지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2018.9
- 수록면
- 1 - 145 (145page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
For the realization of ‘Gyeonggi-Do Energy Vision 2030’, participation and cooperation of 31 local governments as "energy community" is essential. The purpose of this study is to develop an energy policy evaluation model at the municipal level as a means to enhance the integration of energy vision policy between Gyeonggi-Do and local governments, and to provide policy suggestions and implications of evaluation indicators by conducting pilot evaluation. The evaluation model consists of two parts : "energy policy performance and capacity" and "energy self-reliance effort". The former is comprised of energy efficiency(5 indicators), energy production(4 indicators) and institutional foundations(6 indicators), and the latter is divided into energy program performance(4 indicators) and capacity enhancement(2 indicators).
When applying the same weight to the indicators, urban areas such as Ansan, Suwon, Anyang, Gwangmyeong, and Seongnam occupied the top of the overall ranking. These regions have relatively strong institutional foundations for energy policy promotion and high civil society capacity. Gwangmyeong, Gwacheon, and Anyang ranked high in the energy efficiency sector, and Hanam, Icheon and Pyeongtaek were rated the lowest. Gapyeong, Ansan, and Anyang ranked high in the energy production sector, and the rankings of Uiwang, Hanam and Gwacheon were low. Ansan, Gwangmyeong and Suwon have the best institutional capacity, while Paju, Guri, Icheon and Gwacheon are weak. Ansan, Suwon, Yangpyeong performed well in the energy self-reliance effort sector, and Icheon, Hanam, Kimpo ranked low.
The preliminary evaluation shows the gap among local governments’ capacity and will to implement energy policy is large. In order to encourage local government efforts, a two-track approach which assesses improvement compared with the previous year in addition to the absolute evaluation is needed. Second, it is necessary to expand financial support to strengthen institutional capacity of local governments. Third, the energy efficiency sector is difficult to reflect efforts of local governments. energy efficiency improvement program should be expanded in areas where energy efficiency is low and energy consumption growth rate is high. Fourth, when we applied the simple average method and weighted by AHP analysis, most of the top and bottom local governments did not show a large change in the overall ranking, but the middle local governments showed a change in rankings. Consensus on weights is needed. It would also be possible to replace the weights by increasing the number of indicators with high policy priorities. Fifth, it is desirable to evaluate according to types of regions such as urban areas, rural areas, and industrial cities, and it is necessary to revise and complement the evaluation standards, methods, and indicators.
The evaluation indicator functions as a dashboard that monitors the status of Gyeonggi-Do Energy Vision and the policy demand of local governments. It also identifies areas with poor performance by sector and adjusts policy priorities to reduce regional disparities and improve policy capacity. In addition, each local government can use the indicators as a tool to diagnose its energy policy capacity. The evaluation model can promote energy policy linkage and integration by providing incentives to high-performing local governments.
Among the components of the evaluation model, the evaluation needs to focus on "energy self-reliance effort", while ‘energy policy performance and capacity" can be used as a dashboard showing the energy status of local governments. It is desirable to increase the acceptability by engaging local governments in the evaluation design. Second, the evaluation system needs to be established at the Gyeonggi-Do Energy Center to enhance its function as an energy platform. Third, in the early stage, the same incentives are provided to cities that meet certain criteria by an absolute evaluation like Seoul, but incentives are differentiated for leading cases in order to disseminate excellent policies. And the evaluation should be specified in the Gyeonggi-Do Energy Basic Ordinance. Fourth, Gyeonggi-Do needs to expand support to enhance institutional base of local governments. Fifth, it is important to maintain the sustainability and consistency of the Energy Vision 2030 policy for the seventh period of local autonomy. To this end, the strategy based on the evaluation index will be derived and linked with the energy self-reliance implementation plan of local governments.
When applying the same weight to the indicators, urban areas such as Ansan, Suwon, Anyang, Gwangmyeong, and Seongnam occupied the top of the overall ranking. These regions have relatively strong institutional foundations for energy policy promotion and high civil society capacity. Gwangmyeong, Gwacheon, and Anyang ranked high in the energy efficiency sector, and Hanam, Icheon and Pyeongtaek were rated the lowest. Gapyeong, Ansan, and Anyang ranked high in the energy production sector, and the rankings of Uiwang, Hanam and Gwacheon were low. Ansan, Gwangmyeong and Suwon have the best institutional capacity, while Paju, Guri, Icheon and Gwacheon are weak. Ansan, Suwon, Yangpyeong performed well in the energy self-reliance effort sector, and Icheon, Hanam, Kimpo ranked low.
The preliminary evaluation shows the gap among local governments’ capacity and will to implement energy policy is large. In order to encourage local government efforts, a two-track approach which assesses improvement compared with the previous year in addition to the absolute evaluation is needed. Second, it is necessary to expand financial support to strengthen institutional capacity of local governments. Third, the energy efficiency sector is difficult to reflect efforts of local governments. energy efficiency improvement program should be expanded in areas where energy efficiency is low and energy consumption growth rate is high. Fourth, when we applied the simple average method and weighted by AHP analysis, most of the top and bottom local governments did not show a large change in the overall ranking, but the middle local governments showed a change in rankings. Consensus on weights is needed. It would also be possible to replace the weights by increasing the number of indicators with high policy priorities. Fifth, it is desirable to evaluate according to types of regions such as urban areas, rural areas, and industrial cities, and it is necessary to revise and complement the evaluation standards, methods, and indicators.
