This paper explores the governance of sectoral innovation and niche formation of green buildings and other low energy buildings (like NZEBs). Two analytical frameworks are used and synthesized: the Sectoral Systems Innovation Assessment framework (SSIAf) and the Governance Assessment Tool (GAT). The key components of the former are: shaping of expectations, actor network formation, institutions, learning process, and stimulating market demand. The SSIAf components are then assessed against the four quality criterions of the GAT framework, i.e. extent, coherence, flexibility, and intensity. The research design presented in this paper applies the analytical framework developed to case studies of two cities: Singapore and Delhi. Data collection involved participant observation and expert interviews. The results of the study reveal that the overall governance conditions in Singapore are fairly strong and highly supported by the government, unlike Delhi where governance quality was found to lack coherence and intensity, and can be considered only moderately supportive to green building innovations. The results also reveal the role of government actors in steering the energy transformation process in building sector. The analytical framework developed in this paper can be further elaborated, also as a potential policy tool to support cities in managing energy system innovations like energy infrastructures, smart grids or community energy storage in diverse and complex urban settings.@en

The building sector in Singapore consumes up to half of the nation’s total energy. The government has therefore been urging the transformation of the industry by targeting 80% of all buildings to be green-certified by 2030. Thus far, Singapore has done relatively well, and is widely viewed as frontrunner in this respect. This paper addresses the question: what are the benefits and limitations of Singapore’s sectoral innovation system in spurring an energy transition in the building sector, in particular by up-scaling the use of green building technology? The Sectoral Innovation Systems (SIS) theoretical framework was used to analyze the Singapore case. Four SIS components were assessed: technological regime, market demand, actor interactions and networks, and institutional framework. The benefits of Singapore’s sectoral innovation system identified in the analysis basically concern aspects of all of the four elements of SIS. Particular success factors concerned the launching of an integrated strategy to support green building innovations (i.e., the Green Mark policy scheme), implementing support policies, and setting up test beds. Furthermore, a masterplan to engage and educate end-users was implemented, knowledge exchange platforms were set up, regulations on the use of efficient equipment in buildings were issued, and standards and a certification system were adopted. The results also shed light on key barriers, namely, the reluctance of building users to change their habits, ineffective stakeholder collaboration, and green buildings innovation support coming from the government only. Measures in place have been moderately effective.@en