Du Plessis, C (1999) Sustainable development demands dialogue between developed and developing worlds. Building Research & Information, 27(6), pp. 379-389. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The international construction community's understanding of sustainable development is compromised by a systemic communication gap between the developed and developing worlds as well as a failure to address the implications of social requirements. The inclusion of the developing world within the sustainable development debate is argued as essential and the obstacles to achieving this are considered. Initiating a real dialogue in an equal partnership between the developed and developing worlds is a key challenge to define the process, guidelines and achieve protocols for sustainable development. Although CIB has recently commenced engaging with the developing world, much more needs to be done.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cib; decision making; developing world; ethics; quality of life; social sustainability; sustainable development; systems |
| Index terms: | sustainable development, decision-making, partnership, social sustainability, international construction, ethics, quality of life |
| Subjects: | public and environmental health, ethical practice, communities and social development, strategic management, partnership management, health safety and environment, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, International Construction, Research Practice, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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