Cole, R J (2004) Changing context for environmental knowledge. Building Research & Information, 32(2), pp. 91-109. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
What are the ways that environmental issues have been framed by prevailing societal values and priorities over the last 30 years, and what repercussions have these had for building research and practice? These questions are explored primarily through a review of the critical ideas, positions and agendas as documented in UK and North American building literature. The historical framing reveals a highly dynamic relationship between the proposition and introduction of ideas offered by research and practice, and society's receptivity to them. The environmental debate over the past three decades has shifted from an attitude of 'survival' to one of responsibility and stewardship. It is these two notions, along with other developments, that have indirectly shaped environmental policy, building research and practice. The paper concludes by speculating on future technological developments and overarching notions that may shape future environmental attitudes, receptivity and actions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | environment; environmental awareness; environmental research; professional practice; public policy |
| Index terms: | society, building research, environmental issue, framing, environmental awareness, professional practice, survival, environmental policy, public policy |
| Subjects: | environmental issues, environmental behaviour, public policy, environmental science, conceptual models, professional development, research management, communities and social development |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Sustainability, Governance, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
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