Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 16 results ...
Conejos, S, Langston, C, Chan, E H W and Chew, M Y L (2016) Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 507-19.
Drummond, P and Ekins, P (2016) Reducing CO2 emissions from residential energy use. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 585-603.
Eisenberg, D A (2016) Transforming building regulatory systems to address climate change. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 468-73.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: building codes; risk balancing; appropriate technology; infrastructure; living buildings; regulatory systems; alternative materials; climate change; construction & building technology; energy efficiency; environmental regulations; green buildings; reg
- ISBN/ISSN: 0961-3218
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1126943
- Abstract:
The challenge of climate change for building regulation is explored based on long-term, personal observations of US building regulatory systems that are intended to safeguard the public. Systemic problems and patterns have allowed significant, large-scale hazards (e.g., those related to climate change) to be excluded from consideration in regulatory systems. Regulatory systems are typically not comprehensive, designed, integrated systems. Instead, they are silos of regulatory responsibility with gaps in authority. The system lacks formal processes to address emergent hazards. There is an absence of formal processes to assess and balance risks across hazard types, locations, timeframes and scales. The current regulatory goal of preventing or limiting known harm is compared with the positive outcome goals of the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The more comprehensive scope of the LBC and its goals surpass the existing code, but ironically, LBC projects often struggle to gain regulatory approval due to its use of innovative approaches. Potential avenues to create more comprehensive and effective regulatory systems are suggested. It is proposed that the purpose of the regulatory role is expanded from policing the arbitrary boundary between what is legal and illegal to one that includes enabling the most regenerative and positive outcomes.; The challenge of climate change for building regulation is explored based on long-term, personal observations of US building regulatory systems that are intended to safeguard the public. Systemic problems and patterns have allowed significant, large-scale hazards (e.g., those related to climate change) to be excluded from consideration in regulatory systems. Regulatory systems are typically not comprehensive, designed, integrated systems. Instead, they are silos of regulatory responsibility with gaps in authority. The system lacks formal processes to address emergent hazards. There is an absence of formal processes to assess and balance risks across hazard types, locations, timeframes and scales. The current regulatory goal of preventing or limiting known harm is compared with the positive outcome goals of the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The more comprehensive scope of the LBC and its goals surpass the existing code, but ironically, LBC projects often struggle to gain regulatory approval due to its use of innovative approaches. Potential avenues to create more comprehensive and effective regulatory systems are suggested. It is proposed that the purpose of the regulatory role is expanded from policing the arbitrary boundary between what is legal and illegal to one that includes enabling the most regenerative and positive outcomes.;The challenge of climate change for building regulation is explored based on long-term, personal observations of US building regulatory systems that are intended to safeguard the public. Systemic problems and patterns have allowed significant, large-scale hazards (e.g., those related to climate change) to be excluded from consideration in regulatory systems. Regulatory systems are typically not comprehensive, designed, integrated systems. Instead, they are silos of regulatory responsibility with gaps in authority. The system lacks formal processes to address emergent hazards. There is an absence of formal processes to assess and balance risks across hazard types, locations, timeframes and scales. The current regulatory goal of preventing or limiting known harm is compared with the positive outcome goals of the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The more comprehensive scope of the LBC and its goals surpass the existing code, but ironically, LBC projects often struggle to gain regulatory approval due to its use of innovative approaches. Potential avenues to create more comprehensive and effective regulatory systems are suggested. It is proposed that the purpose of the regulatory role is expanded from policing the arbitrary boundary between what is legal and illegal to one that includes enabling the most regenerative and positive outcomes.;
Janda, K B, Bright, S, Patrick, J, Wilkinson, S and Dixon, T J (2016) The evolution of green leases: Towards inter-organizational environmental governance. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 660-74.
Karatas, A, Stoiko, A and Menassa, C C (2016) Framework for selecting occupancy-focused energy interventions in buildings. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 535-51.
Lord, S-F, Noye, S, Ure, J, Tennant, M G and Fisk, D J (2016) Comparative review of building commissioning regulation: A quality perspective. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 630-43.
Meacham, B J (2016) Sustainability and resiliency objectives in performance building regulations. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 474-89.
Mulville, M and Stravoravdis, S (2016) The impact of regulations on overheating risk in dwellings. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 520-34.
Nishida, Y, Hua, Y and Okamoto, N (2016) Alternative building emission-reduction measure: Outcomes from the Tokyo cap-and-trade program. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 644-59.
Qian, Q K, Fan, K and Chan, E H W (2016) Regulatory incentives for green buildings: Gross floor area concessions. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 675-93.
Rosenow, J, Fawcett, T, Eyre, N and Oikonomou, V (2016) Energy efficiency and the policy mix. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 562-74.
Sha, K and Wu, S (2016) Multilevel governance for building energy conservation in rural China. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 619-29.
Shapiro, S (2016) The realpolitik of building codes: Overcoming practical limitations to climate resilience. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 490-506.
Van der Heijden, J (2016) The new governance for low-carbon buildings: Mapping, exploring, interrogating. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 575-84.
Visscher, H, Meijer, F, Majcen, D and Itard, L (2016) Improved governance for energy efficiency in housing. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 552-61.
Zhang, J, Zhou, N, Hinge, A, Feng, W and Zhang, S (2016) Governance strategies to achieve zero-energy buildings in China. Building Research & Information, 44(05), 604-18.