Does reframing urban policy around wellbeing support carbon mitigation?

Chapman, R and Howden-Chapman, P (2021) Does reframing urban policy around wellbeing support carbon mitigation? Buildings & Cities, 2(1), pp. 688-699. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

New Zealand ('Aotearoa') is a highly urbanised country with one of the first governments in the world to adopt a wellbeing budget framework. That framework, in combination with the architecture for decarbonisation provided by New Zealand’s 2019 'Zero Carbon' Act, means there are now institutional and policy incentives in place, and developing incrementally, to combine the pursuit of wellbeing and decarbonisation. These incentives also align with the outcomes highlighted in the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This paper considers the way policy and institutional approaches to carbon mitigation are being linked to wellbeing in three interconnected urban, non-agricultural domains responsible for much of New Zealand’s carbon emissions: building, urban form and transport. Looking beyond the current Covid-19 recovery process, emerging evidence is presented to ascertain whether the wellbeing-focused policy approach, with its associated attention to co-benefits, is creating a clear institutional refocusing. In addition, other evidence suggests that New Zealanders see health and wellbeing as improving, at the same time as the country is moving towards the net zero carbon emissions target.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building; co-benefits; mitigationpublic policy; New Zealand; transport; urban form; wellbeing
Index terms: net zero, urban form, well-being, evidence, sustainable development goal, mitigation, urban policy, health and wellbeing, United Nations, COVID-19, recovery, carbon emission, New Zealand
Subjects: urban form and morphology, health risk and incident analysis, financial risk, Geography, sustainable design, mental health and wellbeing, evaluation and assessment methods, climate science, operations management, urban planning, institutional frameworks, energy systems
Topics: Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Governance, Sustainability, Urban Studies
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

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