use from each
building type, to consider local climate, building technological in-
formation, and emissions factors. Density zones (extracted from
RUFS, 2050 for Stockholm and CMAP GO TO, 2040 for Chicago) and
development types are assigned to newly developed residential
buildings using the process described above.
Both the Chicago and Stockholm CAPs assume that new, future
residential GHG emissions are proportional to population growth.
This means that changes in residential GHG emissions in both plans
come only from the implementation of new building technology
and stricter energy standards. In Stockholm, annual energy con-
sumption per square meter drops from 110 to 160 GWh for existing
buildings to 42 GWh for new buildings. In Chicago, annual energy
 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42
consumption per square meter drops from the existing 181 kWh to
79 kWh in new residential buildings.
3.4.3. Transportation emissions
An urban form and density index are calculated to form a new
estimate of transportation emissions. We use the well-developed
method for assessing urban form and transportation (in VKT per
capita) as presented by Hankey and Marshall (2010), recalibrated
using existing population densities and current VKT totals for both
Chicago and Stockholm. The calibrated functional relationship is
then extrapolated to the 2040 LEAM land use forecasts.
3.4.4. Growth management policy simulations
One major advantage of constructing a spatial-explicit socio-
ecological model is the ability to test innovative policy instruments
not explored in conventional CAPs. In this case, we test growth
control and zoning (GCZ) approaches to address the urban form
change-induced emissions not accounted for in the original CAPs.
More specifically, three types of zoning policies are added: 1)
restricted growth in high-value carbon sink areas; 2) restricted
growth in the top 10 percentile areas that induce the most urban
form-related KVTs; and 3) zoning ordinances in suburbs tradi-
tionally favoring low-density growth of single-family houses, to
force new building stocks to grow by multi-family type. Types (1)
and (2) restricted zoning are fed back to the land use model by
altering zoning variable f ðLk;t Þ in equation (1), to force the cells
concerned in (1) and (2) to have a growth probability of 0. After re-
running the model, new total emissions are calculated for both
cities and the numbers are compared with those from scenarios
without GCZ policies.
4. Results
4.1. Model calibration and comparison
An Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value for each functional
form is calculated. Detailed results for each curve can be found in
Supplementary Material S1. These values are used to determine the
relationship best describing how connectivity to each urban
attractor drives land use change. Based on the results, cubic models
(with third-order polynomials of each variable) are chosen for the
majority of the relations for both Stockholm and Chicago. This
confirms that in large and complex urban systems, profound re-
lations exist between connectivity and decisions on commercial
and residential land use growth. Some exceptions exist in favor of
quadratic (second-order polynomials) models, chosen for trans-
portation and residential relations for both Chicago and Stockholm.
This corresponds to previous findings that residential location
choices favor reasonable connectivity to road networks, but prefer
not to be too close to highways due to noise and other quality-of-
life concerns, thus resulting in “bell-curve” shaped functions (Pan
et al., 2018a; Yang et al., 2019). Another exception is that
quadratic relations are chosen between commercial land use
growth and forest in Stockholm. The effects are caused by residents’
preference for natural amenities, while preservation policies pre-
vent development too close to forests.
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the relationship between each attractor
and existing commercial and residential land use developments,
respectively. The data for both cities are normalized and plotted for
comparison.
In general, we find that Chicago has higher development in-
tensity and density than Stockholm for both residential and com-
mercial land, but the developments in both cities show structural
similarities. In particular, commercial and residential developments
in relation to population, employment, and transportation
35
attractors have similar functional forms in both cities. This means
that in large, complex urban systems, some generalizable theories
can describe development patterns.
In terms of commercial development with regard to socio-
economic attractors, Stockholm shows a monotonic curve of in-
crease, with accelerating rate of growth between commercial de-
velopments and proximity to population and employment centers
(Fig. 2). In comparison, growth rate of commercial developments
slows down for Chicago over the 50th percentile. Theories of urban
structures and previous empirical evidence (Pan et al., 2018; Yang
et al., 2019) state that commercial developments tend to agglom-
erate in clusters, to provide the strongest sources of spatial pro-
duction externalities. The location of agglomeration can be in a
central business district (CBD) or in urban sub-centers. Our findings
