Mang, P and Reed, B (2015) The nature of positive. Building Research & Information, 43(1), pp. 7-10. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The net-positive concept could serve as both a new direction and an aspiration for evolving sustainable design beyond minimizing human damage toward human habitation that is a source of life. This commentary posits that realizing that potential depends on how practitioners define positive. Describing net-positive as buildings that "add value" to ecological systems and generate more than they need to fulfil their own needs moves net-positive beyond simply a technical challenge of creating surpluses to one that requires confronting the widely different interpretations of value and value-adding held within the sustainability movement. Green building, like the building industry, generally defines and measures a building's value in terms of human benefit. Ecological sustainability defines value in terms of benefits to the systemic capability to generate, sustain and evolve the life of a particular place. Reconciling these different definitions could transform how society conceives of and designs the built environment. Building professionals seeking to translate net-positive into practice could play a leading role in that transformation. Practice will need to embrace ecological thinking to create design, construction and ongoing management processes that stimulate dialogue about what it means for humans to play a value-adding role in the ecological systems where they are constituents.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; ecological sustainability; living systems; net-positive; place; regenerative design; social-ecological system |
| Index terms: | building professional, building industry, practitioner, built environment, green building, social-ecological system, transformation, regenerative design, society, movement, sustainable design |
| Subjects: | design process, design practice, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, communities and social development, practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, business, profession, environmental science, sustainability and energy |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| 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