The Elgar Companion to the Built Environment and the Sustainable Development Goals (Elgar Companions to the Sustainable Development Goals series) 1035300028, 9781035300020

Table of contents :
Front Matter
Copyright
Contents
Contributors
Foreword I: The cutting edge of built environment sustainability research – theoretical development and application of the Sustainable Development Goals
Foreword II
Acknowledgements
1. Introduction to The Elgar Companion to the Built Environment and the Sustainable Development Goal
Part I The Built Environment and the Sustainable Development Goals
2. From the MDGs to the SDGs: The role of construction
3. The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges
4. The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the sustainable development goals
Part II People, Built Environment, and the Sustainable Development Goals
5. Regenerating urban slums for the sustainable development goals in developing countries
6. Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals
7. Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development
8. Advancing the sustainable development goals through the promotion of health and well-being in the built environment
9. Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda for sustainable development
10. Education for sustainable development, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals
Part III Planet, Built Environment, and the Sustainable Development Goals
11. Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals
12. Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals
13. Circular economy in the built environment: A catalyst for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs)
14. Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001) towards the delivery of sustainable development goal 12
15. Impact of construction and demolition waste on the realisation of the sustainable development goals
16. Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)
17. Lean construction and SDGs: Delivering value and performance in the built environment
18. Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals
19. Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals
Part IV Prosperity, Built Environment, and the Sustainable Development Goals
20. Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals
21. Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals
22. The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies towards achieving SDGs
23. The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
24. Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals
25. Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals
Part V Partnership, Built Environment, and the Sustainable Development Goals
26. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda in the built environment
27. Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction towards the realisation of the SDGs
28. The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals
29. Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs in developing countries
30. The emerging trends in built environment research and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)
Index

Citation preview

THE ELGAR COMPANION TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

ELGAR COMPANIONS TO THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS This important and timely series brings together critical and thought-provoking contributions on the most pressing topics and issues related to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Comprising specially-commissioned chapters from leading academics, these comprehensive Research Companions are a call to action, feature cutting-edge research and are written with a global readership in mind. Equally useful as reference tools or high-level introductions to specific topics, issues, methods, innovations and debates around implementing the Goals, these Companions are an essential resource for those researching or working with the SDGs. For a full list of Edward Elgar published titles, including the titles in this series, visit our website at www​.e​-elgar​.com.

The Elgar Companion to the Built Environment and the Sustainable Development Goals Edited by

Alex Opoku Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, UAE

ELGAR COMPANIONS TO THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© The Editor and Contributors Severally 2024

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2023951207 This book is available electronically in the Geography, Planning and Tourism subject collection http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781035300037

ISBN 978 1 0353 0002 0 (cased) ISBN 978 1 0353 0003 7 (eBook)

EEP BoX

Contents

List of contributorsviii Foreword I: The cutting edge of built environment sustainability research – theoretical development and application of the Sustainable Development Goalsxviii Chris Gorse Foreword IIxxi Peter Guthrie Acknowledgementsxxii 1

Introduction to The Elgar Companion to the Built Environment and the Sustainable Development Goals1 Alex Opoku THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

PART I 2

From the MDGs to the SDGs: The role of construction George Ofori

20

3

The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges Alex Opoku, Tariq Umar and Judith Amudjie

44

4

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the sustainable development goals Tariq Umar, Alex Opoku, Nnedinma Umeokafor and Sa’id Ahmed

PART II

58

PEOPLE, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

5

Regenerating urban slums for the sustainable development goals in developing countries 84 Andrew Ebekozien, Clinton Aigbavboa, Mohamad Shaharudin Samsurijan and Radin Badaruddin Rabin Firdaus

6

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals Alex Opoku, Judith Amudjie, Moohammed Wasim Yahia and Victoria Maame Afriyie Kumah

104

7

Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development Amritha Palakkadavath Kumarankutty

121

8

Advancing the sustainable development goals through the promotion of health and well-being in the built environment Alex Opoku, Francis K. Bondinuba, Nana Yaw Barimah Manaphraim and Godwin Kugblenu

v

137

vi  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals 9

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda for sustainable development Alex Opoku, Edna Twumwaa Frimpong, Samuel Ekung and Renee Etokakpan

158

10

Education for sustainable development, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals Alex Opoku, Samuel Ekung, Godwin Kugblenu and Emad S. N. Mushtaha

178

PART III

PLANET, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

11

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals Vian Ahmed, Sara Saboor, Hessa Ahmed Alshamsi, Fatima Ahmed Almarzooqi, Mariam Abdalla Alketbi and Fatema Ahmed Al Marei

196

12

Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals Nutifafa Geh, Fidelis Emuze and Ericsson Mapfumo

217

13

Circular economy in the built environment: A catalyst for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) Alex Opoku, Kofi Agyekum, Iva Bimpli and Ellen Amoh

231

14

Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001) towards the delivery of sustainable development goal 12 Rosemary Horry, Colin A. Booth and Abdul-Majeed Mahamadu

250

15

Impact of construction and demolition waste on the realisation of the sustainable development goals B R Viswalekshmi, Deepthi Bendi, Alex Opoku and Godwin Kugblenu

265

16

Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) Brandsford Kwame Gidigah, Kofi Agyekum, Bernard Kofi Baiden and Edward Ayebeng Botchway

17

Lean construction and SDGs: Delivering value and performance in the built environment Alex Opoku, Ayomikun Solomon Adewumi, Ka Leung Lok (Lawrence) and Ellen Amoh

18

Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals Yaning Qiao

19

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals Alex Opoku and Benjamin Baah

PART IV 20

280

294

315

330

PROSPERITY, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals Timothy J. Dixon

353

Contents  vii 21

Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals Ani Raiden, Andrew King and Alex Opoku

22

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies towards achieving SDGs Aseel A. Hussien and Ayomikun Solomon Adewumi

23

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Alex Opoku, Peter Guthrie, Yaning Qiao, Moohammed Wasim Yahia and Kwabena Opoku-Ntim

24

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals Athira Sushama Bhaskaran, Amritha Palakkadavath Kumarankutty and Chithra Kurukkanari

25

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals Ka Leung Lok (Lawrence), Alex Opoku, Andrew J. Smith and Ka Lam Cheung

PART V

372

387

404

420

439

PARTNERSHIP, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

26

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda in the built environment Sulafa Badi and Mohamed Alhosani

457

27

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction towards the realisation of the SDGs Samuel Ekung, Alex Opoku and Isaac Odesola

481

28

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals Alex Opoku, Georgios Kapogiannis, Kelvin Saddul and Dickson Osei-Asibey

29

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs in developing countries Samuel Ekung, Alex Opoku and Christian Asuquo

523

30

The emerging trends in built environment research and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) Kenneth Otasowie, Clinton Aigbavboa and Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke

540

Index

500

558

Contributors

Ayomikun Solomon Adewumi completed a doctorate in architecture and urban planning at the University of Dundee, UK, in July 2020. The thesis explored how urban sustainability can be delivered at the neighbourhood scale of spatial planning through the adoption of indicators. He has published in journals and presented at conferences. He is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA). He is a lecturer at the University of Greenwich, UK, where he teaches the module Sustainable and Healthy Buildings. Kofi Agyekum (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Construction Technology and Management, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana. His specialisation areas include Circular Economy in Construction, Building Pathology, Construction Safety, Health and Environment, Sustainable and Lean Construction and Construction Project Management. He is a member of several professional bodies both locally and internationally. He serves as an Associate Editor both for the Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology (Emerald) and Academia Engineering (Academia.edu). Sa’id Ahmed holds a PhD in Construction Management from Nottingham Trent University (NTU), UK, and is an incorporated member of the Chartered Institute of Building (ICIOB). He has over 15 years of experience within the construction industry and academic institutions. He is serving as a member of the editorial board/reviewer with the Journal of Construction Economics and Building and International Group for Lean Construction. His research interest includes Sustainable Procurement, Lean Construction, Digital and Smart Costing, and Innovation in Construction, among others. Vian Ahmed is a Senior Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building. She has gathered over 25 years of industrial and academic experience in the UK and overseas and is currently a Professor in the Industrial Engineering Department at the American University of Sharjah. She holds a BEng in Civil Engineering, MSc and PhD in Construction. She has over 100 refereed academic papers, several successful grants and three co-authored books. Clinton Aigbavboa is a Professor in the Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa. He is the author/co-author of many peer-reviewed journal articles. Mohamed Alhosani is the Chief Sustainability Officer of BEEAH Group, where he drives Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) initiatives across the organisation. Aligning with the UAE’s sustainability agenda and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs), he implements strategies for future readiness, enhanced competency, environmental compliance and scalability of BEEAH Group businesses and ventures and also oversees two key areas pertaining to ESG for the organisation. He holds a BSc degree in Fire Protection Engineering from the University of Maryland, USA, and an MSc in Mechatronics Engineering, from the American University of Sharjah. viii

Contributors  ix Mariam Abdalla Alketbi is a postgraduate student studying MSc Engineering Systems Management in the College of Engineering, American University of Sharjah, UAE. Fatema Ahmed Al Marei is a postgraduate student studying MSc Engineering Systems Management in the College of Engineering, American University of Sharjah, UAE. Fatima Ahmed Almarzooqi is a postgraduate student studying MSc Engineering Systems Management in the College of Engineering, American University of Sharjah, UAE. Hessa Ahmed Alshamsi is a postgraduate student studying MSc Engineering Systems Management in the College of Engineering, American University of Sharjah, UAE. Ellen Amoh is a purpose-driven individual who is much interested in all aspects of sustainability. She works as a Junior Planning Officer at the Physical Planning Department of the Atwima Kwanwoma District Assembly where she is contributing to Planning and Development. She has served in several roles to promote sustainable development goals. Her major life aim is to promote sustainable development goals through urban and regional planning. Judith Amudjie is a doctoral research student at the Department of Building and Real Estate (BRE) in The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. She holds a BSc (Hons) in Quantity Surveying and Construction Economics, and an MPhil in Construction Management from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana. Her research interests include Sustainable Construction, Ethics in Construction, Construction Health and Safety and Circular Economy in Construction. She has co-authored several papers in very reputable journals in her research area of interest. Christian Asuquo holds a BSc in Quantity Surveying, a MSc in Construction Management and a PhD in Quantity Surveying. He is currently a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Quantity Surveying at the University of Uyo. His research interests include Construction Management and Economics, Commercial Management, Procurement and Cost Management of Infrastructures. Benjamin Baah is currently a postgraduate student and a research assistant at the department of Construction Technology and Management of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. He obtained his first degree in Quantity Surveying at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in 2021. Benjamin is a versatile content writer proficient in researching, writing, and editing content. His career and research interests are Civil and Building Infrastructure Delivery with a specialisation in Construction Health and Safety, Sustainable Construction, and Construction Digitalisation. Sulafa Badi is an Associate Professor of Project and Enterprise Management at the British University in Dubai, UAE. She has a background in architecture and holds an MSc in Construction Economics and Management and a PhD in Project Management. Her research focuses on Innovation and Digital Transformation, Innovative Technologies, Innovative Business Models, and Innovative Behaviour in Organisations. She has conducted research in various countries, examining contexts such as large infrastructure projects, service ecosystems, SMEs, and community stakeholders. Bernard Kofi Baiden is a professor of Project Delivery Performance at the Department of Construction Technology and Management, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

x  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. He has managed several large projects in many industry. His research interests include Construction Project Management, Construction Technology, and Benchmarking. He is a fellow of the Ghana Construction, a member of the Ghanaian Institution of Surveyors and Project and an associate member of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

sectors of the Procurement, Institution of Management,

Deepthi Bendi has been associated with NIT Calicut since 2018. She obtained her PhD and Masters from the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, UK, and Bachelors in Architecture from the School of Planning and Architecture- JNTU (Now JNFAU), Hyderabad, India. The academic and industry experience in Construction Management weaved her research interest in Off-Site Construction, Modern Methods of Construction, Construction Process Efficiency, IT in Construction, and Finance in the Built Environment. Athira Sushama Bhaskaran is a research scholar and an academician. Her area of interest is Sustainability, Traditional Architectural Knowledge Systems, Visual Arts and Aesthetics, and Architectural Pedagogy. Iva Bimpli is a lecturer in Business and Sustainable Societies in the Sustainability Research Institute at the University of Leeds (School of Earth and Environment). Her research focuses on ethical decision making when considering the interactions of various stakeholders in organisations and beyond. Her research interests also focus on the wider sustainability issues, with particular focus on the aspect of circularity. Francis K. Bondinuba is an Associate Professor at Kumasi Technical University’s Department of Building Technology in Ghana. Heriot-Watt University awarded him a PhD in Urban Studies in 2017 under the direction of Professor Mark Stephens and Professor Colin Jones. His research interests include Construction Business and Housing Markets. He has worked on construction management and housing finance topics with scholars from Nigeria, Libya, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, among others. Colin A. Booth is the Associate Head for Research and Scholarship at UWE, Bristol, UK. He is a renowned academic and research leader who has led and collaborated on research projects with academic and industry colleagues worldwide, supported by funds exceeding £16 million. He has published several textbooks and authored/co-authored a vast portfolio of peer-reviewed scientific publications. Further, he has a team of doctoral supervision successes spanning the built and natural environment disciplines. Edward Ayebeng Botchway (PhD) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture, KNUST. His areas of research and specialisation are in Architectural Education and Practice, Construction Project Management and Project Finance, and the Utilisation of Information and Communication Technology in the Sustainable Built Environment. Edward is the Founder and Board Chair of the PROJEKT DAVID FOUNDATION GROUP (PDF) and has been the Consulting Architect for the group for over three decades. Ka Lam Cheung is a Property Officer working in Hong Kong who is now pursuing a Master’s degree in property and facility management. Timothy J. Dixon is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Reading and Visiting Fellow (Kellogg College) and a Research Associate (Global Centre on Healthcare and Urbanisation)

Contributors  xi at the University of Oxford. He is a qualified chartered surveyor (FRICS) and has nearly 40 years of experience in built environment research, teaching, and practice. His research encompasses City Foresight, Futures Studies, Sustainable Futures in the Built Environment, Urban Regeneration, and Social Sustainability. He is also a STEM Climate Change Ambassador. Andrew Ebekozien is a lecturer in the Quantity Surveying Department, at Auchi Polytechnic, Nigeria. He obtained his PhD in Cost Management from Universiti Sains Malaysia under Prof Abdul-Rashid Abdul-Aziz. His major research areas are Human Settlement, Construction Economics, Construction Education, Construction Management, Construction Digitalisation, Sustainable Buildings, Construction Safety, and Sustainable Tourism. In these areas, he has published several articles in reputable journals listed in SSCI/SCIE & SCOPUS. Andrew serves as a reviewer for over 20 top-ranked journals. Samuel Ekung is a professional quantity surveyor with industry experience in consultancy and contracting segments of the construction industry. He trained in quantity surveying and project management in Nigeria and the UK and earned graduate and postgraduate degrees in Quantity Surveying and Construction Management. Sam is currently contributing to learning, teaching, and research in the field of quantity surveying and project management, with interests in developing seamless cost-effective strategies to advance SDGs in construction in emerging green markets. Fidelis Emuze (PhD) is a professor and Head of the Department of Built Environment at the Central University of Technology, Free State (CUT), South Africa. Lean Construction, Health, Safety, and Sustainability constitute the primary research interests for Emuze, who is a National Research Foundation-rated researcher that has published over 250 research outputs and received over 25 awards and recognitions. Emuze is the editor of Value and Waste in Lean Construction, Valuing People in Construction, and co-editor of Construction Health and Safety in Developing Countries. Emuze authored Construction Safety Pocketbook for South Africa in 2020. Emuze is the International Coordinator of CIB W123 – People in Construction Working Commission. Renee Etokakpan is an Administration Officer at Groundwork London, a charity which has been at the forefront of social and environmental regeneration for over 25 years. Renee’s research interests encompass Decolonial Studies, Intersectionality, and the Global Politics of Money as it relates to Sustainable Development. She graduated with the Faculty Medal and a first class Bachelor’s degree from the UCL Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction. Currently she is pursuing a Masters in International Social and Public Policy at the LSE. Radin Badaruddin Rabin Firdaus is a Senior Lecturer in the Development Planning and Management, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor, Malaysia. He is the author/co-author of many peer-reviewed journal articles. Edna Twumwaa Frimpong is an experienced researcher with a demonstrated history of working in the information technology industry. In her role with the Diligent Institute, Edna oversees and directs corporate governance research projects and partnerships internationally. She joined Diligent Institute in 2021 after six years with CGLytics – a corporate governance analytics firm based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, acquired by Diligent – where she served as Head of Research for the EMEA region. She holds a master’s degree in Finance and Law.

xii  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Nutifafa Geh, a doctoral candidate at the Central University of Technology, Free State, is researching and providing construction-related services, primarily in Ghana. He holds a master’s degree in Environmental Management from Liverpool Hope University, UK, and a bachelor’s degree in Building Technology from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana. His research interest is in Sustainability and Environmental Management in the Built Environment. Brandsford Kwame Gidigah is the Head of the Procurement Unit at Ho Technical University in the Volta Region. He is a professional procurement and supply chain management practitioner and a member of the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply (CIPS – UK). Brandsford is currently pursuing his PhD in Procurement Management at the Department of Construction Technology and Management, KNUST. He holds an MSc in Supply Chain Management from Coventry University, and a BA (Philosophy and Sociology) from the University of Ghana. Christopher Gorse (BSc (Hons) MSc, PhD, MCIOB, MAPM, FHEA) is a Professor of Construction Management and Engineering, leading a world-class construction group with expertise in data analytics, energy, buildings, sustainability, behaviour, management and economics. He has over 30 years of research and industrial experience in the built environment, undertaking research and consultancy in construction, complex systems, sustainability, energy efficiency, quality and performance management. Peter Guthrie (OBE FREng) is a professor of Engineering for Sustainable Development at the University of Cambridge. He was the Director of the Centre of Engineering for Sustainable Development from 2000 to 2016. Peter worked as a practising engineer on infrastructure projects before coming to Cambridge in 2000 and has worked extensively in Africa and Asia. He developed approaches to integrating social and environmental considerations into engineering design on projects such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, London 2012 Olympic Park, Orange County Great Park in California, and so on. He is currently the Vice-President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, and the Founder and Vice-President of RedR – Engineers for Disaster Relief. He has been a member of the Arup Foundation Advisory Board, Vice Chair of the DEFRA Scientific Advisory Council, and a member of the Government’s Project Board for the Severn Tidal Power Study. Rosemary Horry (BSc, MSc, MBA) is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Derby. A keen supporter of the Institute of Environmental Management for over 20 years and chair for the Midlands region, her research interests are focused on Environmental Management Systems resulting in several book chapters and a few papers on this topic. She has taught for many years and is now shifting focus to be more research active and engaging with companies to improve their environmental performance. Aseel A. Hussien has been an Assistant Professor of Architectural Engineering at the University of Sharjah since 2020. Previously, she was an Associate Professor at Liverpool John Moores University, with over 17 years of experience. Her expertise lies in teaching, learning, and research in project management, bio-based building materials, and Construction 5.0 technologies. She has a BSc degree in Architecture Engineering, an MSc in Environmental Technologies, and PhD in Augmented Reality and Agile Project Management in the Construction Industry.

Contributors  xiii Georgios Kapogiannis is an internationally recognised, result-driven world-leading expert and researcher in Digital Engineering Innovation and Project Management in the AEC sector. Throughout his career, he has been transformational and a thought leader in the built environment by integrating and designing innovative digital engineering solutions. Currently, he is an Associate Professor at The University of Aberdeen, Qatar Campus and a Visiting Scholar at the prestigious Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. His publications are in Q1 Scopus journals and have received several awards and prizes. Andrew King runs Soul Value, a built environment social value consultancy that helps clients innovatively maximise social value on their projects. He draws on his construction industry experience focused on supply chain management, in addition to his academic spanning research and lecturing. He has published extensively on social value and is currently helping develop the Quantity Surveying Degree Apprenticeship in his role as Workplace Tutor in the School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment at Nottingham Trent University. Godwin Kugblenu is a multi-talented young civil service professional serving as Assistant Planning Officer at the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources and as Programmes Manager at the Ghana Sustainability Leadership Academy. He has prior experience as a Junior Financial Analyst at the Ministry of Finance and is currently an Emerging Public Leaders Fellow. Godwin is dedicated to promoting sustainable policies and fostering sustainable leadership and community development. Victoria Maame Afriyie Kumah is currently a postgraduate student reading an MSc in Construction Management and is also a research assistant at the department of Construction Technology and Management at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana. Her research interests lie in Green and Sustainable Construction, and Digital Technologies. She has also authored and co-authored publications in her current field. Chithra Kurukkanari’s PhD research was on Sustainable Residential Landuse Planning. She has various publications in sustainability, urban planning and architectural heritage in internationally recognised journals and conferences. She currently guides PhD, PG and UG students in this domain at NIT Calicut. Ka Leung Lok (Lawrence) (PhD, MIET) is currently a lecturer (Dissertation) at the University of South Wales. Academically, Lawrence was awarded a PhD from the School of Built Environment of the University of Salford. He got a BSc (Hons) in Building from the City University of Hong Kong and an MBA from the University of Reading. Professionally, Lawrence is developing as a consultant, lecturer, and manager in construction and real estate. His research interests are in the areas of Facilities Management Outsourcing Relationships and Relevant ISO Series. Abdul-Majeed Mahamadu is Associate Professor of Innovative and Industrialised Construction at the University College London (UCL). He is a consultant in cost intelligence and digitalisation and a chartered construction manager with The Chartered Institute of Building (MCIOB). His research interests include Building Information Modelling (BIM), Immersive Technologies, Cost Intelligence, Industrialised Construction, Sustainability, Health and Safety.

xiv  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Nana Yaw Barimah Manaphraim, a Microbiology Lecturer at the University of Health and Allied Sciences, Ghana, obtained his BSc (Medical Laboratory Sciences) and MPhil (Microbiology) at the University of Ghana. He has over 12 years of experience supervising different built environment projects in Ghana. He has taught health courses to Bio-medical engineers, physicians, and so on, across universities in Ghana. His research interests are Sustainability, Health in Built Environments (a merger of his background and passion), Infectious Disease Epidemiology, and Neuroscience. Ericsson Mapfumo, a doctoral candidate at Nelson Mandela University, is a professional in construction management with over 16 years of experience in the construction industry. He is an upcoming researcher passionate about retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa. He holds an MPhil in Building Physics and a BSc (Hons) in Construction Project Management. Emad S. N. Mushtaha received his PhD in Architectural Planning of Living Environment, from Hokkaido University, Japan. Dr Mushtaha received a prestigious Postdoctoral-JSPS Fellowship in 2006 in Japan, then joined Ajman University from 2007 to 2012 and the University of Sharjah from 2013 till now as an Associate Professor. He has taught many Sustainability, Housing, Lighting, and Design Studios courses. His doctoral study focused on the architectural planning of living environments, that is, design management in buildings and cities. Isaac Odesola is a professor of Construction Resources Management with a background in building and construction management. His research interests are in the areas of Productivity Improvement, Construction Resource Management and Sustainable Building Practices in Developing Countries. Over the years, Isaac has been dedicated to sustainability discourse and has supervised impactful research into SDGs strategies in construction in areas of developing cost reduction strategies to grow the adoption of sustainable construction, improvement of human development concerns and sustainable housing ownership in Nigeria. George Ofori (PhD, DSc, Fellow of Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences) is a professor at London South Bank University, UK, having worked at National University of Singapore. He graduated from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana, and University College London. He is a Fellow of Chartered Institute of Building, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and Society of Project Managers (Singapore). His research focuses on Construction Industry Development; Sustainable Construction; Leadership; and Professionalism and Ethics. He advises governments and agencies on construction. He is a Trustee of Engineers Against Poverty, UK. Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke is an Associate Researcher with the Centre for Excellence & Sustainable Construction Management and Leadership in the Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Research interests include Sustainable Infrastructure, Digital Construction, Quantity Surveying, Sustainable Construction, and Value Management. Alex Opoku (PhD, MSc, BSc (Hons), PGCHE, FHEA, MCIOB, MRICS) is currently an Associate Professor in Construction & Project Management with many years of experience working in the Higher Education sector in the UK and abroad. He is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA), Chartered Quantity Surveyor (MRICS) and Chartered

Contributors  xv Construction Manager (MCIOB), having worked in the UK construction industry. He is an established academic with international credentials. He is also an Honorary Associate Professor at the UCL Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction. He holds a PhD in Construction & Project Management from the University of Salford-Manchester and pursued postdoctoral research at the department of Engineering, University of Cambridge. His research interest is in the area of Sustainable Built Environment focusing on the link between Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Built Environment. Kwabena Opoku-Ntim is an entrepreneur and researcher with a vast knowledge in sustainable development issues and understands the business environment. He is constantly exploring, evaluating and developing business opportunities that address global challenges. He is an experienced entrepreneur with a well-developed global network having pursued leadership training courses at Oxford University and Cambridge University. Dickson Osei-Asibey is a Legal Practitioner and a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Construction Technology and Management of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana. He has extensive research and teaching experience in procurement law, construction law, and construction health and safety. He has managed several projects in the Ghanaian construction industry. He is a Fellow of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors, Member of the Ghana Bar Association, and Fellow of the Ghana Institute of Construction. Kenneth Otasowie is a lecturer in the Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria. He holds both BSc and MTech degrees in Quantity Surveying from Nnamdi Azikiwe University and The Federal University of Technology, Akure, respectively. He is currently a doctoral student at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Amritha Palakkadavath Kumarankutty is an architect and a landscape architect. In addition to her experience as an academician at NIT and in other institutions, she has experience working in internationally renowned architecture and landscape firms HOK, UK, and Cracknell, Dubai. Her research and publications mainly focus on, Sustainability, Landscape Urbanism, Environmental Planning, Waste Management, Landscape Conservation and Restoration. Yaning Qiao is an Associate Professor and Director of the Institute of Engineering Management (IEM), School of Mechanics and Civil Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (CUMT). Dr. Qiao received his PhD degree from Nottingham Transportation Engineering Center (NTEC), University of Nottingham in 2015. His research focuses on advancing knowledge in Resilient and Sustainable Civil Infrastructure. Since 2010, Dr. Qiao has worked on over 20 research projects in the United States, China, United Kingdom, and Sweden. Ani Raiden is an Associate Professor at Nottingham Business School. Principles of sustainability are integral to Ani’s research on managing people, quality of working life, and social value. Ani is the lead author of Social Value in Construction, a first of its kind text in this space, and Social Value in Practice. She is a Past Chair of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), and a Chartered member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).

xvi  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Sara Saboor is a recent PhD graduate who has over eight years of experience in academia and industry. She is working as a Senior Lecturer at New York University Abu Dhabi, where her responsibilities are to supervise students and review their theses, projects, and publications. She has been awarded the Excellence award in research and the Outstanding Teaching Assistant award in 2022 by the American University of Sharjah. Her expertise and area of interest are in Computational Social Sciences, Engineering Management, Strategic Management, HR Management, and Advanced Technologies. Kelvin Saddul is a Project Manager who works for a UK Construction Consultancy where he manages, plans, and monitors projects for various clients across London. He has experience working on the client and consultancy side amongst holding a BSc and MSc in Construction Project Management. Kelvin has a genuine passion for project management and his research largely focuses on the role a project manager plays within the context of sustainable construction and the management techniques used to drive project success.  Mohamad Shaharudin Samsurijan is the Dean, School of Social Sciences, University of Sains Malaysia. He obtained a PhD in Environmental Management from University of Kebangsaan, Malaysia. His main field of interest includes Development Studies, Urban Quality of Life and Well-Being. He is also involved in Social Impact Assessment consultancy and research. Andrew J. Smith (BSc [Hons], PhD, CIWFM, MCMI, Fellow of the Higher Education Academy) is a Lecturer in the School of Computing, Engineering, and the Built Environment, Edinburgh Napier University, UK, and Programme Leader for MSc Facilities Management and MSc Real Estate Management and Investment. He has research interests in the Built Environment, particularly in Facilities and Workplace Management, Real Estate, and Sustainability. His research papers on themes such as workplace well-being and productivity, sustainability, indoor environmental quality and the relationship of people to their working environment have been published in several internationally recognised academic and professional journals. Tariq Umar has completed his PhD in Construction Management from London South Bank University and registered as a Chartered Civil Engineer with Engineering Council, UK. He has more than 18 years of international experience involving different positions in industry and academia. He is serving as a member of the editorial board/advisor/reviewer for several journals. His research interests include, but are not limited to, Construction Management, Safety and Health, Engineering Sustainability, Construction Materials, Renewable Energy, Waste and Resources Management, and Construction 4.0. Nnedinma Umeokafor is a Chartered Construction Manager, the Associate Editor of the Journal of Construction Business and Management and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Greenwich, UK, where he obtained a PhD. He is research active with funding from organisations and over 70 outputs in leading journals, conferences, and book chapters. He is a Fellow of Advance HE (FHEA), a Fellow Member of the Association for Project Management (FAPM) and a Chartered Member of the Chartered Institute of Building (MCIOB). B R Viswalekshmi is currently pursuing a PhD from the National Institute of Technology, Calicut. Prior to joining NITC, Viswalekshmi worked as an Assistant Professor in the School of Civil Engineering, Galgotias University, Noida. She graduated from the University of

Contributors  xvii Kerala with a master’s degree in Structural Engineering and Construction Management and a Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering. Her primary research interests are in the areas of the Sustainable Built Environment, Construction Waste Management, Sustainable Building Materials and Technology and Earthquake Resistant Structures. Moohammed Wasim Yahia is a professional architect and urban designer. He is also a scholar and researcher in the field of Architecture and Sustainable Urban Design and Planning. He has more than 20 years of experience in architecture and sustainable urban design, especially in how green elements contribute to sustainable cities and communities. He studied at Lund University, Sweden, in the field of climate sensitive urban design, and is interested in planning for transformation toward sustainable societies.

Foreword I: The cutting edge of built environment sustainability research – theoretical development and application of the Sustainable Development Goals Chris Gorse

The literature contained in this publication represents a first for the sector, a true body of work that has translated the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into evidence of activity. For some considerable time Alex Opoku has occupied a central position, researching and examining the latest practice. From this informed position, his work on the SDGs is guiding the sector. Here, he has drawn together eminent scholars to tackle the immense challenge of rethinking and configuring sustainable practice. The investigation theoretically unravels the SDGs and assembles practice-based research, placing seminal and sustainable footprints for the sector to follow. As all major nations and regional authorities have declared a Climate Emergency, time is of the essence! The period for Climate Action is upon us, enforced in the form of mandatory reporting and compliance requirements. These regulatory requirements are squarely aimed at all major industrial sectors and in particular the built environment and construction. As the built environment is responsible for over a third of all global emissions, the burden sits firmly on the shoulders of the sectors’ leaders. Construction corporations and their stakeholders have been challenged to focus their actions on development that addresses the triple bottom line of people, profit and planet. With the SDGs providing a much-needed backbone around which strategies have been formulated, an initial flow of notable activity has commenced. However, it remains that as the action unfolds, industry must duly research and reflect, constantly improving the industry’s ability to respond to and protect the ecosystem. The SDGs provide the schematic vision for the built environment to transform. Following key themes of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnerships, the research recounted in this publication tracks the early constructs of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the 169 targets of the 17 SDGs. Exploring the SDGs in detail and applied to the built environment, the work uncovers what has been achieved, the gaps and remaining agenda. Here, the built environment provides an essential context to observe the global transition; offering an important physical baseline against which progress can and must be monitored and measured. Observations reported offer valuable insights and help to identify where the gaps and absenteeism from any meaningful commitment remain. While parts of the sector have shown real progress and offer useful guidance, others remain ambivalent or belligerent deniers of climate risks, as such these shirkers of sustainability hold the industry back. Laggards continuing to engage in destructive practices are delaying positive change and further tarnishing the reputation of the sector. In this body of work, both the positive and more deconstructive constructs are captured for all to learn from. Here procurement processes, project and construction management systems, as well as the more contemporary issues associated with the built environment and SDGs are considered in some depth. xviii

Foreword I  xix For too long, the industry has unwittingly deconstructed the ecosystem for the sake of development and industrial progress. Data from the Office for National Statistics, in the UK, ranks construction as one of the most polluting industry sectors. Within this publication, such polluting and wasteful practice is exposed as well as more holistic whole system solutions. The suggestion that the negative climate impact of the built environment and atmospheric environmental polluting consequences are unintended holds little ground, as the evidence of human induced climate change has surpassed any level of reasonable doubt. Unrestrained development has had a devastating impact, resulting in mass deforestation and removal of natural habitats, leading to extinction of fauna and flora. Life forms lost as a result of poor commercial stewardship will not be recovered. The mineral extraction, pollution of land, marine and atmosphere all associated with construction and the built environment come at a huge social and ecological cost affecting global and local populations. Such action and impact cannot go unchecked. If this unsustainable trajectory is to stop, whole systems have to be reworked, and communities and workforces educated. Projects and processes must be transformed and managed differently towards a more sustainable future. The work reported here offers meaningful discourse on sustainable practice, education, conservation and biodiversity and how together, under the SDGs, they can and have advanced. The adoption of the SDGs by the United Nations (UN) in 2015 marked a universal call to action aimed at protecting the planet, reducing inequality and eliminating poverty. The grand vision offered by interconnected SDGs has provided a catalyst proposing an emerging road map to hopefully remedy humanity’s destructive and anthropogenic behaviour. The coverage of SDGs is quite extensive, offering an almost holistic vision. The areas often commented on, including, ending poverty, improving health and well-being, providing just sustainable cities and communities – powered by clean and affordable energy infrastructure – act as a mere stimulus for focused action. Here Opoku has gathered an eminent body of work in which all the SDGs and associated built environment issues are addressed. The SDGs are unravelled, explained and drawn to life with both theoretical and practical examples. Like other methodologies the SDGs have critics. In this regard, the merit and limitations of the SDGs are not overlooked in the publication; indeed, it is the critical observations reported in this work that reflect a desire for more ambitious horizons and will assist in the delivery of sustainability. Earlier attempts to introduce sustainable policies across nations were thwarted by the different economic and political structures. Thus, the SDGs represent a political compromise and allow participation regardless of the economic strengths, conflicting political structures and cultural interests. A consequence of SDGs compromise is an absence of specific detail. As the SDGs are discussed in this work, and applied in practice, the gaps in the system become evident. The research presented in this book provides detailed accounts of action that both recognises and fills voids. Through the mapping and creation of overlapping frameworks of practice, a more holistic view is provided. Currently the SDGs are the only real vehicle for engaging communities and industries towards socio-economic development. There is an urgent need to operationalise the vision into practical activities that benefit society and ecology in equal measures. The SDGs advocate equality and an end to poverty, and it is possible that future global economies may offer greater distribution of wealth, well-being and health. While slow to start, economic benefits of net zero, social value and corporate sustainability have been found and recounted here.

xx  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Although the economic advantage is still maintained by the more progressive and affluent countries and organisations, through social value and a drive for equity, wealth may be better distributed through a green economy. A green and possibly sustainable economy is emerging, driven by regulation and opportunities. The rules continue to place advantage on those that have the political and economic structures to engage and may still disadvantage communities that lack the tools and education structure required to conform, but the SDGs’ ambitions reported here do bring new hope for emerging economies. While many organisations and companies have pushed forward, setting ambitious targets, others remain confused, seemingly unable to map a route to sustainability. Even the early sustainable innovators, operating with haste and embarking on a righteous mission, still have much to learn from their actions. The construction sector must move forward; hopefully, with a level of successful sustainability action. However, the task faced is not simple, the environment and supporting eco system out of which the built environment has developed is complexly interrelated and sensitive. Thus, the sector’s progress needs to be both forthright and cautious at the same time. Even the most sustainable developments disturb the ecosystem, hopefully with more positive than negative implications. As the industry transforms, through what we might term sustainable innovation, some interventions may not achieve their desired goal and there may be repercussions. The value of conservation and biodiversity represents a strong theme in the work presented and offers important guidance. Although climate action must be rapid, the sector must undertake further research and develop a rapid response and feedback system, further guiding the transformation. A process of evaluation must run concurrently, ensuring the industry can adjust and continually realign sustainable practices. From this perspective the Research Companion to the Built Environment and the Sustainable Development Goals is timely. Without doubt, what is locked in the pages of this publication will prove to be seminal; from the lessons gleaned from practices reported to the theoretical developments that help to conceptualise the future, there is much to gain from this companion. Professor Chris Gorse Loughborough University Chair of CIOB Sustainability Policy Forum and Sustainability Advisory Panel

Foreword II Peter Guthrie

In the almost four decades since the Brundtland report for the UN, progress towards sustainable development globally has been faltering and insufficient. Now the world faces a crisis of catastrophic climate change which has finally precipitated real change in the political climate internationally. There is now evidence of determination to make substantial change, and the moves towards reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are accelerating. The built environment is a major contributor to emissions and has great potential to transform performance rapidly. The measures are varied and complex and the most effective actions are only partially understood. This publication, led by Dr Alex Opoku, is an immensely ambitious and impressive attempt to address the full spectrum of issues that the built environment faces in moving towards a more sustainable future and genuine and substantial reductions in GHG emissions, globally. The challenges facing different countries are very different in themselves. Countries of the global North have mature infrastructure and established systems which are inherently wasteful of energy. The transition to low carbon electricity generation is in train but there is a need for greater urgency and faster progress. Many countries however have inadequate infrastructure and the need for significant development is overwhelming. There is a global imperative for this development to be delivered with a strong focus on low GHG emissions, and the global benefits of reduced emissions need to be funded internationally. This book, under Dr Opoku’s editorship, is a significant contribution to the current state of knowledge and understanding. It is a tour de force. Professor Peter Guthrie OBE FREng University of Cambridge Professor of Engineering for Sustainable Development

xxi

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and dedicate this book to all those who contributed to my career as a construction industry professional and academic. This book is at the heart of my research interest and passion for sustainable development. I am grateful to everyone who contributed to my career as a Chartered Quantity Surveyor in the UK construction industry and an academic contributing to the training and development of construction industry professionals. Special thanks to Peter Milburn and Bill Mander who offered me the Trainee Estimator/Quantity Surveyor opportunity that kick-started my career in the UK construction industry. I cannot forget Gary Nun, Terry Bolton, Steve Jackson, Hilton Cruickshank and Jane Ridley-Warren who saw the potential in me and supported me in diverse ways. I will also take this opportunity to thank the following senior academics who mentored and supported my academic career; Professor Chris Fortune, Professor Peter Guthrie, Professor Vian Ahmed, Dr Heather Cruickshank and Professor Abbas Elmualim. I thank all my colleague academics who took time out of their busy schedules to review chapters for this book. I also appreciate the work of my Research Assistants who helped in so many ways to make this publication a reality. Special appreciation goes to my family who stood by me during all the difficult times. I sincerely thank you for your support and dedicate this book to you. Dr Alex Opoku

xxii

1. Introduction to The Elgar Companion to the Built Environment and the Sustainable Development Goals Alex Opoku

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS The 2030 agenda for sustainable development sets out 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) and 169 targets underpinned by 231 unique indicators (UN, 2015). The New Urban Agenda (NUA) was approved by the 167-member United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 20 October 2016, during the Habitat III UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development in Quito, Ecuador. The NUA is the guiding document for the UN system’s urban engagements and highlights the numerous advantages of safe, welcoming, accessible, green, and high-quality public spaces, such as fostering social interaction and inclusion, human health and well-being, economic exchange, and cultural expression and dialogue among a diverse range of people and cultures (UN, 2016). Moreover, the sustainable development objectives aim to coordinate global efforts to prioritise eradicating extreme poverty, preserving the environment, and fostering a more inclusive, peaceful, and affluent society. These accords, if implemented, would lessen violence, migration, health effects, and climate change, among other effects. The ecosystem services necessary for our survival and well-being are in danger as biodiversity is disappearing more quickly than at any other point in human history. Aiming to stop this decrease is the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework agreed by 188 nations at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in Montreal in December 2022 (UN Environment Programme, 2022a). One of the main sources of environmentally hazardous pollutants is the built environment. It makes use of a wide variety of materials, utilises a tremendous amount of energy, and generates a lot of waste. The built environment, which consists of the locations where people interact with one another and live, work, and play, has a defining impact on our capacity to lead healthy lives (Institute for Human Rights and Business-IHRB, 2020). The built environment describes all aspects of development, such as buildings, parks, and other urban characteristics, as well as infrastructure (roads, utilities, and important transit hubs). According to estimates, the built environment, which includes towns, cities, infrastructure, and other areas, only takes up roughly 60 million hectares, or 1 percent, of the earth’s surface. However, it causes habitat damage and, as a result, biodiversity loss through the mining of the minerals required to make construction materials and the pollutants it produces (Circle Economy, 2023). The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified the necessity for net-zero CO2 by 2050 to avert catastrophic climate change, which is the globally recognised objective for reducing global warming. The IPCC admits that it will be challenging to achieve absolute zero emissions by 2050, as doing so will need both considerable emission 1

2  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals reduction and more intense CO2 removal from the atmosphere (UN Environment Programme, 2022b). To keep global warming to 1.5°C, nearly every system, from how the economy is run to how cities are constructed must change. Further reducing the built environment sector’s overall energy demand is accomplished through lowering the energy intensity of buildings (the amount of energy consumed per square metre of floor area, including heating, cooling, and appliances). While changes to building design, such as orientation, air flow, facades, and colour, minimise the requirement for active heating or cooling, energy-efficient technologies are essential to lowering total demand (Boehm et al., 2022). The race to net-zero as a result of climate change presents a significant challenge to building and infrastructure professionals (designers, architects, engineers etc.). The transition to a carbon neutral economy requires an integrated approach that considers the connections between people, building and infrastructure. In order to transform markets for more sustainable goods and services, sustainable procurement practices that take into account social, economic, and environmental factors are crucial. These processes can address not only the triple planetary crisis but also important socio-economic issues like diversity, inclusion, and gender equality (ARUP and WBCSD, 2023). Global disasters resulting from extreme weather have harmed infrastructure, including transportation, water, sanitation, and energy systems, leading to financial losses, service interruptions, and negative effects on welfare. In order to build a safer, more sustainable society, it is necessary to reduce emissions swiftly. This can be done by scaling up infrastructure and behaviours to increase resilience and reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by almost half by 2030 (IPCC, 2023). The foundation of both global economic growth and development is infrastructure. There is an urgent need for a new generation of robust and sustainable resilient infrastructure (Gray Community of Practice, 2022). Box 1.1 highlights the urgent need for climate resilient development action as presented in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report (AR6) (IPCC, 2023). Urban environments may be made more liveable, productive, and convenient by incorporating the Circular Economy (CE) design tenets into the way we plan and construct our buildings, infrastructure, and other built environment components. By lowering the need for steel, aluminium, cement, and plastic, a CE might cut world CO2 emissions from construction materials by 38 percent by 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). Building performance, durability, and safety, particularly for historic and coastal structures, will be impacted by global warming due to changes in temperature, humidity, CO2 and chloride concentrations, and sea level rise (Cabeza et al., 2022). The requirement for space heating and cooling increases with floor size and is a significant contributor to building energy consumption and emissions. Retrofitting older structures is necessary to increase their energy efficiency, reduce heat absorption and loss, and lessen the demand for active heating and cooling systems (Boehm et al., 2022).

