Table I.

Comparison of current major methodologies for urban CE accounting

MethodAuthor (year)CategorySummary or assessment (distinguished by the marked sign “*”)
The Greenhouse Gas ProtocolWRI/WBCSD (2004) Bottom-upDivided emissions into three scopes
Several sectors: energy, metals, chemicals, minerals, waste, pulp and paper
*mainly used in corporate CE accounting
IPCCIPCC (2006) Bottom-upProvides guidance on emission factors, data and equation
Four sectors: energy, IPPU, waste and AFOLU
*mainly used in national CE accounting
DhakalDhakal et al. (2010) Top-downAdopted energy use per unit GRP as a key indicator to estimate divided city CEs
Emission factors were taken from IPCC, 2006 
KennedyKennedy et al. (2010) Bottom-upAdopted three scopes proposed by WRI/WBCSD
Six sectors: electricity, transportation, IPPU and waste, etc.
BiBi et al. (2011) Bottom-upSix sectors again, but different slightly from Kennedy
*The earliest case addressing a developed city in China
LinLin et al. (2013) HybridCalculated the emissions based on three scopes
Scopes 1 and 2 were estimated using the IPCC (2006), and Scope 3 was calculated using life-cycle analysis
GPCC40 et al. (2014) Bottom-upContained three scopes and five sectors
*Based on IPCC (2006), but more comprehensive, transparent and accurate and specifically suitable for cities
PAS 2070BSI (2014) HybridDirect plus supply chain method was equal to GPC
Consumption-based method used the IO models from a life-cycle perspective
ZhangZhang et al. (2015) Top-downAdopted 135-sector IO tables
The others were the same as Dhakal

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options