Hedborg, S and Rosander, L (2024) Self-organizing in urban development: Developers coordinating between construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 42(2), pp. 114-128. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Sustainable urban development districts have become an answer to the challenge of increasing urbanization while decreasing human impact on the environment. Like other domains of public administration, urban development has in recent decades moved towards heterogeneous governance. Urban development becomes project ecologies, where several construction projects are carried out in parallel and in sequence. This paper sheds light on public and private developers' coordinating between their construction projects and the influence this has on the built environment of urban development districts. The space between projects in project ecologies is relevant to explore further to understand how the long-term goals of urban policy are achieved in practice. Through the theoretical lens of self-organizing, the discussion is informed by a qualitative study of two cases where developers built together in sustainable profiled urban development districts. The paper contributes to construction management research by illustrating how developers play a key role in finalizing the design and construction of new districts through self-organizing. In effect, new urban districts can only be realized through joint efforts and coordination amongst developers. The paper also provides policymakers with insights into how developers become key players in organizing new neighborhoods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | urban development; developers; project ecologies; self-organizing; heterogenous governance |
| Index terms: | project ecology, management research, human impact, design and construction, governance, urbanization, urban development, coordination, qualitative study, urban policy, self-organizing, built environment, urban district, sustainable urban development, construction project |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, contractual arrangements, management, urban design, environmental impact, production management, business, sociology, infrastructure and transport systems, sustainability and resilience, urban planning, specific urban areas and projects, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Sustainability, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Governance, Procurement, Project Management, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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