show that recent growth in Chicago is located in an employment
sub-center, while Stockholm embraces a growth model gravitating
towards the CBD. Previous literature (Pan et al., 2018) also shows a
developmental peak in commercial developments near major
transportation hubs, but there are usually buffers in very close
proximity to highways because it is difficult to establish a high-
quality business environment in these places. Commercial de-
velopments with regard to transportation connectivity in both
Chicago and Stockholm comply with that theory. Chicago has
greater sensitivity, as the curve shows stronger fluctuation (Fig. 2).
Previous studies show that residential location choices usually
involve more complicated factors than commercial choices (Chen
and Rosenthal, 2008; Pan et al., 2018a). Besides commuting time,
proximity to quality-of-life amenities and size of residence in
change of locations are important considerations for residential
location choices. These findings and theories are evident in our
results (Fig. 3). Above the 40th percentile, residential developments
with regard to population and employment centers start to fluc-
tuate in Chicago, to become insignificant in relation to connectivity.
In contrast, residential land use developments in Stockholm show a
monotonic curve of increase, with an accelerating rate with
increasing proximity to population and employment centers. For
both cities, residential developments show a “bell curve” in relation
to transportation connectivity, which means that residents in both
cities do not want to live close to highways, but prefer reasonably
good connectivity.
Natural amenities are, in general, highly attractive to de-
velopments, because they provide various ecosystem services and
quality-of-life benefits (Goldenberg et al., 2018). On the other hand,
zoning policies tend to prevent too many developments in close
proximity to natural areas, to prevent ecological losses. Consistent
with previous evidence, both cities show a sharp drop in devel-
opment probability in very close proximity to natural amenities
(forest and water). A difference is that commercial and residential
developments in Chicago show a generally decreasing trend with
increasing proximity to forest and water, with the only exception
being some commercial developments close to water because of
the lakeshore and Navy Pier developments. In comparison, com-
mercial and residential developments in Stockholm peak at closer
distance from forests and water bodies. These results show that
location choices in Stockholm typically value proximity to natural
amenities, while indicating that such proximity is less valued in
Chicago.
In summary, commercial developments in Chicago demonstrate
less propensity for a CBD-centric pattern, while residential de-
velopments weigh commuting less than developments in Stock-
holm. As a result, Chicago shows a more sprawling pattern of
development, as generally found for most USA cities in comparison
with European cities (Huang et al., 2007; Larondelle and Haase,
2013). On the other hand, developments in Stockholm place a
higher value on natural amenities. Whether these patterns create
36 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42
Fig. 2. Relationships between connectivity to attractors and commercial developments for Chicago and Stockholm.
GHG mitigation potential for future urban developments is exam-
ined in the next sections.
4.2. Land use model results
Land use forecasts from the base year 2010e2040 for Chicago
and Stockholm, obtained with the variable calibration results in
Section 4.1, are shown in Fig. 4. The land use forecast for Stockholm
shows that most new developments are close to existing urban
centers, with a few new developments occurring in existing
employment sub-centers (Ma €rsta and Arlanda Airport). The land
use forecast for Chicago shows that most new developments occur
on the urban fringe. In both cases, most simulated growth can be
categorized as extensions to existing employment sub-centers. On
the northwest edge of Chicago, development is forecast for the
Arlington Heights area, extending to existing major sub-centers
around O'Hare International Airport (Fig. 4). On the southwest ur-
ban edge, the Bolingbrook district is forecast to have strong growth
as extensions to the burgeoning Naperville area. In the southern
Chicago Heights region, there is also emerging sub-center devel-
opment. In sum, the forecast development patterns in both cities
correspond well with our calibrated data. Developments in Stock-
holm occur mostly in the existing CBD, which has the best
agglomeration of economic opportunities and reasonable prox-
imity to water and forest amenities (Fig. 4). Developments in Chi-
cago occur mostly on the urban fringe and in employment sub-
centers that are far from the existing CBD and from the main wa-
ter body, Lake Michigan.
4.3. Carbon sink losses
Overlaying future land use forecasts on carbon sink maps for
Chicago and Stockholm shows a total carbon sink loss of 20.3 kt
CO2e per year in 2040 for Stockholm and 33.1 kt CO2e per year for
Chicago. From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the two regions for which
we measure carbon sinks are of similar area. However, Chicago has
 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42 37

