Decoupling climate-policy objectives and mechanisms to reduce fragmentation

Bollo, C S and Cole, R J (2019) Decoupling climate-policy objectives and mechanisms to reduce fragmentation. Building Research & Information, 47(2), pp. 219-233. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

The efficacy of climate-change mitigation policy within the building sector is examined in terms of how fragmentation can limit the extent of mitigation actions that can be achieved in a timely manner. The policy and regulatory context for the building industry is examined in relation to the policy context for solutions and recommendations that will work for all parties. Based on this analysis, two substantive recommendations are made for improved policy design. Firstly, a decoupling of policy objectives and policy mechanisms is needed so that the policy-taking stakeholders (in design, development and construction) can reduce energy use in buildings more effectively. Secondly, policy-taking stakeholders need an explicit and diverse system in order to advocate for policy objectives. The major aspect of this work is the development of a new conceptual framework that ties together these recommendations into a continuous process of policy-making and policy-taking. This framework demonstrates an idealized system that operates simultaneously top down and bottom up, and the development of policy objectives is influenced by stakeholders of all kinds to further the goals of an energy-efficient, low-carbon built environment.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: advocacy; climate change; energy efficiency; governance; mitigation; policy formation; policy instruments; public policy; stakeholders
Index terms: policy design, fragmentation, decoupling, public policy, conceptual framework, climate change, policy instrument, policy formation, mitigation, energy efficiency, governance, energy use, building industry, built environment
Subjects: energy systems, sustainability and energy, public policy, climate science, policy studies, business, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering, financial risk, theoretical framing
Topics: Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Sustainability, Governance, Urban Studies, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

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