Reed, B (2007) Forum: Shifting from 'sustainability' to regeneration. Building Research & Information, 35(6), pp. 674-680. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Sustainability, as currently practised in the built environment, is primarily an exercise in efficiency. In other words, the use of environmental rating systems and other mechanisms allows a reduction in the damage caused by excessive resource use. However, instead of doing less damage to the environment, it is necessary to learn how one can participate with the environment by using the health of ecological systems as a basis for design. The shift from a fragmented to a whole systems model is the significant cultural leap that consumer society needs to make - through framing and understanding living system interrelationships in an integrated way. A place-based approach is one way to achieve this understanding. The design process begins by attempting to understand how the systems of life work in each unique place. The role of designers and stakeholders is to create a whole system of mutually beneficial relationships. By doing so, the potential for green design moves beyond sustaining the environment to one that can regenerate its health - as well as our own.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; consumption; design process; mental models; sustainability; whole systems |
| Index terms: | built environment, mental model, design process, society, efficiency, framing, designer, exercise, consumption |
| Subjects: | consumer economics, cognitive psychology, design methods, profession, performance management, communities and social development, health behaviours and lifestyles, infrastructure and transport systems, conceptual models |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Design Practice, 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