Van Bueren, E and De Jong, J (2007) Establishing sustainability: Policy successes and failures. Building Research & Information, 35(5), pp. 543-556. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
While some countries' building sectors have accepted and implemented public policies aimed at promoting a sustainable built environment, these measures have had little impact and change has been modest. This problem has been investigated by evaluating the concept of sustainable development in terms of its influence on environmental problems caused by the processes involved in planning, building and construction. A literature survey examining the resulting changes in public policies for a built environment produced a summary of the explanations for policy failure. The barriers to sustainable development are both general and sector specific. Policy-makers could be more effective in tackling the fragmented nature of the built environment's institutional context. Policy-making theory and past experience in planning suggest that a variety of actors should be included in the policy process, and that their knowledge should be put to good use. Those involved must develop a common understanding of what sustainable building entails, and of how it can be achieved. This requires flexibility concerning goals and procedures. One pitfall is a disproportionate focus on policy processes as against real issues. It is vital that policy processes are prioritized, sustainability presented unambiguously, and practitioners' use of research results closely monitored.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; institutional barriers; policy process; policy tools; public policy; sustainable built environment; sustainable development; trends |
| Index terms: | policy process, policy tools, public policy, practitioner, built environment, sustainable building, survey, sustainable development, building performance |
| Subjects: | sustainable construction, health safety and environment, quality assurance, infrastructure and transport systems, policy studies, data collection methods, practitioner, public policy |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Governance, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Research Practice |
| 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