Graham, P; McFarlane, K and Taheri, M (2025) Developing criteria for effective building-sector commitments in nationally determined contributions. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 695-712. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The number of countries mentioning building sector climate actions in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) has risen from 131 in 2020 to 168 in 2023. However, the wide variety of ways in which these actions are included and described makes it difficult to determine their contribution to Paris Agreement targets or national climate goals, including energy and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets. Some countries only briefly mention building sector actions as contributing to energy or industry mitigation goals, while others detail more specific actions and targets. This heterogeneity makes NDCs less transparent and difficult to assess for the mitigation potential of individual and collective commitments on emission reduction and adaptation. This research addresses this gap by applying a modified Delphi method, engaging a panel of global experts (n = 14), to develop a framework of 11 aligned criteria as recommendations for structuring building-related chapters in NDCs. The developed criteria for effective building sector commitments in NDCs include: (1) political commitment; (2) stakeholder engagement; (3) sector-specific targets; (4) ambitious goals; (5) a roadmap; (6) a policy framework; (7) comprehensive actions; (8) coordinating bodies; (9) financing; (10) measurement, reporting, verification, evaluation and data; and (11) education and knowledge-sharing. PRACTICE RELEVANCE This study addresses the need for a consensus-driven framework to define and assess effective building sector commitments in NDCs. The resulting framework is valuable to a range of stakeholders. For policymakers, this framework serves as a practical tool for designing transparent, ambitious and actionable NDCs, aligning national and subnational building sector actions with broader climate goals, addressing both mitigation and adaptation. For donors, the framework provides a reliable method to evaluate the viability of building sector commitments, ensuring that key elements such as political commitment and financial backing are in place. Additionally, it offers scholars and advocacy groups a structured approach to evaluate and track climate commitments, promoting greater accountability and driving more effective climate actions within the building sector. The proposed framework also has relevance for UNFCCC Conference of Parties’ (COPs) preparations and negotiations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; built environment; decarbonisation; Delphi method; nationally determined contributions; Paris agreement; public policy |
| Index terms: | conference, adaptation, Delphi method, donor, negotiation, Paris, stakeholder engagement, built environment, commitment, accountability, public policy, financing, greenhouse gas, mitigation |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, conflict resolution, sociology, community and social dimensions, data collection methods, Geography, financial risk, liability law, climate science, research dissemination and communication, user focus, economic analysis, psychology, public policy |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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