BOX 1.1 CLIMATE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT ACTION Observed adverse impacts and related losses and damages, projected risks, trends in vulnerability, and adaptation limits demonstrate that transformation for sustainability and climate resilient development action is more urgent than previously assessed. Climate resilient development integrates adaptation and GHG mitigation to advance sustainable development for all. Climate resilient development pathways have been constrained by past development, emissions and climate change and are progressively constrained by every increment

Introduction  3 of warming, in particular beyond 1.5°C. Climate resilient development will not be possible in some regions and sub-regions if global warming exceeds 2°C. Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems is fundamental to climate resilient development, but biodiversity and ecosystem services have limited capacity to adapt to increasing global warming levels, making climate resilient development progressively harder to achieve beyond 1.5°C warming. Source: AR6 Synthesis Report, IPCC (2023, p.55).

The built environment sector has a tremendous potential for assisting in the achievement of the SDGs through well-planned and successfully carried out mitigation activities. The effects of mitigation measures in the built environment reach well beyond the goal of addressing climate change (SDG 13) and help to achieve other SDGs (Cabeza et al., 2022). The UN’s SDGs specifically mention the value of urban green space. Goal 11 target 11.7 asks for everyone to have access to green spaces that are secure, welcoming, and accessible, especially to women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities (UN, 2015). Urban forests, trees, and green areas are now widely acknowledged as essential elements of healthier, more liveable, and more resilient cities. Forests, trees, and other related plants play an increasingly significant role in biodiversity conservation, risk reduction, disaster mitigation, public health, and sustainable economic recovery and growth (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2021). For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the significance of buildings for human wellness, yet the lockdown measures used to stop the virus transmission also highlighted the disparities in everyone’s access to acceptable and healthy structures (Cabeza et al., 2022). The built environment is critical for maintaining society’s well-being; providing shelter, safety, mobility and a sense of community. It is a key driver for change towards a sustainable future for people and the planet (European Investment Bank, 2023). The manner in which the built environment must provide for its inhabitants is challenged by the global challenges of climate change, the pandemic, and evolving technology. In every part of the world, human-caused climate change is already having an impact on several weather and climatic extremes. There is evidence of the observed increases in severe events such as heat waves, heavy rains, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human impact (IPCC, 2023). Extreme warmth brought on by climate change is having an impact on the built environment and impeding attempts to achieve the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

TRANSITION TO NET-ZERO BUILT ENVIRONMENT According to the 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction published by the UN Environment Programme, the building and construction industry is still not on track to achieve decarbonisation by 2050. The development of multi-beneficial material solutions that consider the complete building life cycle and use systems thinking is necessary for the transition to a future of low-carbon buildings (UN Environment Programme, 2022b). Urban sustainability, climatic resilience, and human well-being are directly impacted by cities that put biodiversity as the axis of their growth (World Economic Forum, 2022). The built environment has a role to play in achieving diversity and equality in our society and the Institute for Human Rights and Business (2020) proposes a framework for dignity in the built environment applicable at the level of individual projects and in wider urban development policies. The

4  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals framework offers a vision for treating people with respect and dignity (SDG5- Gender equality) throughout the lifespan of the built environment. Every step of the process is covered, including site acquisition, planning, and finance, as well as design, construction, management, destruction, and redevelopment. The SDGs and international human rights norms serve as the foundation for the framework, which is not a new set of standards. Access to urban services including water, energy, waste management, and transportation promotes social and economic growth, which is essential to achieving the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and should be seen as a basic human right (UN, 2017). The built environment can drive actions on climate change towards the realisation of the global emission targets through decarbonisation. The realisation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the net-zero 2050 emissions targets in support of the Paris Agreements requires urgent attention globally. The global challenges are worsened by the current business as usual approach which consumes excessive natural resources and generates carbon emissions (Boehm et al., 2022). According to the UN’s estimates, more than 50 percent of the world’s population currently lives in cities, which is expected to rise to 60 percent by 2030 and 70 percent by 2050 (Tsui et al., 2021). As a major consumer of natural resources such as energy, water, and land, cities should manage urban resources better to minimise global ecological impact and increase their urban resilience. A more resilient city will reduce the increasing pressure on scarce resources and a reduction on waste production (Wilson, 2022). Cities consume huge amounts of natural resources globally (currently at 60–80 percent) and efforts are being made to reduce this and the overall impact on the environment. The CE concept is emphasised as a key mitigation strategy that may promote human well-being by reducing energy and resource waste. Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), clean and affordable energy (SDG 7), decent employment and economic growth (SDG 8), responsible production and consumption (SDG 12), and climate action (SDG 13) are just a few of the SDGs that support CE (Circle Economy, 2023). A CE offers ways to decrease, renew, and redistribute the usage of essential materials for the earth and all living things that inhabit it. However, Figge et al. (2023, p.2) define CE as a “multi-level resource use system that stipulates the complete closure of all resource loops. Recycling and other means that optimise the scale and direction of resource flows, contribute to the circular economy as supporting practices and activities”. The CE in the built environment has tremendous opportunity for businesses, towns, and governments all around the world. By using a new approach to design, reuse, and material selection, circular methods can provide the construction industry with the knowledge and resources needed to reduce the damaging environmental effects of the built environment (European Investment Bank, 2023). According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report, cities with a high concentration of resources, capital and data are uniquely positioned to drive a global transition towards a CE (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). Decarbonisation is the process of cutting back on energy use, decarbonising the electricity grid, and treating the carbon inherent in building materials (IES, 2023). However, KPMG (2022) describes decarbonisation as the process of reducing carbon intensity and lowering the amount of GHG emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels while a net zero city achieves an overall balance between urban CO2 emissions and removal of carbon from the atmosphere through various mitigation and adaptation actions. Cities are increasingly showing commitment to the transition towards a CE through the creation of regenerative and adaptive urban areas (Williams, 2019). Cities provide a great reservoir of knowledge to be used to improve their sustainability and can play a key role in the

Introduction  5 transition of the physical environment to a CE. Through planning rules, zoning, and permits, they have the ability to influence how the built environment will develop in the future. Using circular construction can also help achieve broad urban sustainability aims and policy goals, such as those linked to energy, water, and climate change, because of the sector’s extensive effects (European Investment Bank, 2023). Many challenges and difficulties, as well as a constrained supply of funding, impede the decarbonisation of buildings. The decarbonisation of the global building stock is slowed by a lack of institutional capacity, particularly in poorer nations, and suitable governance frameworks to support decarbonisation (Cabeza et al., 2022). Sustainable cities and communities have the opportunity to lead the transition towards net zero by encouraging a shift in lifestyles to combat climate change and reduce the impact on the consumption of natural resources. Adopting the principles of circular economies (recycling, reusing, repairing, refurbishing, and remanufacturing to reduce waste etc.) can accelerate the process of decarbonising cities (Tsui et al., 2021). Cities are now widely acknowledged as strategic vehicles for addressing today’s challenges of climate change. Cities and communities must therefore implement policies for improving resilience and preparedness to cope with the negative impact of climate change (Fisher and Smith, 2022). Transformation towards urban development by developing resilient cities and communities is essential to climate action (World Economic Forum, 2021). Cities should be retrofitted and reimagined to make them more environmentally friendly, socially just, and economically competitive by eliminating all carbon emissions associated with current sources (Breuste et al., 2022). Cities and communities have an important role in the global process of decarbonisation by adopting the principles of circularity that promotes sharing and reuse of goods which are the distinctive elements of circular cities (ARUP, 2022). Therefore, the adoption of circularity through reduced energy use in the built environment is needed if the global community can meet the Paris Agreement target of reducing carbon emissions to a level that would limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C (World Economic Forum, 2018). The paradigm shift towards a low-carbon society cannot be achieved without sustainable and efficient infrastructure that can withstand the effects of climate change.

THE RESEARCH COMPANION AND CHAPTER SYNOPSIS The The Elgar Companion to the Built Environment and the Sustainable Development Goals explores the link between the built environment and the SDGs. The book presents an insight into the current state-of-the-art of the concept of sustainable development, built environment and the SDGs. The book brings together research chapters authored by expert academics recognised internationally. The Research Companion provides a broad overview and critical examination of complex research issues linking the built environment and the SDGs while individual contributing chapters showcase original expert analysis of topics across the 17 SDGs in the context of the built environment. Aim and Structure of the Research Companion The book examines seminal literature on the link between the built environment and the SDGs. This special Research Companion seeks to shape the future direction in the field of sustainable built environment and the SDGs. The book consists of 30 chapters underpinned

6  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals by a critical literature review/original research that helps to build a common understanding of the role of the built environment in contributing to the achievement of the UN post-2015 agenda for sustainable development. The Research Companion brings together critical and thought-provoking contributions on the most pressing topics and issues related to the built environment and the SDGs. The chapters present a comprehensive literature review with critical analysis and discussions of the topics including the key concepts, up to date definitions, historical, current and future trends towards the realisations of the SDGs. The book is structured around the five interlinked thematic areas of the 5Ps of SDGs (People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnerships) as illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 1.1

The 5Ps of SDGs (People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnerships)

The book consists of five parts and 30 chapters as detailed in the subsequent sections; Part I presents three chapters under the theme the “Built environment and the sustainable development goals”. The theme for Part II is on “People, built environment, and the sustainable development goals” and consists of six chapters. Part III consists of nine chapters under the theme “Planet, built environment, and the sustainable development goals”. Part IV presents six chapters under the themes of “Prosperity, built environment, and the sustainable development goals”. The final part presents five topics under the theme “Partnership, built environment, and the sustainable development goals”.

Introduction  7

PART I: THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Chapter 2: From the MDGs to the SDGs: The Role of Construction Ofori sets the scene by discussing the role of construction in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and SDGs. This chapter explores these questions: What work was done on the MDGs and construction? What is being done on the SDGs and construction? It is suggested that administrators and researchers of construction should take account of, and contribute to, the development of relevant global agendas. The chapter noted that the post-2015 programme sought to build on the MDGs and complete what they did not achieve. The 17 SDGs and 169 targets form the basis for the realisation of the post-2015 development agenda. The construction industry creates the physical basis for development. The chapter further discusses the following: What role did construction play in the implementation of the MDGs?; How can its performance be assessed?; What is the link between the MDGs and the SDGs where the role of construction is concerned? Chapter 3: The Role of the Built Environment in Addressing the Global Challenges Opoku et al. explore the role of the built environment in addressing the current global challenges. The research reveals that a sustainable built environment underpinned by circular principles has a vital role to play in mitigating the current challenges facing the globe. The chapter presents the 2030 agenda for sustainable development (SDGs), the Paris Agreement, the NUA, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), which are the global frameworks and policies that are now in use in relation to disaster risk reduction and urban development. The chapter argues that the built environment plays a pivotal role in the advancement of socio-economic development but the current global challenges such as climate change, natural disasters, pandemics, rapid population increase, and urbanisation have affected the contributions made negatively. Addressing these global challenges requires the design and construction of a sustainable built environment supported by appropriate management strategies and regulatory frameworks that address issues of sustainable development of our society. Chapter 4: The Built Environment’s Contribution to the Progress of the Sustainable Development Goals Umar et al. explore the progress of UN SDGs in developing countries with a specific reference to the contribution of the built environment. The discussion reveals that Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation), Goal 7 (affordable and clean energy), Goal 8 (decent work and economic growth), Goal 9 (industry innovation and economic growth), Goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities), and Goal 12 (responsible consumption and production) are the key goals where most of the developing countries are facing major challenges. The chapter noted that while the deadline for achieving the 2030 agenda for sustainable development is approaching fast, still many countries are not on track to achieve these goals by the set deadline. This is further supplemented by the COVID-19 pandemic which has had a negative impact on the progress on these goals worldwide, but the progress of developing countries was particularly derailed.

8  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

PART II: PEOPLE, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Chapter 5: Regenerating Urban Slums for the Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries Ebekozien et al. discuss the impact of urban slums in the face of increasing climate change and its threats to SDG targets. They believe that more focused attention is needed to attain SDG 1 (no poverty). The increased socio-economic encumbrances in a climate change setting combined with the global health challenges in early 2020 that came with many consequences have compounded regenerating urban slums. Therefore, stakeholders need to explore ways to target environmental goals with economic regaining and acclimatising of ongoing pro-regenerative urban slum initiatives. The chapter concluded that urban slum regeneration needs to be all-inclusive. Also, the government should lead by formulating policies and programmes that would make modern society mitigate climate disruptions, bridge income inequality, and proffer solutions that will activate transformations for the benefit of humanity and the environment. Chapter 6: Urban Green Spaces for Urban Farms and the Sustainable Development Goals Opoku et al. examine the role of green urban spaces and urban farms towards SDGs. The chapter highlights the challenge of urbanisation, caused by an increase in city population and the increasing demand for imported food products. The chapter argues that addressing food system challenges through the adoption of urban farms on green urban spaces is one of the most multifaceted approaches to reducing global hunger. The research shows that green urban spaces could be used for urban farms to increase the quality of urban settings, promote sustainable lifestyles, improve health and well-being and also achieve food self-sufficiency towards the realisation of the SDGs, especially SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and 13 (climate change). Developing urban farms using green urban spaces can promote the development of more resilient cities. Chapter 7: Equitable Productive Urban Green Spaces as a Goal Towards Sustainable Development In this chapter, Amritha focuses on SDG 2 (zero hunger) and argues for, distributing green spaces in urban areas in an equitable way and making them productive and multifunctional by implementing sustainable strategies. Implementing such space management strategies within an urban fabric can also add and support the economy and aesthetic appeal of cities and will eventually take the city’s people closer to a self-sustained community. The chapter discusses how the lack of space allotted for food production, change in climate and water availability had eventually affected food availability, thus making significant changes in agricultural land use. These issues need to be addressed immediately and food security has to be ensured based on its availability, accessibility, and utilisation in a sustainable fashion.

Introduction  9 Chapter 8: Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals Through the Promotion of Health and Well-being in the Built Environment Opoku et al. examine how the built environment impacts on health and well-being, arguing that the built environment can drive a positive change, if well-planned, built and managed. The design of the built environment should take a more holistic approach that can deliver health benefits through improved indoor air quality and thermal comfort that supports the emotional, mental and physical health of end users. The chapter comments that the built environment plays an important role in improving health and well-being and achieving a more sustainable world. The link between the built environment, health and well-being is becoming clearer in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Physical characteristics of the built environment such as access to green spaces and facilities have a positive impact on health and well-being. Chapter 9: Gender Equality in the Built Environment Towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Opoku et al. present an analysis of how gender equality in the built environment sector can contribute to organisational performance and the realisation of the SDGs such as SDG 5 (gender equality) and SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth). Even though the built environment sector is traditionally male-dominated, companies with gender diversified boardrooms tend to manage risk better compared to less diversified boards. Research has also shown that companies with better gender balance on their boards tend to have stronger performance. It argues that gender equality in the built environment is a fundamental human right and the necessary foundation for leaving no one behind in the peaceful and prosperous world we want. Chapter 10: Education for Sustainable Development, the Built Environment, and the Sustainable Development Goals Opoku et al. explore the roles of education for sustainable development in the built environment towards the realisation of the SDGs, especially SDG 4. The built environment sector requires professionals with the relevant sustainability literate skills, knowledge, capacity, values and motivation to respond to the negative impact of the sector. Sustainable literacy or Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) should therefore be embedded across the built environment curriculum at all levels of education to equip graduates with the right sustainability knowledge and skills. The chapter reveals that ESD equips students of all ages with the information, abilities, and moral principles necessary to confront the interrelated problems facing the world today, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, unsustainable resource usage, and so on. SDG 4 (quality education) is aimed at ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education that promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all.

10  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

PART III: PLANET, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Chapter 11: Net-Zero Energy Buildings and the Sustainable Development Goals This chapter by Ahmed et al. calls for the need to adopt green construction practices and effective management of natural resources for mitigation, and the reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emission through the use of net-zero energy buildings. The chapter reveals that the built environment is one of the major contributors to global warming through the consumption of conventional sources of energy, accounting for the consumption of 12 percent of the world’s drinkable water, 40 percent of energy wastage and 35 percent of scarce natural resources, which in turn produces 40 percent of the total global carbon emissions. However, net-zero energy buildings (NZEBs) provide one of the tangible solutions that promote more energy efficient buildings, while working towards meeting the SDGs such as; reducing energy consumption and carbon and heat generation, developing a stronger infrastructure for more sustainable cities, with more affordable and cleaner energy consumption. Chapter 12: Retrofitting Buildings Towards the Realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals Geh et al. discuss the retrofitting of buildings and its contributions to achieving SDGs. The chapter shows that retrofitting influences the realisation of SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13, sustainable water management, renewable energy deployment, human settlement resilience, sustainable consumption and production, and building-related carbon emission reductions. Lastly, the issues that can help accelerate progress in decarbonising the global building stock were highlighted. Chapter 13: Circular Economy in the Built Environment: A Catalyst for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Opoku et al. explore the application of the concept of CE as a solution to the sustainability challenges inherent in the Linear Economy (LE) model. Circularity in the built environment aims to reduce resource consumption, waste production, and raw material use while promoting the recycling of waste materials and ensuring sustainable production and consumption of goods and services. Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), responsible production and consumption (SDG 12), and climate action (SDG 13) are just a few of the SDGs that CE supports. The chapter concludes that the built environment is one of the largest consumers of natural resources and the biggest producer of waste and a major driver of growth. However, the built environment can drive actions on climate change towards realisation of the global emission targets through decarbonisation.

Introduction  11 Chapter 14: Contributions of Environmental Management Systems (ISO 14001) Towards the Delivery of Sustainable Development Goal 12 Horry et al. explore the benefits and barriers of implementing environmental management systems in the construction sector and demonstrate how skills and ISO14001 are key in facilitating the delivery of SDG 12. The chapter shows that training is fundamental to providing the necessary skills to deliver on the SDG challenges through awareness creation and the promotion of actions to reduce societal impacts on the planet. SDG 12 is focused on responsible consumption and production, with many industrial sectors such as construction taking steps to address this matter by reducing, reusing, and reclaiming materials. However, it is essential that more efficient ways of using materials become business as usual and carbon impacts are reduced. Chapter 15: Impact of Construction and Demolition Waste on the Realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals Viswalekshmi et al. present a comprehensive discussion on the impact of construction and demolition (C&D) waste in achieving the SDGs. They believe that the construction industry plays a major role in environmental degradation by significantly contributing to municipal solid waste, thereby hindering the achievement of the SDGs. With the construction industry being the largest consumer of extracted natural resources, it plays a pivotal role in preventing environmental degradation by aiming for sustainable development. For instance, SDG 12, which aims at sustainable consumption and production (SCP) patterns is critically affected by construction activities. Similarly, a focus on C&D waste accelerates the journey towards achieving SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and indirectly to SDG 3 (good health and well-being). Chapter 16: Construction Procurement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Gidigah et al. explore construction procurement as an innovative vehicle for the attainment of the SDGs, particularly Goal 1 (end poverty in all its forms everywhere) and Goal 8 (promote sustained, inclusive and suitable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all). The chapter further explores how the attainment of Goals 1 and 8 could have an impact on Goal 3 (ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages). It draws on previous studies and strongly makes a case for construction procurement as an important innovative practice for the attainment of SDGs 1 and 8. Literature shows that, construction procurement has been one of the important social innovative practices to reduce poverty and enhance the well-being of citizens and areas where construction works are undertaken. Chapter 17: Lean Construction and SDGs: Delivering Value and Performance in the Built Environment Opoku et al. explore the concept of lean construction and how it links sustainability in the built environment. The goal of lean construction is to increase productivity in the construction industry by reducing costs and eliminating activities that do not deliver value. The application of lean processes and principles in construction can help in achieving the SDGs including SDG

12  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and so on, as lean construction increases productivity, profits, and innovation. Lean construction emphasises the generation of value in building and construction projects, with a strong emphasis on the prompt and dependable delivery of value. It is believed that productivity growth in the construction industry has lagged well behind that in the manufacturing sector in many nations and by incorporating lean principles into the construction sector, these challenges could be overcome. Chapter 18: Climate Change, the Built Environment, and the Sustainable Development Goals Qiao explores the link between climate action and the built environment. This chapter underpins SDG 13 (climate action) and provides a state-of-the-art review of concepts including climate change, vulnerability, built environment, disaster risk, risk-informed management, climate finance, and their connections in terms of the built environment. It is vital for researchers and policymakers to understand the concepts and their trends to achieve urban climate resilience. Climate change raises a challenge to the development of our future society. Climate stressors such as global warming, frequent intensive rainfall, hurricanes, and extremely cold temperatures have caused a significant burden on the continuous development of urban cities. Chapter 19: Biodiversity Conservation, the Built Environment, and the Sustainable Development Goals Opoku and Baah examine the role of biodiversity conservation in the built environment towards the realisation of the SDGs. A biodiverse built environment with trees, forests, and green spaces has been increasingly recognised as an important component of more liveable, healthy, and resilient cities. Biodiversity should be integrated into the planning, management and legislation process of our cities and key infrastructure delivery. The chapter discusses the loss of biodiversity and climate change as the two greatest frequently mentioned hazards confronting mankind today. The built environment should lead the fight against climate change towards a low carbon and sustainable future by playing a significant part in enhancing ecological values since the sector has been identified as a key factor of biodiversity loss. Biodiversity loss and climate change are often cited as two of the greatest risks facing the world today, but the relative attention and action they have both received in recent times are vastly different.

PART IV: PROSPERITY, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Chapter 20: Urban Futures, Localisation, and the Role of Sustainable Development Goals Dixon draws on previous research and recent literature to examine the importance of urban futures thinking and how the approach to ‘localisation’, or implementing and monitoring/ assessing SDGs at city scale, has developed. To do this the chapter focuses on examples of city visions and voluntary local reviews of the SDGs from relevant cities in the global North

Introduction  13 and global South, and draws lessons from best practice. Given an increasing majority of the world’s human population live in cities, it is not surprising that city governments are not only focusing on climate change and resource depletion issues but also seeking to engage directly with the SDGs and the UN 2030 agenda. The emergence of ‘smart and sustainable’ cities is also an important component of this sustainable development ‘praxis’ (alongside SDG 11) and has often linked ‘urban futures’ with ‘urban innovation’ and the transition to a sustainable future. Chapter 21: Social Value, the Built Environment, and the Sustainable Development Goals Raiden et al. explore how the efforts of stakeholders can be collectively and constructively aligned to achieve social value and thus realise the SDGs beyond what any individual project or initiative would be able to deliver alone. Social value has a partnership model at its heart and offers an opportunity to both disrupt and co-create new and inclusive ways of living, working, and placemaking. This chapter, therefore, puts forward practical solutions and discusses key issues relating to social value, the built environment, and the SDGs, including a critical examination of the divergence and tensions in the understanding of what it means to consider, create, and deliver social value. It is particularly relevant in the context of the continued increase in the global development of the built environment through construction and infrastructure projects which involve many different stakeholders. Chapter 22: The Built Environment and Industry/Construction 4.0 Technologies Towards Achieving SDGs Hussien and Adewumi discuss the Construction 4.0 concept and how it disrupts the built environment, leading to how existing professions are growing and new ones emerging. It focuses on the established understanding and expected outcomes of the Construction 4.0 concept and analyses how they support the SDGs such as SDG 9 (industry innovation and infrastructure) and the digitalisation of industrial processes. The chapter argues that sustainability is not an option; it is a way of living that must rapidly adapt to achieve humanity’s sustainability. According to the international energy agency, the construction sector accounts for 36 percent of energy demand and 40 percent of energy and process-related emissions. The Fourth Industrial Revolution, also called Industry 4.0, directly impacted how we communicate and interact with others. The transition has faced all industries, including the built environment, by moving to “Construction 4.0” era, accelerating the construction sector’s digitalisation and automation, showing the relevance of having trusted real-time information supporting decision-making. Chapter 23: The Role of Infrastructure in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Opoku et al. discuss the role of sustainable infrastructure towards the realisation of the SDGs. The research shows that there is a link between infrastructure and the realisation of a number of SDGs including SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 13 (climate change). Sub-Saharan Africa

14  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals remains one of the most affected regions globally by climate change and should therefore increase investment in infrastructure in order to have any chance of achieving the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sustainable and resilient infrastructure projects are necessary for Africa if the continent is to be successful in achieving the SDGs and agenda 2063 of the African Union (AU). The paradigm shift towards a low-carbon society cannot be achieved without sustainable and efficient infrastructure that can withstand the effects of climate change. Chapter 24: Traditional Architectural Knowledge Systems and the Sustainable Development Goals Athira et al. analyse SDGs and their impact on the Sustainable Built Environment (SBE), SDGs targets and impacts on Traditional Architectural Knowledge Systems (TAKS). The built environment is critical in achieving SDGs since most are linked directly to the built environment. Five goals out of 17 SDGs including SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 13 (climate action) are directly related to TAKS. A set of design indicators of TAKS from the literature was identified, and the chapter concludes by stating that TAKS is a potential tool for achieving SBE towards the SDGs. Chapter 25: Sustainable Facility Management Practices and the Sustainable Development Goals Lok et al. discuss the role of Facilities Management (FM) in achieving the SDGs. The SDGs can help to objectively quantify the added value of FM to the core business and the global FM industry including impact of ISO standards and stakeholders (clients, service providers and researchers). The chapter also defines and identifies the challenges of adopting the SDGs in the FM sector. Strategic sustainable FM has the potential towards the realisation of the 17 SDGs at all levels of organisation in the FM sector. However, the FM sector is also encountering potential barriers to the implementation of the SDGs. Standardised and strategic level support is crucial for the smooth adoption of sustainable FM practices and processes.

PART V: PARTNERSHIP, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Chapter 26: Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for the Realisation of the Sustainable Development Agenda in the Built Environment Badi and Alhosani define the PPP concept and examine its role in the built environment, as well as its connections to the SDGs, with a focus on SDG 17. The chapter also emphasises the significance of taking into account the interests of PPP stakeholders along the triple bottom line of sustainable development (people, planet, and profit). The goal is to develop a theoretical understanding of the drivers of sustainable city development via the PPP mechanism, as well as to provide insight into the future of PPPs as vehicles for a sustainable built environment. The chapter argues that partnerships between governments, the private sector, and civil

Introduction  15 society are critical to achieving the UN’s SDGs for the built environment. Understanding the objectives and needs of PPP stakeholders, as well as their participation, is critical for a sustainable urban development strategy. Chapter 27: Organisational Learning and Stakeholder Engagement in Construction Towards the Realisation of the SDGs Ekung et al. examine organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in the SDGs implementation. The analysis of relevant literature showed the imperative for a structured framework to articulate stakeholders’ roles and learning needs to ensure coordination and integration. Learning is strategic to developing relevant structures to achieve the SDGs. The implementation of SDGs across sectors shows pertinent actions and strategies require collaboration and integration. This understanding depicts the need for synergy between multi-layered stakeholders and institutions. Organisational learning (OL) is strategic to galvanising these interfaces to achieve SDGs. Chapter 28: The Contribution of Project Management to the Sustainable Development Goals Opoku et al. investigate the contribution of the project manager towards the realisation of the SDGs. The chapter identifies the key competencies required by project managers to effect sustainable development. These competencies include knowledge of sustainable development principles, ability to manage stakeholder engagement, skills in project planning and execution, and understanding of environmental and social impacts of projects. It highlights the need to integrate sustainable practices into project management to ensure that projects contribute to sustainable development. The SDGs provide a framework for business organisations of all sectors to play a crucial role towards the realisation of the SDGs. Sustainable development has been described as the new project management paradigm that should be embedded into the early project goal setting, business case, project benefits and success criteria and project specifications. Chapter 29: Contemporary Issues in Construction Affecting the Realisation of the SDGs in Developing Countries Ekung et al. examine current issues for accelerating Green Building (GB) development in related economies. The emerging narrative demystifies cost rhetoric as a lesser consequential factor in contemporary GB narratives. GB market growth and the projected future indices show that cost cannot explain uptake due to the upward trends in general economic parameters. Rather, non-cost-related problems, notably, policy instruments, are needed to accelerate SDGs in developing countries within the targeted time. The chapter explains that GBs alone are a gateway to achieving seven SDGs (3, 6, 7, 9, 11,12 and 13). However, achieving these goals through GB development in developing countries is slow due to overarching high-cost concern. Despite the changing cost landscapes, research, practice and policy continue to prioritise the cost rhetoric over key growth accelerators.

16  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Chapter 30: The Emerging Trends in Built Environment Research and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Otasowie et al. synthesise the emerging trends in the built environment research. A review of these emerging trends reveals potential areas focusing on smart management of buildings, sustainability, and well-being of users, that would bring significant change to the built environment. The morphological analysis of these areas includes the new practices possible, measures and regulations aimed at achieving sustainability within the built environment. The findings of this chapter reveal the revolution currently taking place and expected to take place in the sector and its influence on the several professional practices in the sector. The chapter suggests the need for collaboration among professionals in the sector where necessary and in some instances, the development of new roles for the successful implementation of these concepts.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The sustainable built environment has a critical role to play in achieving the SDGs by preserving the planet while providing prosperity for people in order to leave no one behind in the world we want. The move to net zero is accelerated, and there is a focus on a fair transition that results in a more resilient and prosperous future. Building sustainably refers to designing, erecting, and maintaining structures in a manner that meets current and future needs and quality standards. Green urban and peri-urban areas may be a part of climate change strategies that are affordable since they are nature-based solutions that assist in addressing important socio-economic concerns. The SDGs emphasise the value of the private sector’s participation, but they do not give specific instructions on its scope or how to quantify it regularly and effectively. Every business that generates job possibilities might be considered as assisting in the realisation of SDG 8. The implementation of the SDGs and the NUA is lagging behind in many countries and cities. All parties involved in the buildings value chain must step up decarbonisation activities in order to put the built environment sector on a realistic path to attaining net-zero by 2050. In addition to promoting health, safety, and well-being, high-quality construction and infrastructure also has positive social, cultural, environmental, and economic effects. Hence, decarbonising the global construction industry is essential to halt catastrophic climate change.

REFERENCES ARUP (2022). Circular Cities: Impacts on Decarbonization and Beyond, 4th Edition, [online] Available at: https://​www​.arup​.com/​perspectives/​publications/​research/​section/​circular​-cities​-impacts​-on​ -decarbonization​-and​-beyond (Accessed 8 December 2022). ARUP and WBCSD (2023). Net-zero buildings halving construction emissions today, ARUP & World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Available at: https://​www​.wbcsd​.org/​ contentwbc/​download/​15653/​227132/​1 Boehm, S., Jeffery, L., Levin, K., Hecke, J., Schumer, C., Fyson, C., Majid, A., Jaeger, J., Nilsson, A., Naimoli, S., Thwaites, J., Cassidy, E., Lebling, K., Sims, M., Waite, R., Wilson, R., Castellanos, S., Singh, N., Lee, A., and Geiges, A. (2022). State of Climate Action 2022. Berlin and Cologne, Germany, San Francisco, CA, and Washington, DC: Bezos Earth Fund, Climate Action Tracker, Climate Analytics, ClimateWorks Foundation, New Climate Institute, the United Nations Climate

Introduction  17 Change High-Level Champions, and World Resources Institute. https://​doi​.org/​10​.46830/​wrirpt​.22​ .00028 Breuste, J., Artmann, M., Ioja, C., and Qureshi, S. (Eds.) (2020). Making Green Cities: Concepts, Challenges and Practice. Cham, Switz.: Springer. Cabeza, L. F., Bai, Q., Bertoldi, P., Kihila, J.M., Lucena, A.F.P., Mata, É., Mirasgedis, S., Novikova, A., and Saheb, Y. (2022). Buildings. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Doi:10.1017/9781009157926.011 Circle Economy (2023). The circularity gap report 2023, Amsterdam: Circle Economy, (pp. 1–64, Rep.). Retrieved from: https://​www​.circularity​-gap​.world/​2023 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2021). Fixing the economy to fix climate change, www​.elle​nmacarthur​ foundation​.org/​publications/​climate (Accessed 8 December 2022). European Investment Bank (2023). A guide for circularity in the urban built environment, European Investment Bank (EIB), Available at: https://​advisory​.eib​.org/​_tools/​resources/​documents/​a​-guide​-for​ -circularity​-in​-the​-urban​-built​-environment​-draft​-january​-2023​.pdf Fisher, P.M.J. and Smith, D. (2022). The water industry and the decarbonization of cities: A comprehensive review in the context of Cop26. PLOS Water, 1(6): e0000023. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1371/​journal​ .pwat​.0000023 Green-Gray Community of Practice (2022). Green-Gray Infrastructure Funding and Finance Playbook. Available at: https://​www​.conservation​.org/​projects/​global​-green​-gray​-community​-of​-practice IES (2023). City of Tomorrow: The Road Toward Net Zero, https://​go​.iesve​.com/​city​-of​-tomorrow​ -report​-web IHRB (2020). Framework for Dignity in the Built Environment, Built Environment Report, Institute for Human Rights & Business (IHRB), Available at: https://​www​.ihrb​.org/​focus​-areas/​built​-environment/​ framework​-for​-dignity​-built​-environment (Accessed 25 March 2023). IPCC (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, Sixth Assessment Report, [online], The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Available at: https://​www​.ipcc​.ch/​report/​ar6/​ syr/​ KPMG (2022). Net Zero Readiness Spotlight: Cities - KPMG Global. [online] Available at: https://​home​ .kpmg/​xx/​en/​home/​insights/​2022/​10/​net​-zero​-readiness​-spotlight​-cities​.html (Accessed 8 December 2022). Tsui, T., Peck, D., Geldermans, B., and Van Timmeren, A. (2021). The role of urban manufacturing for a circular economy in cities. Sustainability, 13, 23, https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su13010023 United Nations (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Seventieth session on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1. United Nations (2016). New Urban Agenda. A/RES/71/256. https://​www​.un​.org/​en/​development/​desa/​ population/​migration/​generalassembly/​docs/​globalcompact/​A​_RES​_71​_256​.pdf United Nations (2017). United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, Habitat III Policy Papers: Policy Paper 9 Urban Services and Technology, Available at: https://​ habitat3​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​Habitat​%20III​%20Policy​%20Paper​%209​.pdf United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2021). Sustainable Urban and Peri-urban Forestry: An Integrative and Inclusive Nature-Based Solution for Green Recovery and Sustainable, Healthy and Resilient Cities, Policy Brief, Available at: https://​unece​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​2022​-02/​Urban​ %20forest​%20policy​%20brief​_final​_0​.pdf. United Nations Environment Programme (2021). 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: https://​ globalabc​ .org/​ resources/​ publications/​2021​-global​-status​-report​-buildings​-and​-construction. United Nations Environment Programme (2022a). Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Draft Recommendation Submitted by the Co-Chairs, Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD/WG2020/4/L.2-Annex, Fourth Meeting Nairobi, 21–26 June 2022.

18  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals United Nations Environment Programme (2022b). 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector, Nairobi. Williams, J. (2019). The circular regeneration of a seaport. Sustainability, 11, 3424. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .3390/​su11123424 Wilson, S.J., Juno, E., Pool, J.R., Ray, S., Phillips, M., Francisco, S. and McCallum, S. (2022). Better Forests, Better Cities, Report. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at https://​ doi​.org/​10​.46830/​wrirpt​.19​.00013 World Economic Forum (2018). Circular Economy in Cities: Evolving the Model for a Sustainable Urban Future, White Paper. Available at: https://​www3​.weforum​.org/​docs/​White​_paper​_Circular​ _Economy​_in​_Cities​_report​_2018​.pdf (Accessed 9 November 2022). World Economic Forum (2021). Net Zero Carbon Cities: An Integrated Approach, World Economic Forum (WEF), Insight Report, [online] Available at: https://​ www​ .weforum​ .org/​ reports/​ net​ -zero​ -carbon​-cities​-an​-integrated​-approach/​ (Accessed 8 December 2022). World Economic Forum (2022). BiodiverCities by 2030: Transforming Cities’ Relationship with Nature, Available at: https://​www3​.weforum​.org/​docs/​WEF​_BiodiverCities​_by​_2030​_2022​.pdf

PART I THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

2. From the MDGs to the SDGs: The role of construction George Ofori

INTRODUCTION The field of Development Economics has had successive prevailing paradigms over the years (Nafziger, 2012). Since the turn of this century, there have been two global development agendas: the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (2000 to 2015) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2016 to 2030). There is also a large body of knowledge on the role of the construction industry in economic growth and long-term national development (see, e.g., Gruneberg and Francis, 2019; Lopes, 2012; Ofori, 2022; Turin, 1969). It is appropriate to consider how the construction industry should play this role today under the current global agenda. It is also necessary to find out what construction researchers should do to inform, enable and facilitate this activity. This chapter addresses the following questions: 1. What were the MDGs and what were the results of the implementation of the programme towards their attainment? How did construction contribute to this implementation? 2. What are the SDGs? How do they relate to the MDGs? 3. How can the construction industry contribute to the efforts towards the attainment of the SDGs? 4. What is the role of researchers on the construction industry, companies and projects in the effort to attain the SDGs?

MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS The Declaration and the Goals The Millenium Declaration, signed by the world’s leaders in New York in 2000, had a broad vision to fight poverty in its many dimensions. That vision was translated into eight MDGs which formed the agenda for development for the world from 2000 to 2015 (United Nations, 2015b). The MDGs were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Eradicate extreme hunger and poverty Achieve universal primary education Promote gender equality and empower women Reduce child mortality Improve maternal health Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Ensure environmental sustainability 20

From the MDGs to the SDGs  21 8. Develop a global partnership for development. The MDGs have been studied in various fields of knowledge. Their genesis, history and contents have been discussed; and the resources and mechanisms for implementing them analysed. Lomazzi et al. (2014) noted that the MDGs have their origins in the development ideas and campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s. The United Nations (UN) System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda (2012) noted that: …it was the MDG framework that defined, for the first time, an integrated set of timebound quantitative targets in an attempt to give operational meaning to some of the basic dimensions of human development and to strengthen the global partnership for development. The MDGs have been instrumental in building a common agenda of broad priorities and have induced governments to take concrete actions and improve coordination in support of poverty reduction efforts… many developing countries have designed national development strategies explicitly oriented at achieving the MDGs… (p. 2).

