Fauth, J; Nørkjær Gade, P; Kaiser, S; Raj, K; Goul Pedersen, J; Olsson, P O; Nisbet, N; Mastrolembo Ventura, S; Hirvensalo, A; Granja, J; Urban, H; Rutešić, S; Verstraeten, R; Raitviir, C R; Kallinen, A R; Schranz, C; Stojanov, T and Tekavec, J (2025) Investigating building permit processes across Europe: Characteristics and patterns. Building Research & Information, 53(4), pp. 417-434. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Building permit processes serve as crucial gatekeepers for urban development, regulating compliance with building codes, land use policies, and safety and environmental standards. However, their complexity can lead to inefficiencies and hinder economic growth. While existing studies have made significant contributions to building permit process research, they often focus on individual countries or specific aspects, leaving a gap in comprehensive comparative analysis. Characteristics, and patterns of building permit processes vary widely across jurisdictions due to legal, cultural, technological, and institutional factors which makes a comparative analysis of these variations beneficial. To address the lack of building permit process studies, our research focusses on from an extensive comparative study of building permit processes in 17 European countries. Through semi-structured interviews and process diagrams, we investigate the differences and provide a comparative overview summarizing key characteristics. The findings have the potential to be used by policy makers and practice to better understand and compare the evolution of building permit systems in a broad international context. By bridging research gaps and providing a comprehensive view of these processes, we contribute to the awareness of the diversity of the processes and to fostering greater understanding of building permit processes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building permit; European countries; process comparison; process modelling |
| Index terms: | Europe, economic growth, comparative study, urban development, comparative analysis, jurisdiction, land use, compliance, interview, process modelling, building code, complexity, evolution, variation |
| Subjects: | regulatory law, systems engineering, contractual condition, real estate economics, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, research design and methodology, economic development, physical geography and landforms, health safety and environment, urban design, design analysis, legal systems, environmental science |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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