ARCOM

Abstracts – Browse Results

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 9 results ...

Cohen, R and Bordass, B (2015) Mandating transparency about building energy performance in use. Building Research & Information, 43(04), 534-52.

Gupta, R, Gregg, M, Passmore, S and Stevens, G (2015) Intent and outcomes from the Retrofit for the Future programme: key lessons. Building Research & Information, 43(04), 435-51.

Ive, G, Murray, A and Marsh, R (2015) Cost and value ratios of operating renewed English secondary schools. Building Research & Information, 43(04), 465-85.

Janda, K B and Topouzi, M (2015) Telling tales: using stories to remake energy policy. Building Research & Information, 43(04), 516-33.

Mills, G R W, Phiri, M, Erskine, J and Price, A D F (2015) Rethinking healthcare building design quality: an evidence-based strategy. Building Research & Information, 43(04), 499-515.

Moncaster, A M and Simmons, P (2015) Policies and outcomes for UK sustainable schools. Building Research & Information, 43(04), 452-64.

Schweber, L, Lees, T and Torriti, J (2015) Framing evidence: policy design for the zero-carbon home. Building Research & Information, 43(04), 420-34.

Type: Journal Article
Keywords:
ISBN/ISSN: 0961-3218
URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2015.1002355
Abstract:
Insights are offered into UK government built environment policy-making processes through an insider’s perspective (based on experience of being the chief executive of a public body, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment - CABE) on three empirical examples. The government’s mandate was for policies to be evidence based. There was no shortage of demand for evidence, but it was fed into political and bureaucratic domains where less- or non-evidence-based influences were also at work. The questions considered are how much the evidence really influenced the content of policy; and whether making a policy evidence-based led to its acceptance across government, causing departments to commit to its delivery. It is found that evidence (1) is powerful for defining issues to which policy should attend, (2) captures the attention of policy and decision-makers, but only if presented succinctly, and (3) is essential for testing outcomes. Supposedly evidence-based policy is not always truly evidence based. Many subjective forces counterbalance objectivity. The most significant reasons for this are mooted. Advice is offered on how to make evidence a more effective part of a process that will always be partly technical and objective, but also political and subjective.