The Sustainable Development Goals Fund (undated) observed that: “The MDGs were revolutionary in providing a common language to reach global agreement. The 8 goals were realistic and easy to communicate, with a clear measurement/monitoring mechanism.” The MDGs focused world attention and global political consensus on the needs of the poorest people and to achieve change in official development assistance commitments (United Nations, 2012). Their framework enabled countries to plan their social and economic development and donors to provide support (Bourguignon et al., 2008). Lomazzi et al. (2014) consider the MDGs as being inter-dependent, to be influencing each other, and to be providing a concrete framework for action in development. UNDP (2015a) noted that the “…MDGs have produced the most successful anti-poverty movement in history”.1 The MDGs also stimulated new ways of looking at prevailing issues. For example, McGranahan et al. (2003) noted that the MDG targets for water and sanitation provided the basis for questioning and improving upon the “pro-poor” credentials of existing water agendas. The targets offered agreed criteria for deciding that locally driven strategies deserve international support, regardless of whether they conform with any model of water sector reform. They suggested that: (a) the international development community should stop trying to promote particular approaches, and concentrate instead on assisting locally driven initiatives that work; (b) rather than treating water resource issues as generic “scarcity” issues, resource problems that affect the access to water of poor rural and urban groups should be addressed; (c) rather than putting pressure on countries to increase private sector participation, the basis for informed choices to be made should be locally determined; and (d) good local governance is key to meeting the water and sanitation targets. After the Millennium Declaration, efforts (including those in plans agreed at high-level meetings) were made to monitor, review, revitalise and better resource the MDG programme. For example, in 2008, governments, foundations, business groups and civil society announced new commitments to meet the MDGs (United Nations, 2008). In 2010, at the MDG Summit, a global action plan, “Keeping the Promise: United to achieve the Millennium Development Goals” was adopted (United Nations, 2010). UNDP (2015) noted that the effort to achieve the goals was largely successful across the globe, while acknowledging that some shortfalls remained. The outcome showed that “with targeted interventions, sound strategies, adequate resources and political will, even the poorest can make progress”.

22  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Criticism of the MDGs From the onset, the MDGs were criticised (Ofori, 2012). The goals were considered to be undemocratic, unrealistic, and overly ambitious, considering the prevailing situation in the countries where they were to be attained. The MDGs were considered as taking the responsibility and hence accountability away from the governments of developing countries. Vandemoortele’s (2011) paper: “The MDG Story: Intention Denied” outlined some of the weaknesses. Many authors, such as Easterly (2009) and Mekonen (2010) considered the MDGs to be unfair to Africa; and Nhema (2010) proposed an “MDG plus agenda for Africa”. In a multi-disciplinary literature review of the MDGs, Fehling et al. (2013) focused on limitations in their formulation, structure, content and implementation, starting with 1837 MDG-related articles, 90 of which met the criteria for analysis. They note that while the MDGs had promoted increased health and well-being in many countries, the criticisms included: the MDGs were created by a few stakeholders without adequate involvement by developing countries and they overlooked previously agreed development objectives; and the MDGs were unachievable, simplistic, not adapted to national needs, and did not specify accountable parties. Lomazzi et al. (2014) noted that the MDGs were not the product of a comprehensive analysis and prioritisation of development needs; therefore, many were narrowly focused. There was a tendency to focus on targets that were easier to implement and monitor (LoBue and Kaluse, 2013). The framing affected the realisation of possible synergies across the targets (Waage et al., 2010). Lomazzi et al. (2014) pointed out that most goals focused on the social dimension of development, and only a few of their interconnections with environmental and economic factors were recognised. Equity was not given much emphasis (Jones et al., 2008; LoBue and Kaluse, 2013). Some of the perceived inadequacies of the MDGs became challenges during their implementation. Lomazzi et al. (2014) noted that there was a lack of clear ownership and leadership nationally and internationally. There was a tendency to spread interventions tested in one country on a large scale, as well as a lack of locally specific approaches (Subramanian et al., 2011; Waage et al., 2010). The lack of information and awareness was another challenge, as was that of inadequate publicity and awareness about the MDGs among key stakeholders (Adegboye et al., 2011). Many studies underlined the problem of corruption in relation to the use of MDGs resources by governments and other organisations (Anti-Corruption Research Network, 2013; Monteiro et al., 2022; Pieth, 2012). Achieving the MDGs depended on the fulfilment of MDG8 on a global partnership. However, the commitments had not always been fully fulfilled. Moreover, engagement by donors was affected by the global economic and financial crisis (which undermined progress towards MDGs achievement) from 2007 onwards. Thus, it was suggested that governments and the private sector should work together to develop sustainable, predictable and innovative financing mechanisms and mobilise more resources to achieve the MDGs (TheWorldWeWant, 2013; UNDP, 2010; World Bank, 2009). Finally, goal measurement was often too narrow, or might not identify a clear means of delivery (LoBue and Kaluse, 2013). Lack of valid data on some MDGs, meant that the improvement achieved could not be measured adequately or compared with a baseline (Attaran, 2005). Government reports are often criticised as false, leading to a lack of confidence in official reporting systems (Pieth, 2012). However, it is suggested that even the limited data systems in some developing countries allowed assessable investments in education, health, infrastructure and the environment (Attaran, 2005; Chopra et al., 2009).

From the MDGs to the SDGs  23 What Were the Results of the Implementation of the MDGs? Much progress was attained under the MDG development paradigm despite the criticisms and initial misgivings. The UN System Task Team on the post-2015 UN Development Agenda (2012) suggested that the recognised success of the MDGs was associated with their key characteristics. These features provided: (i) a clear focus to national policy efforts; (ii) simple, quantitative and easily communicable targets, providing an integral approach to key human development dimensions; (iii) a starting point for improved accountability through the use of simple but robust indicators; and (iv) a tool for advocacy to strengthen international development cooperation, including through the recognition of the special needs of Africa and the least developed countries. The final report on the MDGs painted a mixed picture (United Nations, 2015a). Among the positives, the MDGs helped to lift more than one billion people out of extreme poverty, to make progress against hunger, and to enable more girls to attend school than ever. There were some near misses and partial successes; the goal of achieving universal primary education was just missed, as was the target of halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger (The Guardian, 2015a). The MDGs galvanised public opinion and led to the formation of new partnerships. They reshaped decision-making in all countries. However, progress had been uneven, and inequalities persisted. Sandbu (2015) presented a summary of criticisms of the level of success of the MDGs by development experts. For example, many people were still at the bottom of the economic pyramid and many women continued to die during pregnancy or childbirth. The highlights in the final MDG report are now presented (UN, 2015a): ● The number of people living in extreme poverty declined by over half, falling from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015. The number of people in the working middle class— living on more than $4 a day—nearly tripled between 1991 and 2015. ● The proportion of undernourished people in developing regions dropped by almost half between 1990 and 2015. ● The number of out-of-school children of primary school age worldwide fell by almost half, to about 57 million in 2015, from 100 million in 2000. Gender parity in primary school was achieved in the majority of countries. ● The mortality rate of children under-five was cut by over half between 1990 and 2015; and maternal mortality fell by 45 percent worldwide. ● Over 6.2 million malaria deaths were averted between 2000 and 2015. New HIV infections fell by about 40 percent between 2000 and 2013. By June 2014, 13.6 million people living with HIV were receiving antiretroviral therapy globally, from just 800,000 in 2003. ● Between 2000 and 2013, tuberculosis prevention, diagnosis and treatment interventions saved an estimated 37 million lives. ● Worldwide, 2.1 billion people had gained access to improved sanitation. Some 147 countries had met the MDG drinking water target, 95 countries had met the sanitation target, and 77 countries had met both. ● Official development assistance from developed countries increased 66 percent in real terms from 2000 and 2014, reaching $135.2 billion.

24  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Construction and the MDGs There are very few works on the relationship between construction activity and the attainment of the MDGs, despite the acknowledged importance of construction in the development effort. Ofori (2007) is arguably the first significant work: it proposed a research agenda. Ofori (2012) considered the role of the construction industry in efforts to attain the MDGs, as shown in Table 2.1. Similarly, Lopes et al. (2011) noted that many international development agencies have observed that the services provided by infrastructure have an effect on the economic and social targets in the MDGs. They analysed UN and World Bank data to present prospects of the pattern of development of the construction industry in two groups of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, according to their level of economic development, and highlight the growth strategies of the construction industry in the groups of countries. Ijigah et al. (2012) analysed cost and time performance on 25 MDG construction projects in Nigeria over 2006 to 2009 and found significant cost and time overruns on the projects. They suggested that the government should engage in proactive strategic planning to keep construction project cost and time within reasonable limits in order to realise the MDG policies. Moreover, Pacheco-Torgal and Labrincha (2013) noted that construction consumes more raw materials than any other economic activity. However, research in the built environment, especially on construction materials, is focused on their mechanical properties with minor concerns regarding environmental sustainability (MDG7). The authors provided insights on future construction materials research priorities in the context of MDG7, highlighting the nano and biotech areas, inter-disciplinary research, and closing the gap between research and market use. This resonates with Ofori’s (2016) suggestion that developing countries should seek to develop and apply leapfrogging construction technologies. Box 2.1 shows how the construction of a small dam in Tanzania resulting from the involvement of women in the locality met many of the objectives of the MDGs: water and sanitation; health; gender; and improvements in the quality of life.

BOX 2.1 TANZANIAN WOMEN BRING SAFE DRINKING WATER TO THEIR COMMUNITIES Amidst concerns of a growing water crisis which leaves women particularly vulnerable, UN Women and the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) are implementing the Gender Equitable Local Development (GELD) pilot programme in partnership with local government authorities to support equitable planning and budgeting with the aim of improved gender-responsive public goods and service delivery. The Municipal Council of Morogoro invited women to identify Kingolwira’s most pressing needs through … community consultations. Drawing on women’s traditional duties as the main water collectors, the discussions resulted in the formation of a water management committee consisting of five women and five men. “Everyone immediately agreed to tackle the problem of water shortage, because the situation was so bad that it affected every aspect of life,” says 28-year-old Scholastika. Aware of the predicaments they faced in the past, the women of the committee knew that they not only had to bring the source of water closer to their community, but also make sure that the water would be clean, safe and affordable.

From the MDGs to the SDGs  25 In a community-wide effort and with the support of local water authorities, they decided to construct a small dam in the lower slopes of the Uluguru Mountains, from where the water would be piped into a nearby tank for further treatment. Resulting in … seven water kiosks where safe, treated water is stored in a tank and distributed. Now accessible from every street in Kingolwira, the village has undergone a remarkable transformation: the price of the ten jerry cans needed per family on a daily basis decreased from 5,000 TSZ (3 USD) to 250 TSZ (0.15 USD), while the appointed kiosk supervisors ensured an equitable distribution of clean water. Source: UN Women (2013).

Table 2.1

The Millenium Development Goals and the role of construction

MDGs

Contribution of Construction

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme ● Effective and efficient production of buildings and infrastructure poverty and hunger

● Maximum linkages of construction to other sectors of national economy to create stimulus ● Generation of employment opportunities ● Continuous development of construction industry

Goal 2: Achieve universal ● Design and construction of suitable school buildings (in local economic, climatic contexts) primary education

● Contribution to economic growth and national development to create jobs

Goal 3: Promote gender

● Creation of job opportunities for women and youth (MDG8) at all levels in construction, with close

equality and empower

attention to working conditions on sites, pay and career progression

women Goal 4: Reduce child

● Construction of hospitals and infrastructure

mortality

● Provision of job opportunities to generate income

Goal 5: Improve maternal health Goal 6: Combat HIV/

● Effective site management to avoid health hazards

AIDS, malaria and other

● Initiatives to avoid spread of HIV/AIDS by construction workers

diseases Goal 7: Ensure

● Sustainable construction – life-cycle considerations of all aspects of construction

environmental

● Effective management of completed buildings and infrastructure

sustainability Goal 8: Develop

● Construction as a partner for development

a global partnership for

● Construction as a creator of wealth and less of a burden in imported inputs

development

● Effective logistics of construction in landlocked and small island developing states ● Effective technology transfer in construction – from research to practice; from industrialised to developing countries ● Partnership among industry, government, researchers ● Global networks of researchers to study matters on construction and MDGs

Source:  Author’s own.

Discussing how Japan has contributed to the achievement of the MDGs through the use of financial and technical support, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2013) noted that the field of development had focused on the transfer of wealth from developed to developing countries. However, to eradicate poverty, it is necessary to pay attention to growth and employment. Thus, Japan adopted this approach. One example is the “Youth Employment for

26  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Sustainable Development” project started in Kenya in 2012 by Japan, the International Labour Organisation and Community Road Empowerment of Japan which provided training to 2,500 young people on labour-intensive farm road maintenance techniques using Cobblestone and Do-nou (sandbags) technology (the roads can be constructed by farmers by hand). In addition to creating infrastructure, the project aimed to create jobs by having the trained youth set up small-scale enterprises.

THE POST-2015 AGENDA Development and Its Goals: A Continuing Process, Search for a New Paradigm As the MDG programme reached mid-point in its implementation, in an additional effort to push and better support the implementation of the agenda, proposals were being made to replace them with another global development paradigm. Reviews of the programme which assessed its success, problems and challenges, many of which were discussed in the previous section included: Fukuda‐Parr (2010), Manning (2009), Hulme (2009), Vandemoortele (2009), and Vandemoortele and Delamonica (2010). A broad conclusion from the reviews was that “development” could no longer focus only on improving people’s lives as the impact of human activity on the planet was having an adverse effect even on the development gains. Solheim (2010) suggested that climate, conflict and capital were critical issues for the MDGs and beyond 2015. Various frameworks were proposed. For example, the Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2013) proposed 10 “Sustainable Development Goals and Targets”, to be attained by 2030: (1) End Extreme Poverty Including Hunger; (2) Achieve Development within Planetary Boundaries; (3) Ensure Effective Learning for All Children and Youth for Life and Livelihood; (4) Achieve Gender Equality, Social Inclusion, and Human Rights for All; (5) Achieve Health and Wellbeing at All Ages; (6) Improve Agriculture Systems and Raise Rural Prosperity; (7) Empower Inclusive, Productive and Resilient Cities; (8) Curb Human-Induced Climate Change and Ensure Sustainable Energy; (9) Secure Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity, and Ensure Good Management of Water and Other Natural Resources; and (10) Transform Governance for Sustainable Development – including transparency, accountability, access to information, participation, ending of tax and secrecy havens, and eliminating corruption. Alongside development economists and other experts in the humanities, scientists also contributed to the effort to develop a new agenda. For example, an international alliance of research institutes, the Independent Research Forum (2013), identified eight major shifts that must happen for sustainable development to be achieved: (i) from donor and beneficiary country relationships to meaningful international partnerships; (ii) from top-down decision making to processes that involve everyone; (iii) from economic models that do little to reduce inequalities to those that do; (iv) from business models based on enriching shareholders to models that also benefit society and the environment; (v) from meeting relatively easy development targets to actually reducing poverty; (vi) from conducting emergency response in the aftermath of crises to making countries and people resilient; (vii) from conducting pilot programmes to scaling-up programmes that work; and (viii) from a single-sectoral approach,

From the MDGs to the SDGs  27 such as tackling a water shortage through the water ministry, to involving various sectors, such as agriculture and energy, which also depend on water. Sustainable Development Goals Towards the end of the MDG programme, it was evident that in spite of the generally positive outputs, the global targets would not be met in some regions, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. At the Rio+20 conference in 2012, world leaders agreed to establish a post-2015 set of development goals. They mandated the creation of an open working group to produce a draft agenda. In 2013, the resolutions at the Global MDG Conference underlined the importance of accelerating progress to 2015, while taking lessons learned from the MDGs in developing the agenda for development beyond 2015 (UNDP, 2013). UNDP (2015) observed that the MDGs “…will serve as the jumping-off point for the new sustainable development agenda. to be adopted this year”.2 Lomazzi et al. (2014) suggested that in the post-2015 agenda, the new targets should reflect current political realities and development challenges, and adopt an all-inclusive, intersectoral and accountable approach. The open working group, with representatives from 70 countries, first met in March 2013. The studies on the MDGs showed that participation, ownership and influence of citizens, and involvement and accountability of civil society are essential for a strong policy development and implementation process (Chopra et al., 2009; TheWorldWeWant, 2013). To create a new, people-centred development agenda, a global consultation was conducted (The Sustainable Development Goals Fund, undated). Civil society organisations, citizens, academics, and the private sector were engaged in thematic and national consultations in over 100 countries, and the “My World” survey, led by the UN Development Group, which asked people to prioritise the areas to be addressed in the goals involved millions of people. The Guardian (2015b) observed that the UN conducted the largest consultation programme in its history to gauge opinion on what the SDGs should include. The Open Working group published its final draft in July 2014; the draft was presented to the UN General Assembly in September 2014. Member state negotiations followed, and the final wording of the goals and targets, and the preamble and declaration were agreed in August 2015. The resolution launching the SDGs: “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, was agreed by the world’s leaders in New York in September 2015. The 17 SDGs and 169 targets came into force on 1 January 2016 to replace the MDGs. Schneider and Niggli (2015) noted that the SDGs cover the most important social indicators defined by the UN for the Rio+20 conference: nutrition, access to water, health, education, energy, work, income, social justice, gender justice, participation, and resilience. They also cover nine environmentally sensitive areas where planetary boundaries had been, or were at risk of being, overstepped. The Declaration on the 2030 Agenda for Development It is pertinent to review the resolution (UN, 2015c) in order to understand the intentions of its authors. The preamble of the resolution states that the agenda is a plan of action for all countries and all stakeholders, and stresses the focus: “people, planet and prosperity” and strengthening of universal peace and freedom. It asserts that there was determination to take the transformative steps which are needed to shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient

28  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals path. All countries and all stakeholders, acting in partnership, will implement the plan. The leaders made the promise that “no one will be left behind”.  That the agenda would continue the MDGs, and build on their attainments and address their unfinished business was also a pledge (clause 2), as was a commitment to ensure the full implementation of the agenda by 2030. It would be a global joint effort towards a common, universal aim of shared prosperity with clear, specific aspirations. The protection of the planet and natural resources is highlighted (clause 3). The goals and targets are universal; they involve the entire world, and are “integrated and indivisible” (clause 5). The vision (clauses 7 to 9) is ambitious and inspirational, with broad desirable objectives and situations, including envisaging a world free of poverty, hunger, disease and want; free of fear and violence, with universal literacy, equitable access to quality education, health care and social protection, and the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; and where food is sufficient, safe and affordable; where human habitats are safe, resilient and sustainable and where there is universal access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy. A world in which every country enjoys sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all. A world in which consumption and production patterns and use of natural resources are sustainable, and the applications of technology are climate-sensitive and respect biodiversity.  The resolution indicates realism, highlighting the complexity of the challenges (clause 14), including billions of people living in poverty; rising inequalities within and among countries; gender inequality; unemployment; global health threats; more frequent and intense natural disasters; spiralling conflict, extremism, terrorism and related humanitarian crises; natural resource depletion and environmental degradation; and climate change and its adverse impacts which undermine the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development. It also outlines the opportunity (clause 15), including: lifting hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty; increase in access to education; the spread of information and communications technology and global interconnectedness; and scientific and technological innovation across many areas. The difference from the MDGs is outlined; there is a wider range of objectives: economic, social and environmental (clause 17). The resolution outlines the means of implementation and stresses the integrated approach to be adopted.  The resolution then introduces the SDGs under the heading, “a new agenda”. Mutually beneficial win-win co-operation is highlighted while indicating an understanding that every state has, and shall freely exercise, full permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activity. A recognition that there are differences in national needs, levels of development, realities, capacities, policies, priorities and resources is outlined, and respect for the sovereignty of each nation in pursuing sustainable development expressed (clauses 18 and 22). The paragraph on urban development (clause 34) is most pertinent to this study: We recognize that sustainable urban development and management are crucial to the quality of life of our people. We will work with local authorities and communities to renew and plan our cities and human settlements so as to foster community cohesion and personal security and to stimulate innovation and employment. We will reduce the negative impacts of urban activities and of chemicals which are hazardous for human health and the environment, including through the environmentally sound management and safe use of chemicals, the reduction and recycling of waste and the more efficient use of water and energy. And we will work to minimize the impact of cities on the global climate system. We will also take account of population trends and projections in our national rural and urban development strategies and policies.

From the MDGs to the SDGs  29 The resolution addresses the issue of monitoring, follow-up and review. It also highlights accountability: governments have the primary responsibility for follow-up and review; and to support accountability to the citizens, there will be a systematic follow-up and review. The leaders made a “call for action to change our world” (clause 50). Clause 53 ends the resolution: 53. The future of humanity and of our planet lies in our hands. It lies also in the hands of today’s younger generation who will pass the torch to future generations. We have mapped the road to sustainable development; it will be for all of us to ensure that the journey is successful and its gains irreversible.

The list of SDGs is presented in Table 2.2. Comparing MDGs to SDGs The resolution on the post-2015 agenda highlighted the differences between the MDGs and SDGs. For example, it states that in its scope, the framework: “goes far beyond the Millenium Development Goals” (clause 17) such as the inclusion of “peaceful and inclusive capacities” (clause 17). Many authors have compared the SDGs to their predecessor global goals. Bettelli (2021) outlined the history of the setting of development goals, and noted that the roots of the SDGs can be traced to the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. De Jong and Vijge (2021) consider that the transition from the MDGs to the SDGs reflects the most recent evolution in the discourse of sustainable development which is influential in global and national governance frameworks, although its meaning and operationalisation are context-dependent and have evolved over time. They analyse key differences in storylines between the MDGs and SDGs and develop an analytical framework to study them. From its perspective, The Hunger Project (THP) (2014) presented the top ten differences between the MDGs and the SDGs shown in Box 2.2.

BOX 2.2 MDGs TO SDGs: TOP 10 DIFFERENCES 1.

Zero Goals: The MDG targets for 2015 were set to get us “half way” to the goal of ending hunger and poverty, with similar proportional goals in other fields. The SDGs are designed to finish the job – to get to a statistical “zero” on hunger, poverty, preventable child deaths and other targets. Different strategies are needed: getting “halfway there” encouraged countries to “do the easiest parts first”; reaching zero requires focus on empowering the poorest and hardest to reach. 2. Universal Goals: The MDGs were in the context of “rich donors aiding poor recipients.” Since then the world has changed. Official development assistance (ODA) is now small compared to other resources flows, and the majority of the poorest people live in middle-income countries. Inequality is the issue, not national-level poverty. 3. More Comprehensive Goals:  There were 8 MDGs. The High-Level Panel recommended 12 Goals, and the Open Working Group recommended 17 “Focus Areas” that go beyond poverty, to issues of peace, stability, human rights and good governance. This will make mobilization around these goals more difficult.

30  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals 4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

Addressing THP Pillars: The MDGs largely ignored the three pillars of what THP sees as crucial for sustainably ending hunger: empowering women, mobilizing everyone, and partnering with local government. The SDGs address these more effectively, with stronger gender goals, people’s participation and government “at all levels”. Inclusive Goal Setting:  The MDGs were created through a top-down process. The SDGs were created in one of the most inclusive participatory processes the world has ever seen. Distinguishing Hunger and Poverty: In the MDGs, hunger and poverty were grouped together in MDG1, suggesting that solving one would solve the other. The SDGs treat poverty separately from Food and Nutrition Security. Funding: The MDGs were largely envisioned to be funded by aid flows – which did not materialize. The SDGs put sustainable, inclusive economic development at the core and address the ability of countries to tackle social challenges largely through improving their revenue generating capabilities. Peace Building: Experts predicted that after 2015, the majority of those in extreme poverty would live in conflict-affected states. Thus, the inclusion of peace building is critical to the success of ending hunger and poverty; the MDGs did not cover these. Data Revolution: The MDGs did not mention monitoring, evaluation and accountability, whereas there was an SDG target, by 2020, to “increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts”. Quality Education: The MDGs focused on quantity (such as high enrolment rates) only to see the quality of education decline in many societies. The SDGs enable focus to be on the quality of education and the role of education in achieving a more humane world.

Source: The Hunger Project (2014).

Countries recognise the difference between the MDGs and SDGs. For example, the Philippine Statistics Authority (undated) noted that: The SDGs build on the successes of the … MDGs, which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. The SDGs expanded its scope to 17 goals from the eight (8) goals in the MDGs, which covers universal goals on fighting inequalities, increasing economic growth, providing decent jobs, sustainable cities and human settlements, industrialization, tackling ecosystems, oceans, climate change, sustainable consumption and production as well as building peace and strengthening justice and institutions. Unlike the MDGs, which only targets the developing countries, the SDGs apply to all countries … The SDGs are also nationally-owned and country-led, … each country is given the freedom to establish a national framework in achieving the SDGs.

Criticism of the SDGs From the discussion above, it is evident that in developing the SDGs, the criticisms of the MDGs, and challenges faced in their implementation, were addressed; and new ideas about the nature of development, and the new development landscape were embraced and applied. The two sets of goals are different in number, quality, legitimacy, and approaches and level

From the MDGs to the SDGs  31 of efforts and resources required to implement them. The criticism of the SDGs started even before the goals were finalised. They were attacked for being too numerous and unwieldy (The Guardian, 2015a). Barbiere (2015) noted that experts in some international NGOs believed that the SDGs are “not fit for purpose”; some argued that by having so many goals and targets, quality was being sacrificed for quantity, and too many promises were being made, with no prioritisation; and the objectives were considered too ambitious. THP (2014) considered the SDGs more complex and more difficult to implement than their predecessors. Tyson (2015) reported comments on the SDGs by prominent international development leaders. They generally expressed concerns over goal variability, potential omissions and a disconnect between goal proposals and conditions on the ground. Some proposed that the UN should require a “standard level of achievability” for the SDGs. Some highlighted the absence of mechanisms for holding governments accountable to implementation of the goals and targets. Schneider and Niggli (2015) presented the views of a group of civil societies and trade unions which considered the SDGs unachievable under the present world economic system. A multi-discipline group of researchers, co-ordinated by the International Council for Science and the International Social Science Council (2015) noted that the SDGs were a major improvement over the MDGs. However, only 29 percent of the targets are well defined and based on latest scientific evidence; 54 percent needed more work; and 17 percent were weak or non-essential. Moreover, the targets were not integrated, there was some repetition, and some targets were not measurable or time-bound. The goals address challenges such as climate, food security and health in isolation from one another; and there could be conflict between different goals and the perceived actions. Finally, there should have been an overall vision for the SDGs. Some critics used strong words. For example, Easterly (2015) titled his paper: “The SDGs should stand for senseless, dreamy, garbled”. The Economist (2015) called the SDGs stupid development goals and noted that the SDGs were a distraction, and would not be useful. The SDG targets were sprawling, misconceived and unlikely to be realised. Hickel (2015) concluded that the SDGs are dangerous because they would lock in the global development agenda for the next 15 years around a failing economic model that required deep structural changes. Another concern was the funding that would be needed to achieve the targets. Estimated at $135 to $195 billion per year for the eradication of poverty, and $5 to $7 trillion a year for infrastructure investments, the cost of the new SDGs would exceed the current global development aid budget. Kumar (2015) noted that the ambitious goals and the huge investments needed will require greater involvement from businesses and developing country governments. The Economist (2015) noted that the SDGs are very expensive. Meeting them would cost $2-3 trillion a year over 15 years. That is roughly 15 percent of annual global savings, or 4 percent of world GDP. Western governments promise to provide 0.7 percent of GDP in aid but only give about one-third of that. UNCTAD (2014) noted that the SDGs will require a step-change in the levels of both public and private investment in all countries. At prevailing levels of investment in SDG-relevant sectors, developing countries alone faced an annual gap of $2.5 trillion.

32  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals In Defence of the SDGs Some stakeholders praised the ambitious and universal nature of the SDGs, and for moving beyond “traditional” development priorities (THP, 2014). Defenders of the SDGs point out that the goals emerged from an inclusive process which considered views from developing countries, unlike the MDGs, which were handed down by technocrats. The goals are complex because they recognise that poverty is a complex and structural problem (Hickel, 2015). The drafters had argued that eliminating poverty will require reducing inequality, combating climate change, strengthening labour rights, eliminating Western agricultural subsidies, and so on. UNCTAD (2014) noted that the SDGs “are intended to galvanize action worldwide through concrete targets for the 2015–30 period for poverty reduction, food security, human health and education, climate change mitigation, and a range of other objectives across the economic, social and environmental pillars” (p. x). Many consider the SDGs as a starting point, a guide for action. The SDGs will only be achieved with the commitment of a range of development actors. It will be necessary for national governments to implement their own action plans with targets and methods of accountability. Others pick out particular goals for praise. For example, the inclusion of goal 16 in the SDG framework is considered to be “groundbreaking” by champions of justice, security and accountability (THP, 2014). Malaysia’s Economic Planning Unit (2021) noted that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is an integrated and balanced social, economic and environmental agenda which serves as a collective blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. The goals are unique in that they call for action by all countries to promote prosperity while protecting the planet. SDGs recognise that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic growth and address social needs, while tackling climate change and environmental protection. Countries have the responsibility for follow-ups and reviews of the progress made in implementing the goals, which will require quality, accessible and timely data. Attaining the SDGs Many countries report on the implementation of their sustainable development programmes. Examples of industrialised countries are: Sweden (Government Offices of Sweden, 2021); the UK (HM Government, 2019); and the US (Lynch and Sachs, 2021). The UK government notes that: “The UK is committed to the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. The most effective way to do this is by ensuring that the Goals are fully embedded in planned activity of each Government department. The most effective mechanism for coordinating implementation is the departmental planning process”.3 In 2016, China released its national plan for implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which translates each target of the SDGs into “action plans” for China. The plan reviews China’s experience and achievements in implementing the MDGs; notes its opportunities and challenges in implementing the 2030 Agenda; provides guiding thoughts and principles for implementation; and indicates approaches (Government of China, 2016). China had also previously called on the G-20 group of countries to formulate its own action plan on the 2030 Agenda. In 2016, China was one of the first 22 countries to present a voluntary national review of efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda at the UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. The review highlighted China’s determination to lift

From the MDGs to the SDGs  33 rural residents under the current poverty line out of poverty, and double GDP and per capita income from 2010 levels by 2020. Malaysia has aligned SDGs and national development in its development planning (Economic Planning Unit, 2021) through a mapping exercise which involved the integration of the national development plan’s action plans, initiatives and outcomes to the SDGs’ goals, targets and indicators. The mapping began with the Eleventh Malaysia Plan, 2016–2020; and continued through the Twelfth Malaysia Plan, 2021–2025, and the Thirteenth Malaysia Plan, 2026–2030. Results of the SDGs, So Far Progress on the SDGs has stalled since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sachs et al. (2022) observe that at 66.0 points, the average SDG Index was slightly lower than in 2020. They note that (p. 9): Although too slow, and unequal across countries and goals, progress was made globally on the SDGs between 2015 and 2019. But on top of their … humanitarian cost, recent health and security crises have shifted attention away from long-term goals such as climate action, and exposed major fragmentation in multilateralism. These … crises have also hit low-income and vulnerable countries particularly hard, and they may take longer to recover due to more limited access to financing.

An outline of the latest SDG report (UN, 2022) is now presented. 1. More than four years of progress against poverty has been erased by COVID-19. The working poverty rate rose for the first time in two decades (from 6.7 percent in 2019 to 7.2 percent in 2020), pushing an additional 8 million workers into poverty. Rising inflation and impacts of the Ukraine war increased pre-pandemic projections of the number of people living in extreme poverty in 2022 of 581 million to the current 657 to 676 million. 2. About one in ten people worldwide are suffering from hunger, and nearly one in three people lack regular access to adequate food (2020). 3. In 2019–2020, 25 percent of primary schools lacked electricity, drinking water and basic sanitation; 50 percent lacked computers and Internet access. 4. Water-related ecosystems are being degraded at an alarming rate. Meeting drinking water, sanitation and hygiene targets by 2030 requires a four-times increase in the pace of progress. At current rates, by 2030, 1.6 billion people will lack safely managed water, 2.8 billion will lack safely managed sanitation and 1.9 billion will lack basic hand hygiene facilities. 5. Progress in electrification has slowed owing to the challenge of reaching those hardest to reach. The number of people without electricity: 1.2 billion in 2010; 733 million in 2020; and 679 million people in 2030, based on current projections. 6. Leaving no one behind will require an intensified focus on 1 billion slum dwellers. Globally, 82 percent of municipal solid waste is collected, and 55 percent is managed in controlled facilities. 7. Rising global temperatures continue, leading to more extreme weather; energy-related carbon emissions increased 6 percent in 2021, reaching the highest level ever. 8. Corruption is found in every region; almost one in six businesses have received bribe requests from public officials.

34  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals 9. Rising debt burdens threaten pandemic recovery in developing countries. No country has attained all the SDGs. For example, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven of Sweden, which has been ranked first in progress towards attaining the SDGs for many years in many global comparisons, notes in the country’s latest SDG report: However, while we have made good progress on implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in Sweden, this review shows that we must continue to take action to improve the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Economic and social inequalities are growing. Several of Sweden’s national environmental quality objectives will not be attained in time. People are suffering from mental ill-health, especially young people. Here we face major challenges that we need to continue to tackle (Government Offices of Sweden, 2021, p. 7).

Some reviews point out the need for different forms of action post-COVID-19 pandemic. A Nature (2020) editorial notes that as the pandemic has set back efforts to achieve the 2015 targets, “the need for change to make them more attainable is stronger than ever” (p. 331). It notes (p. 332): Recalibrating the SDGs — especially in the current climate — won’t be easy. But the evidence that there is a need for a changed approach is accumulating. If the pandemic has shown us anything, it’s that countries can drastically change the way they think and act. The pandemic is radically altering economic and social realities. It shows that radical action can be taken to tackle poverty and inequality, health, education, biodiversity and climate. When country representatives and the UN’s science-advice teams wrap up their meeting this week, they must heed their own poverty adviser and “avoid sleepwalking towards assured failure, while pumping out endless bland reports”.

Similarly, Naidoo and Fisher (2020) noted that COVID-19 was exposing the fragility of the SDGs, and their lack of resilience to such global stressors. Of the 17 goals, they classified eight as “threatened”; five as “partially threatened”; three as “threatened and mitigates”; and one as “threatened and aggravates”; two-thirds of the SDGs are now unlikely to be met. They urged the UN’s High-level Political Forum to update the SDGs: “Every goal and target should be screened according to three points: is this a priority, post-COVID-19; is it about development not growth; and is the pathway to it resilient to global disruptions?” On the other hand, many other authors suggest there is no need for change. For example, Bhattacharya et al. (2020) also writing in Nature, stated that “great feats are rarely a product of lowered ambition” and the pandemic only “reinforces why the goals were established in the first place: to chart a better course towards common economic, social and environmental ambitions that will guarantee humanity’s long-term future”. This is similar to the UN’s view that it is not necessary to revise the sustainable development agenda, asserting that it is “vital for a [COVID-19] recovery that leads to greener, more inclusive economies, and stronger, more resilient societies” (Nature, 2020, p. 331). Indeed, Van Zanten and Van Tulder (2020) noted that the SDGs provide three distinct “logics” that could help make societies more equitable after COVID-19 (a governance logic; a systems logic; and a strategic logic).

From the MDGs to the SDGs  35

CONSTRUCTION AND THE SDGs There are few research works which have examined the role of construction in the efforts to attain the SDGs. Like their attitude to the MDGs, construction researchers have not engaged with the SDGs. Table 2.2 presents a consideration of the contribution of the construction industry to the attainment of each SDG. Opoku (2022) notes that the SDGs provide the construction industry with a new lens through which global needs can be translated into business solutions. The SDGs provide a framework for construction companies to contribute towards the realisation of the SDGs by embracing the opportunities they present. Opoku (2022) suggests that the companies should integrate the SDGs into their long-term business strategies; and companies and practitioners should collaborate with government agencies, industry peers and policy-makers to attain the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. There are differences in views on how construction can help attain many of the SDGs. For example, Bioregional Development Group (2019) considered all the SDGs to be relevant to construction. Ofori (2016) categorised the SDGs from the perspective of construction into: (a) basic human and national needs — SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8; (b) what construction must do — SDGs 9 and 11; (c) some of the results of construction activity — SDGs 6 and 7; and (d) inputs and methods of the construction industry — SDGs 12, 13, 14 and 15. Some authors identify particularly relevant ones. Opoku (2016) argued that the construction industry can have a high impact on the realisation of these SDGs: SDG2 (End Hunger); SDG3 (Good Health and Well-Being); SDG4 (Quality Education); SDG6 (Clean Water and Sanitation); SDG7 (Affordable and Clean Energy); SDG8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth); SDG9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure); SDG10 (Reduced Inequalities); SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); and SDG13 (Climate Action). Similarly, Fei et al. (2021) suggested that the construction industry is most critical in the efforts to attain ten SDGs: Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG11); Climate Action (SDG13); Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG6); Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG12); Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG9); Life on Land (Biodiversity) (SDG15); Gender Equality (SDG5); Good Health and Well-Being (SDG3); Affordable And Clean Energy (SDG7); and Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG8). Some guidance is available. For example, Bioregional Development Group (BDG) (2019) has prepared a guide for the construction and property sector which explores the links between all of the SDGs and buildings and makes it clear that the firms are uniquely placed to help achieve them, and offers some practical tips on how to get started in using them. The guide outlines potential responses to the 56 SDG targets that can be most clearly linked to the construction and property sector. It presents examples of companies which are using the goals, and what they are doing. Some authors highlight particular action. Fei et al. (2021) suggested that the construction industry could influence the realisation of the SDGs by formulating policies and regulatory frameworks that drive the adoption of sustainable construction practices. Increasingly, researchers consider aspects of the broad targets. For example, Opoku et al. (2022) guest edited a special issue of Resources, Conservation and Recycling on: “The Sustainable Development Goals, Organisational Learning and Efficient Resource Management in Construction”. In their editorial, they considered the link between organisational learning and sustainability in construction, noting that construction organisations require organisational learning and innovation to cope with the journey towards a sustainable change.