Fig. 3. Relationships between connectivity to attractors and residential developments for Chicago and Stockholm.

much lower total annual carbon sink values (190 kt CO2e/year)
than Stockholm (857 kt CO2e/yr), because the Stockholm region in
general has more young forests and protected wetlands with large
carbon storage potential. Combined with a greater rate of carbon
sink loss in Chicago, the total loss of existing carbon sinks in Chi-
cago by 2040 is 17.4%, compared with 2.4% in Stockholm. Based on
the calibrated results, this is mainly caused by a higher amount of
sprawling development in Chicago, moving into occupation of
greenbelts, forests (especially forests with young trees), and ripar-
ian areas. In contrast, although proximity to water and forests is
more valued in Stockholm, the city uses strict preservation policies
in these areas, thus reducing its total loss of carbon sinks.
4.4. Projected GHG emissions
To calculate projected emissions, it is important to first establish
benchmark information on urban development for both cities and
then compare the forecast growth in GHG emissions for both cities
using the benchmarks. Based on Stockholm's CAP, population and
employment are projected to grow by 44.5% and 51.2%, respectively,
from 2015 to 2040, with a CAP forecast of 35.8% GHG emissions
growth for the categories within the scope of this study (residential
buildings and passenger transportation). Growth in Chicago is
forecast by its CAP to be much slower, with population growth of
16.3% and employment growth of 16.2% by 2040. Chicago's GHG
38 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42

Fig. 4. Land use change forecasts by the Landuse Evolution and impact Assessment Model (LEAM) for (left) Stockholm and (right) Chicago for the period 2010e2014.

Fig. 5. Simulated loss of carbon sinks in (left) the Chicago region and (right) the Stockholm region by the year 2040 in the LEAM reference scenario for each city.
 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42
emissions are projected to grow by 19.47% in the same period. At
first glance, Chicago's baseline GHG emissions are projected to
grow faster than its population and employment growth, while
Stockholm's baseline GHG emissions are projected to grow at a
slower rate than its population and employment growth. However,
in the baseline year, per capita emissions in Chicago are already
more than five-fold higher than those in Stockholm. Climate factors
play a much smaller role than the low building energy technology
requirement, poorer space management, and higher VKT per capita
in Chicago. For both cities, it is also noteworthy that carbon sink
losses are not included in the scope of their CAPs, while they are
considered in this study.
4.4.1. Building emissions
The LEAM model results show that in Stockholm, 1.4 million m2
of single-family houses and 10.82 million m2 of multi-family homes
are expected to be built by 2040. In comparison, Chicago is forecast
to have a much higher proportion of single-family houses, 38.5
million m2, and 13.8 million m2 of multi-family homes. Because of
its much high number of single-family houses, Chicago is projected
to use about 5-fold the current building area to host 1.3-fold the
current population. The GHG emissions implications are even
stronger, because single-family houses usually adopt much lower
building technology standards than new multi-family homes and
apartments. As a result, residential building-associated emissions
are projected to grow 10-fold more in Chicago (8.3 million t CO2e/
year growth by 2040 in Chicago, compared with 0.5 million t CO2e/
year growth by 2040 for Stockholm).
4.4.2. Transportation emissions
The current total passenger car and public transit VKT in
Stockholm is around 2.8 billion km per annum, while Chicago has a
total VKT of 55.7 billion km per annum. On a per capita basis,
Chicago has six-fold more VKT per day than Stockholm, due to the
sprawling urban form and automobile culture. By 2040, Stock-
holm's total VKT value is projected to be 3.9 billion km per annum
(28% increase), while Chicago's total VKT is projected to grow to
64.4 billion km per annum (14% increase). Stockholm has a larger
percentage of projected growth (41.5%, compared with 20.2% in
Chicago), mainly because the forecast growth in the Ma €rsta and
Arlanda Airport regions is far away from the existing CBD and these
areas could generate a large amount of commuting needs.
The results of LEAM forecasts are compared with regional
population/employment growth and CAP projected baseline
growth in Table 2. LEAM forecasts a greater percentage GHG
emissions increase than the population and employment growth in
both cities. This is mainly because future growth is likely to take
place in areas outside existing urban cores and with relatively low
