Transforming building regulatory systems to address climate change

Eisenberg, D A (2016) Transforming building regulatory systems to address climate change. Building Research & Information, 44(5-6), pp. 468-473. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

The challenge of climate change for building regulation is explored based on long-term, personal observations of US building regulatory systems that are intended to safeguard the public. Systemic problems and patterns have allowed significant, large-scale hazards (e.g., those related to climate change) to be excluded from consideration in regulatory systems. Regulatory systems are typically not comprehensive, designed, integrated systems. Instead, they are silos of regulatory responsibility with gaps in authority. The system lacks formal processes to address emergent hazards. There is an absence of formal processes to assess and balance risks across hazard types, locations, timeframes and scales. The current regulatory goal of preventing or limiting known harm is compared with the positive outcome goals of the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The more comprehensive scope of the LBC and its goals surpass the existing code, but ironically, LBC projects often struggle to gain regulatory approval due to its use of innovative approaches. Potential avenues to create more comprehensive and effective regulatory systems are suggested. It is proposed that the purpose of the regulatory role is expanded from policing the arbitrary boundary between what is legal and illegal to one that includes enabling the most regenerative and positive outcomes.;  The challenge of climate change for building regulation is explored based on long-term, personal observations of US building regulatory systems that are intended to safeguard the public. Systemic problems and patterns have allowed significant, large-scale hazards (e.g., those related to climate change) to be excluded from consideration in regulatory systems. Regulatory systems are typically not comprehensive, designed, integrated systems. Instead, they are silos of regulatory responsibility with gaps in authority. The system lacks formal processes to address emergent hazards. There is an absence of formal processes to assess and balance risks across hazard types, locations, timeframes and scales. The current regulatory goal of preventing or limiting known harm is compared with the positive outcome goals of the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The more comprehensive scope of the LBC and its goals surpass the existing code, but ironically, LBC projects often struggle to gain regulatory approval due to its use of innovative approaches. Potential avenues to create more comprehensive and effective regulatory systems are suggested. It is proposed that the purpose of the regulatory role is expanded from policing the arbitrary boundary between what is legal and illegal to one that includes enabling the most regenerative and positive outcomes.;The challenge of climate change for building regulation is explored based on long-term, personal observations of US building regulatory systems that are intended to safeguard the public. Systemic problems and patterns have allowed significant, large-scale hazards (e.g., those related to climate change) to be excluded from consideration in regulatory systems. Regulatory systems are typically not comprehensive, designed, integrated systems. Instead, they are silos of regulatory responsibility with gaps in authority. The system lacks formal processes to address emergent hazards. There is an absence of formal processes to assess and balance risks across hazard types, locations, timeframes and scales. The current regulatory goal of preventing or limiting known harm is compared with the positive outcome goals of the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The more comprehensive scope of the LBC and its goals surpass the existing code, but ironically, LBC projects often struggle to gain regulatory approval due to its use of innovative approaches. Potential avenues to create more comprehensive and effective regulatory systems are suggested. It is proposed that the purpose of the regulatory role is expanded from policing the arbitrary boundary between what is legal and illegal to one that includes enabling the most regenerative and positive outcomes.;

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building codes; risk balancing; appropriate technology; infrastructure; living buildings; regulatory systems; alternative materials; climate change; construction & building technology; energy efficiency; environmental regulations; green buildings; regulatory approval
Index terms: climate change, appropriate technology, building code, integrated system, environmental regulation, green building, alternative material, risk balancing, regulatory system, living building, building technology, regulatory approval, energy efficiency, building regulation
Subjects: political science, regulatory law, design practice, financial risk, health safety and environment, sustainability and energy, technological development, climate science, design methods, engineering systems, materials science
Topics: Design Practice, Legal Issues, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Governance, Sustainability
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