A 'smart' bottom-up whole-systems approach to a zero-carbon built environment

Jones, P (2018) A 'smart' bottom-up whole-systems approach to a zero-carbon built environment. Building Research & Information, 46(5), pp. 566-577. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

Since the energy crisis of the mid and late 1970s, society has been aware of the need for a built environment that uses less fossil fuel energy. Although the built environment accounts for a large proportion of global fossil fuel use, it may be argued that the energy and buildings agenda is not being addressed at the depth or scale needed to meet global and national CO2 emission-reduction targets. Most actions to reduce energy use in the built environment have mainly used a 'top-down' decision-making approach, from government and industry, with little end-user engagement. Greenhouse gas emission-reduction targets will not be met without providing the technological and socio-economic pathways for achieving them. The paper is divided into three parts. Firstly, it discusses the need to reduce fossil fuel use and the apparent failure to transition policy goals and aims into practice. Secondly, top-down and bottom-up approaches are reviewed, advocating a greater emphasis on a 'whole-system' bottom-up approach in delivering multiple benefit solutions. Thirdly, the concept of 'smart' is considered in relation to bottom up with its implementation at a regional scale.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: bottom-up; buildings; energy policy; low-carbon society; policy outcomes; public policy; whole system; zero carbon
Index terms: energy use, implementation, bottom-up approach, built environment, fossil fuel, user engagement, public policy, decision-making, greenhouse gas emission, energy policy, society, low-carbon society
Subjects: sustainability assessment, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, communities and social development, environmental health, design methods, urban planning, public policy, energy systems, contractual arrangements
Topics: Sustainability, Governance, Procurement, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, 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