previous building densities, thus increasing both per capita trans-
portation and residential emissions.
4.5. Growth control and zoning policy effects
To simulate how innovative policy instruments can address land
use growth-related GHG emissions, we examine whether growth
control and zoning (GCZ) could mitigate LEAM forecast emissions
for Stockholm and Chicago. The growth control instrument is
shown in orange in Fig. 6, for areas with most carbon sinks (forests
with young trees and wetlands) and locations that require most
travel time to the existing CBD. They are delineated as areas where
residential and commercial growth is forbidden until 2040, so that
carbon sink losses and excessive VKT increases can be avoided. The
zoning instrument is shown in purple in Fig. 6 for areas with his-
torical low-density development. This policy restricts low-density
residential development, while requiring at least an average
39
development density of average multi-family homes in the region.
On applying this policy, total residential area needed would
decrease, as would total GHG emissions.
The effects of GCZ policies on GHG emissions for both cities are
shown in Table 3. Overall, GCZ policies are shown to be effective in
reducing carbon sink losses, as over 50% of carbon sink losses would
be avoided in both Stockholm and Chicago under such a policy. The
policy targeting residential and transportation emissions is much
less effective in Stockholm than in Chicago. This is because Chicago
has a strong tendency for sprawling growth and low-density
development, and GCZ policies would force termination of these
trends and thus be very effective in emissions mitigation for
Chicago.
4.6. Discussion and policy implications
An important contribution of this study to current CAP practice
is that several emission-related factors are treated as key variables
and policy targets, rather than assumptions. These are: residential
and commercial location choices, land use patterns, commuting
demands, and building stocks and types. These factors can be
viewed as part of socio-ecological or coupled human and nature
systems (Keesstra et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2019, 2018a; Urbaniec
et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2019), and can be effectively addressed by
urban planning and growth management policies (Anthony, 2004;
Robinson et al., 2005). We provide a more comprehensive and
systematic understanding of the relationship between these factors
and urban GHG emissions by constructing comparative socio-
ecological models for Chicago and Stockholm.
Through comparative modeling, this study confirms the wide-
spread claim that many cities in the USA have a development
pattern that could cause intensive GHG emissions increases
through the tendency to sprawl, creating excessive commuting
demands, decreasing carbon sinks, and favoring low-density resi-
dential developments (Huang et al., 2007; Larondelle and Haase,
2013). It can be argued that some of the indications provided by
the development curves are well-known. However, our results
confirm that the scale of sprawl development in Chicago contrib-
utes to excessive GHG emissions and that the trend may extend to
future developments if no mitigation policy takes place. More
importantly, calibrated coefficients and the links identified be-
tween urban growth and GHG emissions provide a method to
quantify future GHG emissions associated with human-induced
land use change.
Some general trends are apparent for both cities in development
probabilities with regard to population, employment centers,
transportation hubs, and natural amenities, as predicted by previ-
ous theories of urban structures for large, complex urban systems
(Pan et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2019; Chen and Rosenthal, 2008;
Goldenberg et al., 2018). The calibration results reveal the most
important differences in urban growth patterns between the two
cities that can be linked to GHG emissions. These are that: 1)
commercial developments are gravitating towards employment
sub-centers and the urban fringe; and 2) residential developments
occur more in suburbs with lower residential densities. Sprawl and
fringe developments generate much higher VKT per capita and
more severe loss of natural carbon sinks, as reported previously by
Bart (2010) and Hankey and Marshall (2010). Low-density suburban
developments generate a much larger demand for residential
building floor area and single-family houses that apply lower en-
ergy standards.
The inventory and forecast practices reported for Stockholm and
Chicago in this paper complement previous findings. However,
previous studies of Chicago's CAP (Coffee et al., 2010; McGraw et al.,
2010) do not explicitly account for spatial growth-induced GHG
40 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42

