Developing Property Sustainably

Sara Wilkinson, Sarah Sayce, Pernille Christensen

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780415835664
• eBook ISBN: 9781317655442
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Betriebswirtschaft
• Subtopic: Immobilien

Developing Property Sustainably introduces readers to the key issues surrounding sustainable property development in the global marketplace. Pulling together received wisdom and original research, the authors provide a clear and practical overview of the sustainable property development process as well as a critical appraisal of the problems faced by global built environment stakeholders. Throughout, the authors demonstrate how the property development industry could and should respond better to debate on sustainable practices in the built environment by adopting more rigorous measurement techniques and sustainable approaches.

Starting by exploring key definitions and stakeholders, the book goes on to explore finance, planning, construction, procurement, occupation, retrofit and lifecycle sustainability in order to provide the reader with a detailed understanding of all the issues involved in the delivery of sustainable property development from inception to occupation and beyond.
Throughout the book, international case studies are used to demonstrate how sustainable property development is applied in practice around the world. With a logical chapter structure and accessible writing style, Developing Property Sustainably would be perfect for use on undergraduate and postgraduate modules and courses in real estate development, property and urban development and other built environment programmes.

1
Introduction to sustainable property development

Sara J. Wilkinson and Sarah L. Sayce

1.0 Introduction

The built environment in general and property development in particular, have significant impacts on all aspects of sustainability, economic, social and environmental. The development process impacts on resource consumption, energy use, biodiversity, water consumption and water course patterns, waste production and the physical design and impact of urban spaces. This book examines the impacts that property development has at each stage of the process and identifies ways in which developers can reduce negative impacts and furthermore, how they can contribute positively to mitigate issues facing society such as climate change.

It is our contention that the concept of sustainable property development is not an absolute. We have only a developing understanding of the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’; they are still contested and multi-definitional. Therefore it is possible only to speak of relative sustainability. That is to say that one building or property may be judged to be more or less sustainable than another one; but even this judgement is contentious.

With this as a starting point, this chapter seeks to explore some definitions of sustainable development, sustainability and sustainable property development. It illustrates that sustainability is a contested concept and describes what this implies for our conceptual understanding. The characteristics of sustainable property development and sustainable property, we argue, vary from land use to land use, from one time frame to another and also, from location to location. The chapter describes the various stakeholders and their respective roles and abilities to determine the level of sustainability embraced in any property development. Developing property sustainably is an essential goal, if we are to develop a built environment that has the least environmental impact possible and engenders a more equitable and healthy society for all. Whether this aim can be realised remains to be seen, but it should not deter us from trying as the philosopher Emanuel Kant said in the 1750s ‘it is often necessary to make decisions on the basis of information sufficient for action, but insufficient for the intellect’. It is on this basis that the strategies for developing property sustainably are posited.

1.1 Definitions of sustainable development, sustainability and sustainable property development – a contested concept

Most modern texts on sustainable development take as their starting point that of the Brundtland Commission (1987: 43) ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ and it is this definition which has been embraced and is embedded in much legislation – including that concerning property development. However, whilst undoubtedly laudable in ambition, it is difficult to translate into action, and it is action with which this book is concerned. Indeed the problem with the Brundtland definition was neatly summarised by Sir Jonathan Porritt (Financial Times 1998) who opined: ‘Sustainable development is one of those ideas that everybody supports, but nobody knows what it means.’ When trying to define sustainable development, it is clear confusion reigns and that no single definition or interpretation exists or satisfies all (Washington 2015). It follows that if our understanding of sustainable development is flawed or incomplete, efforts to deliver sustainable development may be futile at best, or exacerbate the problem at worst. So, why is sustainable development so difficult to define?

Sustainable development, sustainability and thus sustainable property development have the characteristics of ‘contested concepts’ (Paton 2010). Gallie (1956) introduced the term to the Aristotelian Society to facilitate understanding of abstract, qualitative concepts such as ‘social justice’ or ‘fairness’. To illustrate how social justice may be interpreted differently depending on one’s viewpoint; one only has to consider the saying ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’. In essence contested concepts are notions that involve endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of the users and second, cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence or logic. The disputes arise from a range of different, though reasonable, interpretations of the concept.