36  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals The mass media understand the unique role construction should play if the SDGs are to be attained. For example, the Daily Star (2020) newspaper in Bangladesh noted that “construction industries need to take initiatives to implement the SDGs in their business platforms. There are five steps: (1) understanding the SDGs, (2) defining priorities, (3) setting goals, (4) integrating, and (5) reporting and communicating. The goals should be set with time-bound targets”. As noted by the BDG (2019), some construction companies have been responding to such calls; an engineering consulting firm identifies six SDGs that are of particular relevance to the construction industry (Lyonsdown, 2020): SDG6: Clean Water and Sanitation; SDG7: Affordable and Clean Energy; SDG9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; SDG11: Sustainable Cities and Communities; SDG12: Responsible Consumption and Production; and SDG13: Climate Action. The company reiterates a point made by researchers, as stated above, by observing that while each of these SDGs has a different focus, the success of each goal is dependent on the successful completion of the rest. The company urges the industry to focus on these goals to contribute to sustainability by aligning its actions with the SDGs. The construction industry will need to operate at its best if it is to effectively play its role in the effort to attain the SDGs. Action will have to be taken to have an industry operating at that level. This issue is now discussed. Preparing the Construction Industry to Help Attain the SDGs: A Research Agenda The role of the construction industry in the effort towards the attainment of the SDGs has these dimensions: ● providing the physical facilities for economic and social activities through the most effective project management approaches to the creation and continuous management of the infrastructure ● contributing directly to short-term economic growth and creating jobs from its activities (paying attention to gender and decent jobs); and stimulating activities and generating additional income in other sectors of the economy ● reducing the negative impact of construction activity on the environment and climate (through minimising encroachment on the natural environment; minimising the use of non-renewable resources through the adoption of circular production methods; and reducing the use of energy-intensive materials and installations) ● enhancing the performance of its products in operation, such as by reducing the use of energy and water. These dimensions provide a broad framework for studying the construction industry in relation to the SDGs. The Construction Management and Economics literature is dominated by works which show that the construction industry in all countries requires improvement in order to deliver what is required of it in national development. Examples are the review by Ofori (2021) and the global-level seminal works of the World Economic Forum and Boston Consulting Group (2015) and McKinsey Institute (Barbosa et al., 2017). There are also proposals in these works for addressing the problems and challenges. Researchers can help to develop greater understanding of the issues facing construction and make such action more effective. Each of the four dimensions of the industry’s contribution outlined above is a major subject on its own; each can be discussed under the themes of the industry, the company and the project. Given the limitations on the length of the chapter, only the industry level is considered

From the MDGs to the SDGs  37 Table 2.2

The SDGs and the role of construction

SDG

Contribution of Construction: New Perspectives

Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms

● Contributing to the green, circular economy, stimulating activity in other sectors

everywhere

● Generating employment and income through technology and procurement choices, creating decent, clean, well-paying jobs ● Developing small- and medium-sized companies through procurement approaches

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food

● Infrastructure for agriculture … dams, canals, and so on

security and improved nutrition and

● Economic opportunities for families linked to their residential units by design

promote sustainable agriculture

● Infrastructure for food collection, distribution, processing, storage

Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and

● Health facilities with appropriate design in culture, holistic care and technology choices

promote well-being for all at all ages

● Planning, design and building for healthy lifestyle choices and opportunities

● Facilitating urban agriculture

● Health and well-being of occupants by design and technology choices Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable ● Planning, design and construction to increase volume of school and tertiary facilities quality education and promote lifelong ● Integrated planning and design to support learning, playing, enterprise learning opportunities for all

● Construction projects as learning, technology orientation and entrepreneurship opportuni-

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and

● Job opportunities for women – breaking down taboos

empower all women and girls

● Equal pay for equal work; physical facilities on site

ties for students

● Equal opportunities for career advancement ● Addressing the culture in construction – implementation of the results of the numerous research studies Goal 6: Ensure availability and

● Infrastructure for extracting, treating and supplying water

sustainable management of water and ● Appropriate, affordable technology in water and sanitation sanitation for all

● Technology leapfrogging ● Water saving equipment and installations; monitoring usage in operation ● Managing water usage on site during construction

Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable,

● Renewable energy generation possibilities in each project

reliable, sustainable and modern

● Building based micro grids

energy for all

● Effective planning, design and delivery of power generation and distribution systems using appropriate technology ● Energy management during construction and operation of facilities

Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive

● Providing the necessary buildings and infrastructure most appropriately

and sustainable economic growth,

● Planning and designing for effective integration to derive benefit from agglomeration and

full and productive employment and

complementarity effects

decent work for all

● Stimulating activities in other sectors of the economy

Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure,

● Factor in resilience as a key consideration in the planning, design and construction of

promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation

every building and infrastructure item, both on its own and in combination with other relevant ones ● Promote technology development in construction (across the board) ● Construction as a creator of wealth and less of a burden in imported inputs ● Effective logistics of construction in landlocked and small island developing states

Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and ● Not directly related among countries Goal 11: Make cities and human

● Inclusive planning and design to reduce inequality in society

settlements inclusive, safe, resilient

● Universal design of constructed items

and sustainable

38  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals SDG

Contribution of Construction: New Perspectives

Goal 12: Ensure sustainable

● Sustainable building and construction from modified frameworks

consumption and production patterns

● Value chain approach to management of production process ● Life-cycle approach to consumption of resources and waste management ● Corporate and professional social and individual responsibility ● Influencing positive changes in owners’ and users’ consumption patterns

Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat ● Construction doing its part to address climate change: comprehensive energy climate change and its impacts

management ● Contributing to resilience and adaptation

Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use ● Avoid water pollution during construction the oceans, seas and marine resources ● Planning, design and construction for maximum eco-system services for sustainable development Goal 15: Protect, restore and

● Minimise land use; assess need for building before design

promote sustainable use of terrestrial

● Effective sustainability impact assessment of every proposed development project

ecosystems, sustainably manage

● Help address desertification

forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss Goal 16: Promote peaceful and

● Governance in project management

inclusive societies for sustainable

● Participation of users and beneficiaries in projects

development, provide access to justice ● Systematic post-occupancy evaluation for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels Goal 17: Strengthen the means of

● Partnership among industry, government, researchers

implementation and revitalise the

● Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) for projects and action

global partnership for sustainable

● Stakeholder involvement at relevant stages, and management of process

development

● Foreign-local joint ventures and knowledge flows ● Effective, equitable construction technology transfer and knowledge flows – from research to practice; from industrialised to developing countries ● Global networks of researchers to study matters on construction and SDGs

here. The construction industry should address each of the four major themes. Systematic effort towards developing the construction industries in all countries is required if construction is to contribute to the efforts to attain the SDGs up to its full potential. Therefore, it is necessary to undertake construction industry development in a strategic and comprehensive manner. A few regions, such as Hong Kong, SAR (Development Bureau et al., 2018); Singapore (Building and Construction Authority, 2022); and the UK (HM Government, 2018) have recently published strategies and plans for construction industry development. Good as they are, they do not specifically consider the SDGs or the subject of sustainability in all its elements (they cover the environmental aspects only). Construction researchers should take up this challenge. Construction researchers should take account of global agendas such as the previous MDGs and current SDGs and use them as a foundation for their work. However, it is pertinent to note that when Ofori (2007) highlighted the relationship between construction and the attainment of the MDGs at a conference on Construction Management and Economics and urged researchers to consider how they could contribute to efforts to improve the performance of the construction industry in their normal work, “there were some deep misgivings” (Collier, 2007, p. 32). Thus, a change in attitude among the researchers is required, as suggested by Ofori (2021).

From the MDGs to the SDGs  39

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The MDGs constituted the first global agenda for development agreed upon by all governments. The goals were ambitious, and they covered the key areas of national development. The MDGs were criticised from many perspectives. Much effort was made to support the achievement of the goals. A great deal of progress was achieved under the SDGs. This progress was severely affected by the global economic and financial crisis in 2008, midway through the programme. It was realised that the journey towards economic and social development is a continuous one. The SDGs were based on the experience and challenges of the MDGs. They are broader, pay greater attention to implementing mechanisms, monitoring and review and seek to address the context of the development process. It is evident that the construction industry has a role to play in the programmes to attain the MDGs and SDGs. However, the minimal engagement of construction researchers with the MDGs has been carried onto the SDGs.  Construction researchers should pay attention to the relevant global agendas as they are being developed, after they are launched, and during their implementation. To attain the SDGs, governments in all countries should prepare strategies and policies to develop the construction industry considering the SDGs. Governments should seek to provide an enabling environment for improved performance of the construction industry. Construction researchers should consider it their responsibility to contribute to the effort to attain the SDGs. Generally, these researchers should ask themselves these questions when embarking on, or assessing their research: (1) In what way will this study contribute to the attainment of the SDGs in any particular country? and (2) Which aspect of the study should be further built upon to contribute towards success on the path towards the SDGs?

NOTES 1.

UNDP (2015) https://​www​.undp​.org/​publications/​millennium​-development​-goals​-report​-2015​#:​ ~:​text​=​The​%20final​%20MDG​%20report​%20confirms​%20that​%20goal​-setting​%20can​,provide​ %20vast​%20new​%20opportunities​%20for​%20better​%20lives​.​%20Highlights 2. UNDP (2015) https://​www​.undp​.org/​publications/​millennium​-development​-goals​-report​-2015​#:​ ~:​text​=​The​%20final​%20MDG​%20report​%20confirms​%20that​%20goal​-setting​%20can​,provide​ %20vast​%20new​%20opportunities​%20for​%20better​%20lives​.​%20Highlights 3. https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​publications/​implementing​-the​-sustainable​-development​-goals/​ implementing​-the​-sustainable​-development​-goals​-​-2

REFERENCES Adegboye, O.A., Adeboye, M.A., Yahaya-Kongoila, Erinle, S.A., Nwachukwu, N.D. and Salawu, F.K. (2011). Millennium Development Goals—Knowledge and attainability as perceived by doctors: A case study. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 14(3), 318–321. Anti-Corruption Research Network (2013). Corruption and the MDGs. http://​ corru​ ptionresea​ rchnetwork​.org/​resources/​frontpage​-articles/​corruption​-as​-an​-obstacle​-to​-achieving​-the​-millennium​ -development​-goals Attaran, A. (2005). An immeasurable crisis? A criticism of the Millennium Development Goals and why they cannot be measured. PLOS Medicine, 2(10), 955–961, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020318

40  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Barbiere, C. (2015). Sustainable Development Goals are not fit for purpose, experts warn. EurActiv France, http://​www​.euractiv​.com/​sections/​towards​-sustainable​-development​-goals/​sustainable​ -development​-goals​-are​-not​-fit​-purpose Barbosa, F., Woetzel, J., Mischke, J., Ribeirinho, M.J., Sridhar, M., Parsons, M., Bertram, N. and Brown, S. (2017). Reinventing Construction through a Productivity Revolution. McKinsey Global Institute, https://​www​.mckinsey​.com/​industries/​capital​-projects​-and​-infrastructure/​our​-insights/​reinventing​ -construction​-through​-a​-productivity​-revolution Bettelli, P. (2021). What the World Learned Setting Development Goals. IISD, Government Office of Sweden, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Global Affairs Canada, https://​www​.iisd​.org/​ system/​files/​2021​-01/​still​-one​-earth​-MDG​-SDG​.pdf Bhattacharya, A., Kharas, H. and McArthur, J.W. (2020). SDGs: Great feats are rarely a product of lowered ambition. Nature, 584, 344, doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​d41586​-020​-02375​-5 Bioregional Development Group (BDG) (2019). Build a Better Future with the Sustainable Development Goals: A Practical Guide for Construction and Property Companies. BDG, Oxford, UK. Bourguignon, F., Bénassy-Quéré, A., Dercon, S., Estache, A., Gunning, J.W. and Ravikanbur, R. (2008). Millennium Development Goals at Midpoint: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Need to Go? European Commission, Brussels. Building and Construction Authority (2022). Media Release – Built Environment Industry Transformation Map to facilitate Integration and Collaborative Breakthrough Across Entire Value Chain, Media Release, https://​www1​.bca​.gov​.sg/​docs/​default​-source/​docs​-corp​-news​-and​-publications/​media​ -releases/​ibew​-opening​_media​-release​.pdf Chopra, M., Lawn, J.E., Sanders, D., Barron, P., Karim, S.A., Bradshaw, D., Jewkes, R., Karim, Q.A., Flisher, A.J., Mayosi, B.M., Tollman, S.M., Churchyard, G.J. and Coovadia, H.M. (2009). Achieving the health Millennium Development Goals for South Africa: Challenges and priorities. Lancet, 374, 1023–1031. Collier, C. (2007). Is this our problem? Icon, 04 Quarter, 32–33. Daily Star (2020). Sustainable Development Goals and construction industries, January 26, https://​www​ .thedailystar​.net/​star​-infrastructure/​news/​the​-sustainable​-development​-goals​-sdgs​-and​-construction​ -industries​-1859131 De Jong, E. and Vijge, M.J. (2021). From Millennium to Sustainable Development Goals: Evolving discourses and their reflection in policy coherence for development. Earth System Governance, 7, 100087, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.esg​.2020​.100087. Development Bureau of Government of Hong Kong, SAR and KPMG (2018). Construction 2.0: Time to change. Development Bureau, Hong Kong, SAR, https://​www​.psgo​.gov​.hk/​assets/​pdf/​Construction​ -2​-0​-en​.pdf Easterly, W. (2009). How the MDGs are unfair to Africa. World Development, 37(1), 26–35. Easterly, W. (2015). The SDGs should stand for senseless, dreamy, garbled. Foreign Policy, September 28, https://​foreignpolicy​.com/​2015/​09/​28/​the​-sdgs​-are​-utopian​-and​-worthless​-mdgs​-development​ -rise​-of​-the​-rest/​ Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department (2021). Sustainable Development Goals, https://​ www​.epu​.gov​.my/​en/​sustainable​-development​-goals Fehling, M., Nelson, B.D. and Venkatapuram, S. (2013). Limitations of the Millennium Development Goals: A literature review. Global Public Health, 8(10), 1109–1122, doi: 10.1080/17441692.2013.8 45676. Fei, W., Opoku, A., Agyekum, K., Oppon, J.A., Ahmed, V., Chen, C. and Lok, K.L. (2021). The critical role of the construction industry in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Delivering projects for the common good. Sustainability, 13(16), 9112;  https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su13169112 Fukuda-Parr, S. (2010). Reducing inequalities—the missing MDG: A content review of PRSPs and bilateral donor policy statements, IDS Bulletin, 41(1), 26–35. Government of the People’s Republic of China (2016). China’s National Plan on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, http://​www​.chinadaily​.com​.cn/​specials/​China’s​ NationalPl​anonimplem​entationof​agenda(EN)​.pdf Government Offices of Sweden (2021). Sweden: Report on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Voluntary National Review 2021. Stockholm. Gruneberg, S. and Francis, N. (2019) The Economics of Construction. Agenda Publishing, Newcastle.

From the MDGs to the SDGs  41 Hickel, J. (2015). The problem with saving the world. Jacobin, 8 August, https://​www​.jacobinmag​.com/​ 2015/​08/​global​-poverty​-climate​-change​-sdgs/​ HM Government (2018). Industrial Strategy: Construction Sector Deal. London. HM Government (2019). Voluntary National Review of Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. London. Hulme, D. (2009). The MDG: A short history of a big promise, BWPI Working Paper 100. Brooks World Poverty Institute, Manchester, UK. Ijigah, E.A., Ogunbode, B.E. and Ibrahim, M.O. (2012). Analysis and prediction of cost and time overrun of Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) construction projects in Nigeria. Developing Country Studies, 2, 140–147. Independent Research Forum (2013). Post-2015: Framing a New Approach to Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C. International Council for Science and International Social Science Council (2015). Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective. Paris. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISSD) (2007). Sustainable Development Successes and Failures Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. http://​www​.iisd​.org/​briefcase/​ten+​ten​_contents​.asp Jones, N., Holmes, R. and Espey, J. (2008). Gender and the MDGs: A gender lens is vital for pro-poor results. ODI Briefing Paper 42. ODI, London. Kumar, R. (2015). Sustaining the SDGs. Yale Economic Review, 10 March, http://​ www​ .yaleeconomicreview​.org/​archives/​2303 Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2013). An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development, SDSN, New York, ix–x. LoBue, M.C. and Kaluse, S. (2013). Identifying synergies and complementarities between MDGs: Results from cluster analysis. Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 113(2), 647–670. Lomazzi, M., Borisch, B. and Laaser, U. (2014). The Millennium Development Goals: Experiences, achievements and what’s next. Global Health Action, 7. doi: 10.3402/gha.v7.23695 Lopes, J. (2012). Construction in the economy and its role in socio-economic development. In G. Ofori (Ed.) New Perspectives on Construction in Developing Countries (pp. 40–71), Spon Press, London. Lopes, J.P., Oliveira, R.A. and Abreu, M.I. (2011). The construction industry and the challenges of the Millennium Development Goals. Proceedings of Conference on Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment, 20–23 June 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, https://​repository​ .tudelft​.nl/​islandora/​object/​uuid:​8c0f430b​-045a​-428a​-a188​-84575441c605​?collection​=​research Lynch, A. and Sachs, J. (2021). The United States Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York. Lyonsdown (2020). 17GlobalGoals.com, October 19, https://​ 17globalgoals​ .com/​ sustainable​ -development​-goals​-and​-the​-construction​-industry/​ Manning, R. (2009). Using Indicators to Encourage Development: Lessons from the MDGs. Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen. McGranahan, G., Satterthwaite, D. and Thompson, J. (2003). Improving Access to Water and Sanitation: Rethinking the Way Forward in Light of the Millennium Development Goals. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Mekonen, Y. (2010). A 2015 agenda for Africa: Development from a human perspective. IDS Bulletin, 41(1), 45–47. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2013). The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Post-2015 Development Agenda, https://​www​.mofa​.go​.jp/​policy/​oda/​white/​2013/​html/​mdgs​.html Ministry of Foreign Affairs of People’s Republic of China (2016). China’s National Plan on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Beijing. https://​www​.mfa​.gov​.cn/​ web/​system/​index​_17321​.shtml Monteiro, B.K., Masiero, G. and de Souza, F.R. (2022). Corruption in the construction industry: A review of recent literature, International Journal of Construction Management, 22(14), 2744–2752, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1823588 Nafziger, E.W. (2012). Economic Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Naidoo, R. and Fisher, B. (2020). Reset Sustainable Development Goals for a pandemic world. Nature,  583, 198–201, doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​d41586​-020​-01999​-x

42  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Nature (2020). Editorial: Time to revise the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 583, 331–332, doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​d41586​-020​-02002​-3 Nhema, A. (2010). An MDG plus agenda for Africa. IDS Bulletin, 41(1), 26–35. Ofori, G. (2007) Millennium Development Goals and construction: A research agenda. CME25 Conference: Construction Management and Economics – “Past, Present and Future”, Reading, 16–18 July 2007. Ofori, G. (2012). Construction and Millennium Development Goals. In G. Ofori (Ed.) New Perspectives on Construction in Developing Countries (pp. 72–105), Spon Press, London. Ofori, G. (2016). Construction in developing countries: Current imperatives and potential. In K. Kähkönen and M. Keinänen (Eds.) Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2016, Tampere, Finland, 30 May–3 June 2016. Department of Civil Engineering, Construction Management and Economics, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland, Vol. 1, pp. 39–52.  Ofori, G. (2021). Professionalism in built environment research: Beyond integrity and good practice. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(9), 3617–3646.  https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1108/​ECAM​-02​-2020​-0118 Ofori, G. (2022). Construction economics: Its origins, significance, current status and need for development. In G. Ofori (Ed.) Research Companion to Construction Economics (pp. 18–40), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Opoku, A. (2016). SDG2030: A sustainable built environment’s role in achieving the post-2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In P.W. Chan and C.J. Neilson (Eds) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5‒7 September, Manchester, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 2, 1149‒1158. Opoku, A. (2022). Construction industry and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In G. Ofori (Ed.) Research Companion to Construction Economics (pp. 199–214), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Opoku, A., Ahmed, V. and Ofori, G. (2022). Realising the sustainable development goals through organisational learning and efficient resource management in construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 184, September, 106427, https://​www​.sciencedirect​.com/​science/​article/​abs/​pii/​ S0921344922002701​?via​%3Dihub Pacheco-Torgal, F. and Labrincha, J.A. (2013). The future of construction materials research and the seventh UN Millennium Development Goal: A few insights. Construction and Building Materials, 40, March, 729–737, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.conbuildmat​.2012​.11​.007 Philippine Statistics Authority (undated). How are the Sustainable Development Goals different from MDGs? https://​psa​.gov​.ph/​content/​how​-are​-sustainable​-development​-goals​-different​-mdgs Pieth, M. (2012). Collective Action: Innovative strategies to prevent corruption, Working Paper Series No. 13. Basel Institute on Governance, Basel. https://​baselgovernance​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​2019​-06/​ 190613​_WP​_13​.pdf Sachs, J.D., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G. and Woelm, F. (2022). Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022: From Crisis to Sustainable Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sandbu, M. (2015). Critics question success of UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Financial Times, September 15, https://​www​.ft​.com/​content/​51d1c0aa​-5085​-11e5​-8642​-453585f2cfcd Schneider, N. and Niggli, P. (2015). SDGs: Surprisingly Ambitious, Much Criticized. Swiss Alliance of Development Organisations, 26 October, http://​www​.alliancesud​.ch/​en/​policy/​development/​sdgs​ -surprisingly​-ambitious​-much​-criticized​#sthash​.5YV41H7S​.dpuf … http://​www​.alliancesud​.ch/​en/​ policy/​development/​sdgs​-surprisingly​-ambitious​-much​-criticized Solheim, E. (2010). Climate, conflict and capital: Critical issues for the MDGs and beyond 2015. IDS Bulletin, 41(1), 100–103 Subramanian, S., Naimoli, J., Matsubayashi, T. and Peters, D.H. (2011). Do we have the right models for scaling up health services to achieve the Millennium Development Goals? BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 336. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-336 Sustainable Development Goals Fund (undated) From MDGs to SDGs, https://​www​.sdgfund​.org/​mdgs​ -sdgs The Economist (2015). The 169 commandments. March 28, http://​www​.economist​.com/​news/​leaders/​ 21647286​-proposed​-sustainable​-development​-goals​-would​-be​-worse​-useless​-169​-commandments The Guardian (2015a). A new era, a new plan: Can the UN’s sustainable development goals succeed? http://​www​.theguardian​.com/​world/​2015/​sep/​24/​un​-sustainable​-development​-goals​-succeed​-poverty

From the MDGs to the SDGs  43 The Guardian (2015b). Sustainable development goals: All you need to know. http://​www​.theguardian​ .com/​global​-development/​2015/​jan/​19/​sustainable​-development​-goals​-united​-nations The Hunger Project (2014). MDGs to SDGs: Top 10 differences, https://​advocacy​.thp​.org/​2014/​08/​mdgs​ -to​-sdgs/​ TheWorldWeWant (2013). Health in the Post-2015 Agenda, Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Health. http://​www​.worldwewant2015​.org/​file/​337378/​download/​366802 Turin. D.A. (1969). The Construction Industry in Economic Significance and its Role in and Development, 2nd Edition. University College Environmental Research Group, London. Tyson, J. (2015). The SDG glass: Is it half full or half empty? 09 June, https://​www​.devex​.com/​news/​the​ -sdg​-glass​-is​-it​-half​-full​-or​-half​-empty​-86295 UNDP (2013). Global MDG Conference – Making the MDGs work.  New York.  http://​www​.undp​.org/​ content/​undp/​en/​home/​presscenter/​events/​2013/​february/​27​-28​-february​-​-making​-the​-mdgs​-work​ .html  United Nations (2008). Commitments for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. High-level event. http://​www​.un​.org/​millenniumgoals/​2008highlevel/​commitments​.shtml  United Nations (2010). Keeping the Promise: United to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. New York. United Nations (2012) Official Development Assistance, 2012. http://​iif​.un​.org/​millennium​-development​ -goals/​official​-development​-assistance​-oda United Nations (2015a). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. New York. United Nations (2015b). We Can End Poverty – Millennium Development Goals and Beyond. New York, https://​www​.un​.org/​millenniumgoals/​bkgd​.shtml United Nations (2015c). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York. United Nations (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022. New York. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2014). World Investment Report: Investing in the SDGs – An Action Plan. United Nations, New York and Geneva. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2010) Active Macroeconomic Policy for Accelerating Achievement for the MDG targets. New York. UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda (2012). Review of the Contributions of the MDG Agenda to Foster Development: Lessons for the post-2015 UN Development Agenda, https://​www​.un​.org/​en/​development/​desa/​policy/​untaskteam​_undf/​group​_a​_mdg​_assessment​.pdf UN Women (2013). Tanzanian Women Bring Safe Drinking Water to their Communities, 21 March, https://​www​.unwomen​.org/​en/​news/​stories/​2013/​3/​tanzanian​-water​-kiosks Vandemoortele, J. (2009). The MDG Conundrum: Meeting the targets without missing the point. Development Policy Review, 27(4), 355–371. Vandemoortele, J. (2011). The MDG story: Intention denied. Development and Change, 42(1), 1–21. Vandemoortele, J. and Delamonica, E. (2010). Taking the MDGs beyond 2015: Hasten slowly. IDS Bulletin, 41(1), 60–69. van Zanten, J.A. and van Tulder, R. (2020). Three SDG Logics for Transformation Beyond COVID-19. 11 November, http://​sdg​.iisd​.org/​commentary/​guest​-articles/​three​-sdg​-logics​-for​-transformation​ -beyond​-covid​-19/​ Waage, J., Banerji, R., Campbell O., Chirwa, E., Collender, G., Dieltiens V., Dorward, A., Godfrey-Faussett, P., Hanvoravongchai, P., Kingdon, G., Little, A., Mills, A., Mulholland, K., Mwinga, A., North, A., Patcharanarumol, W., Poulton, C., Tangcharoensathien, V. and Unterhalter, E. (2015). The Millennium Development Goals: A cross-sectoral analysis and principles for goal setting after 2015. Lancet, 376(9745), 991–1023.  World Bank (2009). Global Monitoring Report 2009 – A development emergency. Washington, DC. World Council on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press, New York. World Economic Forum and Boston Consulting Group (2015). Shaping the Future of Construction, https://​www​.weforum​.org/​global​-challenges/​projects/​future​-of​-construction

3. The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges Alex Opoku, Tariq Umar and Judith Amudjie

INTRODUCTION According to Loh et al. (2020), there is a clear, yet pressing concern for planet Earth to avert an anthropogenic “ecocide” due to the lack of reasonable and impactful steps to combat climate change and other global challenges on a global scale. Furthermore, Etinay et al. (2018) revealed that the global challenges antagonizing global decision-makers are at the peak of growth in complexity, intensity and urgency. Environmental degradation, natural disasters, pandemics, nuclear catastrophes, water shortages, displaced populations and urbanization, rising ocean levels and climate change, and widespread malnutrition, hunger and food shortages, are some of the challenges that do not end at nations’ borders but transcend to the entire globe. As such, these challenges require cross-border cooperation and pooled resources in dealing with a way to curb them (Donglikar, 2020; Etinay et al., 2018; Suresh, 2012). According to Wang et al. (2019), people make tremendous contributions towards the built environment (BE) by designing and building their lives through experiences which are the bases upon which aspects of the BE are developed. Hence the BE is developed around people’s needs, ideas and actions. Wang et al. (2019) again highlighted that people’s irresponsible behaviours have led to the adverse effects and uncomfortable situations faced within the natural environment. Additionally, Jones (2009) revealed that most human activities, regardless of the associated sectors they radiate from, have been associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is now a major global concern. Again, Loh et al. (2020) corroborated that the urgent need for GHG emissions to be reduced has caused many government and industry initiatives to be raised towards energy efficiency programmes and funding for advancing technologies. In addition, Wang et al. (2019) established that there is a psychological and physical relationship between human needs and desires, and the BE. They explained that when the thoughts and considerations are made towards the proper drafting and shaping of the BE, human actions, activities and productivity are immensely affected. Although the BE has driven the advancement of civilization, it faces grand challenges like urbanization, energy consumption, climate change, growth and innovation. Furthermore, Loh et al. (2020) stated that many policymakers, agencies and organizations expressed strong opinions on the role cities play in contributing to and addressing current global issues. They stated that cities are the primary host of economic activities, the centre for population growth and urban sprawl. The urban areas, Loh et al. (2020) added, are the largest consumers of resources and energy, however, their trajectories would not create a more sustainable urban environment if strategies to limit resource and energy inefficiencies are not put in place. Globally, the BE alone is said to be responsible for about 50 percent of carbon emissions and 70 percent, if transportation associated with mobility within the BE is included (Jones, 44

The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges  45 2009). According to Zaman and Lehman (2011), the world’s generation of solid waste was about 2 billion tonnes per annum. With the high urbanization rates recorded, these emissions have immensely increased causing more harm than before (Kumar, 2021; Scherz et al., 2020). For instance, Scherz et al. (2020) stated that cities around the world consume 70 percent of resources like land, raw materials, energy, and water, among others, and generate more than 75 percent of carbon emissions and waste. However, in 2017, about 39 percent of the total global emissions alone were attributed to the building construction industry. Additionally, Lampropoulos et al. (2020) corroborated that although urban areas occupy about 3 percent of the earth’s land, they were responsible for consuming almost 80 percent of the global energy and generating about three-quarters of global carbon emissions. Furthermore, Wei et al. (2021) highlighted the fact that the replication of unsustainable activities within the BE has rather introduced uncontrollable disasters within the urban areas. Although the BE plays a role in supporting lives and facilities in fighting against disasters, extreme climate replications and the like, these global challenges have instead revealed the weaknesses of the BE. Also, Wei et al. (2021) stated that due to rising urbanization, most habitations and business centres have been developed in cyclone, flood, fire and hurricane-prone areas. Thereby, living in a BE with high threats and limited capabilities in providing support to built assets and inhabitants will severely be impacted by disasters. For instance, a slight increase in temperature will increase the chance of cyclones, floods, or fires occurring. These rapid and unexpected natural disasters have resulted in increasing concerns about how the BE community will deal with these phenomena (Wei et al., 2021). According to Malalgoda et al. (2014), the BE is the core component of every city, hence, moving towards “resilience” is an essential way to develop the BE with an effective degree of countering global challenges. Furthermore, Lizarralde et al. (2015) stated that the evolution of the world reviews global problems through the lenses of “sustainability” and “resilience” paradigms so as to derive objectives, tools and means for dealing with them.

FRAMEWORKS FOR ADDRESSING THE GLOBAL CHALLENGES Over the past decades, there have been several attempts made to address global challenges related to development, climate change, and disaster risk losses. Such attempts have been made through the adoption of frameworks such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the New Urban Agenda (NUA) and the Paris Agreement (Etinay et al., 2018). Furthermore, Peter et al. (2016) explained that in order for the global challenges to be brought under control as well as achieve the global vision by 2030 sustainably and inclusively, it is of great necessity for all the major frameworks to be agreed upon fully. These frameworks will serve as the roadmap for action to be formulated in diverse contexts and would also require a joined-up monitoring mechanism for indicators to achieve progress in the reporting and tracking process (Etinay et al., 2018). In 2015, the SFDRR was endorsed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and adopted by 187 nations as a 15-year voluntary, non-binding agreement with four priorities and seven global targets. The aim of the SFDRR was to reduce disaster risks and losses in lives, livelihoods and health by 2030 (Etinay et al., 2018). In the same year, the adoption of the UN SDGs and the Paris Climate Change Agreement was witnessed and in 2016, the NUA Quito

46  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals declaration on sustainable cities and human settlements for all was also made (Etinay et al., 2018). Furthermore, the NUA declaration made in 2016 supports the UN SDGs to a larger extent, as it indicated in a section of the agreement that it will implement the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development in an integrated manner, and also achieve the SDGs and targets, including goal 11 (i.e., making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable) (Etinay et al., 2018). According to Wei et al. (2021), the SFDRR is one of the most comprehensive blueprints the world has ever endorsed to aid in reducing the global impacts of natural hazards and developing resilience in buildings and communities. It is a recent global framework that many nations and economic sectors have embraced to cope with natural disasters in urban areas. The objective of the SFDRR is to reduce disaster risk and loss of life substantially. Also, to enhance the health, livelihood, social, economic, cultural and environmental assets of individuals, communities, businesses and nations (Manyena, 2016). According to Scherz et al. (2020), with the current problems faced by the BE, narrowing and exploiting the SDGs (i.e., specifically SDG 11), will aid in dealing with global issues. They further explained that SDG 11 explicitly looks at how access to affordable housing, green spaces, transport and participatory spatial design could be achieved. Even though the current global problems rooted in urbanization demand that more construction activities ought to progress, SDG 11 will require that efforts are made towards achieving resilient cities with high energy and resource efficiency, attainment of climate targets, and socially sustainable designs. According to Valencia et al. (2019), the SDGs apply to all countries, whether rich or poor. The 17 goals of the SDGs represent the diverse sustainability elements and are set to provide a holistic representation of complex and interdependent sustainable development. Each goal is associated with several targets and indicators which are geared towards dealing with a particular global challenge or issue. The challenges and solutions have been grouped into several categories within the environment (i.e., air, water, land), society (i.e., health, mobility, developments, etc.) and economy (sectors, growth, finances, business, etc.). The SDG framework was set to monitor progress through annual reporting to the UN. For instance, SDG 2 looks at addressing issues relating to ending hunger and all forms of malnutrition, while SDG 14 addresses issues regarding the protection and restoration of the aquatic ecosystem, while SDG 15 addresses issues relating to protecting and restoring the terrestrial ecosystems (Valencia et al., 2019). In 2016, after the redress on the manner in which the urban systems were governed, planned, designed, developed and managed, the NUA resulted. The outcome of the NUA was that in conjunction with the SDGs, the 2030 agenda will be achieved (Mews et al., 2018). According to Mews et al. (2018), about 22,000 interdisciplinary stakeholders from over 160 countries came together at the ninth World Urban Forum to showcase their commitment to implementing the NUA. Apparently, there was an Old Urban Agenda that urged for the adoption of constitutional rights to adequate housing. However, the Old Urban Agenda failed to yield all the promises within its system such as shelter for all and sustainable human settlements. Hence, the redress through the instituting of the NUA will enable countries all over the world to attain the goals of sustainable cities (Mycoo, 2017). In addition, Mycoo (2017) revealed that there was a consensus among the stakeholders that countries could take advantage of the new opportunities presented by the rise in urban population and migration to drive transformative sustainable development. Furthermore, his studies corroborated that the NUA was a fundamental agreement to transforming the approach in which cities and human settlements

The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges  47 are planned, governed and managed to end social inequality and poverty, promote economic advancement and achieve environmental sustainability. But in doing so, each country will need to interpret the pillars and principles of the NUA individually and devise a proper implementation mechanism to achieve the goals of the NUA. In a nutshell, the essence of the NUA is to promote urban sustainability (Valencia et al., 2019). The Paris Agreement recognized climate change as a global challenge that requires a fast, decisive response in addressing it (Broer et al., 2022). The UN Paris Agreement was agreed upon to meet the target of staying or keeping the climate temperature below 2°C of warming to limit global warming, with all efforts to retain at least 1.5°C, which severely requires a strict limitation on future global GHG emissions that is based on the global carbon budget (Steininger et al., 2020). As part of the Paris Agreement, encouraging avenues and programmes that decrease the adverse effects of climate change to meet the world’s obligation is crucial. However, the increased energy efficiency puzzlingly tends to increase energy consumption, making energy efficiency insufficient to fight the ongoing global problems (Loh et al., 2020). Within the scope of the Paris Agreement, Konstantinou and Dimitrijević (2018) reported that the terms of the agreement would have stakeholders reduce emissions and build resilience to decrease vulnerability to the effects of climate change. Most studies have highlighted the purpose of the Paris Agreement in resolving only direct issues regarding climate change. In the studies of Lampropoulos et al. (2020), it was revealed that energy savings in buildings can be considered achieved through the employment of the sustainable development scenarios captured under the goals of the Paris Agreement. Conclusively, they expressed that the sustainable development scenario reflects the changes required to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, which are also universal access to modern energy by 2030 and a significant reduction in energy-related air pollution. A historic agreement to direct global environmental action on nature through 2030 was reached in December 2022. The important meeting brought together representatives from 188 nations at the UN’s Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in Montreal. This resulted in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) (UN Environment Programme, 2022).

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The term “built environment” is explained in one holistic and integrated concept as the creative result of the activities of humans throughout history. The early concept of BE originated from ancient times and its meaning has also evolved. As the initial concept of BE viewed it as a means of developing the physical environment to meet individual and social needs, it is not viewed as a means where personal and collective ideas and aspirations are expressed (Wang et al., 2019). Universally, BE can be defined by four interrelated features. Firstly, it provides the background for all human efforts. From the way things are created to how they are modified, constructed, arranged and maintained. Secondly, it reflects people’s thoughts and goals, which shape their needs, aspirations and values. Thirdly, BE helps to deal with the protection, coordination and changing of the overall environment towards achieving comfort and happiness. Finally, BE contributes both positively and negatively to the overall BE quality (Jigyasu, 2016; Wang et al., 2019). Although BE as a generic term may mean the development of the natural environment, its meaning may differ from one academic field or background to the other. According to

48  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Aboelata et al. (2004), BE in public health is considered from the point of view of improving communal well-being, environment and lifestyle, and advancing aesthetics and health. Wang et al. (2019) revealed other explanations of the term BE as the manmade surroundings for human activities ranging from buildings, and green spaces to neighbourhoods and supporting infrastructures like water supply and energy networks. In other words, it is the manmade space comprised of material, spatial and cultural products of the human labour force combined to make living productive. Thus, the BE can meet the development needs of human society. Furthermore, Younger et al. (2008) stated that, unlike the natural environment, the BE comprises small-scale settings like offices, houses, shopping malls, schools, and hospitals, and large-scale settings such as communities, neighbourhoods, and cities of manmade components, and other components such as road networks, sidewalks, green spaces and connecting transit systems. In addition, Younger et al. (2008) explained that the development of the BE involves and affects several sectors like the local and regional government, engineering, urban planning, land conservation, architecture, transportation design and environmental psychology. Due to the interdependent interactions within the various sectors, it has been revealed that current communal design and practices have added to the rates of global challenges (Younger et al., 2008). The introduction of sustainability came with several acclaimed definitions. Sustainability has been defined by Brundtland as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 43). However, Opoku and Ahmed (2013, p. 141) consider the involvement of humans by defining sustainable development as: “The adjustment of human behaviour to address the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Furthermore, the application of the concept of sustainability in various sectors and disciplines has also resulted in the evolution of the concept from satisfying direct human needs across generations, towards sustainability providing societal benefits through external systems (Nielsen and Farrelly, 2019). The concept of sustainability in BE was first used in the early twentieth century to assess the sustainability of buildings, and the building sustainability assessment system used was the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (Lee, 2012). According to Ampratwum et al. (2021), the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors defined sustainable building as a green building that has been assessed and rated by assessment certification tools. Additionally, sustainable buildings are designed and constructed using methods and materials that are resource efficient or associated with providing health benefits or enhancing the well-being of occupants or users of the buildings, construction workers, the general public, or future generations. Increasing the number of sustainable buildings goes a long way to benefiting communities as well as the BE. Hence, the era of green buildings saw many new constructions follow the new pattern of sustainability and in effect, many buildings across the globe were recorded to be certified as green or sustainable buildings (Ampratwum et al., 2021; Ozolins, 2010; Redl, 2013; Rogerson, 2014). With time, the systems and assessment tools for measuring sustainability and certifying building within the domain of the BE has also evolved. Among some of these systems, assessment or certification tools are the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (Agyekum et al., 2020; Marlow et al., 2022; U.S. Green Building Council, 2023), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (Agyekum et al., 2020; Loh et al., 2020; Stone Cycling, 2021), Green Star (Agyekum et al., 2020; Ampratwum et al., 2021; Loh et al., 2020), Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE)

The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges  49 (Agyekum et al., 2020; Martek et al., 2022), German Sustainable Building Council-DGNB (Agyekum et al., 2020), HK-BEAM (Agyekum et al., 2020), Green Mark (Ampratwum et al., 2021) and Green Globe (Ampratwum et al., 2021). The concept of “resilience” is widely-adopted terminology across academic and policy debates as a way of reducing society’s vulnerability to threats posed by natural and human-induced hazards (Malalgoda et al., 2014). According to Wang et al. (2019), resiliency is the ability to design systems that can inadvertently absorb and adapt to future events. Originally, the term “resilience” comes from the Latin word meaning “jump back” or “bounce back”. The term “resilience” used in several contexts seemingly regulates around the Latin origin of the word (Manyena et al., 2011). So, in summary, resilience could be defined as the ability of a society, community, or system exposed to natural or humanly induced hazards to resist, accommodate, absorb, and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions (Malalgoda et al., 2014). According to Marlow et al. (2022), the concept of resilience has been shaped by global policymakers with the Hyogo framework and the SFDRR. Hence, the term resilience has also been defined by the SFDRR as “the need for improved understanding of disaster risk in all its dimensions of exposure, vulnerability and hazard characteristics; the strengthening of disaster risk governance”. In the BE, most of the early studies on resilience were geared towards the prevention and reduction of disasters, and the impact of disasters on engineering from the technical perspective (Wang et al., 2019). There are numerous technical challenges and opportunities ahead as sustainability in the BE becomes a major economic force to both building construction and energy supply. The current issues faced by the BE (i.e., climate change, environmental depletion, etc.) is a clear indication of how unsustainable ways of living have been over the years (Jones, 2009; Wang et al., 2019). Regardless of the growing interest in the urban, Nielsen and Farrelly (2019) revealed that there are still some ambiguities surrounding the role of cities in sustainability transitions. Hence, sustainable and resilient BE is necessary for making progress and must accept substantial investments from stakeholders who are responsible for planning, designing, constructing and operating the BE (Avetisyan et al., 2017). In the BE, infrastructure resilience is emphasized the most as an important component and mostly evaluated from a unified perspective of governance and management (Heinimann and Hatfield, 2017). According to Sawalha (2015), resilience in infrastructural projects is measured by how well adversity in engineering projects is managed. Hence, Amaratunga et al. (2017), highlighted that for a resilient BE, professional education is the mainstream for aligning to sustainable resiliency. León et al. (2019) also corroborated that those disciplines such as land use management, urban planning and architecture can shape up the BE through spatial designs, thus becoming appropriate tools for strengthening disaster risk governance and fostering resilience. Furthermore, Saunders et al. (2020) argued that resilience ought to be a subset of sustainability so that communities can avoid occurrences where they can achieve resiliently BE in the short term but are not able to achieve sustainability in the long run. According to Wei et al. (2021), developing resilient buildings has been a persistent challenge in the design and construction of buildings. To create a resilient BE, the consideration of making buildings and communities resilient is paramount. This is because, Godschalk (2003) argued, although having buildings that are resilient in the urban area is very important, a city without resilient communities will always be vulnerable to disasters and other global challenges. Hence, as building designers and construction experts are considering resilience

50  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals in the plans of buildings, the urban planners should also equally consider planning resilient communities to enhance the development of resilient BE. Furthermore, Marlow et al. (2022) stated that the concepts of sustainability and resilience could be integrated with the BE to better progress towards making better decisions for the environment, economy and society. However, there is also a need for a multidisciplinary approach with incentives for policy and practice to achieve this said progress. The circular economy in the BE has tremendous opportunity for businesses, towns, and governments all around the world. By using a new approach to design, reuse, and select materials, circular methods can provide the construction industry with the knowledge and resources needed to reduce the damaging environmental effects of the BE (European Investment Bank, 2023).