Table 2
Summary of annual emissions in Chicago and Stockholm with regard to key urban development factors (emission units: million t CO2e/year).

Stockholm

2015 2040 Growth Rate

Population 2,344,000 3,388,000 44.5%

Employment 1,153,000 1,743,000 51.2%

Current Emissions CAP 2040 Baseline Forecast LEAM Forecast

Carbon sink loss Not included Not included N/A 0.02 N/A
Buildings 1.7 2.1 26.8% 3.0 76.8%
Transportation 0.5 0.9 64.2% 0.8 41.5%
Total 2.2 3.0 35.8% 3.7 69.2%

Chicago

2015 2040 Growth Rate

Population 8,500,000 9,883,000 16.3%

Employment 4,316,000 5,013,891 16.2%

Current Emissions CAP 2040 Baseline Forecast Growth Rate LEAM Forecast

Carbon sink loss Not included Not included N/A 0.03 N/A
Buildings 34.2 42.4 24.2% 40.7 19.1%
Transportation 18.1 28.2 55.3% 21.8 20.2%
Total 52.3 70.6 35.0% 62.5 19.5%

Fig. 6. Effects of no growth zoning (orange areas) and specific policy zoning (purple areas) identified for (left) Chicago and (right) Stockholm. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

emissions, resulting in a lower emissions forecast than in this pa-
per. Lindsey et al. (2011) report on a vehicle VKT study based on
residential locations, for which the population density methods in
this paper provide complementary evidence. The two studies agree
in general on the distribution of VKT by residential/population
locations.
The simulated GCV policies show a much more pronounced
effect in mitigating GHG emissions for Chicago (13.9% total) than
Stockholm (4.6% total). This is because GCV policies are designed
specifically to target sprawl and low-density developments, which
are much more severe (and common) in Chicago. To devise effective
innovative policies, it is important to update and implement a CAP,
which can be a vital primary city-level instrument for changing
behavioral preferences and socio-technical regimes towards a more
sustainable development pattern.
5. Conclusions
We show that comparative socio-ecological modeling of cities
helps reveal deep-rooted behavioral and cultural preferences, and
 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42
Table 3
Mitigation effects of a growth control and zoning (GVZ) policy for Chicago and Stockholm.
Stockholm
LEAM Forecast 2040
Carbon sink loss 0.02
Buildings 3.0
Transportation 0.8
Total 3.7
Chicago
LEAM Forecast 2040
Carbon sink loss 0.03
Buildings 40.7
Transportation 21.8
Total 62.5
socio-technical and institutional regimes, with potentially pro-
found impacts on GHG emissions. Our results suggest that differ-
ences in commercial/residential location preferences and land use
patterns between cities (here Stockholm and Chicago) have strong
impacts on GHG emissions inventories and trends. These are
known impacts, but our comparative socio-ecological modeling
approach makes it possible to measure the extent of sprawl and
low-density development tendencies and offers solid proof of their
links to GHG emissions.
This study provides methodological contributions and evidence
of the generalizability of comparative urban study theories. Our
methodological framework is shown to be applicable for two cities
with different background and contexts. Coefficients that link ur-
ban developments to attractors are shown to be different in each
city and cause differences in future developmental patterns and
impacts. Future work should test whether differences in data-
generating processes or space-time evolution pose additional
generalizability challenges in comparative urban studies.
A major practical contribution of the comparative socio-
ecological modeling approach is the ability to test innovative pol-
icy and planning instruments for mitigating city-level GHG emis-
sions. The model results show that growth control and zoning
(GCZ) policies are most effective for cities with historical sprawl
and low-density development preferences, but can also be useful
supplements for policy proposals in other cities. Most importantly,
we show that GCZ policies derived from socio-ecological model
results can add to the existing pool of behavioral interventions in
CAPs.
A main limitation of the study is that only two cities are
compared, so result transferability may be limited to similar cities
in the USA and Europe. Important future steps are to scale up the
investigation to larger geographical areas with greater represen-
tativeness and to consider cities and urban/urbanizing regions
outside the USA and Europe. Moreover, the model currently focuses
on emissions induced by spatial development patterns, while the
effects of other factors, such as shifts in technology and economic
structure, remain to be tested. Data restraints can also limit the
transferability of results and replicability of the methodology. For
example, high-resolution land use data can be derived from satel-
lite images, but cleaned and classified results are not available all
cities. Additionally, census data may have different accuracies,
scales, or definitions across countries. One solution could be to
innovatively use public databases available worldwide, such as
Google Place or VIIRS night-time lights data, to generate urban
