Camrass, K (2022) Urban regenerative thinking and practice: A systematic literature review. Building Research & Information, 50(3), pp. 339-350. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Regenerative approaches to the built environment represent a conceptual departure from reductionist sustainability fields. By utilizing the inherent interconnections between social-ecological systems as an informing foundation, regenerative fields have the potential to facilitate transformation towards sustainable cities. This paper provides a systematic review of publications on urban regenerative thinking and practice, including across urban development stages and sectors. Results indicate precincts as the optimum scale for regenerative intervention and provide insights into the worldviews underpinning regenerative approaches. The targets and aspirations of regenerative fields are well-documented, along with the practical challenges to effective implementation. Gaps in the literature are identified including paradigmatic and definitional inconsistencies across urban regenerative thinking and practice. Similarly, there is a lack of detail on the realization of planning aspirations at subsequent stages of building lifecycles. The sample also does not extensively outline the specific engagement mechanisms required to remove barriers to regenerative practice or encourage its uptake across geographic and legislative contexts. Whilst the operationalization of regenerative principles in high-density urban environments remains a challenge, these fields offer transformative frameworks to not only mitigate further harm but also achieve net-positive natural and social outcomes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; net-positive; regenerative design; regenerative development |
| Index terms: | transformation, implementation, social-ecological system, lifecycle, urban development, sustainable city, built environment, regenerative design, systematic literature review, publication, urban environment, density |
| Subjects: | project delivery, analytical methods, sustainability and energy, business, urban design, urban sustainability, contractual arrangements, infrastructure and transport systems, research evaluation and metrics, research dissemination and communication, environmental science |
| Topics: | Information Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Research Practice, Project 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