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
548
obligations and, less altruistically, facilitate ‘green’ differentiation in an increasingly
competitive market.
Although more ideological academic notions of sustainable development, such as deep
ecology and eco-feminism, are ostensibly far removed from contemporary construction
practice, there is arguably worth in the seeking to further apply environmental economics
to construction-related activities. In attempting to more fully understand the
environmental impacts of construction, albeit (in the first instance, at least) in order to
monetise associated damage for the purposes of risk assessments, trade-off analysis
and regulatory levies, such an approach mirrors the endorsed and progressive trend
towards understating the whole life impacts of construction activities through life cycle
assessment. However, environmental economics as a disciple is not without its
detractors, in particular when performed as cost benefit analysis (Seghezzo 2009), and
the aforementioned implementation issues may never be satisfactorily resolved within a
construction, or indeed wider, context.
Conclusions
The original goal of this paper was to establish whether or not sustainable construction
will enable the achievement of sustainable development. A notional analysis of
sustainable development and a brief reflection on contemporary construction industry
practice would appear to indicate that it does, but with notable caveats. Most would
agree that the measures already mentioned, and in particular the greater deployment of
BEAMs, are a step in the right direction – a valid approach in itself. However, perhaps
the question should be recast as ‘do sustainable construction practices contribute
sufficiently
towards a sustainable future?’ When the question is framed thus the answer
becomes less apparent.
Having considered distinct approaches to sustainable development aligned to one or
other of the three broad themes identified previously, Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien
(2005) commend a transformative course of action or, where this is not immediately
feasible, reform leading to transformation. The authors concur with this assessment in
terms of its application to sustainable construction. Room for improvement is a
characteristic of any emerging discipline and it would be churlish to expect sustainable
practices within contemporary construction to be beyond augmentation or even
significant revision. However, in order to address the issues associated with the
environmental crisis, urgent and extensive change should be embraced on a hitherto
unseen (and previously unimaginable) scale. This presents a considerable challenge to
the construction industry as a whole. Revolutionary approaches as advocated by the
more uncompromising transformative notions will almost certainly be unpalatable to staid
commercial concerns but even the more ardent reformist perspectives represent
unknown territory for the majority of construction professionals. In the light of a historical
reluctance to adequately engage in considerably less radical agendas (Latham 1994;
Egan 1998), such a metamorphosis will doubtlessly take a period of many years, or even
decades, to implement. By that time it may be too late to avoid the worst negative
impacts of ongoing environmental degradation.
However, substantive transformation does not necessarily require the adoption of
anarchistic approaches; change can be effectively introduced through increasingly
stringent and challenging regulations and more effective incentives – the classic carrot
and stick approach. But such efforts must be undertaken on a grander scale than current
implementations, and may be inhibited by the long service life / slow replacement rates
associated with the built environment (Cooper 1999). Furthermore, it is uncertain, short
of a catastrophic trigger, whether or not the political and/or public will exists for such a
