Kohler, N (2018) From the design of green buildings to resilience management of building stocks. Building Research & Information, 46(5), pp. 578-593. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The green and the subsequent sustainable building movements have been framed by changing societal contexts. Their main focus has been on the design of new buildings. However, these movements have neglected the life span of existing buildings and the long-term management of building stocks. The reasons why are considered: the changing interpretations of sustainability, the evolution of different forms of tacit knowledge, lack of a metabolic framework covering the built environment and lack of a consistent multi-scale building information modelling (BIM). The transition toward a 'risk society', with an increasing diversity and frequency of threats, challenges the current optimistic definition of sustainability. Resilience addresses fast- and slow-moving threats that can lead to unknown consequences and new risks. Alternative planning approaches (e.g. scenario planning, adaptive change and resilience heuristics) are discussed. The differences between anticipation- and resilience-based strategies are considered. Possible heuristics can be found in social–ecological systems, in resilience engineering and in the historic evolution of the built environment. Resilient solutions generally lead to a higher level of complexity and carry additional environmental costs. In the creation of resilience capacity, new knowledge will be co-produced through transdisciplinary research, scenario planning and design experiments under conditions of uncertainty.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptation; building stock; buildings; green building; performance; resilience; scenario planning; sustainability; vulnerability |
| Index terms: | sustainable building, strategy, experiment, tacit knowledge, adaptation, society, movement, building information modelling, complexity, scenario planning, building stock, evolution, vulnerability, green building, built environment, heuristic |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, health behaviours and lifestyles, data collection methods, environmental hazards, information systems, management, design practice, user focus, sustainable construction, communities and social development, professional development, environmental science, systems engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, asset management |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Digital Applications, Sustainability, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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