Yalciner, S (2018) Sustainable architecture and the influence of global assessment tools. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Over the last two decades, the drive towards sustainability has prompted stakeholders in the building and construction sector to develop a range of sustainable building assessment tools (SBATs). Initially, the aim of these tools was to provide a checklist and act as guidance for building professionals. More recently, these tools have evolved into global benchmarks that quantify aspects of building design related to resource consumption, occupant satisfaction, material selection, and construction and management practices, and to allow for global comparison of building projects. The globalisation of SBATs has occurred in parallel with the globalization of architectural practice. In both cases, there is an underlying assumption that design and construction can be achieved through adherence to universal principles that can be applied in any context. This research project studies the motives behind the production and globalization of SBATs to understand how universal knowledge claims are influencing sustainable building and construction practices. The research focuses on the Building Research Establishment�s widely acclaimed environmental assessment method, BREEAM, as a case study. Through participant observation at BREEAM assessor training and semi-structured interviews with BREEAM developers and users, the study provides empirical evidence on how sustainability principles have been developed, codified, transferred and applied in multiple locations. The findings reveal that a number of branding techniques targeting building developers and tailoring to accommodate local building regulations have been introduced to increase the uptake of BREEAM. The globalization of SBATs includes prescriptive measures that are often not aligned with physical, social, and cultural factors in different contexts. This suggests that SBATs are homogenising architectural practice in the pursuit of a singular, universal interpretation of sustainable building design and construction.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Karvonen, A and Lewis, A |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building design; building regulation; construction sector; environmental assessment; globalisation; globalization; regulation; sustainable building; training; developer; professional; stakeholders; sustainability; case study; interview; participant observation |
| Index terms: | resource consumption, occupant satisfaction, design and construction, architectural practice, building professional, motive, case study, building design, building regulation, environmental assessment, construction sector, evidence, globalization, regulation, sustainable building design, sustainable building, management practice, BREEAM accreditation, sustainable architecture, building research, interview, observation |
| Subjects: | user-centered design, business, profession, data collection methods, energy systems, management, political science, economic factors, industry analysis, regulatory law, environmental impact, evaluation and assessment methods, architectural design, contractual arrangements, environmental resource management, psychology, environmental policy, design process, sustainable construction, research management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Human Resources, International Construction, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Governance, Legal Issues, Procurement, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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