Pearl, D S and Oliver, A (2015) The role of early-phase mining in reframing net-positive development. Building Research & Information, 43(1), pp. 34-48. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The term net-positive development has gained significant recognition by both academics and professionals, especially in architecture. A net-positive development increases or creates economic, social and ecological capital(s) and makes a positive contribution to ecosystem services. Designing how excess resources may be used beyond a site's boundary is a very appealing notion, but difficult to put into practice without the tools and methods to support net-positive development. The effectiveness and potential impact on community design of net-positive development is questioned when its evaluation is limited to a quantitative analysis only. A broader definition of net positive is offered that equally places social dimensions alongside ecological health through mining for synergies and leverage points in the early stages of a design project. An emphasis is placed on the undervalued first step in the design process of mining: evaluating the dormant, inherent potential. This can be done through a process of questioning the conventional parameters of a context's predefined limits. A framework is also provided that can prove beneficial at this phase. It is posited that strong mining can provide full-spectrum change where true positive benefits, on multiple scales and for multiple stakeholder interests, are achieved.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; holistic design; neighbourhood planning; net-positive development; pre-design phase; regenerative design; stakeholders; transformational change |
| Index terms: | ecosystem services, regenerative design, design process, quantitative analysis, dimension, synergy, positive development, mining, effectiveness, design phase, built environment |
| Subjects: | design methods, sustainability and energy, professional practice, data analysis and analytics, health monitoring assessment and metrics, biodiversity, performance management, urban design, partnership management, geotechnical engineering, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management |
| 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