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE GLOBAL CHALLENGES The climate of the earth is changing and worsening by the moment, due largely to the effects of GHG emissions resulting from diverse human activities and the BE. This is because the BE influences human choices which in turn deteriorate the health of living organisms and affect the global climate (Younger et al., 2008). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Synthesis Report for the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6 Synthesis Report) highlights the impact of climate change on the urban environment (see Box 3.1). Decarbonizing the built environment is crucial since it accounts for over 40 percent of all energy-related carbon emissions globally and emits roughly 14 gigatons of carbon annually. As a crucial first step in significantly reducing emissions and constructing plausible paths toward net-zero emissions, it is crucial to comprehend the entire life carbon emissions of buildings (ARUP and WBCSD, 2023). Cities are becoming more prone to natural disasters and other global challenges. Although it has been acknowledged that the role of the BE can foster disaster resilience within the cities, it has been challenging to translate this potential into practice. This is because the urbanized world is being faced with new challenges daily, making the delivery of disaster resilience nearly impossible (León et al., 2019). According to León et al. (2019), the establishment of the SFDRR pointed to the fact that the decade before its endorsement, nature-oriented disasters affected millions of people globally. In addition, the growing exposure of people and properties to hazards in developing countries mostly outnumbered the global vulnerability reduction efforts. Critical cases were reported by nearly 50 percent of the global population of people living in cities. Cody et al. (2021) revealed that environmental disasters and other likened challenges may be generated and exacerbated by diverse issues. The global trend of these challenges is fuelled by urbanization and demographic change, the impact of climate change, and the increasing global interdependencies and interactions of systems and sectors. Hence the mutual supportiveness of sustainable frameworks like the Paris Agreement, SFDRR, SDGs and NUA will go a long way to deal with disasters, climate change and development issues.

The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges  51

BOX 3.1 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON URBAN ENVIRONMENT In urban settings, climate change has caused adverse impacts on human health, livelihoods and key infrastructure. Hot extremes including heatwaves have intensified in cities, where they have also worsened air pollution events and limited functioning of key infrastructure. Urban infrastructure, including transportation, water, sanitation and energy systems have been compromised by extreme and slow-onset events, with resulting economic losses, disruptions of services and impacts to well-being. Observed impacts are concentrated amongst economically and socially marginalised urban residents, e.g., those living in informal settlements. Cities intensify human-caused warming locally, while urbanisation also increases mean and heavy precipitation over and/or downwind of cities and resulting runoff intensity. Source: AR6 Synthesis Report (p. 16), (IPCC, 2023).

The BE plays a massive role in communities by providing support and protection of people and facilities against disasters. Nonetheless, recurring disasters have revealed vulnerabilities within the BE (Wei et al., 2021). Across developing and developed countries, the challenges faced by the BE are seemingly similar with diverse severities. While severe floods are experienced in Thailand, India and Serbia, terrible hurricanes are recorded in the United States, and disturbing cyclones, floods and rampant fires are recorded in Australia (Wei et al., 2021). The role of the four international frameworks and agreements (i.e., SFDRR, SDGs, NUA, Paris Agreement) bring back the focus to buildings and the BE (Iyer-Raniga, 2019). The BE’s attempts to move towards the net-zero carbon emissions or zero carbon agenda, also indirectly falls on these four agreements, especially the Paris Agreement to fulfil this agenda. By reducing the amount of CO2 and other harmful GHG in the atmosphere, the effect on the climate is reduced, thereby contributing to a safer and cleaner environment (Coalition for Urban Transitions, 2019; Iyer-Raniga, 2019). This is because the BE has a significant role to play in achieving net zero as it is solely responsible for about 40 percent of the global carbon emissions (Construction and Engineering, 2021). The stakeholders of the BE, including funders, developers, designers, employers, contractors and owners, need to take more responsibility and active roles in sustainability for the goals of the Paris Agreement to be met (Construction and Engineering, 2021). The 26th annual summit of the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) put the BE in the spotlight and has made it clear that the changes required for the goals of the Paris Agreement to be achieved are intrinsically linked to conscious and sustainable capital investment in the industry at all points of a project lifecycle. One of the objectives of COP26 required that funds are mobilized and invested towards meeting the climate goals under the Paris Agreement (Construction and Engineering, 2021). This indicates the level of seriousness and commitment the BE has to make to curb the negative complications it has introduced into the environment, society and economy. Our world is under tremendous stress from the BE as a result of growing urbanization and population, which causes biodiversity loss, resource depletion, freshwater usage, emissions, and contamination of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (European Investment Bank, 2023). According to the United Nations Environment Programme, all new buildings must be carbon-neutral by 2030, and the global building and construction sector must reach net-zero emissions by 2050 (UNEP, 2021).

52  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals The Link Between the SDGs, Paris Agreement, New Urban Agenda and Sendai Framework According to Wei et al. (2021), numerous global agreements emerged in the past decades intending to rectify the challenges posed by the BE and make cities more resilient in handling risks involved in the occurrence of any disaster. Among these agreements, the recently adopted ones were SFDRR, the UN’s SDGs, NUA and Paris Agreement (Etinay et al., 2018). Additionally, Sijakovic and Peric (2021) expressed that these four international policies collectively solve issues relating to climate change. While the Paris Agreement and SFDRR appeal only to national or federal governments as essential climate actions, the UN SDGs and the NUA centre on addressing climate issues through urban areas as the specific agents and targets for attaining the 2030 sustainable development agenda. In 2015, the international community adopted three regimes/frameworks for attaining a resilient and sustainable BE. These were the SDGs, SFDRR and the Paris Agreement (Legal Response International (LRI), 2020; Saunders et al., 2020). Although the three regimes each had their own set goals and review mechanisms, there existed a shared objective of setting the world in the direction of a sustainable and climate-resilience future (LRI, 2020). While the SFDRR is focused on managing or reducing disaster risks, the SDGs solely encouraged nations to set up strategies to be sustainable in their activities and the Paris Agreement was focused on strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping global warming at pre-industrial levels (Cody et al., 2021). According to Saunders et al. (2020), the three frameworks together make a more complete resilience agenda, as building resilience demands spanning development, humanitarian, climate and disaster risk reduction actions to be implemented. Since aligning these three frameworks has been argued by international communities to be achievable, countries have been tasked with tailoring responses that suit their context and regulatory environment. In addition, even though the three regimes were agreed upon and endorsed separately, their goals are inextricably intertwined. For instance, the adoption decision explicitly referenced 2030 as the ending year for assessing the levels of sustainability and climate resilience. Although the Paris Agreement is focused on climate resilience issues, it made many references to sustainable development as the context for parties to implement actions (Cody et al., 2021; LRI, 2020). Furthermore, Cody et al. (2021) revealed that SDG 13 relates directly to tackling climate change and its impacts but the target under the other SDGs also has portions that integrate climate change considerations, stating how development and climate change are intimately related. The Paris Agreement and SDGs share similar architecture implementation regards, follow-ups and reviews to allow for tracking progress in achieving goals (LRI, 2020). The SFDRR also recognizes climate change as a key driver of disaster risk. There are 25 targets that relate to disaster risk reduction in 10 out of the 17 SDGs; indicating the role of disaster risk reduction as a key strategy for development. Additionally, the linkage between the adaptation and the loss and damage provisions in the Paris Agreement with the SFDRR and SDGs is of great significance (Cody et al., 2021). The issues regarding climate change bring about exposure to extreme weather conditions, rise in sea levels, and so on, and potentially devastating impacts on vulnerable communities. Hence, explicitly revealing the connection between development, building resilience and disaster preparedness (LRI, 2020). In addition, Satterthwaite (2016) stated that the basis for instituting the NUA is the many SDGs that could be met with sensible urban policies and good local governance. This requires

The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges  53 that all sectors and agencies work across sectoral and spatial boundaries. The NUA contributes to stronger urban economies, reduces distortions that plague mobility and helps increase the supply and reduce the cost of land for housing. According to Kaika (2017), the broader objective of SDG 11, “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”, is a repeated object found within the goals of the NUA. Cities are concentrated hubs of people, culture, and economic activity, yet they are particularly at risk from climate change. Cities are far more susceptible to natural disasters and endure temperatures that are greater than rural areas. Cities become more dynamic and habitable when forests and trees are integrated into the environment. This also provides a variety of health advantages, such as enhanced mental health, lower temperatures, and spaces for social interaction and community development (Wilson et al., 2022). Since the NUA centres around urban issues, sections of the SDGs are seen to be in alignment with dealing with this global issue. Furthermore, Kaika (2017) stated that although the NUA recognizes cities as a problem, it also sees them as an opportunity for broad-reaching policy change, also symbolizing a double-edged sword for finding and solving urban-related problems. When it comes to “how” cities and sustainability are linked, the NUA and SDG 11 are seen to be the linked policy and methodological framework for addressing such issues. Hence, an explicit connection is seen between how the global challenge of urbanization is addressed with the NUA and the UN’s SDGs. Although the four global agreements or frameworks have been argued on the whole to be well balanced in addressing global challenges, within each framework there may exist some form of conflict when addressing some pertinent issues (Valencia et al., 2019). However, there exists a strong connection between these four global agreements, which by strategizing carefully together will aid in achieving the 2030 agenda of setting the world in the direction of sustainable development, and a disaster and climate-resilient future. Using natural resources to solve problems, such as preserving ecosystem services and building new infrastructure, has increased awareness of working with nature for sustainability on a global scale (Xie et al., 2022). O’Sullivan et al. (2020) believe that combining retrofitting with nature-based solutions (NBS) can assist buildings reduce energy consumption and provide greater insulation or gather rainwater to flush toilets. NBS are an important tool in the circular economy effort to lessen the heat island effect. The circular economy is a new economic model essential for creating a sustainable economy and makes a significant contribution to resolving social and environmental problems on a global scale. The circular economy supports the fight against the climate crisis, the extinction of species, and the overuse of natural resources. The circular economy is rapidly influencing national and international policies because it has a significant role to play in achieving climate goals (Wilson et al., 2022).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The BE has been regarded as significant and has been very pivotal in the advancement of the economy, society, as well as progressive civilization. In recent times, the BE has been confronted with numerus challenges while trying to make more progressive impacts for current and future generations. Additionally, some of these global challenges including climate change, natural disasters and pandemics, rapid population increase, and urbanization, malnu-

54  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals trition and shortages of food, degrade the massive contributions it has made. Many private and governmental bodies, decision and policy makers and sustainability stakeholders gather periodically to assess, discuss, and recommend improved approaches for addressing the current and pertinent issues being experienced within the BE and the entire globe. While some other frameworks and measures have been in place to address similar issues, the problems faced within the industries and society are not seeing any solutions. Hence, this chapter discussed the role of the BE in addressing the current challenges. In this chapter, it was revealed that over the course of the last several decades, a great number of global frameworks were forged with the goal of resolving the problems caused by the BE and making cities more resilient towards hazards that are associated with the occurrence of disasters. Yet, these problems do not seem to be adequately resolved. Many economic sectors and nations have bought into the recently agreed four global frameworks, i.e., the SFDRR, UN’s SDGs, NUA and the Paris Agreement, as a more appropriate means of addressing the current global challenges, and also to move towards a more resilient BE. In addition, the earth’s climate keeps worsening and changing, which is mostly attributable to the impacts of the GHG emissions that are caused by the variety of human activities as well as the BE. This is also due to the fact that the BE influences human decisions, which in turn deteriorate the health of living species, and also has an effect on the climate of the entire planet. Also, this chapter revealed that the urban areas are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters and other forms of global challenges. It has been very difficult to put the potential of the BE into practice, despite the fact that it is widely comprehended that the role of the BE may foster disaster resilience within cities. This is also because the urbanized world is always being presented with new challenges, which makes it extremely difficult to provide resilience against natural disasters. The role of the four international agreements and frameworks this chapter unveiled (i.e., SFDRR, SDGs, NUA, Paris Agreement), bring back all the attention to buildings and the BE. The international community pushed for these frameworks to be adopted within 2015 and 2016 to help address the current global challenges, and for attaining a resilient and sustainable BE. The four frameworks all had a set timeline to assess the progress and attain results for 2030. Additionally, although it has been suggested that the four global frameworks are well balanced when it comes to solving global challenges, there may be some kind of conflict when addressing specific essential issues within each framework. However, there is a significant connection that exists between these four global agreements. If they are carefully coordinated with one another, they will help achieve the goal of the 2030 agenda, which is to steer the world in the direction of a future that is resilient to both natural disasters and to the effects of climate change. Conclusively, this chapter discussed issues around the bigger picture about the global challenges and the BE; discussed how the four global frameworks address the current global challenges: sustainability and resilient BE; the role the BE has in achieving the four frameworks; and finally the connection between the four frameworks and their realization of the 2030 agenda. This chapter will be impactful to academics in further research and industry professionals and stakeholders and other policy and decision makers.

REFERENCES Aboelata, M. J., Mikkelsen, L., Cohen, L., Fernandes, S., Silver, M. and Parks, L. F. (2004). The built environment and health: 11 profiles of neighborhood transformation, Oakland, Prevention Institute, 6–9.

The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges  55 Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E. and Ampratwum, G. (2020). Factors driving the adoption of green certification of buildings in Ghana, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 9(4), 595–613. Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Malalgoda, C. and Keraminiyage, K. (2017). Mainstreaming Disaster Resilience in the Construction Process: Professional Education for a Resilient Built Environment, Project Report. University of Huddersfield. Ampratwum, G., Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E. and Duah, D. (2021). A framework for the implementation of green certification of buildings in Ghana, International Journal of Construction Management, 21(12), 1263–1277. ARUP and WBCSD (2023). Net-zero buildings halving construction emissions today, ARUP & World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Available at: https://​www​.wbcsd​.org/​ contentwbc/​download/​15653/​227132/​1 Avetisyan, H., Skibniewski, M. and Mozaffarpour, M. (2017). Analyzing sustainability of construction equipment in the state of California, Frontiers of Engineering Management, 4(2), 138–145. Broer, R., Simjanovic, J. and Toth, Z. (2022). Implementing the Paris Agreement and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions throughout the Life Cycle of Buildings: European Public Policies, Tools and Market Initiatives, Buildings performance institute Europe, Brussels, Belgium. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission in Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Coalition for Urban Transitions (2019). Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity, World Resources Institute (WRI) Ross Center for Sustainable Cities and C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, London and Washington, DC., available at https://​urbantransitions​.global/​urban​-opportunity/​(accessed on 17/01/2023). Cody, D. W., Kaur, M., Lennon, M., Nicol, A., Paxton, T. and Tassawar, S. A. (2021). Interfaces and Interconnections between the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals, 13, 1–19. Construction and Engineering (2021). COP26 and the Built Environment, A & L Goodbody, Dublin, London. Donglikar, C. V. (2020). Impact of climate change and global hunger issues, International Journal of Research in Biosciences, Agriculture and Technology, special issue-15, 1–6. Etinay, N., Egbu, C., and Murray, V. (2018). Building urban resilience for disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction, Procedia Engineering, 212, 575–582. European Investment Bank (2023). A guide for circularity in the urban built environment, European Investment Bank (EIB), Available at: https://​advisory​.eib​.org/​_tools/​resources/​documents/​a​-guide​-for​ -circularity​-in​-the​-urban​-built​-environment​-draft​-january​-2023​.pdf Godschalk, D.R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities, Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143. Heinimann, H. R. and Hatfield, K. (2017). Infrastructure resilience assessment, management and governance—state and perspectives, In Linkov, I., Palma-Oliveira, J. M. (Eds.), Resilience and Risk (pp. 147–187), Dordrecht: Springer. IPCC (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, Sixth Assessment Report, [online] Available at: https://​www​.ipcc​.ch/​report/​ar6/​syr/​, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Iyer-Raniga, U. (2019). Zero energy in the built environment: A holistic understanding, Applied Sciences, 9(16), 3375–3385. Jigyasu, R. (2016). Reducing disaster risks to urban cultural heritage: Global challenges and opportunities, Journal of Heritage Management, 1(1), 59–67. Jones, P. (2009). A low carbon built environment, Indoor Built Environment, 18(5), 380–381. Kaika, M. (2017). Don’t call me resilient again!: The New Urban Agenda as immunology…or…what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with “smart cities” and indicators, Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 89–102. Konstantinou, T. and Dimitrijević, B. (2018). Sustainable refurbishment for an adaptable built environment, Sustainable and Resilient Building Design, 205–225. Kumar, P. (2021). Climate changes and cities: Challenges ahead, Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3, 645613–645620. Lampropoulos, I., Alskaif, T., Schram, W., Bontekoe, E., Coccato, S. and Van Sark, W. (2020). Review of energy in the built environment, Smart Cities, 3(2), 15.

56  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Lee, W. L. (2012). Benchmarking energy use of building environmental assessment schemes, Energy and Building, 45, 326–334. Legal Response International (LRI) (2020). Interfaces between the Sendai Framework, the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals, available at https://​legalresponse​.org/​legaladvice/​ interfaces​-between​-the​-sendai​-framework​-the​-paris​-agreement​-and​-the​-sustainable​-development​ -goals/​(accessed on 17/01/2023). León, J., Mokrani, C., Catalán, P., Cienfuegos, R. and Femenías, C. (2019). The role of built environment’s physical urban form in supporting rapid tsunami evacuations: Using computer-based models and real-world data as examination tools, Frontiers in Built Environment, 4(89), 1–15. Lizarralde, G., Chmutina, K., Bosher, L. and Dainty, A. (2015). Sustainability and resilience in the built environment: The challenges of establishing a turquoise agenda in the UK, Sustainable Cities and Society, 15, 96–104. Loh, S., Foth, M., Caldwell, G. A., Garcia-Hansen, V. and Thomson, M. (2020). A more-than-human perspective on understanding the performance of the built environment, Architectural Science Review, 63(3–4), 372–383. Malalgoda, C., Amaratunga, D. and Haigh, R. (2014). Challenges in creating a disaster resilient built environment, Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 736–744. Manyena, B. (2016). After Sendai: Is Africa bouncing back or bouncing forward from disasters? International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7, 41–53. Manyena, S. B., O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., Rose, J. (2011). Disaster resilience: A bounce back or bounce forward ability? Local Environment, 16(5), 417–424. Marlow, E. C., Chmutina, K. and Dainty, A. (2022). Interpreting sustainability and resilience in the built environment, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. Ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, DOI 10.1108/IJDRBE-07-2021-0076. Martek, I., Edwards, D. J., Seaton, S. and Jones, D. (2022). An appraisal of Australia’s approach to promoting urban sustainability, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 12(2), 262–276. Mews, G. H., Muminovic, M. and Tranter, P. (2018). Time for action. Implementing the New Urban Agenda in public spaces for health and wellbeing, The Journal of Public Space, 3(1), 193–202. Mycoo, M. A. (2017). A Caribbean New Urban Agenda post-Habitat III: Closing the gaps, Habitat International, 69, 68–77. Neilsen, J. and Farrelly, M. A. (2019). Conceptualising the built environment to inform sustainable urban transitions, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 33, 231–248. Opoku, A. and Ahmed, V. (2013). Understanding sustainability: A view from intra-organizational leadership within UK construction organizations, International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 2(2), 133‒143. O’Sullivan, F., Mell, I., and Clement, S. (2020). Novel solutions or rebranded approaches: Evaluating the use of nature-based solutions (NBS) in Europe. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2, 572527. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.3389/​frsc​.2020​.572527 Ozolins, P. C. (2010). Assessing sustainability in developing country contexts: The applicability of green building rating systems to building design and construction in Madagascar and Tanzania, (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech). Peters, K., Langston, L., Tanner, T. and Bahadur, A. (2016). Resilience across the post-2015 frameworks: Towards coherence. ODI Working Paper. London: Overseas Development Institute. Redl, P. (2013). Sustainable building certification–the case of hotel buildings, Austria Research and Information, 39(3), 239–255. Rogerson, C. M. (2014). Green commercial property development in urban South Africa: Emerging trends, emerging geographies, Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, (26), 233–246. Satterthwaite, D. (2016). Editorial: A New Urban Agenda? Environment and Urbanization, 28(1), 3–12. Saunders, W. S. A., Kelly, S., Paisley, S. and Clarke, L. B. (2020). Progress toward implementing the Sendai Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals: Policy from Aotearoa New Zealand, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11, 190–205. Sawalha, I. H. S. (2015). Managing adversity: Understanding some dimensions of organizational resilience, Management Research Review, 38(4), 346–366. Scherz, M., Passer, A. and Kreiner, H. (2020). Challenges in the achievement of a Net Zero Carbon Built Environment–A systemic approach to support the decision-aiding process in the design stage

The role of the built environment in addressing the global challenges  57 of buildings, In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (588(3), p. 032034). IOP Publishing. Sijakovic, M. and Peric, A. (2021). Sustainable architectural design: Towards climate change mitigation, Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 15(2), 385-400. Steininger, K. W., Meyer, L., Nabernegg, S. and Kirchengast, G. (2020). Sectoral carbon budgets as an evaluation framework for the built environment, Buildings and Cities, 1(1), 337–360. Stone Cycling (2021). What Is BREEAM and Why Is It Important for the Built Environment Industry? available at https://​www​.stonecycling​.com/​news/​what​-is​-breeam/​ (accessed 10/03/2023) Suresh, S. (2012). Global challenges need global solutions, MacMillian Publishers Limited, 190, 337–338. UN Environment Programme (2022). Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, draft recommendation submitted by the co-chairs, open-ended working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD/WG2020/4/L.2-Annex, Fourth Meeting Nairobi, 21–26 June 2022 United Nations Environment Programme (2021). 2021 global status report for buildings and construction: Towards a zero emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: https://​globalabc​.org/​resources/​publications/​ 2021​-global​-status​-report​-buildings​-and​-construction U.S. Green Building Council (2023). What is LEED certification? available at https://​support​.usgbc​.org/​ hc/​en​-us/​articles/​4404406912403​-What​-is​-LEED​-certification (accessed 10/03/2023) Valencia, S. C., Simon, D., Croese, S., Nordqvist, J., Oloko, M., Sharma, T., Taylor Buck, N. and Versace, I. (2019). Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level: Initial reflections from a comparative research project, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 11(1), 4–23. Wang, L., Xue, X., Yang, R. J., Luo, X. and Zhao, H. (2019). Built environment and management: Exploring grand challenges and management issues in built environment, Frontiers of Engineering Management, 6(3), 313–326. Wei, W., Mojtahedi, M., Yazdani, M. and Kabirifar, K. (2021). The alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code and the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction in achieving resilient buildings and communities, Buildings, 11, 429–444. Wilson, S. J., Juno, E., Pool, J. R., Ray, S., Phillips, M., Francisco, S., and McCallum, S. (2022). Better Forests, Better Cities. Report. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at doi​ .org/​10​.46830/​wrirpt​.19​.00013 Xie, L., Bulkeley, H. and Tozer, L. (2022). Mainstreaming sustainable innovation: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate change and biodiversity, Environmental Science and Policy, 132, 119–130. Younger, M., Morrow-Almeida, H. R., Vindigni, S. M. and Dannenberg, A. L. (2008). The built environment, climate change, and health: Opportunities for co-benefits, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 517–526. Zaman, A. U. and Lehman, S. (2011). Challenges and opportunities in transforming a city into a zero waste city, Challenges, 2, 73–93.

4. The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the sustainable development goals Tariq Umar, Alex Opoku, Nnedinma Umeokafor and Sa’id Ahmed

INTRODUCTION There has been continuous effort to make earth a better place to live. History indicates humans went through several stages including Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age before reaching the current modern lifestyle where life is more comfortable (Jørgensen, 1989). This development has however, changed and affected the natural system of the earth, resulting in the issues of global warming and climate change (Weart, 2003). Humans have witnessed some greater natural disasters due to their activities on earth (Guo, 2010). The main reason for these disasters in many instances was the rise of the earth’s temperature. There have been many studies and analysis which demonstrate the sharp rise in earth’s temperature since 1970, the era also known as the third industrial revolution as shown in Figure 4.1 (NASA, 2022a; Cohen, 2018). The consequences of such development have forced humans to think how to avoid or reduce them. The solution is quite simple, there is one earth on which to live. Thus, its environment needs to be protected and its resources need to be used wisely so it can also remain a better place for life for the future generation. While there has been concern about the sustainability of the earth, the concept of sustainability first truly appeared in the Brundtland Commission Report, published in 1987. This report truly aimed to warn countries about the negative environmental impact caused by economic development and globalization. The report further aimed to provide solutions to the problems arising from industrialization, urbanization, and population growth (Brundtland Commission, 1987). The idea of sustainability developed in the early 1980s as reported in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and can be defined as “meeting fundamental human needs while preserving the earth natural environment” (IGBP, 1999). Since the earth’s population is increasing, it is putting pressure on the earth’s resources. According to the World Economic Forum, it is estimated that food production will need to double by 2050 to feed 10 billion people on the earth (WEF, 2018). Today, sustainability has three essential pillars including environmental protection, social development, and economic growth. Sustainable development can be defined as a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Sachs, 2015). This is something which cannot be achieved alone; therefore, collective commitment and collective efforts are needed, which has been evidenced at a global level in the form of the Paris Agreement and the United Nations (UN) 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (Paris Agreement, 2015; UN SDGs, 2015). Previously, there were eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education (MDGs, 2000). These MDGs have now been replaced by the 17 SDGs. The principle of SDGs is very simple. The overall aim is to reduce the negative impacts of human 58

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  59 activities on the environment without compromising the socio-economic development. From the lens of the main pillars of sustainability, environment sustainability includes biodiversity conversation, efficient land use and physical planning. Social sustainability focuses on decent work, quality education, good health, and ensuring the rule of law and human rights. Finally, economic sustainability involves the reduction of the negative impact of human activities on the environment (Mensah, 2019; Opoku, 2022). Hopwood et al. (2005) viewed sustainable development as human-centred where sustainable development balances environmental and social dimensions provided that there is a strong commitment to social issues, for instance ensuring good health for all. In other words, society depends on the environment, while the economy depends on society.

Source: Author’s own adapted from World Economic Forum data.

Figure 4.1

Rise in the earth temperature since 1951–2020

On one side, there is a great realization of sustainability and sustainable development, but on the other side, evidence exists which demonstrates the world’s inability to meet sustainability commitment and/or promises. To overcome the earth’s challenges and to meet posterity needs in good and liveable conditions, all efforts at individual, societal, organizational, governmental, and international levels need to be undertaken, realizing the key elements of sustainability and sustainable development. Keeping the importance of sustainable development and the world’s commitment to make the earth a better place to live, this chapter aims to focus on the contribution of the built environment sector, its overall impact on sustainability, its contribution to sustainable development and finally, how its contribution can be further increased. Generally, the built environment discipline has direct or indirect impact on several aspects of sustainable development; obviously, all of them cannot be covered in a single chapter, therefore, the focus will be on those elements where most of the developing countries have significant challenges towards achieve-

60  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ment. The next section sheds light on the built environment, its role for society, its operation, and possible future expansion with a specific reference to the developing world.

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The built environment consists of the physical places where we live and work such as homes, buildings, streets, open spaces, infrastructure and so on, and it has a long-term impact on quality of life, prosperity, health, well-being and happiness of people and communities in terms of planning, design, management, and maintenance of the built asset (House of Lords, 2016). Although, built environment activities such as construction impact negatively on the environment simply because the activities involve changing the natural environment to the built environment. By 2050, the earth’s population will reach 9.7 billion. Seventy percent of this projected population is expected to be living in cities. This will result in an 80 percent rise in energy use. Likewise, 3.9 billion people will be facing water-insecurity (Guppy and Anderson, 2017; OECD, 2012; United Nations, 2019). There has been a reduction in built environment activities in 2020 due to the COVID pandemic, but the statistics indicate that this sector still generated almost 50 percent of the annual global emissions, where building operations are responsible for 27 percent and the building materials and construction take a share of 20 percent annually. Only three materials, steel, concrete and aluminium, which are used extensively in the built environment activities, are alone responsible for 23 percent of the global annual emissions (UNEP, 2021). These emissions are expected to increase significantly as it is projected that the global building floor area is expected to double by 2060. The global solid waste which is expected to reach 2.2 billion tons per year by 2025, will have half its waste coming from the construction and building materials (Transparency Market Research, 2017). One of the main reasons for the high amount of solid waste generation around the world is the current surge in construction activities after the ease of COVID restrictions (Umar, 2022; Umar, 2021). It is expected that the global construction market will grow by US$ 8 trillion by 2030, which will be mainly driven by China, the United States, and India (Robinson, 2015). The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors also predicts that the global construction output will continue to increase (RICS, 2021). This growth in construction activities will further increase its contribution to global solid waste. The built environment sector is also regarded as a major employment providing sector around the world. The number of people employed in the construction sector stood at 273 million as of 2014 when the sector’s GDP was estimated at 13 percent of the global GDP and was expected to rise to 14.7 percent by 2030 (ICED, 2014). In the United Kingdom, the Office of National Statistics indicates that currently (2022) a total of 2.20 million people are working in the construction sector (ONS, 2022). Likewise, construction sector employment in the United States in 2021 stood at 11.27 million (Statista, 2021). It is worth mentioning here that construction is one of the sub sectors of the built environment, thus the total employment in the built environment will be far more than the employment in the construction sector alone. Since most of the jobs in the built environment sector are physically demanding in nature, the main requirement for employment is that one should be able to perform such activities irrespective of any other requirement such as basic qualification. This, however, results in a number of issues including ill treatment of workers, health and safety issues and low wages (Umar et al., 2020; Umar et al., 2018).

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  61

Source: Deloitte (2017).

Figure 4.2

Global GDP and cost of poor occupational health and safety practices

The construction industry as one of the key built environment sectors is also regarded as a major hazardous industrial sector. Construction workers are expected to be open to different types of risk during their work such as dust and condensation; stiff working situations; handling heavy loads; hot climatic conditions; working at heights; excessive noise; vibration and heavy machinery; and different chemicals. The International Labour Organization statistics indicates that at least 108,000 workers are killed on site every year, which is equal to 30 percent of all the occupational fatal injuries around the world (ILO, 2015). This can be translated to 300 deaths recorded every day. The global statistics further indicate that construction workers are three to four times more likely than other industrial sectors to die from accidents at work. This risk rises to six times when it comes to developing countries (ILO, 2015). Recently, the deaths of construction workers in the construction of a stadium for the football world cup in 2022 have attracted the attention of media and international organizations. Some of these reports showed that the number of construction workers that died during the project has already reached 1,200. Some of the reports estimate that the number of deaths in this project was expected to reach 4,000 by the end of 2020 when it is completed (Ganji, 2016; ITUC, 2014). If the cost of occupational safety and health in construction is considered to be the same as other industries (~3.94 percent), which apparently is expected to be more, then the cost of occupational safety and health in construction was expected to reach US$ 299.31 billion in 2022 (Figure 4.2). The above discussion clearly reveals that the built environment has a major role to play in our society. Although presented with some positive and negative aspects of this sector, the built environment is considered as a key player in sustainably meeting the future expected growth through the planning, design, construction and management of urban environments, buildings, and infrastructure (Opoku, 2019). This role of the built environment is expected to continue growing to meet the requirement of the increasing population. The next section provides an overview of the UN’s SDGs with a specific reference to the built environment and developing countries.

62  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Table 4.1 Goal

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; descriptions, targets and indicators Goal Name

Goal Description

Number

Goal

Goal

Targets

Indicator

1

No Poverty

No Poverty: End poverty in all its forms everywhere

7

13

2

Zero Hunger

Zero Hunger: End hunger, achieve food security and improved

8

14

nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture 3 4

Good Health and

Good Health and Well-Being: Ensure healthy lives and promote

13

28

Well-being

well-being for all at all ages

Quality Education

Quality Education: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education 10

12

and promote life-long learning opportunities for all 5

Gender Equality

Gender Equality: Achieve gender equality and empower all women 9

14

and girls 6 7 8

Clean Water and

Clean Water and Sanitation: Ensure availability and sustainable

Sanitation

management of water and sanitation for all

8

Affordable and

Affordable and Clean Energy: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, 5

Clean Energy

sustainable, and modern energy for all

Decent Work and

Decent Work and Economic Growth: Promote sustained, inclusive, 12

Economic Growth

and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment

11 6 16

and decent work for all 9

Industry Innovation Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: Build resilient and Infrastructure

infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization

Reduced

Reduced Inequalities: Reduce inequality within and among

Inequalities

countries

Sustainable Cities

Sustainable Cities and Communities: Make cities and human

and Communities

settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Responsible

Responsible Consumption and Production: Ensure sustainable

Consumption and

consumption and production patterns

08

12

10

14

10

14

11

13

5

8

10

10

12

14

12

24

19

24

and foster innovation 10 11 12

Production 13

Climate Action

Climate Action: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

14

Life Below Water

Life below Water (Oceans): Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

15

Life on Land

Life on Land (Biodiversity): Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

16

Peace, Justice, and

Peace, Justice and Strong Institution: Promote peaceful and

Strong Institutions

inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

17

Partnerships of

Partnership for the Goals: Strengthen the means of implementation

Goals

and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development

Source:  Author’s own adapted from United Nations data.

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  63 The UN’s current SDGs were prepared at the UN’s Sustainable Development Conference that was organized in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012. The purpose of this conference was to determine a set of universal goals, connecting the environmental, social, and economic challenges that were faced by the world. Later in 2015, the UN officially adopted the 17 SDGs, replacing the eight MDGs and setting 2030 as a target of achievement (UN SDGs, 2015). Most countries around the world have adopted these goals as their national development goals and are trying to achieve them through a collaborative way of working. These goals are guided by the principle of universality, which means that all countries and citizens have a role to play in their achievement (Fei et al., 2021). Each goal is further supported with several targets and indicators as noted in Table 4.1. Statistics indicate that on average there has been good progress towards attaining the SDGs as shown in Figure 4.3, but clearly there seems to be no/little improvement since 2019 (Sachs et al., 2022). The current (2022) SDGs report provides a global overview of progress on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, using the latest available data and estimates. The report clearly indicates that many countries are not on track towards achieving these goals by 2030. While there are many factors which are affecting the progress of SDGs, COVID-19 is the leading factor which has wiped out more than four years of progress (SDGR, 2022). The situation over the progress is not satisfactory, which was well observed by the UN’s Secretary-General António Guterres in his remarks, stating, “We must rise higher to rescue the Sustainable Development Goals – and stay true to our promise of a world of peace, dignity and prosperity on a healthy planet.”

Source: Sachs et al. (2022).

Figure 4.3

Sustainable development goals index score over time

64  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Fei et al. (2021); Griggs et al. (2013); Nilsson et al. (2016); Roy and Pramanick (2019); UNSC (2019).

Figure 4.4

Interconnection among the sustainable development goals

It is a fact that there was major interruption in the progress of SDGs for the last three years starting from 2019 due to COVID-19; however, statistics indicate that prior to COVID most countries were not on track to achieving these goals (Umar and Umeokafor, 2022). The successful achievement of all the goals is only possible when all the elements of society and all government organizations embed these goals in their relevant regional, national, and local policies and follow an effective system of monitoring and cooperating among the organizations. This is so because in some instances, it is possible that the effort of one organization can derail the efforts of the other, affecting one or many goals. This is also because the SDGs and targets are interlinked where one can affect the other both in a positive or negative way as shown in Figure 4.4 below (Fei et al., 2021; Griggs et al., 2013; Nilsson et al., 2016; Roy and Pramanick, 2019; UNSC, 2019). A collaborative way of working to achieve these goals is well appreciated by many researchers. For instance, Adam (2017) opined that the fulfilment of the SDGs can be difficult without

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  65 Table 4.2

Five “Ps” of sustainable development goals

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

People

Planet

Prosperity

Peace

Partnership

SDG 1: No Poverty

SDG 6: Clean Water

SDG 7: Clean and

SDG 16: Peace Justice

SDG 17: Partnership

and Sanitation

Affordable Energy

and Strong Institutions

for Goals

SDG 12: Responsible

SDG 8: Decent Work

Consumption and

and Economic Growth

SDG 2: No Hunger

Production SDG 3: Good Health

SDG 13: Climate

SDG 9: Industry,

and Well-being

Action

Innovation, and

SDG 4: Quality

SDG 14: Life Below

SDG 10: Reduced

Education

Water

Inequalities

Infrastructure

SDG 5: Gender Equality SDG 15: Life on Land

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

Source:  Fei et al. (2021).

collaboration between governments, private and public sector, and civil society organizations. Fei et al. (2021) argued that the 17 SDGs can be divided into five “Ps” which stands for People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership, as shown in Table 4.2. All five Ps of the SDGs need the effective involvement of all stakeholders, such as governments, institutions and businesses to be effectively implemented. The built environment is also an important stakeholder; therefore, it needs to develop approaches and align its activities to SDGs. Likewise, SDGs require the transformation of different societal elements including education and skills; health and well-being; clean energy and industry; sustainable land use; sustainable cities; and digital technologies (Sachs et al., 2019). The built environment sector appears to be the main contributor of these elements where it is expected to be one step ahead when compared to other businesses (Ebekozien et al., 2021). The problem arrives when it comes to developing countries where, due to several factors including financial and manpower capabilities, the contributions of the built environment to SDGs are not clearly evident (Ofori, 2016).

PROGRESS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS According to the UN, a developing country can be defined as a country with a relatively low standard of living, undeveloped industrial base, and moderate to low Human Development Index (HDI) (UNDP, 2022-a). The Human Development Index was introduced in 1990, by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq. The aim of the index emphasizes that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country not the economic growth alone (UNDP, 2022-a). The Human Development Index is a simple composite measure of a country’s longevity, education and income and it is widely accepted in the development discourse. The first pillar of the index is the longevity and healthy life parameter including life expectancy at birth, contributing to the life expectancy index. The second pillar is knowledge, which looks at the expected years of schooling and means of schooling, forming the education index. The last pillar is the decent standard of living which mainly considers the Gross National Income (GNI), forming the GNI index. The UN Human Development Reports

66  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Office computed the Human Development Index for about 190 countries and territories along with the global and regional averages. The current report (2021/2022) of the UN’s Human Development indicates that for the first time the Human Development Index has declined for nine out of ten countries due to several issues. The report stresses on the investment in people capabilities, ensuring the protection of everyone in uncertainty and to innovate technologically, economically, and socially to respond to whatever challenges are coming next. The report indicates that the recovery of countries is uneven and partial, particularly in the regions of Latin America and the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, where most of the countries are classified as developing countries. Human development has fallen back to its 2016 levels, reversing much of the progress towards the SDGs (UNDP, 2022-b). To demonstrate the progress of the developing countries towards SDGs, one country from each region of Latin America and the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia is selected focusing on the key goals where the built environment has a great role to play. While selecting a country from a specific region, it was noted that there is enough data available to reflect on the goals’ performance. The countries selected from these regions included Venezuela from Latin America and the Caribbean, Nigeria from the Sub-Saharan Africa region, and Pakistan from the South Asia region. The SDGs considered in this chapter include Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation), Goal 7 (affordable and clean energy), Goal 8 (decent work and economic growth), Goal 9 (industry innovation and infrastructure), Goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and Goal 12 (responsible consumption and production). Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) Goal 6 of the SDGs aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all around the world. The UN’s statistics indicate that the earth’s water related ecosystems are degrading at an alarming rate. More than 85 percent of the earth’s wetland have been lost in the past 300 years. Stress on water resources in Northern Africa and Western Asia is already at dangerous levels. Northern Africa and Western Asia had a critical level of water stress (84.1 percent), reflecting an increase of 13 percent since 2015. Currently around 733 million people, which is equal to 10 percent of the earth’s population, are living in countries that have high and critical levels of water stress (≥ 75 percent). There is a lack of cooperation agreements on shared water resources between several countries which creates conflict among them. While the proportion of the world population using safely managed drinking water has increased to 74 percent in 2020 from 70 percent in 2015, still, 2 billion people are without such water facilities, including 1.2 billion people lacking even the basic requirement of water. Currently, 54 percent of the world’s population have access to safely managed sanitation services and if the progress continues at the same pace, this percentage will reach 67 percent by 2030, that means 2.8 billion people will still have no access to safely managed sanitation (SDGR, 2022). The current ranking of Venezuela is 120 out of 163 with an SDG index score of 60.30 (out of 100). Likewise, Nigeria has a ranking of 139 with a total score of 54.20, while Pakistan is ranked at 125th with a total score of 59.30 (shown in Figure 4.5). Venezuela moderately improved with Goal 6 but has significant challenges hindering the achievement of the goal by 2030. Nigeria’s and Pakistan’s progress is also moderately improving but still faces major challenges as with Venezuela. The key challenge these countries are facing is providing basic drinking water. Nigeria has made some progress in this regard; however, they are still behind

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  67

Source: Sachs et al. (2022).