attractors. A final limitation is that this study only examines the
“mitigation” part of CAPs, which focus on measures to reduce
future GHG emissions, and not how the climate outcomes of
emissions and human adaptation to these.
41
GVZ 2040 % Mitigation
0.01 50.00%
2.9 3.70%
0.7 6.67%
3.6 4.55%
GVZ 2040 % Mitigation
0.01 66.67%
35.4 12.93%
18.4 15.60%
53.8 13.85%
Acknowledgements
In this work we used the ROGER supercomputer, which is sup-
ported by NSF under grant number 1429699. We thank Shaowen
Wang and Anand Padmanabhan for their assistance with high-
performance computing jobs, which was made possible through
the CyberGIS Center Help Desk. This work is also supported by LS
2018-0736 from Stockholm County (in Swedish: Stockholm la €ns
landsting). We are also very grateful for the anonymous reviewers
and editor for their constructive comments, which helped improve
the quality of the paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.274.
References
Aall, C., Groven, K., Lindseth, G., 2007. The scope of action for local climate policy:
the case of Norway. Glob. Environ. Politics 7, 83e101.
Amelang, J., 2007. Comparing cities: a Barcelona model? Urban Hist. 34, 173e189.
Anguelovski, I., Carmin, J., 2011. Something borrowed, everything new: innovation
and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 3, 169e175.
Anthony, J., 2004. Do state growth management regulations reduce sprawl? Urban
Aff. Rev. 39, 376e397.
Banos-Gonza lez, I., Martínez-Fern andez, J., Esteve-Selma, M.A., 2015. Dynamic
integration of sustainability indicators in insular socio-ecological systems. Ecol.
Model. 306, 130e144.
Bart, I.L., 2010. Urban sprawl and climate change: a statistical exploration of cause
and effect, with policy options for the EU. Land Use Policy 27, 283e292.
Bassett, E., Shandas, V., 2010. Innovation and climate action planning: perspectives
from municipal plans. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76, 435e450.
Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F., Quang, N., 2010. Adaptive urban governance:
new challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation strategies to
climate change. Sustain. Sci. 5, 185e206.
Bhargava, S., Loewenstein, G., 2015. Behavioral economics and public policy 102:
beyond nudging. Am. Econ. Rev. 105 (5), 396e401.
Brenner, N., Schmid, C., 2015. Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City 19,
151e182.
Cervero, R., Murakami, J., 2010. Effects of built environments on vehicle miles
traveled: evidence from 370 US urbanized areas. Environ. Plan. 42, 400e418.
Chen, Y., Rosenthal, S.S., 2008. Local amenities and life-cycle migration: do people
move for jobs or fun? J. Urban Econ. 64, 519e537.
Coffee, Joyce E., Julia, Parzen, Wagstaff, Mark, Lewis, Richard S., 2010. Preparing for a
changing climate: the Chicago climate action plan's adaptation strategy. J. of
Great Lakes Res. 36, 115e117.
Davis, D.E., 2005. Cities in global context: a brief intellectual history. Int. J. Urban
Reg. Res. 29, 92e109.
Deal, B., Pan, H., Pallathucheril, V., Fulton, G., 2017a. Urban resilience and planning
support systems: the need for sentience. J. Urban Technol. 24, 29e45.
Deal, B., Pan, H., Timm, S., Pallathucheril, V., 2017b. The role of multidirectional
temporal analysis in scenario planning exercises and Planning Support Systems.
Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 64, 91e102.
Deangelo, B.J., Harvey, L.D., 1998. The jurisdictional framework for municipal action
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: case studies from Canada, the USA and
42 H. Pan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 30e42
Germany. Local Environ. 3, 111e136.
Dietz, T., Gardner, G.T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P.C., Vandenbergh, M.P., 2009. Household
actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 106, 18452e18456.
Engstro € m, R.E., Howells, M., Destouni, G., Bhatt, V., Bazilian, M., Rogner, H.-H., 2017.
Connecting the resource nexus to basic urban service provision - with focus on
water-energy interactions in New York City. Sustainable Cities and Society 31,
83e94.
Engstro € m, R.E., Destouni, G., Howells, M., Ramaswamy, V., Rogner, H., Bazilian, M.,
2019. Cross-scale water and land impacts of local climate and energy policyda
local Swedish analysis of selected SDG interactions. Sustainability 11, 1847.
Ewing, R., Schmid, T., Killingsworth, R., Zlot, A., Raudenbush, S., 2008. Relationship
between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. In: Urban
Ecology. Springer, pp. 567e582.
Fuldauer, L.I., Ives, M.C., Adshead, D., Thacker, S., Hall, J.W., 2019. Participatory
planning of the future of waste management in small island developing states
to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 223 (20),
147e162.
Glaeser, E.L., Kahn, M.E., 2010. The greenness of cities: carbon dioxide emissions
and urban development. J. Urban Econ. 67, 404e418.
Goldenberg, R., Kalantari, Z., Cvetkovic, V., Mo €rtberg, U., Deal, B., Destouni, G., 2017.
Distinction, quantification and mapping of potential and realized supply-
