Z E M C H 2 0 1 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e
542
basis of sustainable development though a review of its constituent philosophies.
Thereafter, current construction practice is aligned to specific notional perspectives. This
effort is followed by a discussion regarding whether such contemporary construction
approaches are appropriate within the broader scope of sustainable development. The
paper concludes with a series of suggestions that aspire to inform the strategic direction
of sustainable construction and its related activities.
Conceptual Analysis of Sustainable Development
Mebratu (1998) asserts that sustainable development represents the resolution of earlier
responses to the environmental crisis. These ranged from the survivalist/neo-Malthusian
perspectives of Meadows
et al.
(1972) to the low expenditure, market-orientated policies
favoured by The Establishment. However, the inherent vagueness, or perhaps more
kindly interpretational flexibility, of the popularised WCED conception has resulted in
multifarious attempts to capture its notional essence (Redclift 2005). Similarly, it has
been difficult to infer distinct socio-economic perspectives from attitudes towards the
natural environment. Claims by O’Riordan (1987: 77-102) that environmentalist and
technocrat/economist outlooks implicitly align with distributive equity and the prevailing
economic and political orthodoxy respectively have been challenged (Hopwood, Mellor
and O’Brien 2005). In particular, Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien (2005) remark that
relationships between society and nature are often made on a sympathetic or moral
basis rather than on a material basis. Moreover, measures applied with the aim of
achieving social justice may in practice hinder sustainability due to unforeseen scenarios
and impacts, and
vice versa
. Therefore, there is merit in providing a generalised view of
the various standpoints within the related discourse.
The diversity of dispositions relating to sustainable development can be arranged into
three specific attitudinal categories, labelled institutional, academic and ideological. Here,
particular views associated with each category are differentiated from the other
perspectives in terms of their motivations, perceived problem source and solution focus,
and instruments for realisation (Mebratu 1998). Alternatively, Hopwood, Mellor and
O’Brien (2005) propose grouping the outlooks under headings that reflect the
fundamental dynamic of each interpretation – status quo, reform or transformation. In
effect these classification frameworks are synonymous (e.g. the ‘institutional’ category
maps to the ‘status quo’ heading) although there is some inconsistency regarding with
which group certain perspectives align (Table 1). A further caveat is that not all outlooks
can be so unambiguously assigned.
Institutional / status quo perspectives
Institutional interpretations of sustainable development are concerned with addressing
change within the confines of existing political and economic structures. Based on the
premise that a sustainable level of consumption is achievable (Stavins, Wagner and
Wagner 2003) adherents to this view firmly believe that attendant issues can be
overcome through the application a range of initiatives. These include technological and
organisational improvements, the employment of manifest instruments of transition (e.g.
tax incentives, punitive fines) within an environmental context, and, most importantly,
continued economic growth. Perhaps unsurprisingly, proponents of this perspective
include most governments and their agencies, supranational organisations (including the
European Union and the World Bank) and industrial and business concerns. However,
predicting the environmental impact of economic decisions is not the natural theoretical
or empirical domain of economists (Goldin and Winters 1995), who commonly equate
sustainability with economic viability (Lozano 2008a). Similarly, politicians frequently fail
to address environmental and social concerns beyond relatively short election cycles.