Figure 4.5

Comparison of Venezuela, Nigeria and Pakistan with the top three countries

the required level. Pakistan’s progress in providing basic drinking water services is barely improving while Nigeria’s progress in the same area is decreasing. If the progress is not improved, all these countries will not be able to achieve the goal by 2030. All three countries need to explore sustainable ways to utilizing water resources. The built environment sector needs to focus on discovering and adopting methods to increase the water use efficiencies. With the synergy among the built environment and other industrial sectors, all the correlated environmental concerns will be addressed. For instance, reducing water consumption in agricultural activities without causing any physiological stress in staple crops or paying attention to any probable adverse effects of using genetically or biotechnologically modified crops for more water-efficient crops (Royand and Pramanick, 2019). All built environment sectors need to work with the natural resource planning authorities to develop a decision, support and policy management tool that can reflect the trade-offs between various components of SDG 6 and monitor the progress in a more accurate manner. The built environment sector plays an important role in providing basic drinking water services which is one of the key indicators of Goal 6. However, all the selected (Pakistan, Nigeria, and Venezuela) are struggling in this indicator. Finland, which is ranked first in the progress of SDGs has already achieved a 100 in this indicator which means that the whole population in Finland have access to basic drinking water services. There could be a good learning opportunity by sharing one another’s experiences among these countries so that those which are struggling with this goal can learn and improve their performance. Some built environment sectors are the main consumer of water in many countries (CPA, 2015). For instance, at construction sites, apart from usual use, water is required for different operations such as concrete batching, grouting, hydro-demolition, drilling and piling, landscaping and pond filling, chlorination, soakaway testing, and dust suppression. Water efficiency strategies need to be used to reduce the use of such water where possible. It is important that used water is not discharged without treatment to avoid contamination of clean surfaces and subsurface water.

68  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) The aim of Goal 7 is to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all around the world. There are different renewable resources available throughout the world, but still much of the electricity in different regions and countries is produced from conventional resources – fossil fuels. First of all, these resources are not sustainable, and secondly, the emissions produced by using these resources affect other goals such as Goal 3 (good health and well-being), Goal 13 (climate action), Goal 14 (life below water) and Goal 15 (life on land) (Umar et al., 2020). The statistics indicate that access to electricity around the world has gradually increased to 91 percent (2020), up from 83 percent in 2010. The majority of people with no access to electricity are from developing countries. For instance, 77 percent of the world’s population without access to electricity live in Sub-Saharan Africa. As shown in Figure 4.6, there has been a gradual increase of 12 percent in the proportion of people with access to clean cooking fuels and technologies between 2010 to 2020, reaching 69 percent. With this increase, there are still 2.4 billion people with inefficient and environmentally unfriendly cooking systems. Most of these improvements were concentrated in five countries: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan. This implies that the situation in other developing countries remains unchanged. Since the share of renewable energy’s total final energy consumption has only reached 18 percent, there is therefore the need for a major push in the deployment of renewables, with massive finance mobilization for meeting world energy and climate objectives. There has been a major interruption on the progress of Goal 7 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, despite the growing urgency of climate change it is worth noting that international public financing for renewable energy slowed down before COVID. The current progress of Venezuela indicates that the country has challenges in Goal 7 but it is on track to achieving this goal by 2030, provided that the progress is not interrupted in the coming years (Sachs et al., 2022). Nigeria and Pakistan, however, have major challenges in Goal 7 and their progress is stagnating, implying an inability to achieve the goal by 2030. There are a variety of ways in which the built environment can contribute to Goal 7. For instance, building as part of the built environment accounts for approximately 40 percent of carbon emissions, determined by their direct energy use (Nässén et al., 2007). Regional level planning, strategies and policies development require consideration of supply and demand that should be taken into account by built environment professionals. This should be supported by energy efficient measures such as on-site generation technologies, demand side management and storage systems, reshaping energy infrastructures and the energy market, together with innovative business models (Tronchin et al., 2018). Optimal design and operational choices in buildings are also required to be adopted ensuring reduction in energy consumption per capita. Both the industry and government need to work together to develop polices for implementing renewable resources such as rooftop solar panels in all housing projects, as well as to develop procedures to install the same system on existing buildings to increase the renewable share at local, national, and global levels. The governments of developing countries need to facilitate these initiatives by providing required support and reducing the bureaucratic procedures. Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) The global unemployment rate was 5.4 percent in 2019, which increased to 6.6 percent in 2020, for which the main reason was the COVID pandemic. The unemployment rate in

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  69

Source: DESA (2022).

Figure 4.6

Global population with access to clean cooking systems as of 2020

2021 was recorded as 6.2 percent which indicates a positive recovery sign. Based on the International Labour Organization (ILO) statistics, the unemployment rate in Nigeria, Pakistan and Venezuela is 8.53 percent, 4.08 percent and 6.6 percent respectively. The same situation happened with global gross domestic product (GDP) per capita which increased 1.4 percent in 2019, then dropped suddenly by 4.4 percent. The current growth rate of global GDP is expected to continue at 4.4 percent. Labour productivity has affected small firms in developing countries which is again mainly linked with the COVID pandemic as shown in Figure 4.7. Two billion people around the world, which is approximately 60 percent of the world employment, were working in informal sectors, however, this (informal sector) was not the option for many workers displaced at the start of the COVID pandemic. The 2020 statistics indicate that globally, 160 million children, where 63 million are girls and 97 million are boys, were engaged in child labour, showing an increase of 8.4 million children since 2016. Many developing countries have not rectified different conventions of the ILO including the minimum age convention and worst forms of child labour convention (ILO, 2022). For instance, in Pakistan, both ILO conventions “C015 – Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) Convention, 1921 (No. 15)” and “C059 – Minimum Age (Industry) Convention (Revised), 1937 (No. 59)” are not in force. There is no information available on the ILO about the same convention for Nigeria and Venezuela, reflecting a serious issue of data sharing with global organizations. The current progress of Venezuela in terms of Goal 8 indicates that the country has significant challenges with this goal where their progress is moderately improving but at a slower pace to achieving the goal by 2030. Nigeria and Pakistan both have major challenges with Goal 8. Nigeria’s progress is stagnating while Pakistan’s progress is moderately improving

70  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: UNSD (2023).

Figure 4.7

Growth in output per worker during 2015–2021

(Sachs et al., 2022). If the progress of a goal is increasing at less than 50 percent of the required level, then it is classified as stagnating progress. While the moderately improving progress indicates that there is progress, but it is not sufficient to attain the goal in the set period of time. As with Venezuela, both Nigeria and Pakistan will not be able to achieve Goal 8 with their current progress. Different sectors within the built environment can significantly contribute to the goal and can improve the current progress leading to the achievement of the goal by 2030. Reform in the construction sector, which is one of the sub sectors of the built environment, can bring positive change to the current situation of Goal 8 in these selected countries as this sector has a great contribution to the economy. For instance, the construction sector in Nigeria accounts for up to 10 percent of the GDP, more than 50 percent of the domestic fixed capital formation, and is one of the largest industrial employers (Du Plessis, 2002). The construction sector is often seen as a driver of economic growth, and it is used extensively by policy makers as a tool for economic development (Olanipekun and Saka, 2019). Likewise, construction is one of the main industrial sectors in Pakistan contributing 2.53 percent to its GDP and provides jobs to 7.61 percent of the employed work force (BOI, 2022). It is expected that construction value, which was US$ 5.34 billion in 2020, will reach US$ 15.32 billion in 2029. Likewise, based on the road network of 263,775 km, Pakistan is ranked at 22nd globally (The Global Economy, 2019). Currently, Pakistan is facing a housing shortage of around 11.4 million homes, which is expected to increase to 17.2 million units by 2025. Such expansion of the industry is expected to attract international construction organizations which is good for the Pakistani economy, but at the same time such expansion poses several sustainability issues, including health and safety issues for which Pakistan will need to have robust and up to date regulations supported by a vigorous implementation system. The contri-

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  71 bution of the built environment in the economic development will only be possible when the investors trust the government organizations, therefore, governments in developing countries need to develop procedures which can support the investment. At the same time the built environment sectors need to ensure the delivery of projects on time, making its sectors align with the new technological tools such as 3D printing and applications of drones and so on, which have delivered improved performance in other industrial sectors. Goal 9 (Industry Innovation and Infrastructure) Goal 9 deals with building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization and fostering innovation. Globally, there are some positive indicators which show the positive performance of Goal 9. In this regard it is worth mentioning that the manufacturing value added (MVA) in total GDP increased from 16.2 percent in 2015 to 16.9 percent in 2021. Strong global demand for manufacturing and exports in the region has expanded the Eastern and South-Eastern Asia share from 25.5 percent to 26.1 percent in the same period. However, as shown in Figure 4.8 the share in least developed countries in 2021 was only 12.5 percent. On the other hand, the share of manufacturing jobs in total employment declined from 14 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2020 globally. There was a greater impact of the COVID pandemic in middle-income countries. Statistics indicate that the reduction in employment for example in the manufacturing sector in middle-income countries was 9 percent compared to 3.4 percent in low-income and 4 percent in high-income countries. Manufacturing sectors such as cement, concrete, steel and aluminium, timber and many other sectors are directly linked with the built environment. The garment sector and its supply chains, which provides employment to a large share of women workers, have observed a greater effect. The total number of passengers travelling internationally in 2020 stood at 1.8 billion, which is 60 percent lower than 2019. Total air traffic was down to the level of 2003, resulting in a financial loss of UD $370 billion in 2020 (UNSD, 2023). On the positive side, most of the world’s population are covered by a mobile-broadband signal, but blind spots remain mostly in developing countries. Statistics indicated that global construction’s (a sub sector of the built environment) output was expected to fall by more than 3 percent in 2020, with a similar expectation for 2021 (Marsh, 2021). Some of the key areas that the built environment sectors can consider in managing the situation include building resilience, contract structuring, and collaboration, supply chain management, balance sheet and liquidity, and diversification and innovation. In terms of innovation in the built environment sectors, it was clear the sector as whole is far behind in the race when compared with other industrial sectors. One of the reasons is the nature of its environment and projects, but this is sometimes used as an excuse to oppose change. Technology also is not well aligned to meet the changing requirements of the built environment. The innovation in the built environment will, however, not be possible if the relevant sectors and its businesses do not address the issues with technology, cost, environment, and organization. Looking to the selected countries and their performance with Goal 9, the Venezuela, Nigeria and Pakistan statistics indicate that they have major challenges with the goal. For Pakistan, the Logistics Performance Index which considers the quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure reduced from 2.7 (2016) to 2.2 (2018). This indicator also reduced for Venezuela from 2.35 (2016) to 2.10 (2018). The same indicator for Nigeria evidenced some improvement from 2.4 (2016) to 2.56 (2018), however, the improvement is still quite small to reflect that the country will be able to achieve the goal by 2030. Their progress is stagnating which means

72  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: UNSD (2023).

Figure 4.8

Manufacturing growth from 2006 to 2021

these countries will not be able to achieve the goal by 2030 (Sachs et al., 2022). Construction sector’s role will be crucial for the industry’s innovation and economic growth. There has been demand for the development of the Construction Industry Development Board in these countries as countries with such boards have demonstrated significant progress in the industry (MPDSP, 2022; The Guardian, 2018). In Nigeria, building professionals and organizations have been demanding a Construction Development Board since 2018. Bhutan, which is a relatively small and low-income country, has established a Construction Development Board and comparatively its performance in Goal 9 is better than Venezuela, Nigeria, and Pakistan (CDB Bhutan, 2022; Sachs et al., 2022). Pakistan has developed a draft legislation bill to be presented at the National Assembly, but this is still pending due to political destabilization, the economic situation, and recent flooding (MPDSP, 2022; UNICEF, 2022). Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) As the world population is increasing day by day, the burden on our cities also increases because they provide better life facilities. Currently, more than half of the world’s population live in cities which will increase to 70 percent by 2050 (UN, 2018). Cities play a major contribution to countries and the world economic growth and thus constitute 80 percent of the global GDP. Because of the populations and business activities in cities, they are responsible for more than 70 percent of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (UNSD, 2023). It is therefore important that the growth of cities needs to be managed in a sustainable manner because poorly planned cities can result in several issues including but not limited to the affordability of housing, increased air pollution, and climate and disaster risks. The current statistics

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  73 indicate that 25 percent of city populations are living in slums or informal settlements, which means more than 1 billion inhabitants (WEF, 2019). Eighty-five percent (1 billion people) are living in Central and Southern Asia (359 million), Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (306 million), and Sub-Saharan Africa (230 million) (WEF, 2016). The highest percentage of slum inhabitants is in Sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 50 percent of the urban population live in slums. The main reasons for slum formation, especially in developing countries, include rapid urbanization, ineffective planning, lack of affordable housing options for low-income households, dysfunctional urban, land and housing policies, a dearth of housing finance, and poverty. Many of these issues are directly linked with the built environment. Globally, air pollution is responsible for 4.2 million deaths annually (Roser, 2021). The exposure to fine particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) and other pollutants put people at higher risk of stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer and lower respiratory infections. Currently 99 percent of the earth’s urban population live in areas that exceed the new World Health Organization guidelines on air quality (WHO, 2021). There is also a lack of public transportation in cities globally. It is expected that the global number of passengers will increase by 50 percent by 2030, however, the current data indicates that in more than 1,500 cities on earth, only 37 percent of the urban areas are served by public transport. The built environment can play a vital role in transforming the transportation sector and meet the current and future demand of transportation infrastructure in a more sustainable manner. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation in cities is another global issue where a great contribution is made by construction waste. It is estimated that the global construction waste volume will reach 2.2 billion tons by 2025 (BDC, 2018). The issue of MSW becomes more serious if such wastes are not collected and properly managed, causing several issues such as infections and contributing to GHG emissions. As shown in Figure 4.9, in 2022, an average of 82 percent of MSW globally was being collected and 55 percent was being managed in controlled facilities (World Bank, 2022). There is also a lack of public spaces in most cities, reflecting on poor planning elements of the built environment sector. For instance, data from more than 900 cities around the world indicates poor distribution of public spaces such as parks, boulevards and playgrounds. In relation to the selected countries’ performance in Goal 11, all three selected countries (Venezuela, Nigeria, and Pakistan) have major challenges with the goal. Nigeria’s progress shows a decreasing rate while Venezuela and Pakistan are in a stagnating state (Sachs et al., 2022). For instance, the proportion of the urban population living in slums in Nigeria is more than 50 percent. Pakistan has a better value for the same indicator which is 38 percent, but the score is not improving in ways which can help in attaining the goal. The situation of the same indicator in Venezuela is much worse where the proportion of urban population living in slums has increased to 35.8 percent in 2018, which was 32 percent in 2014. The current progress of all three countries reflects that they will not be able to meet Goal 11 if they continue in the same way. The built environment and its allied sectors can contribute in a variety of ways to improve the performance of Goal 11. For example, there is a great benefit to adopting sustainable materials in the infrastructure and housing projects that can have the potential of reducing the carbon footprint of the built environment. Ceramic waste can be used as a partial (up to 30 percent) replacement in cement product including concrete. This can also help to reduce the share of construction waste in the MSW because ceramic waste normally goes to landfills

74  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: UNSD (2023).

Figure 4.9

Municipal solid waste collection and management in controlled facilities, 2022 (percentage) – (*excluding Australia and New Zealand)

which create a number of environmental issues. Likewise, there is great benefits to improving the planning and design elements of built environment projects and making sure the new developments have the required public spaces, which is the main element of Goal 11. Built environment professionals also need to think of how to reduce the current slum ratio by contributing to the availability of affordable housing to inhabitants of these slums. Obviously, this cannot happen without the support and commitment of governments in these countries. Goal 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) The way we are using the earth’s resources is not sustainable and thus one earth is not enough to meet the current populations needs. For instance, to meet the current consumption of natural resources, the United States need more than five plants to meet their requirement (Global Footprint Network, 2022). Because built environment sectors change the natural environment, which requires the use of natural resources, thus the sector is responsible for a significant consumption of natural resources. This clearly means we would not be able to transfer our earth to the coming generation in a sustainable shape where they will be able to live the same way as we are living. Scientists are exploring the possibilities of taking humans to other planets, but it seems this would take significant time keeping in mind the Mars environment is still considered non liveable (NASA, 2022b). Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) is used to calculate the total amount of materials directly used by a country to meet the demands for

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  75 goods and services from within and outside a country (Baynes and Musango, 2018). From 2000 to 2019, the global DMC rate rose by 65 percent, reaching 95 billion metric tons in 2019, which is roughly equal to 12 tons per person. Asia, Europe, and North America are responsible for more than 70 percent of the world’s DMC. While the world is facing food challenges and insecurity, statistics indicate that a major portion of food (13 percent) is wasted or lost. This food is lost at different stages that also include the transportation of the food for which good infrastructure and roads are mandatory – again directly linked to the built environment. Food waste has significant environmental, social, and economic consequences. If this waste ends up in landfills, then it is accountable for 8–10 percent of GHG emissions. There is also a great concern over E-waste, which has risen to 7.3 kilograms per capita in 2019. Although this is not directly linked to the built environment, it does not mean the built environment sectors cannot play a role in reducing the burden of E-waste. There are great opportunities for built environment sectors to reduce their contribution in the global MSW generation. Some statistics indicate that if annual construction waste continues at the same rate, it will reach 2.2 billion tons by 2025 (Big Rentz, 2021). Renewable energy is a sub-component of Goal 12, where the role of the built environment cannot be ignored. While there was good progress in the annual growth rate of renewable energy in developing countries over five years from 2015 to 2020, which stands at 9.5 percent, there are still issues in the building performance in energy consumption and not utilizing the day light to its full potential (Clarke et al., 2008). This is something which the built environment needs to address in the planning and design of new buildings and find ways to make existing buildings more energy efficient (Ambrose, 2009). There has been a great example in India where rooftop solar panels were installed on the existing buildings and the residents were allowed to sell the extra energy produced back to the government (MNRE, 2022). Such initiatives can help motivate investment on renewable energy – enhancing the profile of the country in renewable energy production. There is also a great benefit for the built environment to reduce the dependencies of fossil fuels and develop strategies to generate energy from renewable resources for its operation. In the long term, these goals need to be incorporated in school and university curricula or programmes so that these professionals can be well aware of these goals in the context of their discipline. In terms of the performance of Venezuela, Nigeria and Pakistan, the current statistics indicate that only Venezuela has challenges with Goal 12, but its progress is on track and it will be able to achieve the goal by 2030. For instance, the production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita,) of Venezuela have already reached 13.09 and there are indications that it would further improve by 2030. Nigeria and Pakistan have already achieved the goal and their performances are maintaining the achievement of this goal (Sachs et al., 2022). The same indicator values for Pakistan and Nigeria are 11.21 and 6.70. The indicator performance is improving in both countries and is on track to be achieved by 2030. While this appears to be a positive indication, in reality, this is not very helpful because the industrial activity in these countries is proportional with its populations and requirement. As noted earlier, the goals are interlinked with each other and once these countries progress in other goals such as Goals 8 and 9 which are related to decent work, industry innovation, and economic growth, then this will affect the performance of Goal 12. It is therefore important that these countries keep a close eye on Goal 12 so that its performance is not derailed by the progress of other goals. The key areas where built environment sectors can contribute to Goal 12 include the reduction of waste, improving

76  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals energy efficiency in buildings, incorporating renewable resources in existing and new projects, and reducing dependencies on fossil fuels in its own operations.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION This chapter therefore considers the progress of selected developing countries towards UN SDGs, focusing mainly on Goal 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. The UN’s Human Development Index was used to identify such developing countries for the purpose of this chapter. The developing countries are mainly located in Latin America and the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia regions. As it was not possible to cover all the developing countries in a single chapter, only one country from each of these regions was selected. The chosen countries included Venezuela from Latin America and the Caribbean, Nigeria from Sub-Saharan Africa, and Pakistan from South Asia. The current ranking of Venezuela is 120 out of 163 with an SDG index score of 60.30. Likewise, Nigeria has a ranking of 139 with a total score of 54.20, while Pakistan is ranked 125th with a total score of 59.30. In relation to the status and progress of Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation), Venezuela is moderately improving with Goal 6 but has significant challenges. Likewise, Nigeria’s and Pakistan’s progress is also moderately improving but has major challenges with the goal. This clearly indicates that these countries will not be able to achieve the goal by 2030. All three countries need to explore sustainable ways to utilizing water resources. The built environment sectors need to increase water use efficiencies. All built environment sectors need to work with the natural resource planning authorities to develop a decision, support and policy management tool that can reflect the trade-offs between various components of Goal 6 and monitor the progress in a more accurate manner. This will require water efficient strategies to be used to reduce the use of such water where possible. It is important that used water is not discharged without treatment to avoid contamination of clean surfaces and subsurface water. The current progress of Venezuela on Goal 8 indicates that the country has significant challenges where the progress is moderately improving. Nigeria and Pakistan both have major challenges with Goal 8. Nigeria’s progress is stagnating while Pakistan’s progress is moderately improving. It is not possible to achieve Goal 8 with current status and progress. Different sectors of the built environment can significantly contribute to the goal and can improve the current progress, leading to the achievement of the goal by 2030. Construction is one of the main industrial sectors in Venezuela, Nigeria and Pakistan, contributing to the local economy with a reasonable contribution to the GDP of these countries. It is expected that construction industries in these countries will be expanding in the future to meet the housing and infrastructure requirements. This expansion will result in a number of sustainability issues which can affect Goal 8 as well as other connected goals. The contribution of the built environment in economic development will only be possible when investors trust government organizations, therefore, governments in developing countries need to develop procedures which can support the investment. The built environment sectors need to ensure the delivery of projects on time. The sectors also need to align with new technological tools such as 3D printing and applications of drones and so on, which have delivered improved performance in other industrial sectors. Venezuela’s, Nigeria’s, and Pakistan’s statistics indicate that they have major challenges with Goal 9. The progress is stagnating, which means these countries will not be able to

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  77 achieve the goal by 2030. The construction industry can play a vital role in industry innovation and economic growth. There has been demand for the development of a Construction Industry Development Board in these countries. Bhutan, which is a relatively small and low-income country, has established a Construction Development Board and comparatively its performance in Goal 9 is better than Venezuela, Nigeria, and Pakistan. All three selected countries have major challenges with Goal 11. Nigeria’s progress is decreasing while Venezuela’s and Pakistan’s is stagnating. The current progress will not allow these countries to deliver the targets and indicators of Goal 11. The built environment and its allied sectors can contribute in a variety of ways to improve the performance of Goal 11. For example, there is great scope to adopt sustainable materials in the infrastructure and housing projects that can have the potential of reducing the carbon footprint of the built environment. For example, the production of 1 ton of cement emits the same amount of GHG. Ceramic waste can be used as a partial (up to 30 percent) replacement in cement production, including concrete. This can also help to reduce the share of construction waste in the MSW because ceramic waste normally goes to landfills which creates a number of environmental issues. Similarly, there is great scope to improve the planning and design elements of built environment projects and make sure new developments have the required public spaces which is the main element of Goal 11. Built environment professionals also need to think how to reduce current slums by contributing to the availability of affordable housing to inhabitants of these slums. Government support and commitment will play a vital role in this. The current statistics indicate that only Venezuela has challenges with Goal 12 but its progress is on track and will be able to achieve the goal by 2030. Nigeria and Pakistan have already achieved the goal and their performances are maintaining the achievement of the goal. At the outset this is a positive indication, but the situation will change when these countries progress in other goals which can possibly affect the performance of Goal 12. Close monitoring will be required so that advancement in one goal does not derail the progress of other goals. The built environment sectors operations produce a lot of waste which mainly goes to landfill. The key aspects to focus on here is the reduction in waste and promoting recycling and reusing. The use of technology such as 3D printing can contribute significantly to reducing construction waste. Built environment sectors therefore need to take advantage of the technologies available. There is also great scope to improve energy efficiency in existing as well as new buildings. Rooftop solar panels that produce electricity is one of the best approaches to get advantages of available renewable resources. Built environment sectors need to work closer with government agencies to develop strategies and policies so this and other initiatives can be implemented. Built environment sectors also use a significant amount of energy in their operations, therefore, there is a need for the built environment sector as a whole to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and reduce its carbon footprint.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This chapter covered the UN SDGs in the context of developing countries focusing on goals where the built environment had great contribution. Generally, the built environment contributes to many of the goals and there is evidence for that, but there are some, particularly Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation), Goal 7 (affordable and clean energy), Goal 8 (decent work and economic growth), Goal 9 (industry innovation and infrastructure), Goal 11 (sustainable cities

78  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals and communities) and Goal 12 (responsible consumption and production), where this sector could make significant contributions compared to the other goals. Keeping this in mind the chapter only covered these specific goals. The latest reports from the UN indicate global progress towards sustainable goals has been derailed by several issues and many of the countries are not on track to achieve these goals by 2030. COVID-19 played a major role, putting these countries backward on the progress track. The situation is far worse in developing countries. SDGs are universal and need a great level of cooperation, that is why there is Goal 17 “partnership for the goals”. Developing countries mainly have economic, manpower and technological challenges to deliver these goals. Developed countries need to find ways to best support countries that are struggling with these goals. Developing countries are not supposed to wait for assistance. They need to come forward, learn from other countries with better performance. A high degree of partnerships, not only among the countries but also between different institutions within a country, which are working towards any goals or supporting other institutions in the delivery of goals, is necessary for improving progress on SDGs.

REFERENCES Ambrose, M. (2009). Energy-efficient planning and design. In Technology, Design and Process Innovation in the Built Environment (pp. 264–275). Spon Press. Arnhof, M. (2016). July. Design of a human settlement on Mars using in-situ resources. 46th International Conference on Environmental Systems. Baynes, T.M. and Musango, J.K. (2018). Estimating current and future global urban domestic material consumption. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), p. 065012. BDC (2018). Global construction waste to almost double by 2025. Building, Design and Construction, Palatine. See: https://​www​.bdcnetwork​.com/​global​-construction​-waste​-almost​-double​-2025, Building, Design and Construction (BDC), (accessed 02/10/2022). Big Rentz. (2021). 23 Construction Waste Statistics & Tips to Reduce Landfill Debris. Big Rentz. See: https://​www​.bigrentz​.com/​blog/​construction​-waste​-statistics (accessed 03/10/2022). BOI (2022). Housing and Construction. Board of Investment, Islamabad, Pakistan. See: https://​invest​ .gov​.pk/​housing​-and​-construction, Board of Investment (BOI), (accessed 28/09/2022). Brundtland Commission (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford, London, United Kingdom. See: https://​sswm​.info/​sites/​default/​files/​reference​_attachments/​UN​%20WCED​%201987​ %20Brundtland​%20Report​.pdf (accessed 23/08/2022). CDB (2022). Construction Development Board, Bhutan, Thonsel Lam. See: http://​www​.cdb​.gov​.bt/​web/​ index, (Construction Development Board (CDB), (accessed 29/09/2022). Clarke, J.A., Johnstone, C.M., Kelly, N.J., Strachan, P.A. and Tuohy, P. (2008). The role of built environment energy efficiency in a sustainable UK energy economy. Energy Policy, 36(12), pp. 4605–4609. Cohen, C. B. (2018). Industry 4.0: Are You Ready for the Fourth Industrial Revolution? See: https://​ medium​.com/​@​carmitberdugocohen/​industry​-4​-0​-are​-you​-ready​-for​-the​-fourth​-industrial​-revolution​ -464de2dea3b1 (accessed 24/09/2022). CPA (2015). Water efficiency the contribution of construction products. Construction Production Association, London, United Kingdom. See: https://​www​.​constructi​onproducts​.org​.uk/​media/​87904/​ water​_efficiency​_report​.pdf, Construction Production Association (CPA), (accessed 28/09/2022). Deloitte (2017). Deloitte GCC Powers of Construction 2017, If it’s fundable it’s feasible. Deloitte, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. See: https://​www2​.deloitte​.com/​content/​dam/​Deloitte/​xe/​Documents/​ realestate/​construction/​gccp​owersofcon​struction/​me​_construction​_gccpoc2017​.pdf, (accessed 27/09/2022). DESA (2022). Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistic Division, United Nations, New York, United States. See: https://​unstats​.un​.org/​sdgs/​report/​ 2022/​goal​-07/​, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), (accessed 28/09/2022).

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  79 Du Plessis, C. (2002). Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries. CSIR Report BOU E, 204, pp. 2–5. Ebekozien, A., Aigbavboa, C. and Aigbedion, M. (2021). Construction industry post-COVID-19 recovery: Stakeholders perspective on achieving sustainable development goals. International Journal of Construction Management, pp.  1–11. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​15623599​.2021​.1973184. Fei, W., Opoku, A., Agyekum, K., Oppon, J.A., Ahmed, V., Chen, C. and Lok, K.L. (2021). The critical role of the construction industry in achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs): Delivering projects for the common good. Sustainability, 13(16), p. 9112. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su13169112. Ganji, S. K. (2016). Leveraging the World Cup: Mega sporting events, human rights risk, and worker welfare reform in Qatar. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 4(4), pp. 221–259. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1177/​233150241600400403. Global Footprint Network (2022). How many Earths? How many countries? Global Footprint Network. See: https://​www​.overshootday​.org/​how​-many​-earths​-or​-countries​-do​-we​-need/​#:​~:​text​=​ Humanity​%20is​%20using​%20nature​%201​.8​,the​%20resources​% 20of%201.8%20Earths, (accessed 03/10/2022). Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N. and Noble, I. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), pp. 305–307. Guo, H. (2010). Understanding global natural disasters and the role of earth observation. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3(3), pp. 221–230. Guppy, L. and Anderson, K. (2017). Water Crisis Report. United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, Hamilton, Canada. See: https://​inweh​.unu​.edu/​global​-water​-crisis​-the​-facts/​ , (accessed 13/07/2022). Hopwood, B., Mellor, M. and O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), pp. 38–52. ICED (2014). Construction Sector Employment in Low-Income Countries: Size of the Sector. ICED. See: http://​icedfacility​.org/​resource/​construction​-sector​-employment​-low​-income​-countries​-size​ -sector/​, Infrastructure and Cities for Economic Development (ICED), (accessed 25/09/2022). IGBP (1999). “Global Analysis, Integration and Modelling”, (IGBP, International Council of Scientific Unions, (ICSU), Durham, NH, 2000) http://​gaim​.unh​.edu/​; H. J. Schellnhuber, Nature 402, C19 (1999); National Research Council, Committee on Global Change Research, Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999), p.  531, http://​www​.nap​.edu/​catalog/​5992​.html, International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), (accessed 23/08/2022). ILO (2015). Construction: A hazardous work. ILO, Genève 22 -Switzerland. See: https://​www​.ilo​.org/​ safework/​areasofwork/​hazardous​-work/​WCMS​_356576/​lang​-​-en/​index​.htm​#:​~:​text​=​Data​%20from​ %20a​%20number​%20of​,3​%20to​%206​% 20times%20greater, International Labour Organization (ILO), (accessed 04/04/2023). ILO (2022). ILO Conventions on child labour. International Labour Organization, Genève 22, Switzerland. See: https://​www​.ilo​.org/​ipec/​facts/​ILOconve​ntionsonch​ildlabour/​lang​-​-en/​index​.htm, International Labour Organization (ILO), (accessed 28/09/2022). ITUC (2014). The Case Against Qatar, Host of the FIFA 2022 World Cup, ITUC Special Report, March 2014. International Trade Union Confederation. https://​www​.ituc​-csi​.org/​IMG/​pdf/​the​_case​_against​ _qatar​_en​_web170314​.pdf, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), (accessed 25/09/2022). Jørgensen, R. (1989). Criteria for dating prehistoric graves: Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age? Acta Borealia, 6(2), pp. 28–41. Marsh (2022). Five Ways COVID-19 Has Impacted Construction Companies. See: https://​www​.marsh​ .com/​uk/​industries/​construction/​insights/​five​-ways​-covid​-19​-has​-impacted​-construction​-companies​ .html (accessed 29/09/2022). MDGs (2000). The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). United Nations, New York, United States. See: https://​www​.un​.org/​millenniumgoals/​bkgd​.shtml, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), (accessed 24/09/2022). Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), p. 1653531. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 23311886​.2019​.1653531.

80  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals MNRE (2022). Solar Schemes. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, India. See: https://​mnre​ .gov​.in/​solar/​schemes​#:​~:​text​=​Grid​%20Connected​%20Solar​%20Rooftop​%20Programme​&​text​=​For​ %20achieving​%20cumulative​%20capacity​%20of​,Projects​%20by​%20the​%20year​%202022​.​&​text​=​ Progressive​%20incentive​%20for​%20Discoms​%20for​,end​%20of​%20previous​%20financial​%20year, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), (accessed 03/10/2022). MPDSI (2022). Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Bill. Ministry of Planning Development and Special Initiatives, Islamabad, Pakistan. See: https://​www​.pc​.gov​.pk/​web/​draftlegis, Ministry of Planning Development and Special Initiatives (MPDSI), (accessed 29/09/2022). NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (2022a). Global Temperature, NASA, Washington, D.C. United States. See: https://​climate​.nasa​.gov/​vital​-signs/​global​-temperature/​, (accessed 29/09/2022). NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (2022b). The Mars Exploration Program. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, United States. See: https://​mars​.nasa​ .gov/​programmissions/​overview/​, (accessed 03/10/2022). Nässén, J., Holmberg, J., Wadeskog, A. and Nyman, M. (2007). Direct and indirect energy use and carbon emissions in the production phase of buildings: An input–output analysis. Energy, 32(9), pp. 1593–1602. OECD (2012). Environmental Outlook to 2050: the Consequences of Inaction Organization for Economic and Co-operative Development (2012). OECD Headquarters, Paris, France. See: https://​ www​.oecd​.org/​g20/​topics/​energy​-environment​-green​-growth/​oecde​nvironment​aloutlookt​o2050theco​ nsequences​ ofinaction​ .htm, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (accessed 13/07/2022). Ofori, G. (2016). Construction in developing countries: Current imperatives and potential. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress (Vol. 1, pp. 39–52). Olanipekun, A.O. and Saka, N. (2019). Response of the Nigerian construction sector to economic shocks. Construction Economics and Building, 19(2), pp. 160–180. https://​doi​.org/​10​.5130/​AJCEB​.v19i2​ .6667. ONS (2022). Dataset - EMP13: Employment by industry. ONS, United Kingdom. See: https://​www​.ons​ .gov​.uk/​employ​mentandlab​ourmarket/​peopleinwork/​employm​entandempl​oyeetypes/​datasets/​emplo​ ymentbyind​ustryemp13, Office for National Statistics (ONS), (accessed 25/09/2022). Opoku, A. (2022). Chapter 10: Construction industry and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In Research Companion to Construction Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. available from: https://​www​.elgaronline​.com/​view/​edcoll/​9781839108228/​9781839108228​.00017​ .xml (accessed 13/04/2023). Opoku, A. (2019). Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Resource Conservation Recycling, 141 (2019), pp. 1–7. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​ .resconrec​.2018​.10​.011. Paris Agreement (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations, New York, United States. See: http://​unfccc​ .int/​files/​essential​_background/​convention/​application/​pdf/​english​_paris​_agreement​.pdf (accessed 24/09/2022). RICS (2021). Q4 2021: Global Construction Monitor. RICS, London, United Kingdom. See: https://​ www​.rics​.org/​globalassets/​rics​-website/​media/​knowledge/​research/​market​-surveys/​construction​ -monitor/​q4​-2021​-global​-construction​-monitor​-​-​-headline​-report​.pdf, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyor (RICS), (accessed 25/09/2022). www​ .databasedanalysis​ .com/​ global​ Robinson, G. (2015). Global Construction 2030. See: https://​ -construction​-perspectives/​ (accessed 25/09/2022). Rose, M. (2021). Data Review: How many people die from air pollution? Our World in Data. See: https://​ ourworldindata​.org/​data​-review​-air​-pollution​-deaths (accessed 02/10/2022). Roy, A. and Pramanick, K. (2019). Analysing progress of sustainable development goal 6 in India: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Management, 232, pp. 1049–1065. Sachs, J., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G. and Woelm, F. (2022). From Crisis to Sustainable Development: the SDGs as Roadmap to 2030 and Beyond. Sustainable Development Report 2022. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See: https://​ dashboards​ .sdgindex​ .org/​(accessed 27/09/2022).