When analysing sustainable development, it is necessary to deconstruct the definitions and explore the interpretations that are possible. Returning to Brundtland, whilst the first part of the definition as set out above is commonly cited, the section goes on to place priorities in terms of the world’s poor, which they argued should be prioritised and the need to recognise ‘the idea that limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environments ability to meet present and future needs’ (Brundtland 1987: 43). This latter extension recognises that shifting agendas and technology changes will affect the interpretations of what can or cannot be achieved.

However, frequently these extensions are omitted, which limits the breadth and depth of our understanding of sustainability (Washington 2015). It is easy to say ‘that does not apply to me or my circumstances’; sometimes the issues are simply too hard to process and understand. Nowhere is this the case more than with property development, which all would recognise has long-term implications, but about which decisions have to be made with imperfect knowledge and often with a pressing economic priority. The definitions adopted and their interpretations demonstrate the difficulty in applying appropriate relative weights to environmental, economic and social spheres by different groups and how the concepts of impartiality, fairness and future are applied to these spheres. The analysis described below allows a more informed perspective of sustainability and sustainable development to be realised.

1.2 Sustainability from ecocentrism to anthropocentrism

The following section sets out some of the more theoretical aspects of sustainability and whilst, at first read, much of it would appear to be unconnected with the notion of property development, it is not as the philosophical arguments go to the heart of different policy approaches adopted both in the developed and developing parts of the globe.

So, what are the underlying philosophical, economic, social and environmental beliefs or constructs driving perceptions and actions and the executive? It is possible to analyse conceptual understanding within the property sector alone, however this limits the overall understanding of sustainability and sustainable development across all sectors and importantly, how it relates to the rest of the world. Literature shows distinct characteristics and sub-groups that can be de-constructed and ordered to clarify shared and distinct characteristics.

A key division is between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism (Pepper 1984; Dobson 1990; Washington 2015). An ecocentric worldview perceives ecosystems as part of an integrated environmental system with organisms, biological communities and ecosystems creating the mantle of life surrounding the planet. Ecocentrism is advocated by an environmental movement known as Deep Ecology (Naess 1990; Brown 1995), grounded in seeking the common good of the human and non-human world (Purser and Montuori 1996). Ecocentrics are radically egalitarian where animals, humans, rivers, seas and lakes all have equal and intrinsic value. Ecocentrics argue that only when this worldview is adopted will we substitute environmentally destructive policies for more benign policies. Paradoxically, in asking humankind to take responsibility for the whole of the ecosphere, ecocentrics express anthropocentrism. Furthermore, the egalitarian ecocentric world would collapse into nihilism if no distinctions of value are made, where for example the value of a child in a ghetto is equal to that of a family of rats (Brown 1995). Taken to extremes, ecocentrism lends itself to an ideology of domination, where eco police enforce eco policy (Dobson 1990). Whilst reduction in mankind’s interference with the ecosphere is desirable, some forms of ecocentrism would lead to the rejection of human rights in favour of the ecosphere, for instance propositions of a human population cull advocated by transpersonal ecologists (Naess 1990). Within social and political systems, ecocentrics tend to dislike centralised systems and materialism and this puts them at odds with current prevailing neo-liberal paradigms.

Ecocentric approaches, although appearing radical, are rapidly gaining credence within governments and organisations at many levels. Hawken et al’s (1999) strong call that natural capital should be quantified and fed through into definitions of growth argues strongly that a failure to recognise issues such as resource depletion is completely unsustainable. The United National Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is an influential voice developing and supporting work in relation to assessment of the real value of ecosystems to wider economics. As tools are developed and adopted which provide economic data as to the value of natural resources, so they are becoming part of the property development decision framework. For example, within the UK significant work is being undertaken within the National Ecosystems Assessment Project to understand the value of species to both society and the economy (www.uknea.unep-wcmc.org).