The evaluation indicator functions as a dashboard that monitors the status of Gyeonggi-Do Energy Vision and the policy demand of local governments. It also identifies areas with poor performance by sector and adjusts policy priorities to reduce regional disparities and improve policy capacity. In addition, each local government can use the indicators as a tool to diagnose its energy policy capacity. The evaluation model can promote energy policy linkage and integration by providing incentives to high-performing local governments.
Among the components of the evaluation model, the evaluation needs to focus on "energy self-reliance effort", while ‘energy policy performance and capacity" can be used as a dashboard showing the energy status of local governments. It is desirable to increase the acceptability by engaging local governments in the evaluation design. Second, the evaluation system needs to be established at the Gyeonggi-Do Energy Center to enhance its function as an energy platform. Third, in the early stage, the same incentives are provided to cities that meet certain criteria by an absolute evaluation like Seoul, but incentives are differentiated for leading cases in order to disseminate excellent policies. And the evaluation should be specified in the Gyeonggi-Do Energy Basic Ordinance. Fourth, Gyeonggi-Do needs to expand support to enhance institutional base of local governments. Fifth, it is important to maintain the sustainability and consistency of the Energy Vision 2030 policy for the seventh period of local autonomy. To this end, the strategy based on the evaluation index will be derived and linked with the energy self-reliance implementation plan of local governments.
목차
[표지]
[정책건의]
[차례]
표차례
그림차례
[제1장 서론]
1. 연구의 배경 및 목적
2. 연구의 범위 및 방법
[제2장 경기도 에너지비전 2030과 시군 정책 현황]
1. 경기도 에너지비전 2030과 기초지자체의 역할
2. 기초지자체 에너지 정책 인프라 현황
[제3장 에너지정책 평가 모형]
1. 선행연구 및 국내외 사례
2. 시군 에너지정책 평가 모형
[제4장 시군 에너지정책 시범평가 및 지표 활용방안]
1. 자료 및 방법론
2. 시범평가 결과
3. 시범평가 결과의 시사점 및 지표 활용 방안
[제5장 결론 및 정책제안]
1. 연구결과 요약
2. 정책제안
[참고문헌]
[Abstract]
[부록]
부록 1 : 선행연구
부록 2 : 개별 지표
부록 3 : 2017년 시군 최종에너지소비량
부록 4 : 시군 공무원(에너지 담당) 대상 설문지
부록 5 : 전문가 대상 AHP 설문지
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
기초지자체 에너지정책 평가지표 개발에 관한 연구 -경기도 시범 적용을 중심으로-
GRI 연구논총
2020 .08
-
시·군종합평가(도 주요시책) 지표개발 연구
정책연구
2017 .05
-
A Simple Indicator of Local Government's Economic Policy: Example from Japan’s New Local Revitalization Policy
아태비즈니스연구
2016 .12
-
시군 종합평가 선진화 및 지표개발
정책연구
2016 .04
-
소비자행정 분야 지자체 합동평가 지표 개선방안 연구
정책연구보고서
2021 .12
-
일본 자치체 정책법무의 개관과향후 연구과제
지방자치법연구
2018 .01
-
지방재정 투자사업 심사체계 개선방안
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2020 .04
-
키워드 네트워크 분석을 통한 지방자치단체 정책연구 경향 분석-고양시 사례를 중심으로
도시정책연구
2021 .08
-
Change and Crisis: An Empirical Analysis of Effect of the Change of Local Government Leader on the Policy Process
Journal of Safety and Crisis Management
2020 .01
-
청소년정책 분석 및 평가제도 체계화 방안 연구
한국청소년정책연구원 연구보고서
2016 .12
-
시군종합평가 도정 주요시책지표 개발 연구
정책연구
2019 .06
-
지방자치시대 관광정책 평가지표 개발
관광경영연구
2016 .01
-
지방정부의 국정참여제도에 대한 비교 분석: 영국, 프랑스, 일본을 중심으로
한국비교정부학보
2020 .01
-
Societal fragilities and resilience: The emergence of peoplehood in Belarus
Journal of Eurasian Studies
2021 .08
-
지방정부 성과측정의 제약과 개선에 대한 질적 연구
한국지방자치학회보
2023 .12
-
지역사회연구와 이민현상 - 연구대상과 자료로서 지자체 이민정책의 학술적 의의와 분석제안
지역사회학
2015 .01
-
영국의 자치단체 간 상생협력제도와 제도효과 추정을 위한 정책시뮬레이션
한국비교정부학보
2017 .01
-
서울시 민선자치 20년 회고와 전망 : 시민중심의 지방분권 실현 위한 역할과 과제
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2016 .01
-
지방채 활용을 위한 제도 개선방안 연구
정책연구
2020 .11
-
안양시 지역발전 전략 연구
정책연구
2018 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0