The built environment’s contribution to the progress of the SDGs  81 Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N. and Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), pp.  805–814. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​s41893​-019​-0352. Sachs, J.D. (2015). The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press, New York, United States. SDGR (2022). Sustainable Development Goals Report, 2022, United Nations, New York, United States. See: https://​unstats​.un​.org/​sdgs/​report/​2022/​, Sustainable Development Goals Report (SDGR), (accessed 25/09/2022). Statista (2021). Total employed persons in the United States in 2021, by industry. Statista, New York, United States. See: https://​www​.statista​.com/​statistics/​200143/​employment​-in​-selected​-us​-industries/​ , (accessed 25/09/2022). The Global Economy (2019). Roads quality - Country rankings. The Global Economy, online. See: https://​www​.theglobaleconomy​.com/​rankings/​roads​_quality/​ (accessed 12/01/2022). The Guardian (2018). Experts call for construction industry development board. The Guardian, Nigeria. See: https://​guardian​.ng/​property/​experts​-call​-for​-construction​-industry​-development​-board/​ , (accessed 29/09/2022). Transparency Market Research (2017). Construction Waste Market Construction Waste Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast 2017–2025. Transparency Market Research, New York, United States. See: https://​www​.transp​arencymark​etresearch​.com/​construction​ -waste​-market​.html, (accessed 25/09/2022). Tronchin, L., Manfren, M. and Nastasi, B. (2018). Energy efficiency, demand side management and energy storage technologies–A critical analysis of possible paths of integration in the built environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 95, pp. 341–353. Umar, T. (2021). Estimating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Oman using different frameworks. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, 47(2), pp.  332–348. https://​doi​.org/​10​.5276/​JSWTM/​2021​.332. Umar, T. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on the GCC construction industry. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET), 13(2), pp. 1–17. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.4018/​IJSSMET​.20220301​.oa1. Umar, T. and Umeokafor, N. (2022). Exploring the GCC progress towards United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 13(1), pp.  1–32. https://​doi​.org/​10​.4018/​IJSESD​.2022010105. Umar, T., Egbu, C., Ofori, G., Honnurvali, M.S., Saidani, M. and Opoku, A. (2020). Challenges towards renewable energy: An exploratory study from the Arabian Gulf region. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Energy, 173(2), pp.  68–80. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1680/​jener​.19​.00034. Umar, T., Egbu, C., Ofori, G., Honnurvali, M.S., Saidani, M., Shibani, A., Opoku, A., Gupta, N. and Goh, K. (2020). March. UAE’s commitment towards UN Sustainable Development Goals. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability 173(7), pp. 325–343. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1680/​jensu​.19​.00036. Umar, T., Egbu, C., Wamuziri, S. and Honnurvali, M.S. (2018). Briefing: Occupational safety and health regulations in Oman. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law, 171(3), pp.  93–99. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1680/​jmapl​.18​.00007. UN (2018). Around 2.5 billion more people will be living in cities by 2050, projects new UN report. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, United States. See: https://​ www​.un​.org/​development/​desa/​en/​news/​population/​2018​-world​-urbanization​-prospects​.html, United Nations (UN), (accessed 02/10/2022). UN SDGs (2015). About the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations, New York, United States. See: https://​www​.un​.org/​sus​tainablede​velopment/​sustainable​-development​-goals/​, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs), (accessed 23/08/2022). UNDP (2022-a). Human Development Index (HDI), United Nations Development Programme, New York, United States. See: https://​hdr​.undp​.org/​data​-center/​human​-development​-index​?source​=​searchad​ &​gclid​=​CjwKCAjwv​sqZBhAlEiw​AqAHElfv9w​-​-rm​Vb1jt9YGMY​hermAIOhTc​2HXYiVFH7O​ UXRki8xPI6​-7a​-RoCSEQQAvD​_BwE​#/​indicies/​HDI, (accessed 27/09/2022). UNDP (2022-b). Human Development Report 2021-22: Uncertain Times, Unsettled Lives: Shaping our Future in a Transforming World. New York, United States. See: https://​hdr​.undp​.org/​content/​

82  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals human​-development​-report​-2021​-22 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), (accessed 27/09/2022). UNEP (2021). 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero‑Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi. See: https://​ globalabc​ .org/​ resources/​publications/​2021​-global​-status​-report​-buildings​-and​-construction, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (accessed 25/09/2022). UNICEF (2022). Devastating floods in Pakistan. UNICEF, New York, Untied States. See: https://​www​ .unicef​.org/​emergencies/​devastating​-floods​-pakistan​-2022, United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), (accessed 29/09/2022). United Nations (2019). World Population Prospects (2019). United Nations, New York, United States. See: https://​population​.un​.org/​wpp/​Download/​Standard/​Population/​, (accessed 13/07/2022). UNSC (2019). Interlinkages of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, prepared by the Interlinkages Working Group of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs). 2019. See: https://​unstats​.un​.org/​unsd/​statcom/​50th​-ession/​documents/​BG​ -Item3a​-Interlinkages​-2030​-Agenda​-for​-Sustainable​-Development​-E​.pdf, United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC), (accessed 27/09/2022). UNSD (2023). Goal 8, Decent World and Economic Development. United Nations Statistics Division, Development Data and Outreach Branch, New York, NY, United States. See: https://​unstats​.un​.org/​ sdgs/​report/​2022/​goal​-08/​, United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), (accessed 05/04/2023). Weart, S.R. (2003). The Discovery of Global Warming. Harvard University Press. WEF (2016). These are the world’s five biggest slums. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland. See: https://​www​.weforum​.org/​agenda/​2016/​10/​these​-are​-the​-worlds​-five​-biggest​-slums/​, (accessed 02/01/2022). WEF (2018). This is how to sustainably feed 10 billion people by 2050. World Economic Forum, Cologny, Switzerland. See: https://​www​.weforum​.org/​agenda/​2018/​12/​how​-to​-sustainably​-feed​-10​ -billion​-people​-by​-2050​-in​-21​-charts/​, World Economic Forum (WEF), (accessed 23/08/2022). WEF (2019). These eco-friendly, affordable housing settlements around the world are under threat. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland. See: https://​www​.weforum​.org/​agenda/​2019/​08/​ billion​-slum​-dwellers​-at​-risk/​, World Economic Forum (WEF), (accessed 02/10/2022). WEF (2021). Global warming chart – Here’s how temperatures have risen since 1950. World Economic Forum, Cologny, Switzerland. See: https://​www​.weforum​.org/​agenda/​2021/​01/​global​-warming​-chart​ -average​-temperatures​-rising, World Economic Forum (WEF), (accessed 25/09/2022). WHO (2021). WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. See: https://​www​.who​.int/​news​-room/​questions​-and​-answers/​item/​who​-global​-air​-quality​-guidelines, World Health Organization (WHO), (accessed 02/10/2022). World Bank (2022). Trends in Solid Waste Management. World Bank, Washington, United States. See: https://​datatopics​.worldbank​.org/​what​-a​-waste/​trends​_in​_solid​_waste​_management​.html, (accessed 02/10/2022).

PART II PEOPLE, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

5. Regenerating urban slums for the sustainable development goals in developing countries Andrew Ebekozien, Clinton Aigbavboa, Mohamad Shaharudin Samsurijan and Radin Badaruddin Rabin Firdaus

INTRODUCTION Urban areas are confronted with several issues in coping with rural-urban migration, overcrowded, and international migration. These challenges have an impact on well-being and quality of life. These encumbrances are grouped into three dimensions: social, economic, and environmental sustainability inequalities (Opoku and Akotia, 2020). Cities are elaborate interwoven collections and places of human connection. The number of people living in cities keeps on increasing geometrically. The United Nations (UN) (2018) reported that about half of humanity lives in cities, growing by approximately 73 million yearly. It is projected that 70 percent of the global gross domestic product (GDP) is generated from cities (Opoku and Akotia, 2020). Thus, urban areas generate economic growth and prosperity for many. The benefits associated with sustainable cities facilitated the Paris Agreement and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Paris Agreement unites all countries to act to address issues regarding the impact of global climate change on humanity and the environment. The Agreement supports developing countries in achieving determined targets (Teferi and Newman, 2018). In addition to the Paris Agreement, the world continued with the 17 SDGs approved during the 2015 UN General Assembly (2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) (United Nations, 2016; 2022b). These goals focused on economic and social, especially concerning terminating extreme poverty in an “inclusive” approach by solving acute sustainable development problems associated with extreme poverty, mitigating inequality, enhancing ecosystem protection, and reducing climate change. This chapter seeks to understand how the role of regenerating urban slums can assist in achieving Goal 1 (No Poverty), especially in developing countries. However, global progress towards the 2030 UN SDGs in regenerating urban slums is uneven. The increased socio-economic encumbrances in a climate change setting combined with the global health challenges of COVID-19 in early 2020 resulted in many consequences that have compounded the regeneration of urban slums. The pandemic interrupted plans and efforts tailored towards urban evolution. This may have reverted decades of advancement, especially in developing countries that were badly hit by the pandemic. The pandemic crisis is an encumbrance of the globe’s desire to accomplish the UN’s SDGs. This is because progress toward SDGs accomplishment was already slow before the COVID-19 outbreak. The pandemic compounded the situation with grave SDG impacts (Berchin and de Andrade Guerra, 2020), including Goal 1 (No Poverty). The UN (2022b) reported that an additional 75 to 95 million people would live in extreme poverty in 2022 compared to pre-COVID-19. Apart from 84

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  85 the pandemic impact, the global crisis has escalated the numbers of refugees, especially in Ukraine, then affecting exporters of major food items such as fertilizer, energy, and minerals. Goal 1 (No Poverty) deserves special attention. Apart from the pandemic’s negative impacts, achieving the SDGs in less than seven years requires urgent action. This is the focus of the chapter and has reawakened the concept of the 2030 Agenda for cities regarding the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (United Nations, 2020). More focused attention is needed to attain Goal 1 (No Poverty). This chapter focuses on how regenerating urban slums can be used to eliminate or reduce extreme poverty across the globe. This is because extreme poverty has a relationship with urban slums. The chapter tactically reviews current literature regarding Goal 1 and regenerating urban slums and proffers the way forward to mitigate or eliminate extreme poverty (Goal 1) across the globe via regenerating urban slums. The chapter is divided into eight parts. The first part focuses on the introduction. This includes the chapter’s background and the chapter’s content summary. Following next is the part reviewing the concept SDGs 2030, emphasising Goal 1 and the rationale for this chapter. The third part discusses regenerating urban slums. The third section includes tabulated evolution of urban regeneration, highlights the principles of urban regeneration, and slum upgrading theories. Next are the urban slum initiatives. The fourth section reviews urban slum initiatives in selected countries in Asia (Bangladesh) and Africa (Kenya) as case studies. Following next is the impact of urban slums. The fifth section identifies the impacts of urban slums and emphasises that these impacts cut across many informal urban settlements. Followed next are the challenges to urban slum initiatives, followed by the proffered way forward to mitigate or eliminate extreme poverty (Goal 1) across the globe via regenerating urban slums. This section is germane to the chapter. Suggested possible solutions have been proffered to promote sustainable urban slum upgrading and expectation from key stakeholders to eliminate or mitigate extreme poverty (Goal 1) through regenerating urban slums. The last section concludes the chapter.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 2030 The 2030 Agenda is an all-inclusive for sustainable development. The 2030 SDGs Agenda builds on decades of work by countries and the UN. The UN’s SDGs are the first set of goals to assist countries in collaborating and working together to achieve a cleaner environment and a better society. In 1987, a commission known as the World Commission on Environment and Development designed a document, “Our Common Future,” for the UN. It is also known as the Brundtland Report, where the term Sustainable Development was popularised and translated into Spanish as desarrollo sostenible (DS) (United Nations, 1987). Also, in 1992, more than 178 countries adopted Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Agenda 21 was a comprehensive action plan to build a worldwide collaboration for sustainable development to improve human lives and protect the environment (United Nations, 2022b). The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were between 2000–2015 (MDGs, 2000–2015). The goals led to improved well-being through the collaborative efforts of UN agencies. Some issues, for example, urban cities sustainability, did not receive explicit attention in the MDGs. The current 17 SDGs were adopted by all UN Member States (developing and developed countries) in 2015. It was supported by the New Urban Agenda (NUA) in 2016 and increased policy attention and funding to urban areas to enhance sustainable development (Valencia et

86  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals al., 2019). The SDGs process started in January 2015 during the General Assembly and culminated in 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with 17 SDGs at the UN’s Sustainable Development Summit in New York, in September 2015 (United Nations, 2022b). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development acknowledges that ending poverty and other issues must go together with mechanisms that improve education and health, mitigate inequality, and stimulate economic growth (Ebekozien et al., 2023; United Nations, 2015). It is all-inclusive of many other goals, including the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and the programme of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. Also, it has a link to the NUA. The SDGs and the NUA recognise the critical role of cities in achieving sustainable development (Valencia et al., 2019). The NUA is a science cities-based paradigm shift with five key implementation pillars that focus on sustainable development. This includes urban legislation and regulations, national urban policies, local economy and municipal finance, urban planning and design, and local implementation (United Nations, 2017). It has become pertinent to have an NUA to enhance commitments to inclusion and drive sensible urban policies and good local governance associated with many SDGs, including Goal 1. The absence of an NUA may derail critical aims (inclusion and equality) within the SDGs. An NUA in the SDGs has to deliver on three levels of inclusion: removing discriminatory exclusion (mitigating powerful polities at play that reject inclusion in elite coalitions environment), ensuring that principal institutions support the agenda, and ensuring that human rights are fully observed. The NUA addresses the challenges associated with indicators best suited to monitor and report on SDGs’ progress (Satterthwaite, 2016). The NUA is innovative and involves the “bottom-up” approach. The cities-based paradigm recognises the link between good urbanisation and development. It underscores the connections between livelihood opportunities, good urbanisation and employment creation, and improved quality of life (United Nations, 2017). The UN (2017, p. iv) described the NUA as “… a shared vision for a better and more sustainable future.” The implementation of the NUA will contribute to the implementation and localisation of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development in an integrated manner. The outcome will enhance achieving the SDGs and targets, especially Goals 1 and 11. This includes sustainable urban development for social inclusion, ending poverty, and making cities and human settlements safe, resilient, inclusive, and sustainable. The 2030 Agenda is a plan of action enclosed in 3P (people, planet, and prosperity). The implementing plan is via a collaborative partnership with all countries and stakeholders. It is a 15-year action plan (2015–2030) with 17 goals and 169 targets. The Division supports this for SDGs in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The department offers substantive capacity-building for the SDGs and their related thematic subjects. This includes climate, energy, oceans, water, urbanisation, science and technology, transport, the Global Sustainable Development Report, partnerships, and Small Island Developing States (United Nations, 2022b). It is designed to invigorate significant areas of humanity and the planet. This chapter focuses on SDG 1 (No Poverty) through regenerating urban slums and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The seven targets of Goal 1, as highlighted by the UN (2015), are as follows: 1. By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for everyone below $1.25 a day. 2. By 2030, mitigate no less than half of people living in poverty based on the national definitions.

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  87 3. Implement national social protection systems policies and programmes that would have to achieve substantial coverage of the disadvantaged by 2030. 4. By 2030, ensure that the disadvantaged and vulnerable have equal rights to basic services, economic resources, land ownership, other forms of inheritance, access to new technology, and financial assistance. 5. By 2030, it will build the resilience of the disadvantaged in helpless conditions and mitigate their exposure to climate-related severe issues and other hazards. 6. The least developed countries should promote policies and programmes to mitigate poverty in all its ramifications via mobilisation of resources and enhanced development cooperation. 7. Develop feasible and implementable policy framework at different levels of government (national, regional, and international) that is pro-poor and gender-sensitive tailored to accelerate the disadvantaged investment and eradicate extreme poverty. From the seven targets associated with Goal 1, 12 indicators emerged as identified by the Report of the Inter-Agency and Export Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1) (2016). Also, the seven targets of Goal 11, as highlighted by the UN (2015), are as follows: 1. By 2030, ensure access to affordable shelter and upgrade slums. 2. By 2030, provide access to affordable transport and safety, especially to persons in vulnerable situations. 3. By 2030, improve inclusive and sustainable urbanisation across all countries. 4. Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. 5. By 2030, reduce the number of details caused by disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. 6. By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities. 7. By 2030, provide universal access to safe, green and public spaces, especially to persons in vulnerable situations. The concept of “sustainable development” has been researched extensively over time, depending on the researcher’s perspective. The SDGs are the outline to accomplish an improved sustainable future for all (United Nations News Centre, 2018). As of 2015, many countries, especially developing ones, have made efforts to accomplish the UN’s SDGs. Achieving these goals is not without its challenges, especially in many developing countries, leading to slow progress in reaching these goals. Upgrading shelters in slums and providing homes for settlers are components of regenerating urban slums. Addressing this encumbrance is pertinent because it is a component of the SDGs (Goal 1 – No Poverty) (Ebekozien, 2021; Ebekozien et al., 2021). United Nations News Centre (2018) asserted that the UN set platforms to tackle human requests through the 2030 SDGs Agenda. A sustainable future for all is one of the possible outcomes. Goal 1 of the SDGs aims to reduce extreme poverty by addressing inequality, and economic injustice, including the promotion of favourable climate for social cohesion (Ojoko and Ojoko, 2017). This, in principle, provides jobs for low-income earners and upgrades their income and well-being. Also, besides increasing job opportunities, it will reduce economic inequalities, a form of wealth distribution (Ebekozien et al., 2021; Gambo et al. 2019; World Bank Press Release 2017). The threat from COVID-19 and other disasters in the past two years cannot be over-looked (Ebekozien and Aigbavboa, 2021). These are threats

88  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals to achieving Goal 1. Reports show that in 2020, 33 countries had a direct economic loss of $16.55 billion from other disasters. The poverty rate increased from 8.3 percent in 2019 to 9.2 percent in 2020, and international households’ poverty line increased from 6.7 percent in 2019 to 7.2 percent in 2020. Similarly, in 2020, about 4.1 billion (53 percent) people were unprotected from the short-term social protection measures announced by 209 countries and territories (United Nations, 2022b).

REGENERATING URBAN SLUMS This sub-chapter addresses the term “slums” as used in this chapter. Slums describe a diversity of economic, environmental, and social issues. Urban slum-settlers face many issues such as communicable and non-communicable diseases and exposure to various hazards. The chapter adopted the United Nations-Habitat (2003) definition. It describes a slum household as a group of persons living within a defined urban area with a shortage of one or more of the identified conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Acceptable living space and not more than three persons sharing the same room. Right to use pipe-borne water at a reasonable price. Right to use acceptable sanitation. Security of tenure that avoids forced evictions. Adequate housing of a permanent structure that protects against severe climate conditions.

It implies that slums are informal settlements that accommodate more than the planned inhabitant or residents in an unplanned layout. Not all urban slums have the same attributes, nor do all settlers undergo the same degree of poverty (Givens, 2015; UN-Habitat, 2006). Many factors are attributed to urban slums, especially in developing countries. Migration from rural to urban settlements for better employment to enhance the quality of life for themselves and their families is one of the reasons. The majority of slums are faced with crowded and poorly built shelters and inadequate services such as sanitation facilities, electricity supply, and pipe-borne water (MacPherson, 2013). Most times, the expectation of the immigrants to reside in urban slums for a short period and relocate after securing a good job does not end that way. Many do not move as they become physically part of the informal urban settlement, are unable to accomplish more than low incomes and are jobless in some instances (UN-Habitat, 2003). Globally, about 1 billion live in ramshackle houses (UN-Habitat, 2011; Wohl, 2017). Studies (Akotia and Opoku, 2018; Ebekozien et al., 2021; Opoku and Akotia, 2020; UN, 2018) have emphasised the importance of regenerating urban slums, yet an estimated 1 billion of the 7 billion world population live in dilapidated houses as of 2011 (UN-Habitat, 2011). It is estimated that by 2030, 5 billion of the earth’s population will live in cities (Umar, 2020). By 2050, about 68 percent of the world will be living in urban areas. From this estimate, 90 percent would be from Asia and Africa (United Nations, 2018a). Nepal and Bangladesh are the leading countries with informal settlements in Asia, and the continent houses more than 500 million of the population in slums (Hofmann et al., 2015). In Indonesia, the level of informal settlements is as high as 28 percent (Jones, 2017). Attempting to proffer solutions to urban slums, especially in African and Asian developing countries, will mitigate severe poverty (SDG 1). Like many developing cities in African countries, Addis Ababa has a high level of urban slums (Teferi and Newman, 2014; UNDESA, 2014). This is a call for concern.

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  89 In the twenty-first century, the urban regeneration concept has become more central and one of the critical drivers tailored toward sustainable development (Akotia and Opoku, 2018). The concept of “urban regeneration” offers the potential to transform the weakening neighbourhoods and create a sustainable environment. This chapter adopted the definition by Roberts (2000), who defines urban regeneration as the “comprehensive and integrated visions and actions, which lead to the resolution of urban problems, and which seek to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental conditions of an area that has been subject to change” (Roberts, 2000, p. 17). The concept should deliver policies and programmes that tackle society’s socio-economic issues to mitigate the environmental impacts. This is critical to a sustainable environment. Urban regeneration is a mechanism to regenerate and elevate prevailing declined cities towards attaining the SDGs (Opoku and Akotia, 2020). The Habitat III conference in Quito in October 2016 summarised the NUA (United Nations, 2017). One of the conference outcomes was to develop and adopt the agenda frames global policy for cities and urban regeneration for the following two decades and after that. The core area of this sub-chapter is regenerating urban slums. Regenerating the informal urban settlements could contribute to understanding many SDGs, including Goal 1 (Teferi and Newman, 2018). Urban regeneration is one pertinent task impacting the agenda towards a more sustainable society, especially in developing countries with several urban slums. A brief evolution of urban regeneration is pertinent to appreciate the adopted chapter’s definition. Roberts (2017) traces the history and highlights six key themes. These themes dominated previous urban change and policy eras and are briefly discussed as follows: 1. Physical conditions and social response: This links the physical conditions in urban areas and the nature of the political and social response. The urban areas play a conventional role in the sale and purchase of goods and services in cities. The process of change over time is inevitable and influences these towns and cities. The responses to these changes vary depending on urban society’s economic values and socio-political structures. 2. Housing and health: It is evident that housing, health, and well-being matters are attended to in urban areas. But the disadvantaged are deprived of these facilities. History has it that provision of adequate housing, eradication of disease, pipe-borne water supply, and open space for creation were among the major early priorities and essential components of regeneration. After some time, there were concerns about the link between housing, health, and planning. The current urban regeneration is not all about the physical state of housing as a priority. Ross and Chang (2013, p. 5) emphasised that “economic growth requires places that promote good health.” 3. Social welfare and economic progress: One key theme links social improvement with economic progress. In the nineteenth century, there was a demand for attention applicable to the previous theme. The attention of policymakers and major practitioners came on board, especially in austerity conditions. However, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the emphasis on most urban regeneration programmes and policies has again changed to promote economic development. 4. Containing urban growth and managing urban shrinkage: The fourth theme has influenced the present objective and practice of urban regeneration. The theme aimed to ensure that urban land is optimised for urban functions. It created urban sprawl and the expansion of settlements beyond the green belts. However, the theme offers a stimulus for urban

90  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals regeneration but there has been concern in recent decades because of urban shrinkage management issues. 5. Growing environmental awareness: The prominence of this theme has come into focus in the past three decades. One feature of the theme is the degradation of the urban environment. This is very significant in the degradation of urban areas. But the worsening of the urban environment is not linked with economic decline because economic growth and rising prosperity are associated with atmospheric pollution (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Developing countries attract migrants who reside in an extremely poor environment. 6. Changing urban policy: The sixth theme evolved and reflected the current regeneration theory and practice. This is the final urban regeneration and reflects the transformation of obligations for improving urban areas, as illustrated in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 shows the major strategy and orientation, key players and stakeholders, and spatial activity level from the 1950s to 2000s regeneration in recession (Roberts, 2017). Others include physical emphasis, social content, economic focus, and environmental approach. The current contextual scenario in which regeneration is positioned reflects the causes and responses to the economic collapse of 2008. From the evolution of urban regeneration (six themes), including issues and opportunities, the need to develop the best feasible use of urban land cannot be over-emphasised. The definition of urban regeneration cannot be established without a sound background between the structure’s history, and operation of urban policy, content, and the general evolution of political attitudes, economic power, and social values. These variables aid in adopting a workable definition of urban regeneration. The chapter adopted Roberts’ (2017) definition because the six themes offer a platform. Roberts (2017, p. 18) defined urban regeneration as the Comprehensive and integrated vision and action which seeks to resolve urban problems and bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change or offers opportunities for improvement.

This definition covers vital features of urban regeneration. It is in line with Lichfield (1992, p. 19), who acknowledges the need for “a better understanding of the processes of decline” and an “agreement on what one is trying to achieve and how.” Hausner (1993, p. 526) emphasised the integral weaknesses of methods of regeneration that are “short-term, fragmented, ad hoc and project-based without an overall strategic framework for city-wide development.” Also, Donnison (1993, p. 18) opined and called for “new ways of tackling our problems which focus in a coordinated way on problems and on the areas where those problems are concentrated.” The need for action across all relevant policy spheres cannot be over-emphasised. It is observed that not all issues can be resolved by urban regeneration (Tallon, 2010). Based on the definition above, the chapter identifies urban regeneration principles in line with Tallon (2010), the UN (2015; 2017), and Opoku and Akotia (2020). 1. The urban area is analysed. 2. The focus is on the simultaneous adaptation of the urban area’s social structures, environmental conditions, physical fabric, and economic base. 3. The focus is on the activity of simultaneous adaptation through an integrated technique that deals with resolving issues.

Private sector predominant with government funding

initially, latter more local

Resource hindrances in the Private sector predominant Better balance between public sector and growth

private sectors Regional level of activity developed

Continuing from the 1950s with private investment’s influence

developers and

contractors Emphasis on local and

site levels

Public sector investment

with selected private

involvement

scale development “flagship schemes”

rehabilitation of existing areas

development

development framework broader idea of the environment in the

for a wider method of environment

innovations

development

context of sustainable

Acceptance of sustainable Introduction of the Growth of concern

improvement with a few

Sources:  Modified from Stohr (1989), Lichfield (1992) and Roberts (2017).

greening

Environmental

1980s and then increasing larger projects replacing replacement and new

urban areas

1950s with parallel

areas and peripheral

alternative sector Smaller-scale schemes and Initially modest in the Major schemes of

Extensive renewal of older

Continuation from the

Replacement of inner

and encouragement of

community

Focus on the role of the

selective state support

and welfare standards

Community self-help with

and empowerment

Improvement in social

voluntary funding

with selective public funds public and private

Focus on local initiatives

task growth of regional

level

and living standards

Community-based action

developing sub-regional

strategic perspective, interventions

Localists initially with

Reintroduction of

effort

on site, latter on the local

In the early 1980s, focus

agencies and ministries

a growing government

sector and special agencies predominant method with funding and voluntary

Improvement of housing

Environmental approach Landscaping and selected Selective improvements

Physical emphasis

Social content

Economic focus

Regional and local levels

between the public and

stakeholders

Spatial level of activity

in local government

Push towards a balance

and local), private

Key actors and

Partnership is the

sector and decentralisation

rehabilitation

growth Government (national

Focus on the private sector

with easing in areas of

“masterplan,” suburban Growing role of the private Emphasis on the private

focus on integrated policy growth

redevelopment

growth, early attempts at schemes

of cities based on the and interventions

policy and practice. Also

of development and

and neighbourhood

theme, suburban and

extension of older areas

orientation

Regeneration in recession

A comprehensive form of Restrictions on all tasks

Many major schemes

Focus on in-situ renewal

Continuation of 1950s

Reconstruction and

Major strategy and

2000s

Regeneration

1990s

Redevelopment

Renewal

1980s

1970s

1960s Revitalisation

1950s Reconstruction

The evolution of urban regeneration

Period policy type

Table 5.1

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  91

92  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals 4. Ensure that the technique and resulting policies and implementation programmes align with the sustainable development vision. 5. Associate with regeneration mechanisms related to similar initiatives such as health and well-being events. 6. Plan targets for operational events. 7. Focus on how to make optimal use of the economic, human, and other resources in the built environment. 8. Encourage consensus via engagement of stakeholders and integrated cooperation with a focus on the regeneration of an urban area. 9. Measuring progress should be all-inclusive at defined intervals to review specified objectives. 10. Create an opportunity to revise programmes of implementation when necessary. 11. Making provision for long-term management is key to encouraging progression arrangements and urban regeneration. Table 5.2

Summary of slum upgrading theories

Phase

Decade

Focus

Instruments

Modernisation and

The 1960s-early

Physical planning and production of

Blueprint planning, construction,

urban growth

1970s

housing by government agencies

eradication of slums settlements

Redistribution with

The mid 1970s-mid

State support for self-help ownership

Recognition of informal sector, slums

growth/basic needs

1980s

on a project-by-project mechanism

upgrading, and site-and services,

The enabling approach

Late 1980-early

Creating an enabling environment and Public-private partnership, community

1990

framework for action by stakeholders

Mid 1990s-onwards

Holistic planning to balance

Same as above and supported with

efficiency, equity, and sustainability

poverty alleviation and environmental

subsidies to land, loans, and housing engagement, land assembly, housing loans, and capacity building Sustainable urban development

management

Sources:  Modified from UN-Habitat (2006) and Teferi and Newman (2017).

Regenerating urban slums in developing countries started getting attention in the late 1970s. These slums were previously acknowledged as urban realities that call for urgent attention. This started to follow the developed world pattern. Regenerating urban slums intends to improve the sanitary conditions and environmental quality of slum areas. Recent trends show a shift from the late 1970s to date regarding policies. For example, resettlement, eradication, land banking, and conventional housing projects to a mechanism that can integrate housing policies as presented in Table 5.2. Countries across the globe have rolled-out various urban regeneration policies and programmes to encourage the transition from the concept of urban planning focused on city expansion to the transformation of the present city. Urban regeneration policy differs from country to country. It has attracted academic and practitioners’ attention. Some believe that a municipality proposes a location as adequate for an urban regeneration programme, but the neighbourhood influence is germane. The focus mostly is on the quality increase of housing and open space, migration phenomena, the policy of social cohesion and balance, and improvement of urban reputation. Regarding the synthesised contents, functional integration, social exclusion, environmental degradation, and infrastructure systems improvement can be considered (Murgante et al., 2008).

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  93 In Europe, the modern city that first emerged in the eighteenth century around the globe is the juxtaposition of locations of affluence and beauty, poverty, and dilapidation. This raised concern for persons such as Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in the nineteenth century that persistent urban issues need serious attention (Leary and McCarthy, 2013). The needed attention is called renaissance, renewal, revitalisation, or urban regeneration. Urban regeneration programmes remain a significant task of government intervention, especially in developing countries. The summer riots in several cities in the United Kingdom in 2011 and France in 2010 triggered the perceived political significance of urban regeneration (Leary and McCarthy, 2013). However, the European Commission (EC) has focused on urban dimensions and sustainable development for the past three decades. This significant trend continued through the Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HEFP). The HEFP aims to offer the continent a new approach to a global placement. Horizon Europe is one big and ambitious European Union (EU) Research Innovation programme that cuts across Europe and is supervised by the European Innovation Council. The programme focuses on competitiveness, responding to citizens’ priorities, job generation, innovation, sustaining socio-economic models and values through scientific and technological research and the innovation framework programme (2021–2027). The programme is backed up with a budget of more than €100 billion by Horizon Europe (Andreucci and Marvuglia, 2021). Apart from job creation, the programme intends to target 100 European cities by 2030 from their systematic transformation to climate neutrality and innovation hubs to benefit quality of life and sustainability. It will trigger transformations and a healthy, prosperous future within a safe society.

URBAN SLUM INITIATIVES Urban slums are more pronounced in Asia and Africa, as previously reported. Urban slum initiatives vary from country to country. This section selects at least one country from the mentioned continents (Asia and Africa) and evaluates the initiatives over the years. In Bangladesh, one of the developing countries in Asia with a high rate of informal settlements (Hofmann et al., 2015; Panday, 2020; UNFPA, 2011; World Bank, 2012; World Bank, 2017), attracts many development agencies (national and international). The urban slum initiatives include the Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction (UPPR), WaterAid Bangladesh, Coalition for the Urban Poor (CUP), Shelter for the Poor (SFP), and Habitat for Humanity (HFH). The UPPR is a large programme in urban slum settlements and targets no less than 3 million people in 30 cities across Bangladesh, including Dhaka. WaterAid Bangladesh focuses on addressing water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) in urban slum settlements and is supported by international partners (Australian Shelter Reference, AusAID, DFID) (Panday, 2020). Regarding CUP, it is a network of more than 40 non-governmental organisations that advocate for the rights of slum settlers. Also, the initiative supports community-based associations in slum settlements. For the HFH in the Bangladesh context, it was used to pilot a project in an urban slum community (Ahmed, 2016). Kenya is one of the few countries in Africa to have demonstrated urban slum upgrading with the exception of South Africa after the colonial rule that ended in 1994. The two major slum initiatives of the Kenyan Government include the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP) and the Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP). The KENSUP was initiated in 2004 and was followed by the KISIP, initiated in 2011 to address the increas-

94  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ing population of residents in informal settlements. The figure of over 60 percent residing in informal settlements from the 1999 population census was a source of concern to the government, thus the need for these initiatives to upgrade these urban slums (Muraguri, 2011). The Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme is a collaborative and integrated initiative that draws on the expertise of a wide variety of stakeholders to redress slum issues. The Kenyan Government manages the programme while the Ministry of Housing and other relevant agencies implement it. This is complemented and supported by civil society, participating communities, and the private sector. KENSUP’s key principles are democratisation and empowerment, sustainability, and decentralisation. Others include partnerships, resource mobilisation, expansion and up-scaling, transparency and accountability, secure tenure, and networking. The Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project is one of the initiatives started by the government in partnership with the Swedish International Development Agency, World Bank, and French Agency for Development. It focuses on improving living conditions in current informal settlements by investing in basic infrastructure. The Kenyan Government counterpart funding is 10 percent as a means of support for the programme and prevents the emergence of new slums (Muraguri, 2011). KISIP was implemented in 15 municipalities within five years from June 2011 at USD 165 million. Some of the achievements of the initiatives include the 17 blocks of two-bedroom flats in Lang’ata and accommodation for 1,200 households relocated from Kibera Soweto East informal settlement, as presented in Figure 5.1.

Source: Muragura (2011).

Figure 5.1

Lang’ata public housing site

IMPACT OF URBAN SLUMS Urban slums convey exclusion and inequality (de Snyder et al., 2011). Addressing this menace requires urbanisation through social improvements for a better quality of life for urban dwellers. In many countries, urban slums remain a threat to human existence. Using

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  95 Bangladesh as one of the case studies, Ahmed (2016) identified the major impact of urban slums in Talab Camp community. These impacts cut across many informal settlements (urban slums) in developing communities and are grouped into four categories (very high impact and probability, high impact and probability, moderate impact and probability, and low impact and probability), and others as follows: 1. Lack of drainage and insufficient waste disposal were ranked with very high impact and probability of causing water logging and disease outbreaks, respectively. These factors can combine to contribute to an increased high risk of exposure to environmental pathogens that enhance contagious and non-contagious infections in informal urban settlement communities (Ahmed, 2016). 2. Water-logged, inadequate housing, poor health facilities, and lack of access to clean water were ranked with high impact and probability of causing poor drainage, overcrowding, exposure to health hazards, and water-related-borne diseases, respectively. In many of these locations, less than 50 percent of households have access to affordable piped water or public standpipe. The absence of basic amenities such as health centres, schools, and recreational facilities enhances the residents’ malaria, dengue, cholera, diarrheal diseases, and other related infections (Ahmed, 2016). 3. Heavy rain, fire, poor latrines, social problems, and electric hazards were ranked with moderate impact and probability of causing flooding, increased fire outbreaks because of the unplanned building materials (planks, plastic sheets, bamboo, etc.), soil waste disposed of indiscriminately, increased drug abuse and domestic violence, and electrocution because of illegal electrical wiring, respectively. There is evidence of inferior building materials, dirty floors, and substandard construction. Also, because of the inadequate septic tank, sewer, pour-flush, or ventilated latrine, there is dilapidated sanitation in many of these settlements and severe pollution. The health risks continued to increase with associated diseases such as fecal-oral diseases, hookworms, roundworms, malnutrition, children’s stunting, and so on (Ahmed, 2016). 4. Others, including most of the informal settlements, have an issue of tenure insecurity. No formal title deeds exist to land even if the occupant has occupied the place for five or more decades. This has created fear and increased hypertension among the occupants. Also, poverty is synonymous with informal livelihoods. Entrenched poverty is evident in informal urban settlements because many settlers are unemployed. A few employed are either low-income earners or under-employed, thus, affecting their take-home income. The outcomes enhance maternal health complications, occupational hazards, and perinatal diseases (Ahmed, 2016). 5. Also, some informal urban settlements are uninhabitable, such as wetlands, railways, garbage dumps, industrial waste sites, sleep slopes, and so on. These locations are often classified as geological and site hazards because they are prone to landslides, environmental pollutants, acute poisoning, and toxic contamination. Also, the location has no or limited services and infrastructure. For any health, fire, or flooding emergency, access to mitigate the hazard is always difficult because of the unplanned system of the settlement (Ahmed, 2016; Corburn and Sverdlik, 2017). 6. High crime rates are inevitable in urban slums because of the persistence of certain scenarios, such as ethnic heterogeneity, abject poverty, and overcrowded population. Violence, vandalism, and other social vices become the order of the day. The social exclusion of

96  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals the disadvantaged is a major threat to development. Thus, addressing these issues and proffering solutions to promote social inclusion is germane to empowerment’s psychosocial, material, and political aspects. This is one of the components that underpin social well-being and equitable health. The outcome will lead to social cohesion and economic prosperity because diminished life experiences, powerlessness, limited life prospects, economic vulnerability, and ill health would have been addressed (Ahmed, 2016).

CHALLENGES TO URBAN SLUM INITIATIVES This section discusses the various challenges to urban slum initiative efforts. These hindrances vary from country to country and from community to community. The Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region is the world’s most urbanised, with about 80 percent of its population living in cities (Magalhaes, 2016). The LAC population is almost twice that of Africa and Asia and represents 8.5 percent of the world’s total population. It has been projected to decline slightly through 2030 (UN-Habitat, 2012a). The NUA recognised the rising number of slum and informal settlements in developed and developing countries. The agenda identified accessibility and design of urban space, spatial organisation, inadequate infrastructure, and lax development policies have enhanced hindrances faced by informal-settlement dwellers (United Nations, 2017). The challenges include: 1. Complexities of slum settlements: Slum settlements have no formal tenure arrangements, and no land titles because they were not acquired formally, and the government has not kept pace with the demand for new housing. Their overcrowded, haphazard development, absence of planning, low-quality housing, inadequate infrastructure, and cultural and political inclinations are issues that pose a threat in proposing any form of upgrading. 2. Conflicts between the house owner and tenant: There are varied interests and, most times, not sealed (absence of a formal tenancy agreement). Thus, due to the informal nature of the setting, conflicts thrive between these two groups because of their varied interests. There was a high inflow of informal markets, supplying many homes to these settlers. There is evidence of illegal construction and a shortage of basic infrastructure. There are instances where a tenant rents part of the rented apartment to another tenant and collects rent as a sub-landlord. In that instance, the house owner is not dealing with the tenant direct regarding the directive associated with upgrading as directed by the relevant authorities. 3. There are instances where political opponents overturn an attempt to relocate informal settlers for possibly upgrading the settlements to score cheap points leading to crisis. This is because of issues in the relationship between the citizens and the government in the twenty-first century. Absence of governance and exclusion of citizens (poor and marginalised) in decision-making have been identified as possible root causes. The issue of cultural/traditional beliefs is pertinent, especially if the community is not engaged and is alone regarding relocation discussions. The output can slow decision-making and promote suspicion and mistrust amongst the residents and the government agencies. 4. Critical stakeholders that should not be underrated are non-governmental organisations and community-based associations (settlement association executives). After due consultations, the government agencies/representatives, and donor agencies should consider these stakeholders’ interests (Muchadenyika, 2015). This is not always the case. Thus,

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  97 enhancing mistrust even before the relocation may hinder the relocation process and create a drawback to the plan. 5. Inadequate urban land is always an issue, and the price is extremely high where it is available. This is one of the factors creating informal settlements in urban areas. Land ownership is private in many urban slums. Inadequate planning and lax regulatory policies to enforce a restriction on urban slum locations have compounded the issue of upgrading the settlements. Also, the strict land and building regulations have negatively affected housing affordability (Magalhaes et al., 2016). 6. One critical challenge is funding for social protection and poverty reduction, especially in developing countries, compounded by the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine. Inadequate financial planning is a global issue and cuts across the 17 SDGs. The UN (2022a) suggested that stakeholders should go into emergency mode to reform global finances. The need for a recommitment by Member States, especially the low-income and lower-middle-income countries, cannot be over-emphasised to address the financial constraints faced by many countries. Both comprise the poorer half of the world’s population (51 percent). Also, both account for around 10 percent of the fiscal outlays (Sachs et al., 2022). Financing will remain critical, unless a mechanism is developed to increase SDG financing to achieve Goals 1 and 11. In Senhadji et al’s. (2021) study, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a global financial institution identified the scale of financing that the Member States, especially developing countries, need to achieve the SDGs. The low-income and lower-middle-income countries need an average of about US$500 billion per year. This is a challenge and threat to urban slum initiatives because finance is involved.

