Gilmour, D; Blackwood, D; Falconer, R and Isaacs, J (2010) Understanding decisions for sustainable development. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Major urban development projects extend over prolonged timescales, involve a large number of stakeholders and necessitate complex decision making. This paper describes part of ongoing research to develop a Sustainability Enhancement Framework for urban re-development projects. This requires an understanding of stakeholder interaction and their influence on decisions to provide guidance on where potential enhancement actives can best influence the project’s sustainability. The scope of the required interviews and analytical approaches are described and the paper demonstrates how these techniques led to the identification of key sustainability intervention points in the decision process. Conclusions are drawn on the value and robustness of the methodology.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision analysis; decision theory; organizational analysis; sustainability; sustainability enhancement |
| Index terms: | methodology, decision-making, urban development, decision theory, interaction, interview, organizational analysis, sustainable development, decision analysis, decision process |
| Subjects: | behavioral psychology, decision analysis, urban design, health safety and environment, research methods, business, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Research Practice, Risk Management, Urban Studies, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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