Built Environment Capability for Sustainability

The World Wildlife (WWF) definition of sustainability as being the achievement of above 0.8 on the Human Development Index (HDI) and the achievement of an Ecological Footprint (EF) below 1.8 global hectares per person has a range of implications for the built environment (see Defining Sustainability). This definition is referred to as the EF-HDI definition.  These implications can be explored through the concept of built environment capability for sustainability.

Capability refers to the ability to do something, or the capacity to achieve a particular result. Built environment capability is therefore the capacity of the built environment to support the achievement of a particular result, such as the achievement of sustainability targets. This concept acknowledges that built environments, in themselves, are not sustainable or unsustainable. Even in areas where infrastructure has been carefully designed and managed for sustainability,overall sustainability performance can still be poor as result of users deliberately or unintentionally using this infrastructure incorrectly, or not using it all.

The concept of built environment capability is therefore not deterministic, and acknowledges human preference by affirming the importance of developing sustainable solutions that are preferable to prevailing or conventional solutions. This can be supported through high quality design and solutions which result in improved quality of life. 

Built environment capability confirms the pivotal role that the built environment plays in enabling, or precluding, human life and activity from becoming more sustainable. In particular, it asserts the ability of the built environment in enabling, supporting, and encouraging activities and lifestyles of occupants which are more sustainable.

Therefore in terms of the EF-HDI definition of sustainability, built environments can be described in terms of Ecological Footprint Capability and Human Development Capability.

Ecological footprint Capability

Ecological Footprint (EF) Capability describes the extent to which the built environment is configured and includes the characteristics required to support the achievement of ecological footprint targets as defined in the EF-HDI definition of sustainability. This capability therefore describes the extent to which the built environment supports required performance levels in areas such as ‘Food’,’Shelter’ and ‘Mobility’.

Human Development Capability

Human Development (HD) Capability describes the extent to which the built environment is configured and includes the characteristics required to support the achievement of human development targets as defined in the EF-HDI definition of sustainability. This capability therefore describes the extent to which the built environment supports required performance levels in areas such as ‘Education’, ’Health’ and ‘Quality of Life’.

Built Environment Sustainability Capability

Built Environment Sustainability Capability is a combination of EF and HD capability and provides an overall measure of the extent to which the built environment of an area supports sustainability.  Ecological Footprint Capability, Human Development Capability and Built Environment Sustainability Capability is measured in the Built Environment Sustainability Tool (BEST) and presented in figures and graphically in reports such as the one shown below.

Defining Sustainable Built Environments

Therefore, if sustainability is defined by the World Worldlife Fund (WWF) as the achievement of a maximum Ecological Footprint (EF) of 1.8 gha and a minimum Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.8, sustainable buildings must have the capability, or the required configuration and characteristics, to enable occupant populations to achieve these EF and HDI minimum standards. 

New Standard for Developing Skills through Construction Works Contract

The Construction Industry Board (CIDB) have developed a new standard which addresses how training objectives can be achieved as part of construction projects. The standard aims to help clients, such as government, who wish to achieve social and economic objectives such as training and job creation, as part of infrastructure and built environment development projects. The standard sets out contract skills development goals (CSDG) for different types of project including civil engineering, electrical engineering, general building and specialist projects. These goals are defined in terms of a notional cost of training opportunities which the contractor must spend on workplace training of employees and interns during the project, defined as a percentage of the total contract amount.

The standard provides definitions, calculation methodologies, contract clauses and monitoring processes which can be used to achieve training objectives.  A criticism of the approach is that it is based on cost which does not necessarily ensure quality or maximise impact in terms of the number of people trained. The prescriptive approach may also lead to increases in project costs. An alternative approach could have been based on improvements in levels of academic achievement and hours of training. This would link more neatly with the way courses and learning achievement are defined in terms of notional hours and credits by academic frameworks such as Unit Standards and Qualifications developed by South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). The standard however is a significant improvement on the vague and unenforceable requirements for training often currently included in tenders and contract documentation. A draft copy of the standard is available on the CIDB’s website here:

http://www.cidb.org.za/Documents/KC/cidb_Publications/Best_prac_scheme/Standard_for_Construction_Skills_Development_2012_09_28.pdf

Defining Sustainability

There are many definitions for sustainability. Probably one of the most well known is: 

“…development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations” (World Commission on the Environment and Development 1987).

However this definition, and similar ones, may have inadvertently been a stumbling block to the implementation of sustainability in built environment as the definition could not be readily translated into action. Button (2002), for instance, suggests that this definition has a biblical vagueness. He argues that this definition is very difficult to apply to urban areas as it only refers to temporal and generational effects of sustainability, without addressing key geographical aspects and the inherent dynamism of cities.

