Skea, J (2009) Cold comfort in a high carbon society? Building Research & Information, 37(1), pp. 74-78. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
It is now obvious that technology and society co-evolve. This should lead to increasing collaboration between social scientists and engineers in fields such as buildings. Yet engineering insights still have hegemony over building practices and the setting of standards. This paper considers how the insights from the recent Building Research Information 2008 special issue titled 'Comfort in a Lower Carbon Society' might be applied in the building sector and in associated policy-making processes. It concludes that economics, the dominant discipline in the policy world, tells us that there is a huge prize to be gained in terms of reducing carbon emissions in the built environment, but that it does not provide many clues about the practical steps needed to secure the prize. Social science insights could be critical here. Specifically, it is argued that social science can increase one's understanding of the ways in which needs and demand for comfort are created. It can help design regulatory processes that build in visions of a lower carbon society from the start. It also provides the insight that high-level policy-makers must send coherent signals to regulators and practitioners to avoid the low carbon building agenda coming into conflict with other policy goals.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptive behaviour; built environment; climate change; comfort; consumption; demand management; governance; lower carbon society; policy-making; public policy |
| Index terms: | collaboration, public policy, built environment, carbon emission, demand management, society, governance, low-carbon building, regulator, engineer, comfort, building research, practitioner, climate change, consumption, social science, adaptive behaviour, building practice |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, occupational health and safety management, consumer economics, sociology, communities and social development, building construction, theoretical framing, business, market analysis, design practice, practitioner, human factors, profession, management, climate science, research management, public policy |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Health and Safety, Urban Studies, Governance, Design Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Sustainability, Engineering Principles |
| 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