Hassler, U (2009) Long-term building stock survival and intergenerational management: The role of institutional regimes. Building Research & Information, 37(5-6), pp. 552-568. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Intergenerational value-management of the built environment requires preservation of both natural capital and man-made resources. A consequence is that buildings and infrastructure should be used as long as possible. Considering that built cultural heritage is mainly a 'non-renewable' capital, it affords a number of insights and lessons that can be more widely adapted to other parts of the built environment. The following key issues are discussed: long-term patterns and dynamics of the building stock; specific survival profiles for groups of buildings; strategies that have led to a long-term value preservation in the past; and robustness of former and existing strategies. Segments of the stock that could be used as a role model for the management of the entire stock are discussed as well as the possible contribution of public policy and institutional regimes to long-term value preservation. A related conceptual basis for an inventory of the built cultural heritage is presented in an appendix.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building stock; historic environments; institutional regimes; public policy; sustainable management; time; value; value preservation |
| Index terms: | historic environment, public policy, built environment, building stock, inventory, survival, sustainable management, dynamics, role model, strategy |
| Subjects: | inventory management, heritage and conservation, sociology, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental science, health safety and environment, public policy, asset management, management, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Governance, Urban Studies, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Supply Chain Management |
| 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