Moir S, C K (2013) An appreciation of BREEAM relative to the cosmonomic idea of reality. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
Sustainability assessment schemes risk the institutionalisation of a limited definition of sustainable construction. New, broader structures of knowledge and thinking relating to sustainability in the built environment are required. The 'Cosmonomic Idea of Reality' has been advanced as such a structure. The notional basis of the cosmonomic framework was explored and was shown to accord with six previously identified dimensions of sustainability. Using the mind-mapping technique and a set of mapping rules, the framework was compared with an established BREEAM scheme, to allow the shortcomings of this assessment method to be exposed. It was found that the BREEAM scheme neither sufficiently accommodated the sustainability dimensions nor each and every modality of the framework. In order to address the complexities of the sustainability challenge the BREEAM scheme must fully accord with a framework that more appropriately encapsulates the sustainability concept. Moreover, it should be better informed by project-specific concerns.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | assessment; framework; sustainability |
| Index terms: | sustainable construction, BREEAM accreditation, sustainability assessment, sustainability challenge, complexity, built environment, dimension, mapping, institutionalization |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, sustainable construction, environmental policy, sustainability assessment, systems engineering, health monitoring assessment and metrics, environmental issues, spatial and geospatial analysis |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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