Integration of an energy-economy model with an urban energy model

Lu, Y; Scott, A; Kim, J; Curi, C B; McCarty, J; Pardy, A; Rysanek, A; Girling, C and Kellett, R (2021) Integration of an energy-economy model with an urban energy model. Buildings & Cities, 2(1), pp. 114-133. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

A proliferation of energy models has been developed across disciplines to explore energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-reduction strategies in cities. Hybrid models are especially useful because they incorporate more dynamics to simulate realistic results informed by relevant high-level policy decisions and building-level factors. Spatial and aspatial energy models, however, are not often linked, which overlooks the spatial impact of energy and emissions policies in urban environments. A new method is presented that links these types of models to understand how building stocks change over time in response to policies. This approach integrates outputs from an aspatial economic model, CIMS, with buildings in a spatially explicit urban building energy model (UBEM), UMI. The energy– economy model is parameterised against the UBEM using identified baseline condition and proposed future policy interventions. Building stock replacement and retrofit change are downscaled and disaggregated to individual buildings based on existing stock age and a probability-based Markov chain model (MCM). This integration enables simulations of cross-scale policy interventions that are sensitive to both economically and mechanically driven factors. An application of this approach shows how it can be used to evaluate how different policies interact with and influence building energy demand and GHG emissions. PRACTICE RELEVANCE The results are integrated as a series spatially explicit energy modeling procedure (UMI) at the neighborhood scale. This process enables local assessments of efficacy of the proposed city scale and even regional policies in municipalities with various energy and GHG emission agendas. In the presented case study (of the Sunset neighborhood of Vancouver, BC, Canada) this method can quantify the elasticity of emission reductions from various urban form changes (e.g. infill, transportation-oriented development, etc.), new building code (i.e. BC Energy Step Code), active transportation and retrofit strategies from 2020 to 2050.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: buildings; energy model; energy–economy model; greenhouse gas emissions reduction; policy; policy impacts; retrofit; simulations; urban building energy model
Index terms: urban form, policy impact, dynamics, energy demand, case study, Markov chain, economic model, energy model, Canada, integration, greenhouse gas emission, building code, greenhouse gas, building energy model, replacement, municipality, retrofit strategy, urban environment, energy modelling, building stock, strategy
Subjects: asset management, urban form and morphology, Geography, policy studies, materials science, climate science, organizational analysis, administrative law, regulatory law, environmental health, systems engineering, renovation and retrofit, management, sustainability and energy, modelling and simulation, energy systems, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, urban sustainability
Topics: Legal Issues, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here