Newer definitions of sustainability are more relevant to the built environment. A number include resilience as a preferred, or essential, characteristic of sustainability. López-Ridaura et al (2005), for instance includes resilience as a key attribute of sustainable systems:

“..the degree to which a system is sustainable will depend on its capabilities to produce, in a state of stable equilibrium, a specific combination of goods and services that satisfies a set of goals (the system is productive), without degrading its resource base (the system is stable)
even when facing ‘normal’ (the systems is reliable), ‘extreme’ and ‘abrupt’ (the system is resilient) or ‘permanent’ (the system is adaptable) variations in its own functioning, its environment or co-existing systems”.

One of the most relevant definitions of sustainability for the built environment has been developed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). This describes sustainability as being the achievement of above 0.8 on the Human Development Index (HDI) and the achievement of an Ecological Footprint (EF) below 1.8 global hectares per person (World Wild Life Fund, 2006).

The Human Development Index was developed by the United Nations as an alternative to economic progress indicators and aimed to provide a broader measure that defined human development as a process of enlarging people’s choices and enhancing human capabilities (United Nations Development Programme, 2007). The measure is based on:  

• A long healthy life, measured by life expectancy at birth
• Knowledge, measured by the adult literacy rate and combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio
• A decent standard of living, as measure by the GDP per capital in purchasing power parity (PPP) in terms of US dollars

An Ecological Footprint is an estimate of the amount of biologically productive land and sea required to provide the resources a human population consumes and absorb the corresponding waste. These estimates are based on consumption of resources and production of waste and emissions in the following areas:

• Food, measured in type and amount of food consumed
• Shelter, measured in size, utilization and energy consumption
• Mobility, measured in type of transport used and distances travelled
• Goods, measured in type and quantity consumed
• Services, measured in type and quantity consumed
• Waste, measured in type and quantity produced

The area of biologically productive land and sea for each of these areas is calculated in global hectares (gha) and then added together to provide an overall ecological footprint(Wackernagel and Yount, 2000). This measure is particularly useful as it enables the impact of infrastructure and lifestyles to be measured in relation to the earth’s carrying capacity of 1.8 global hectares (gha) per person.

Sustainable Development Trajectories

The World Wildlife Fund have combined the Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint in to graph as shown below (World Wild Life Fund, 2006). This shows that countries in Europe and North America have very high Ecological Footprints and acceptable Human Development Indexes (above 0.8), while countries in Africa have unacceptably low Human Development Indexes (below 0.8) but have Ecological Footprints within the biosphere’s allowable capacity per person.

The graph also indicates national development trajectories (the lines between the diamonds and dots). For example, the trajectory of the USA has been steep, with a large increase in their ecological footprint and relatively limited improvement in their Human Development Index in the last 20 years. In contrast, Hungary, over the same time period, has improved their Human Development Index to achieve the minimum sustainability criteria and, at same time, reduced their ecological footprint.

This suggests that strategies based on an understanding of current HDI and EF performance can support a shift towards sustainability (Moran et al, 2008). This is supported by Holden and Linnerud, who argue through reference to purchasing price parity and ecological footprint measures, that developing and developed countries require different strategies to achieve sustainability (Holden &Linnerud, 2007)

There is therefore a strong argument that built environment development strategies should respond to local EF and HDI performance and, through appropriate provision, support sustainable development trajectories. 

Sustainable Resilience or Resilient Sustainability?

Sustainability and resilience have become key concepts in new approaches to urban development. However, an understanding of these concepts and how they apply to cities is still being developed. While both concepts are regarded as important imperatives, it unclear how they relate to each other and whether one should be prioritised over the other. For instance, should models of future urban development aim for sustainable resilience, or for, resilient sustainability?

This paper reviews the concepts of sustainability and resilience from first principles and extrapolates implications for urban areas and the built environment. This is used to develop, and define minimum built environment standards and identify important physical characteristics associated with these concepts.

The paper finds that while resilience is a valuable way of considering how urban environments can be developed and managed to accommodate change, resilience should not take precedence over sustainability. The paper argues that sustainability should be a primary overriding concern in urban development processes and that resilience considerations should be drawn on to enhance this approach. The paper identifies key built environment resilient sustainability characteristics and describes how these can be integrated into urban areas and buildings. Finally the paper suggests that further research into these characteristics could provide valuable insight into how resilience and sustainability, or more specifically, resilient sustainability, can be integrated into built environments.



KEYWORDS: Built environment sustainability tool, BEST, Resilience, Sustainability, Urban

Contact me for full paper.