demand of flow-dependent ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 593,
599e609.
Goldenberg, R., Kalantari, Z., Destouni, G., 2018. Increased access to nearby
greeneblue areas associated with greater metropolitan population wellbeing.
Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 3607e3616.
Hamin, E.M., Gurran, N., 2009. Urban form and climate change: balancing adapta-
tion and mitigation in the US and Australia. Habitat Int. 33, 238e245.
Han, J., Meng, X., Zhou, X., Yi, B., Liu, M., Xiang, W.-N., 2017. A long-term analysis of
urbanization process, landscape change, and carbon sources and sinks: a case
study in China's Yangtze River Delta region. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 1040e1050.
Hankey, S., Marshall, J.D., 2010. Impacts of urban form on future US passenger-
vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 38, 4880e4887.
Holgate, C., 2007. Factors and actors in climate change mitigation: a tale of two
South African cities. Local Environ. 12, 471e484.
Hong, B., Limburg, K.E., Erickson, J.D., Gowdy, J.M., Nowosielski, A.A., Polimeni, J.M.,
Stainbrook, K.M., 2009. Connecting the ecological-economic dots in human-
dominated watersheds: models to link socio-economic activities on the land-
scape to stream ecosystem health. Landsc. Urban Plan. 91, 78e87.
Huang, J., Lu, X.X., Sellers, J.M., 2007. A global comparative analysis of urban form:
applying spatial metrics and remote sensing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 82, 184e197.
Huo, X., Ann, T., Darko, A., Wu, Z., 2019. Critical factors in site planning and design of
green buildings: a case of China. J. Clean. Prod. 222 (10), 685e694.
Irwin, E.G., Bockstael, N.E., 2007. The evolution of urban sprawl: evidence of spatial
heterogeneity and increasing land fragmentation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit.
States Am. 104, 20672e20677.
Iyer, G.C., Clarke, L.E., Edmonds, J.A., Hultman, N.E., McJeon, H.C., 2015. Long-term
payoffs of near-term low-carbon deployment policies. Energy Policy 86,
493e505.
Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., Cerd
a, A., 2018.
The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for
enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 610, 997e1009.
Kalantari, Z., Ferreira, C.S.S., Walsh, R.P.D., Ferreira, A.J.D., Destouni, G., 2017. Ur-
banization development under climate change: hydrological responses in a
peri-urban mediterranean catchment. Land Degrad. Dev. 28, 2207e2221.
Larondelle, N., Haase, D., 2013. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a
ruraleurban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecol. Indicat. 29,
179e190.
Li, X., Gong, P., Yu, L., Hu, T., 2017. A segment derived patch-based logistic cellular
automata for urban growth modeling with heuristic rules. Comput. Environ.
Urban Syst. 65, 140e149.
Lindsey, M., Schofer, J.L., Durango-Cohen, P., Gray, K.A., 2011. The effect of residential
location on vehicle miles of travel, energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions: Chicago case study. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 16 (1), 1e9.
Liu, C., Shen, Q., 2011. An empirical analysis of the influence of urban form on
household travel and energy consumption. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 35,
347e357.
McFarlane, C., 2010. The comparative city: knowledge, learning, urbanism. Int. J.
Urban Reg. Res. 34, 725e742.
McFarlane, C., Robinson, J., 2012. Introductiondexperiments in comparative ur-
banism. Urban Geogr. 33, 765e773.
McGraw, J., Haas, P., Young, L., Evens, A., 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions in Chi-
cago: emissions inventories and reduction strategies for Chicago and its
metropolitan region. J. Great Lakes Res. 36, 106e114.
Millard-Ball, A., 2012. Do city climate plans reduce emissions? J. Urban Econ. 71,
289e311.
Mo €rtberg, U., Goldenberg, R., Kalantari, Z., Kordas, O., Deal, B., Balfors, B.,
Cvetkovic, V., 2017. Integrating ecosystem services in the assessment of urban
energy trajectories e a study of the Stockholm Region. Energy Policy 100,
338e349.
Pan, H., Deal, B., 2019. Reporting on the performance and usability of planning
support systemsdtowards a common understanding. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-019-09296-5.
Pan, H., Deal, B., Chen, Y., Hewings, G., 2018a. A Reassessment of urban structure
and land-use patterns: distance to CBD or network-based?devidence from
Chicago. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 70, 215e228.
Pan, H., Deal, B., Destouni, G., Zhang, Y., Kalantari, Z., 2018b. Sociohydrology
modeling for complex urban environments in support of integrated land and
water resource management practices. Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 3639e3652.
Pan, H., Zhang, L., Cong, C., Deal, B., Wang, Y., 2019. A dynamic and spatially explicit
modeling approach to identify the ecosystem service implications of complex
urban systems interactions. Ecol. Indicat. 102, 426e436.
Panwar, N., Kaushik, S., Kothari, S., 2011. Role of renewable energy sources in
environmental protection: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 1513e1524.