Although there is a strong resurgence in ecocentric thinking in the newer guise of ecosystems analysis, the dominant worldview is still anthropocentric, where mankind dominates, only humans possess intrinsic value, and are the rightful ‘masters of nature’ as well as being the origin and source of all values (Cook and Golton, 1994). As such, anthropocentrism is a very different worldview to ecocentrism (Brown 1995). Within the anthropocentric paradigm resources are extracted without replenishment, and non-reusable materials such as plastics and nuclear waste accumulate. Some argue anthropocentrism is based in the positivist, objective-thinking characteristics in our scientific, mechanistic and technological worldview which emerged from the Enlightenment in the seventeenth century (Paton 2010). Anthropocentrism is perceived by ecocentrics as the root cause of the ecological crisis (Paton 2010). Anthropocentrics believe that mankind can provide a technological fix to the environmental problems; another term for this approach is technocentric (Cook and Golton 1994). However the hegemony of anthropomorphic approaches, whilst still dominating actions, are being tempered by governments who increasingly recognise that to deliver sufficient sustainability to avert overwhelming levels of climate change, it is necessary ‘to persuade civil society to break from the anthropocentric perspective where the environment affects and benefits humans’ (Salinger 2010).

Even so, it is too simplistic to see a clear divide between ecocentrism and technocentrism, as boundaries are blurred and issues are complex (Washington 2015; Pepper 1984). One issue between an ecocentric worldview as opposed to an anthropocentric one is: where does the line between fair use and abuse lie (Purser and Montuori 1996)? Or where does economic development become exploitative? Furthermore Pearce (1993) and Pepper (1984) perceived sub-groups within ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. Within anthropocentrism, those on the left, known as ‘accommodating environmentalists’, tend to be gradual reformers believing in careful economic and environmental management but without radical change to social economic and political structures (Cook and Golton 1994). Those on the right, known as ‘cornucopian environmentalists’, believe in unfettered economic growth and humankind’s right to utilise the world’s resources as they see fit. Within the ecocentric camp there is a divide between those on the right, ‘deep ecologists’, who put a greater emphasis on the limits to growth or carrying capacity of the earth, and those on the left, ‘moderate ecologists’ who believe in decentralised political and social institutions. Deep ecologists believe in compulsory restraints on human population growth and on resource consumption. Sitting between them all, are those responsible for property development who have to make decisions that sit within both their own value sets and the regulatory frameworks devised in the light of the debate.

Economically, anthropocentrics belong to the neo-classical school. Believing growth is always possible and desirable, they tend to reject interventions in the economy by tax or incentives which would promote sustainability; to them it is a ‘market’ issue. There is evidence that this stance is beginning to change and evolve in capitalist economies with an increased recognition of connection between the natural world and human wellbeing which is resulting in environmental legislation, at least as far as the connection between fossil fuel use, carbon emissions and theorised impacts on climate.¹ Further, this legislation recognises that the built environment is a major source of natural resource depletion and may be a catalyst in climate change through its contribution to carbon emissions. Matters of sustainability are increasingly being aligned in growth economics as related to risk as much as to reward, a phenomenon first put forward in the UK in 2000 by the then Sustainable Construction Task Group (2000).

Therefore even the most free market advocates are now prepared to accept interventions which seek to control carbon and energy use in buildings. For example, in 2010, the disclosure of energy consumption in commercial buildings in Australia became mandatory (Warren and Huston 2011) and in the EU the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, 2002 (2003/91/EC) introduced by 2009 a mandate for every building (with some exceptions) to declare its asset energy rating (Energy Performance Certificates [EPCs]) upon sale or letting (DirectGov, 2012); further, some public buildings have to display energy usage via a Display Energy Certificate (DEC). More contentious legislation in Australia was the introduction of a carbon pricing mechanism which commenced in July 2012, the notion of ‘taxing’ carbon pollution met with significant resistance in parliament during 2011. There was concern about the potential impact on the economy and the amount of the carbon price compared to other countries. The Australian Labor government largely offset potential negative political and economic impacts of the carbon tax with generous government assistance to households. However, when the Liberal coalition government was elected in 2013, they repealed the legislation immedia...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction to sustainable property development
• 2 Stakeholders through the development process
• 3 Site feasibility: evaluating the site, commitment and sustainability
• 4 Project appraisal and the triple bottom line
• 5 Financing the project: economic incentives promoting sustainable property development
• 6 Planning and regulatory issues impacting sustainable property development
• 7 Sustainable construction issues
• 8 Procuring the project in a sustainable way
• 9 Sustainable property reporting and rating tools
• 10 Post-occupancy and building operation issues
• 11 New build or adaptation
• Postscript
• Appendix A: Rating tools
• Index