Hybrid governance instruments for built environment sustainability and resilience: A comparative perspective

Wilkinson, S; van den Heijden, JJ; Sayce, SL

Hybrid governance instruments for built environment sustainability and resilience: A comparative perspective

Wilkinson, S

van den Heijden, JJ Sayce, SL

Permalink

Publisher:: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: RICS COBRA AUBEA 2015, 2015, pp. np - np
Issue Date:: 2015-07-10

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Hybrid Governance Instruments for Built Environment Sustainability and Resilience - A Comparative Perspective.pdf	Published version	662.96 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Wilkinson, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9266-1858	en_US
dc.contributor.author	van den Heijden, JJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sayce, SL	en_US
dc.date	2015-07-08	en_US
dc.date.available	2015-06-13	en_US
dc.date.issued	2015-07-10	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	RICS COBRA AUBEA 2015, 2015, pp. np - np	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	978-1-78321-071-8	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/36951
dc.description.abstract	Mandatory and voluntary governance instruments (such as statutory code compliance; regulation, voluntary certification; bench marking schemes) have been slow in achieving targeted improvements in environmental and resource sustainability of the built environment, facing well documented regulatory and market barriers (Wilkinson, 2013; Van Der Heijden, 2014). If such schemes have not delivered to expectation, are other instruments needed, and what should they look like? Should they be compliance or market driven? Recent research (Van Der Heijden, 2014; Green Construction Board, forthcoming) has identified that hybrid instruments which build on the strengths of mandatory and voluntary instruments hold the potential to overcome the weaknesses of both. This paper seeks to better understand whether such hybrids have the potential, in ways that previous schemes have not, to effect behaviour change. Different types of hybridity are identified and categorised to enable further scrutiny, particularly to better understand their potential value in stimulating changed behaviours by individuals and corporations to achieve improved environmental and resource sustainability of the built environment in Europe and beyond. Through this paper a deeper understanding is sought regarding (i) why these hybrids have emerged; (ii) what they look like, what actors are involved, and how responsibilities are organised; and (iii) why they have the potential to affect behavioural change. A desktop study is used to identify, map and to the extent possible evaluate these	en_US
dc.publisher	Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	RICS COBRA AUBEA 2015	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference (COBRA)	en_US
dc.title	Hybrid governance instruments for built environment sustainability and resilience: A comparative perspective	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.location	London	en_US
utslib.location.activity	Sydney, Australia	en_US
utslib.for	1205 Urban and Regional Planning	en_US
dc.location.activity	Sydney Australia
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Built Environment
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CCDP - Contemporary Design Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.finish-date	2015-07-10	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	London	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.start-date	2015-07-08	en_US

Abstract:

Mandatory and voluntary governance instruments (such as statutory code compliance; regulation, voluntary certification; bench marking schemes) have been slow in achieving targeted improvements in environmental and resource sustainability of the built environment, facing well documented regulatory and market barriers (Wilkinson, 2013; Van Der Heijden, 2014). If such schemes have not delivered to expectation, are other instruments needed, and what should they look like? Should they be compliance or market driven? Recent research (Van Der Heijden, 2014; Green Construction Board, forthcoming) has identified that hybrid instruments which build on the strengths of mandatory and voluntary instruments hold the potential to overcome the weaknesses of both. This paper seeks to better understand whether such hybrids have the potential, in ways that previous schemes have not, to effect behaviour change. Different types of hybridity are identified and categorised to enable further scrutiny, particularly to better understand their potential value in stimulating changed behaviours by individuals and corporations to achieve improved environmental and resource sustainability of the built environment in Europe and beyond. Through this paper a deeper understanding is sought regarding (i) why these hybrids have emerged; (ii) what they look like, what actors are involved, and how responsibilities are organised; and (iii) why they have the potential to affect behavioural change. A desktop study is used to identify, map and to the extent possible evaluate these

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/36951