Phylipsen, G., Bode, J.W., Blok, K., Merkus, H., Metz, B., 1998. A Triptych sectoral
approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble.
Energy Policy 26, 929e943.
Reckien, D., Salvia, M., Heidrich, O., Church, J.M., Pietrapertosa, F., De Gregorio-
Hurtado, S., D’alonzo, V., Foley, A., Simoes, S.G., Lorencova , E.K., others, 2018.
How are cities planning to respond to climate change? Assessment of local
climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28. J. Clean. Prod. 191, 207e219.
Robinson, L., Newell, J.P., Marzluff, J.M., 2005. Twenty-five years of sprawl in the
Seattle region: growth management responses and implications for conserva-
tion. Landsc. Urban Plan. 71, 51e72.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., 2010. Climate change adaptation in New York City. Ann.
NY Acad. Sci. 1196.
Scott, A.J., Storper, M., 2015. The nature of cities: the scope and limits of urban
theory. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 39, 1e15.
Seto, K.C., Shepherd, J.M., 2009. Global urban land-use trends and climate impacts.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 89e95.
Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social
change. Environ. Plan. 42, 1273e1285.
Song, Y., Knaap, G.-J., 2004. Measuring urban form: is Portland winning the war on
sprawl? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 70, 210e225.
Stern, P.C., 1986. Blind spots in policy analysis: what economics doesn't say about
energy use. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 5, 200e227.
Stone, B., Vargo, J., Habeeb, D., 2012. Managing climate change in cities: will climate
action plans work? Landsc. Urban Plan. 107, 263e271.
Tao, Y., Li, H., Wen, Z., Chen, H., Xu, W., Evans, S., 2019. A hybrid scenario analysis for
the selection of future greenhouse gas emissions reduction technologies in
China's oil and gas industry. J. Clean. Prod. 223 (20), 14e24.
Tian, X., Geng, Y., Dong, H., Dong, L., Fujita, T., Wang, Y., Zhao, H., Wu, R., Liu, Z.,
Sun, L., 2016. Regional household carbon footprint in China: a case of Liaoning
province. J. Clean. Prod. 114, 401e411.
Urbaniec, K., Mikul ci
c, H., Wang, Y., Duic, N., 2018. System integration is a necessity
for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 195 (10), 122e132.
Wang, C., Gaitan, J.P.A., Moore, S., Stuetz, R., 2019. Social and institutional factors
affecting sustainability innovation in universities: a computer re-use perspec-
tive. J. Clean. Prod. 223 (20), 176e188.
Wang, C., Wang, Y., Wang, R., Zheng, P., 2018. Modeling and evaluating land-use/
land-cover change for urban planning and sustainability: a case study of Don-
gying city, China. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1529e1534.
Wang, X.-C., Klemes, J.J., Dong, X., Fan, W., Xu, Z., Wang, Y., Varbanov, P.S., 2019. Air
pollution terrain nexus: a review considering energy generation and con-
sumption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 105, 71e85.
Watson, M., 2012. How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised
transport system. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 488e496.
Weidema, B.P., Pizzol, M., Schmidt, J.H., Thoma, G., 2019. Social responsibility is
always consequential-Rebuttal to Brander, Burritt and Christ (2019): coupling
attributional and consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social re-
sponsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 223 (20), 12e13.
Williams, J.H., DeBenedictis, A., Ghanadan, R., Mahone, A., Moore, J., Morrow, W.R.,
Price, S., Torn, M.S., 2012. The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emis-
sions cuts by 2050: the pivotal role of electricity. Science 335, 53e59.
Wood, R., 2009. Structural decomposition analysis of Australia's greenhouse gas
emissions. Energy Policy 37, 4943e4948.
Xiao, Y., Zhong, H., Zhou, T., Zhou, Y., 2018. Rail transit development in lagging
regions: a development-oriented investment and financing approach. J. Transp.
Land Use 11 (1).
Yang, T., Pan, H., Hewings, G., Jin, Y., 2019. Understanding urban sub-centers with
heterogeneity in agglomeration economiesdwhere do emerging commercial
establishments locate? Cities 86, 25e36.
Yang, T., Zhang, X., 2016. Benchmarking the building energy consumption and solar
energy trade-offs of residential neighborhoods on Chongming Eco-Island,
China. Appl. Energy 180, 792e799.
Yang, W., Liu, W., Vin ~ a, A., Tuanmu, M.-N., He, G., Dietz, T., Liu, J., 2013. Nonlinear
effects of group size on collective action and resource outcomes. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 110, 10916e10921.
Yang, X., Wang, Y., Sun, M., Wang, R., Zheng, P., 2018. Exploring the environmental
pressures in urban sectors: an energy-water-carbon nexus perspective. Appl.
Energy 228, 2298e2307.
Yu, H., Wang, Y., Li, X., Wang, C., Sun, M., Du, A., 2019. Measuring ecological capital:
state of the art, trends, and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 833e845.
Zhong, H., Li, W., 2016. Rail transit investment and property values: an old tale
retold. Transport Pol. 51, 33e48.