WAY FORWARD This chapter focuses on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) through regenerating urban slums. Responses to slum challenges range from demolition and resettlement to formalisation of the slum settlements via upgrading initiatives. Many initiatives favour slum upgrading with minimal displacement of residents if the location is hazard-free. The upgrading initiative has increased cooperation, collaboration, and healthy conversations between the government and the slum residents during the planning meetings and contributed to development plans. Due to lax governance arrangements, sustainability issues have arisen to upscale slum upgrading interventions. Any form of regenerating (upgrading or demolishing new structures) in urban slums mitigates poverty. The informal settlers are engaged in the jobs and hoping to live in a better habitable environment free from diseases and other social vices. This chapter highlights the way forward to achieve Goals 1 and 11 and their targets as follows: 1. The COVID-19 experience in the past two years calls for immediate new short-term social protection measures to mitigate the pandemic impact on jobs, incomes, and health. This has become pertinent because the global poverty rate increased from 8.3 percent in 2019 to 9.2 percent in 2020, and households below the international poverty line increased from 6.7 percent in 2019 to 7.2 percent in 2020 (Sachs et al., 2022). One major contributing factor is the COVID-19 pandemic and may be higher by the end of 2022 if no short-term measures are in place to curb the impact. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, 209 coun-

98  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals tries and territories announced 1,700 social protection measures (short-term), but by 2020, only 47 percent of the world’s population were covered, leaving 53 percent unprotected. Thus, more action is expected regarding social protection measures in the next few years to improve the chances of achieving Goals 1 and 11. New forms of partnerships to provide social protection measures should be leveraged and scaled up to promote Goals 1 and 11 by 2030 and beyond. 2. The NUA will assist in mitigating challenges from the ambitious political goals and targets concerning equality, inclusion, empowerment, and indivisibility within the SDGs, including Goals 1 and 11 to achieve sustainable development. Thus, membership organisations of Agenda 2030 and the NUA, including the national government and the UN, need to promote subnational entities via local government because of their essential role. In that sense, collaborative, integrated multi-level governance is inevitable to achieve sustainable development. The NUA incorporates a new recognition of the connection between good urbanisation and development. The outcome will promote livelihood opportunities, employment creation, and improved quality of life. The NUA has the potential to contribute to the transition towards more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient cities. The chapter emphasises that development policies, basic services provision, access and design of urban space, and spatial organisation will enhance sustainable urban development for social cohesion, inclusion, and ending poverty. 3. Stakeholders (the government, the private sector, UN, civil society, and other actors) across the globe need to commit more to implement the Agenda, focusing on mitigating poverty. The consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 compounded the progress and targets of Goals 1 and 11 from 2015 to date, especially in developing countries. Thus, revitalising global collaboration to facilitate intensive participation in implementing Goals 1 and 11 and their targets cannot be over-emphasised. The role of the UN and other partners regarding mobilising available resources is germane to achieving reasonable targets of Goals 1 and 11 on or before 2030. The resources should be tailored toward policies and programmes that can end poverty. Also, programmes should be tailored towards enhancing equal rights to economic resources that can accelerate investment in poverty eradication actions and gender-sensitive development strategies. 4. Goal 1 (No Poverty) and Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) can be achieved within the framework of a revitalised Global Partnership for sustainable development as outlined in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, irrespective of the havoc caused by COVID-19. The document complements and assists in contextualising the 2030 Agenda’s means of implementing targets. One uniqueness in the document is that the monitoring, and capacity-building mechanisms are well-articulated. Realising this outcome needs an integrated financial support framework from each country; the country’s primary responsibility concerning economic and social development strategies cannot be over-stressed. They should provide leadership to implement policies and programmes tailored toward pro-poor, extreme poverty eradication and sustainable development. Also, consistency with key international rules, guidelines, and commitments remain non-negotiable. 5. Humanity must effectively navigate the political, ethical, and technical hindrances of developing and dispersing powerful transformative decisions. This is germane because the accomplishment of the 2030 United Nations SDGs, inclusive of Goal 1 (No Poverty) and Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), can potentially positively influence well-being, health, and quality of life. In the process of upgrading housing in urban slums,

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  99 apart from jobs created to boost the economic status of the poor and marginalised people, there is an increase in the resilience of the urban poor. The latter is achieved via providing basic amenities (storm drains, roads, sanitation, water, electricity, health centre, and school), land titles, and a platform for engaging with government representatives. This is a key component of the SDGs because installing these basic amenities will reduce the vulnerability of the disadvantaged and strengthen community safety and resilience. 6. The recent COVID-19 crisis may threaten many middle-low-income earners in middle-income countries. If no drastic policy action is taken, achieving Goals 1 and 11 of the SDGs may become a mirage. To ensure that achievements made to date in middle-income countries are sustained with the COVID-19 threats, policies, and programmes to cushion the possible significant challenges should be strengthened. This can be achieved through integrated collaboration between the government and the UN development system with the support of international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, multilateral development banks (MDBs), IMF, regional organisations, such as the African Development Bank, and other relevant stakeholders. This challenge is germane and deserves action. Many of these countries already have debts that are not sustainable. The government responsibility is to create an enabling environment and leadership. This is missing in many developing countries. The international financial institutions can assist in long-term debt sustainability, debt aid, sound debt management, and debt restructuring through coordinated policies. It is pertinent that the developed countries’ creditors and the developing countries’ debtors work together to achieve Goals 1 and 11. Reworking unsustainable debt scenarios in sincerity is germane to achieving Goals 1 and 11. The borrowing countries are responsible for ensuring they maintain sustainable debt levels to attract support regarding debt relief and achieve sustainable debt levels. This is key to Goals 1 and 11 because the more unsustainable debt, the greater the extreme poverty levels will become, especially in developing countries. Apart from establishing reliable and trusted public administration systems, the borrowing country needs to increase taxes to service the increased interest payments. This is missing in many developing countries struggling with debt and accumulated interest over the years. 7. It is pertinent for countries to develop a follow-up and review framework. It should be a robust system framework that can review the implementation of Goals 1 and 11 and their targets over the next seven years. The framework will track the progress of Goals 1 and 11 and their targets and ensure no target is left behind. The proposed framework should be country-led and integrated to promote accountability to its citizens. This will foster regional and international levels of collaboration and cooperation in achieving Goals 1 and 11 and their targets, and the UN system and multilateral institutions will receive active assistance. The framework will highlight major responsibility that is inclusive, participatory, and transparent for stakeholders to support. Apart from the proposed framework being gender-sensitive and people-centred, the framework’s focus will be on the poorest, disadvantaged, and most vulnerable. Regular and inclusive progress reviews should be encouraged at the national, regional, and international levels. Contribution from participatory people, the private sector, civil society, and other stakeholders in line with the framework guidelines and national policies should be encouraged. Thus, experiences of cooperation and networking between grassroots associations, slum-based associations, local and international non-governmental organisations, and government agencies/representatives are pertinent mechanisms. They can stimulate urbanisation for the urban poor

100  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals and make them resourceful via social inclusion and economic empowerment. This process enhances the urban poor’s inclusivity, municipal governance, and resilience. 8. Setting a proposed regeneration action plan for the identified urban slums and integrating a vision to resolve urban issues cannot be over-emphasised. This approach will bring about long-term improvement in the area’s social, physical, and economic scenario that has been abandoned or uninhabited. This reflects socio-political and economic approaches because policies and programmes regarding regeneration have evolved over the years. Urban regenerating slums should be all-inclusive. Policies and interventions should be implemented to improve neighbourhood conditions, such as building new schools. This is because the population that had never been to basic educational institutions or dropped out of school without completing basic/foundational education is higher in urban slums (Murgante et al., 2008). Also, “opening up” and embracing the urban poor via pro-poor institutionalisation policies to support slum upgrading sustainability and inclusivity will mitigate political contestations.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This chapter has provided a platform to address how SDGs Goal 1 (No Poverty) and Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) can be kept on track through regenerating urban slums. Goals 1 and 11 are among the 17 SDGs documented in the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. The chapter agrees that eradicating poverty in all its ramifications cannot be negotiated. This is one of the global challenges and is more pronounced in developing countries, especially in urban slums. Extreme poverty and urban slums are recognised as threats to sustainable development if not curtailed. Achieving Goals 1 and 11 with the set targets is a commitment and can transform the world for the better. Thus, the study concluded that stakeholders should capitalise on the prospect afforded by the urban slum regeneration to adopt resilient and all-inclusive development pathways that will mitigate urban slums, upgrade urban slums, create better employment opportunities, and advocate for a better inclusive and global economy that works for all. The chapter discussed the impact of urban slums in the face of increasing climate change and its threats to Goals 1 and 11 and their targets. The chapter concluded that urban slum regeneration needs to be all-inclusive and suggested this is the way forward to sustain and achieve the goal. The chapter insists that the government should lead by formulating policies and programmes that would put modern society to mitigate climate disruptions, bridge income inequality, and proffer measures that will activate transformations for the benefit of humanity. The chapter concludes that if Goals 1 and 11 are well monitored and implemented through regenerating urban slums, extreme poverty and hunger will be eliminated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND FUNDING Special thanks to the anonymous reviewers, who helped hone and strengthen the quality of this manuscript during the blind peer-review process. Authors thank the following institutions for their support. They include Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi, Nigeria, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment and CIDB Centre of Excellence (05-35-061890), University

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  101 of Johannesburg, South Africa and School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia.

REFERENCES Ahmed, I. (2016). Building resilience of urban slums in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 218, 202–213. Akotia, J. and Opoku, A. (2018). Sustainable regeneration project delivery in UK: A qualitative analysis of practitioners’ engagement. Journal of Facilities Management, 16(1), 87–100. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1108/​jfm​-05​-2017​-0024 Andreucci, M.B. and Marvuglia, A. (2021). Investigating, implementing and funding regenerative urban design in a post-COVID-19 pandemic-built environment: A reading through selected UN sustainable development goals and the European green deal. In Rethinking Sustainability Towards a Regenerative Economy (pp. 395–413). Springer, Cham. Berchin, I.I. and de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O. (2020). GAIA 3.0: Effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on sustainable development and future perspectives. Research in Globalisation, 100014. Corburn, J. and Sverdlik, A. (2017). Slum upgrading and health equity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(4), 342. de Snyder, V.N.S., Friel, S., Fotso, J.C. Khadr, Z., Meresman, S., Monge, P. and Patil-Deshmukh, A. (2011). Social conditions and urban health inequities: Realities, challenges and opportunities to transform the urban landscape through research and action. J Urban Health, 88, 1183–1193. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s11524​-011​-9609​-y Donnison, D. (1993). Agenda for the future, In C. McConnell (ed.), Trickle Down or Bubble Up? London: Community Development Foundation. Ebekozien, A. (2021). Homeownership in a Sub-Saharan Africa city: Exploring self-help via qualitative insight to achieve sustainable housing. In T.G. Nubi, I. Anderson, T. Lawanson and B. Oyalowo (Eds) Housing and SDGs in Urban Africa. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. Singapore: Springers. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-981​-33​-4424​-2​_12 Ebekozien, A. and Aigbavboa, C. (2021). COVID-19 recovery for the Nigerian construction sites: The role of the fourth industrial revolution technologies. Sustainable Cities and Society. doi.10.1016/j. scs.2021.102803. Ebekozien, A., Abdul-Aziz, A-R. and Jaafar, M. (2021). Low-cost housing policies and squatters in Nigeria: The Nigerian perspective on possible solutions, International Journal of Construction Management, 21(11), 1088–1098. doi.10.1080/15623599.2019.1602586. Ebekozien, A., Aigbavboa, C., Samsurijan, M. S., Adjekophori, B., & Nwaole, A. (2023). Leakages in affordable housing delivery: Threat to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 11. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Doi. 10.1108/ECAM-08-2022-0758. Gambo, N., Inuwa, I.I., Usman, N., Said, I. and Shuaibu, S.U. (2019). Factors affecting budget implementation for successful delivery of primary health care building facilities within Nigerian health sector. International Journal of Construction Management, doi:10.1080/15623599.2018.1560548 Givens, J.E. (2015). Urbanisation, slums, and the carbon intensity of well-being: Implications for sustainable development. Human Ecology Review, 22(1), 107–128. Hausner, V.A. (1993). The future of urban development. Royal Society of Arts Journal, 141(5441), 523–533. Hofmann, P., Taubenbock, H. and Werthmann, C. (2015). Monitoring and modelling of informal settlements: A review on recent developments and challenges. Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event, 5, 1–4. doi.10.1109/JURSE.2015.7120513 Jones, P. (2017). Formalising the informal: Understanding the position of informal settlements and slums in sustainable urbanization policies and strategies in Bandung, Indonesia. Sustainability, 9(8), 1436. Leary, E.M. and McCarthy, J. (2013). Introduction: Urban regeneration, a global phenomenon. In The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration. London: Routledge.

102  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Lichfield, D. (1992). Urban Regeneration for the 1990s. London: London Planning Advisory Committee. Magalhaes, F. (2016). Critical policy choices in slum upgrading. In Slum upgrading and housing in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank, 119, 1–11. Magalhaes, F., Acosta Restrepo, P., Lonardoni, F. and Moris, R. (2016). Slum upgrading and housing in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank, 119. Muchadenyika, D. (2015). Slum upgrading and inclusive municipal governance in Harare, Zimbabwe: New perspectives for the urban poor. Habitat International, 48, 1–10. Muraguri, L. (2011). Kenyan government initiatives in slum upgrading. Les Cahiers d’Afrique de l’Est/ The East African Review, 44, 119–127. Murgante, B., Casas, G.L. and Danese, M. (2008). Where are the slums? New approaches to urban regeneration. In Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction (pp. 176–186). Springer, Boston, MA. Ojoko, O.E. and Ojoko, O. (2017). Role of information and communications technologies in sustainable housing development in Nigeria. An International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology, 6(1), 2254–2259. Opoku, A. and Akotia, J. (2020). Urban regeneration for sustainable development. Construction Economics and Building, 20(2), 1–5. Panday, P.K. (2020). Formation of slums and slums upgrading initiatives in Bangladesh. In The Face of Urbanisation and Urban Poverty in Bangladesh. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​978​-981​-15​-3332​-7​_4 Report of the Inter-Agency and Export Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. (2016). Final list of proposed sustainable development goal indicators. Annex IV. Roberts, P. (2000). The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. In P. Roberts and H. Skyes (Eds) Urban Regeneration, A Handbook (pp. 9–36). London: Sage Publications. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.4135/​9781446219980​.n2 Roberts, P. (2017). The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. In Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, (2nd ed.) (pp. 9–36). London: Sage Publications. Ross, A. and Chang, M. (2013). Planning Healthier Places. London: Town and Country Planning Association. Sachs, D.J., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G. and Woelm, F. (2022). Sustainable Development Report. From crisis to sustainable development: the SDGs as roadmap to 2030 and beyond includes the SDG index and dashboards. Satterthwaite, D. (2016). A new urban agenda? Environment and Urbanisation, 28(1), 3–12. Senhadji, A., Tieman, A., Gemayel, E. and Benedek, D. (2021). A post-pandemic assessment of the sustainable development goals. Staff Discussion Notes, 003(1). https://​doi​.org/​10​.5089/​9781498314909​ .006 Stohr, W. (1989). Regional policy at the crossroads: An overview. In L. Albrechts, F. Moulaert, P. Roberts and E. Swyngedlouw (Eds), Regional Policy at the Crossroads: European Perspectives. London: Jessica Kingsley. Tallon, A. (2010). Urban Regeneration in the UK. London: Routledge. Teferi, Z.A. and Newman, P. (2014). Older slums in Addis-Ababa: How do they work? Paper presented at the Responsive Urbanism in Informal Areas Conference, Cairo. Teferi, Z.A. and Newman, P. (2017). Slum regeneration and sustainability: Applying the extended metabolism model and the SDGs. Sustainability, 9(12), 2273–2288. Teferi, Z.A. and Newman, P. (2018). Slum upgrading: Can the 1.5°C carbon reduction work with SDGs in these settlements? Urban Planning, 3(2), 52–63. https://​doi​.org/​10​.17645/​up​.v3i2​.1239 Umar, T. (2020). Making future floating cities sustainable: A way forward. Urban Design and Planning, 173(6), 214–237. UN-Habitat. (2003). The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements 2003. London: Earth Scan. UN-Habitat. (2006). Enabling shelter strategies: Review of experiences from two decades of implementation. Nairobi : UN-Habitat Programme. UN-Habitat. (2011). Affordable land and housing in Asia. Nairobi, Kenya : UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2012a). Global Urban Indicators Database. Nairobi, Kenya : UN-Habitat.

Regenerating urban slums for the SDGs in developing countries  103 UNDESA. (2014). World urbanisation prospects. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Retrieved from http://​esa​.un​.org/​unpd/​wup/​Highlights/​WUP2014​-Highlights​.pdf UNFPA. (2011). State of world population 2011. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), New York. United Nations. (1987). Informe Brundtland, “Nuestro Futuro en Comun.” Available online: www​.un​ .org/​es/​comun/​docs/​?sym​-bol​=​A/​42/​427 United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations. (2016). The sustainable development goals report 2016. New York, NY: United Nations. United Nations. (2017). New Urban Agenda. United Nations. (2018). Sustainable cities and human settlements, United Nations Sustainable development knowledge platform. [online] Available at: https://​su​stainabled​evelopment​.un​.org/​topics/​ sustainablecities United Nations. (2018a). United Nations: Department of Economics and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from https://​www​.un​.org/​development/​desa/​en/​news/​population/​2018​ -revision​-of​-world​-urbanisation​-prospects​.html United Nations. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. New York: United Nations. https://​unstats​.un​.org/​sdgs/​report/​2020/​The​-Sustainable​-Development​-Goals​-Report​-2020​.pdf. United Nations. (2022a). Secretary General outlines priorities for 2022. Retrieved from https://​www​.un​ .org/​press/​en/​2022/​sgsm21113​.doc​.htm United Nations. (2022b). Economic and Social Council. United Nations. Retrieved from https://​su​ stainabled​evelopment​.un​.org/​content/​documents/​29858SG​_SDG​_Progress​_Report​_2022​.pdf United Nations News Centre. (2018). Sustainable development goals - Poverty eradication, inclusive growth focus of UN social development commission’s 2018 session. Retrieved from https://​www​ .un​.org/​sus​tainablede​velopment/​blog/​2018/​01/​poverty​-eradication​-inclusive​-growth​-focus​-un​-social​ -development​-commissions​-2018​-session/​ Valencia, S.C., Simon, D., Croese, S., Nordqvist, J., Oloko, M., Sharma, T., Buck, T.N. and Versace, I. (2019). Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level: Initial reflections from a comparative research project. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 11(1), 4–23. Wohl, S.A. (2017). The External Slum: Housing and Social Policy in Victorian London. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. World Bank. (2012). World Bank Indicators – Bangladesh – Density & Urbanisation. Retrieved from http://​www​.tradingeconomics​.com/​bangladesh/​population​-in​-largest​-city​-wb​-data​.html World Bank. (2017). Informal settlements 2017 map for Dhaka (Bangladesh). World Bank Group. Retrieved from https://​wbwaterdata​.org/​dataset/​dhaka​-bangladesh​-informal​-settlements​-esa​-eo4sd​ -urban/​resource/​3f0ee3a6​-09bb​-49f8​-9797​-3bfc35bffb75 World Bank Press Release. (2017). World Bank approves new financing to support affordable housing in Indonesia. World Bank Press Release. Retrieved from https://​itpcchennai​.com/​world​-bank​-approves​ -new​-financing​-to​-support​-affordable​-housing​-in​-indonesia/​ World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6. Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals Alex Opoku, Judith Amudjie, Moohammed Wasim Yahia and Victoria Maame Afriyie Kumah

INTRODUCTION In times past, urbanisation has greatly influenced activities on earth. Due to the advancing economy, more and more people find themselves in urban areas. Predictions of economists show that by 2050, the population within urban regions will increase to about 68 percent (Russo and Cirella, 2019; Zhongming et al., 2022; Zimmerer et al., 2021). This rapid population growth in urban areas is envisaged to drive major changes in climate, biodiversity, human diets and land use that in turn, harm green urban spaces. Other negative projections include urban waste, pollution, and stress on city services (Li et al., 2016; Russo and Cirella, 2019; Zimmerer et al., 2021). Green urban space is an essential component of a city that is closely related to the health and well-being of city dwellers (Li et al., 2016; Stoltz and Shaffer, 2018). In attempts to address these issues, the development of ‘Green Cities’ was encouraged, since ‘Green Cities’ posed green solutions through sustainable practices such as mixed land use through planning systems that strive to achieve ecological, economic, and social needs (Brilhante and Klaas, 2018; Li et al., 2016). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019) also stated that unplanned urbanisation intrudes on green public spaces, reducing their capacity to improve air quality, mitigate urban temperatures and encourage physical activities. Hence, combining it with poor diets will only lead to a serious epidemic of non-communicable diseases, which is the cause of a high rate of mortality in low- and middle-income countries (FAO, 2019; Stoltz and Shaffer, 2018). Brilhante and Klaas (2018) again revealed that ‘Green Cities’ aim at creating clean environments for both current and future generations, and also promote the creation of food sufficiency. According to FAO (2019), food systems and green environments ought to be planned and properly managed collaboratively to address issues of pollution, encourage the consumption of more nutritious and safe food, and to also promote active and good health. Food self-sufficiency, however, is the meeting of consumption needs from a population’s production rather than buying or importing (Baer-Nawrocka and Sadowski, 2019; Clapp, 2017; Enriquez, 2020; Pradhan et al., 2014). Rather than food being input and waste output, an ‘Edible Infrastructure’ or ‘edible city’ evoked an enclosed cycle of energy, nutrients, and waste cycles which could also help the realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Chatterjee et al., 2020; Edible Infrastructure, 2021; Herrero et al., 2021; Russo and Cirella, 2019). The SDGs are a blueprint of 17 goals adopted by all United Nations (UN) Member States in 2015 to create a better planet for us now and in the future (UN, 2015). The 17 SDGs are all interdependent, hence, one goal could not be achieved without the other; for instance, accomplishing an end to poverty is not achievable without implementing strategies to improve health, education, and economic growth. In conjunction with the ongoing battle 104

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals  105 with climate change and preserving our natural world, the initiatives of the SDGs are being developed (UN, 2015).

URBAN GREEN SPACES FOR URBAN FARMS Green areas are essential for enhancing the standard of living in cities. They offer ecosystem benefits such as regulating the climate, purifying the air, and preventing floods. In addition, they encourage social interaction among residents, foster community integration, and provide a pleasant environment for health, leisure, and nature appreciation (De La Barrera et al., 2016). Publicly accessible green areas in urban settings are considered communal assets that offer pockets of natural environments for everyone. They are usually managed and cared for by government agencies and provide leisure and recreational opportunities for residents (Contesse et al., 2018). On the side of the urban green spaces is urban agriculture. Urban agriculture refers to the cultivation, processing, and distribution of various food and non-food products within a city, town, or metropolis. It mainly utilises the available human and material resources, products, and services found in the surrounding urban areas. Additionally, urban agriculture provides resources, products, and services to the same urban areas where it operates (Eigenbrod and Gruda, 2015). Urban food security is influenced by several factors such as the availability, accessibility, and quality of food. Urban agriculture has the potential to enhance all of these factors and improve overall food security within the urban environment (Eigenbrod and Gruda, 2015). Food sufficiency is vital to national growth (Enriquez, 2020). However, with urban areas densely inhabited, it is essential to implement such measures in cities. Food sufficiency has become increasingly sought after by countries after the 2007/08 food crisis. Rice and wheat doubled in price after being triggered by market volatility, creating the global financial crisis. This has led to many countries seeking to protect themselves from uncertainty in the world food markets (Clapp, 2017). Recent climatic changes and patterns have highlighted the essence of food sufficiency in enormous ways. Through the importation of food, greenhouse gases (GHG) are generated through transportation – a contributor to climate change. The United Kingdom (UK) imports most of its fruits and vegetables, even from drought-prone countries to meet its national deficit in food sufficiency (Walsh et al., 2022). Climate change from natural causes and human activities trigger a global food crisis by increasing global temperatures, extreme weather events such as droughts, and rising sea-levels, threatening the quality and quantity of food supplies (Hussain et al., 2020; Van Aalst Mk, 2006). Given this information, it is crucial to introduce food self-sufficiency programs in order to address the effects of climate change and decrease the amount of GHG emissions produced. Ecovillages are one of the attempts to shift food production toward sustainable food systems. Such green communities can be considered a model where sustainability, in relation to food production, is a crucial component (Ulug et al., 2021). Ecovillages are collaborative communities that strive to integrate sustainable practices into daily living, emphasising sustainable environmental and community development (Gillman, 1991). Such communities are linked to the place and the persons in this place as an intentional society, which makes them crucial for sustainable food system development. Brombin (2015) demonstrates food to be valuable within ecovillage communities to ‘create new forms of sustainability’. Ecovillages could provide insight into how to cultivate innovative sustainable food practices within communities

106  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals and at a broader and vast scale (Ulug et al., 2021). The sustainable food system in the ecovillage prioritises environmental, social, and economic health by connecting people who produce and people who consume, reducing unfavourable external inputs, and promoting affordability and accessibility throughout the food chain (Blay-Palmer and Koc, 2010; Feenstra, 2002). Countries that are capable of producing sufficient food to cover their own population’s needs are referred to as being food self-sufficient (Baer-Nawrocka and Sadowski, 2019; Clapp, 2017; Enriquez, 2020). The various forms of food self-sufficiency measurements can be measured by the dietary energy production per capita of a country. In this instance, countries that produce 2,500 kcal or more per person per day are commonly considered self-sufficient (Clapp, 2017; Enriquez, 2020). Food self-sufficiency in Britain dropped due to the current COVID-19 crisis and the country has to heavily import food to sustain its economy. This has alerted the UK to focus on not letting its self-sufficiency slip further (Walsh et al., 2022). In addition to this, in 2050, a further 60 percent to 70 percent of global food production will be required to feed the more urban and larger population (Lakhiar et al., 2018). The development of multipurpose strategies for green urban spaces and infrastructures, otherwise known as ‘green densification’, is a concept that is aimed to optimise the design and planning of features to address various current challenges (Stoltz and Shaffer, 2018); addressing food sufficiency and the realisation of the SDGs as a result. In recent years, high-tech solutions, such as hydroponics, a method of ‘vertical farming’, to grow crops in unconventional places have been developed (Farhangi et al., 2020; Thomaier et al., 2015). These methods are soil-free indoor agricultural processes that can be implemented in various locations, whether in abandoned pre-existing buildings or applied to new building designs (Al-Kodmany, 2018; Kalantari et al., 2017). According to recent studies, the growth of vertical farming will be exponential, between 2021 and 2026 it is expected that the vertical farming market will register a 41.0 percent Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in terms of revenue and the global market size will reach US$ 23,350 million by 2026 (Naskoori et al., 2021). These concepts have potential drawbacks, high initial capital investments and running costs due to specialised labour and high ventilation and lighting bills. Others struggle to price competitively, meaning they rely on consumers compromising by paying higher prices than regular fruit and vegetables, as discussed by Naskoori et al. (2021). Regardless of the technology, the availability of unused/abandoned buildings to facilitate these urban farms is limited, and developers of new buildings will potentially not want to incorporate vertical farms into their designs. However, this study explains the necessity to educate industry professionals and the general public on the benefits of vertical farms for society today and in the future. Green Design in Achieving Food Self-Sufficiency There have been various approaches suggested and practiced towards achieving food self-sufficiency. These approaches include backyard gardens, community gardens, allotment gardens, rooftop gardens, vertical farms with artificial lighting, and alternative farms (Ayambire et al., 2019; Orsini et al., 2020; Zhongming et al., 2022). Eigenbrod and Gruda (2015) categorised various approaches to urban agriculture. One approach is backyard gardening, which involves creating small-scale gardens in private homes, typically in the backyard, and is used to produce fresh produce for household consumption and grow herbs and spices. Another approach is community gardening, which involves shared spaces where community members come together to cultivate crops in public spaces, such as parks. This approach

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals  107 promotes social interaction, community building, and education. Allotment gardens, on the other hand, are small plots of land leased to individuals or groups for gardening, usually in urban areas where access to gardening space is limited. Moreover, rooftop gardens, located on the roofs of buildings, can reduce the urban heat island effect by providing insulation and also help grow a variety of crops. High-tech indoor farming systems, such as vertical farms with artificial lighting, use artificial lighting to grow crops in a controlled environment, producing large quantities of food in a small space and can be located in urban areas, providing fresh produce to local communities. Finally, alternative farms use alternative agricultural methods such as aquaponics, hydroponics, and permaculture to grow crops in small spaces and reduce the use of pesticides and fertilisers. These urban green spaces offer various benefits, including access to fresh produce, community building, and environmental sustainability. However, high tech methods of farming or vertical farming have been revealed to be green in their design as it encourages sustainable farming practices, as well as aid in achieving food self-sufficiency in urban areas. High tech farming methods to grow crops indoors are possible in both existing and modern buildings in cities (Farhangi et al., 2020; Mir et al., 2022). Non-profit organisations with the aim to promote environmentalism and local economic prosperity, and governments in Japan, Korea, China, France, the United States (US) and Germany to increase food security, have all backed the concept of vertical farming (Al-Kodmany, 2018; Mir et al., 2022). Furthermore, Mir et al. (2022) stated that profit-inclined businesses have also bought into the idea of vertical farming to help meet the locally produced food requirements as well. Although vertical farming may seem fairly new, it is not a novel concept. The hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the ancient wonders constructed in 600 BC was based on a similar concept (Shahda and Megahed, 2022). In addition, the idea of vertical farming looks at addressing food security in the ever-increasing urban population by producing more food on less land (Al-Kodmany, 2018; Chatterjee et al., 2020). The proponents of vertical farming claim that vertical farming enables food production in an efficient and sustainable manner and restores ecosystems in attaining food self-sufficiency (Al-Kodmany, 2018). Vertical agriculture is the practice of growing plants under controlled conditions, stacked in layers, often reaching several storeys (Chatterjee et al., 2020; Moghimi, 2021). Different systems can be used in vertical farms, including hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics (however, aquaponics is not accessible in urban areas and is rarely used commercially due to its small scale in comparison to hydroponics and aeroponics) (Chatterjee et al., 2020; Kalantari et al., 2017). In order to compensate for the lack of adequate food for urban areas in the US, AeroFarms has played a prominent role in producing food through indoor vertical farming since the start of its operation and continually produces about 900,000 kilograms of fruits and vegetables annually (Birkby, 2016; Pandey, 2017). Through artificial intelligence with controlled lights, nutrients and temperature, about 550 varieties of fruits and vegetables are produced on the farm, achieving about 390 times the yield per unit compared to traditional or horizontal farming, and 95 percent less water and no pesticides (Chatterjee et al., 2020; Zhongming et al., 2022). Urban farms were also encouraged to support food security during times of distress like World War II and the COVID-19 pandemic (Edmondson et al., 2020; Mui et al., 2022). Table 6.1 below reveals the high-tech farming systems that facilitate vertical farming. According to Al-Kodmany (2018), advanced farming methods employ soilless approaches and use different materials to grow crops in nutrient-rich water. For example, with hydroponics,

108  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 6.1 Farming Systems

The high-tech farming systems Benefits – Reduces or eliminates soil cultivation

Hydroponics

– Encourages quick plant growth – Reduces the use of fertilizers or pesticides

Aeroponics

Features Soilless-based system; medium of growing plants is by water.

– Requires less water

Involves directly spraying the roots of plants

– Removes all cultivation connected to the soil

with mist or nutrient solution.

– Utilises the nutrient-rich fish tank water to Aquaponics

hydrate the hydroponics production beds – Establishes a symbiotic interaction between

Blends aquaculture/fish farming with hydroponics.

plants and fish

Source:  Al-Kodmany (2018), Kalantari et al. (2017) and Zhang et al. (2018).

the components required are – freshwater, oxygen, root support, nutrients and light. This meant that food could be grown anywhere, creating hyper-local food systems. Well-managed hydroponic systems could produce higher yields and mature up to 25 percent quicker than the same plants grown in soil (Al-Kodmany, 2018; Kalantari et al., 2017). Furthermore, aside from using less water in comparison to the traditional soil systems, the water is also recyclable, hence, less waste. Hydroponics systems are therefore reliable, due to the replicating success without any unpredicted variables, as the system can be controlled (Chatterjee et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2018). Aeroponics is a method developed by The National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) to efficiently grow plants in an air/mist environment with no soil and very little water. It is the most efficient plant-growing system in regard to vertical farms (Al-Kodmany, 2018; Chatterjee et al., 2020). Farhangi et al. (2020) stated that the aeroponic system used 90 percent less water than the most efficient hydroponics system. Table 6.2

The differences between hydroponics and aeroponics systems

 

Aeroponic

Hydroponic

What can be grown?

– Leafy greens, vine plants and herbs.

Can grow the same + vegetables, fruits,

Yields

– Higher yield of plants, maximum nutrient

bamboo, house plants and many more. absorption.

More nutritional control, however, poor root aeration.

Transplanting

– Easy plant transplantation.

Practically impossible to transplant.

Plant health

– Lower chances of contamination and bacteria

Higher disease spread due to all plants sharing

growth. Water Consumption

– Up to 25 percent less water consumption than

the same nutrient-dense-water. Water recycling is, therefore, more efficient.

hydroponic. Costs

– Higher initial costs and maintenance costs, but a faster return on investment.

Maintenance/Risk

Complexity

Lower initial and maintenance costs than the equivalent aeroponic system.

– With significantly higher maintenance, a mere With relatively lower maintenance, plants in power cut could kill all the plants in a few

a hydroponic system would survive longer in

hours.

a circumstance like a power cut.

– Three different setups – varying in complex-

Great for beginners through to experts.

ity, cost, expertise and plant yield. Generally difficult for beginners to understand. Space

– Requires relatively less space.

Source:  Wickison (2016) and Bradly (2018).

Requires more space than aeroponics.

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals  109 The difference between hydroponics and aeroponics lies with the method of soilless cultivation they use. Hydroponics replaces soil with a different medium; this can be from coconut husks to pebbles, almost any material that can soak up and move the nutrient-rich solution will work (Al-Kodmany, 2018; Chatterjee et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2018). On the other hand, aeroponics has no medium; instead, the nutrients are directly sprayed on the roots. Generally, aeroponics has the edge over hydroponics due to yield and plant growth; however, hydroponics gains a competitive edge when the initial investment is a concern or when a reliable power supply is not available (Al-Kodmany, 2018). Table 6.2 reveals the differences between hydroponics and aeroponics systems. From Table 6.2, it was revealed that most vertical farms were complex and expensive, due to the cost of equipment, and the use of artificial lighting and heating which inevitably caused most start-up vertical farms to fail. This financial issue is eradicated by the high surge of corporate investment from investors (Moghimi, 2021; Zhang et al., 2018). Acquiring Abandoned Buildings for Vertical Farming Purposes One major challenge facing large-scale urban food production is land availability and access. There could be a large area of land resources accessible for agriculture purposes, however, for the densely built-up areas in the city, low to no credible or adequate space for confined growing can be accessed (Chatterjee et al., 2020). In addition to the increase in the urban population and demand for more food and land to grow more food, entrepreneurs, researchers and farmers have discovered some solutions to this outstanding problem. One of which is adopting abandoned warehouses in the cities, new buildings built on environmentally damaged lands, and shipping containers from ocean transports for farming. The solution is referred to as vertical farming (Benis et al., 2017; Chatterjee et al., 2020). The vertical farming, an alternative to the traditional or horizontal farming is a sustainable agriculture that serves as a source of food supply within the urban regions, and also a means to preserve the green urban space (Khalil and Wahhab, 2020). Furthermore, in vertical farming, growing plants are arranged in layers that may reach several storeys within a controlled environment (Chatterjee et al., 2020). This approach to farming takes advantage of these green urban spaces (i.e., abandoned spaces such as abandoned warehouses, shipping containers or buildings) dedicated entirely to vertical farms and cultivates in or outside those spaces. Cultivating for food in the green urban spaces or abandoned buildings or spaces adopts innovative technologies like hydroponics, aquaponics and aeroponics. This also indicates the extent to which the urban region still connects to the natural environment (Birky, 2016; Khalil and Wahhab, 2020). Vertical farming in abandoned buildings is being adopted for not just small-scale farming but also large-scale or commercial farming in the US (Chatterjee et al., 2020). Mir et al. (2022) also reported that urban farms or vertical farming in these abandoned structures are gradually springing forth in various cities. This approach to farming is a green design initiative that gradually contributes towards achieving food self-sufficiency in urban areas. Implementing Vertical Farming in Existing Buildings Aside from practicing vertical farming in abandoned buildings, Benis et al. (2017) and Mir et al. (2022) also stated that vertical farming could be done in old and new existing buildings (see Figure 6.1 below). In existing buildings (i.e., green balconies, internal and external walls,

110  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals etc.), vertical farming can be done to increase food production centres towards achieving food self-sufficiency in urban regions (Khalil and Wahhab, 2020). Chatterjee et al. (2020) also corroborated that vertical farms are implementable in old and new building structures. In addition, Mir et al. (2022) stated that commercial and residential structures as well as restaurants and supermarkets can all be used for the purpose of vertical farming. Figure 6.1 below is a representation of vertical farms implemented in existing buildings in some urban areas such as Brooklyn and Chicago.

Source: Benis et al. (2017).

Figure 6.1

Existing industrial building-integrated agriculture facilities. [a. and b. rooftop greenhouses in Brooklyn, NY.] and, [c. and d. vertical farming in Chicago, IL.]

According to Kleszcz et al. (2020), the historic coverage of vertical farming in Poland was quite short. In fact, it only began as greenhouse vertical agriculture. Nonetheless, in recent times (i.e., 2019–2021), the concept of vertical farming has entered the economy once again with the idea of modernising it to make it more environmentally friendly, economically profitable and compatible with modern technology and knowledge (Kleszcz et al., 2020). Planting and raising animals, however, in multi-story buildings, skyscrapers or other inclined surfaces are being considered in Poland. This also reveals the extent to which vertical farming is being implemented once again in existing old and new buildings in green urban cities and also to boost food self-sufficiency in urban regions (Kleszcz et al., 2020). Furthermore, the essence of revitalising the old structure in Poland is due to the same old problem faced globally – a very high urbanisation index (Kleszcz et al., 2020). After the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, skyscrapers are considered as one of the most significant monuments for technological progress in the built environment and urban planning (Eichner and Ivanova, 2018; Shahda and Megahed, 2022). Since vertical farming can be incorporated into tall buildings, according to Shahda and Megahed (2022), food production in skyscrapers and tall buildings is a feasible approach to maximise the limited green urban

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals  111 space in cities, as well as a solution to the environmental problems and food insecurity issues in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Waldron (2018) further discussed the possibility and feasibility of adopting vertical farms in existing buildings by presenting a methodology on how it can be done. Furthermore, Tablada et al. (2020) also stated that adapting the existing buildings for vertical farms would not only solve accommodation and shelter crises but also transform the building and communities into a food-production built environment. In addition, Shahda and Megahed (2022) discussed that adapting the existing building for vertical farming was a sustainable approach for producing foods as there would be a greater yield of food with limited use of resources (i.e., water and land resources) as compared to the traditional form of farming. Also, due to the processes involved in vertical farming, no harmful fertilisers and pesticides are used, making the use of existing buildings for the farms a better option for production (Despommier, 2009; Shahda and Megahed, 2022; Tablada et al., 2020). This approach to farming is another green design initiative that gradually contributes towards achieving food self-sufficiency in urban areas. Implementing Vertical Farming in the Design of New Buildings Vertical Harvest is a company that provides hydroponic farms across the US. A new development in Westbrook, Maine, combines 50 affordable housing units with 70,000 square feet of vertical farms, projected to open in 2022. This farm will produce 1 million lbs of produce a year, providing healthy, nutritious food for the residents and creating 50 jobs for community members (Peter, 2021). Implementing urban farming facilities generally came hand in hand with high costs and were relatively small scale. There were considerable initial capital investments, and running costs involved that could be due to specialised labour and often expensive lighting and ventilation bills whilst attempting to offer consumers competitive prices. ‘Vertical farming will only ever be part of the mix among various growing systems’ (Birkby, 2016). However, an energy source that does not contribute to CO2 emissions that can be used for lighting and air conditioning for these farms is being explored (Khalil and Wahhab, 2020). The urban environment has efficient constraints concerning what one can do and where. However, through the methods discussed in the early paragraphs of this section, there is no reason urban farms could not reduce imported consumption by a considerable amount. According to Henley (2020), urban farms could target between 5 percent and 10 percent of consumption in Paris. Furthermore, arguments are still being made on the idea of vertical farms where ‘cities could grow up to 80 percent of their food in block-sized buildings on urban peripheries’ (Steel, 2020). Reduction in Imported Food Through Urban Farms As the growth of both the urban surface and population keeps escalating, the infrastructural needs for transporting and distributing food also continue to spread (Benis et al., 2017). These have caused food production to be moved further away from the urban consumer and generated globalised food systems that contribute about 30 percent of the global GHG emissions (Benis et al., 2017). The American Planning Association (APA) in 2007 declared the need for the integration of food systems planning into the urban planning policies to address the issue of urban food production (APA, 2007; Benis et al., 2017).

112  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals All countries across the globe produce food domestically and are also involved in importing and exporting foods. However, the sum of imports and exports varies differently from country to country and also depends on how they are performing on the various interconnected SDGs (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2018; Liu, 2018). According to Liu (2018), countries that perform both well and poorly on achieving SDG 2 are actively involved in importing and exporting foods. Thus, for food security, it is not just about either producing enough food domestically or importing, but critically assessing the different costs associated with the flow of energy and materials while creating food sufficiency. Again, Liu (2018) stated that it is a common practice for nations to import materials and capita to produce food domestically. According to Al-Kodmany (2018), importing materials and products, and climate change are interrelated. The concept of food miles – effectively being the distance the food travels before consumption – is becoming a more significant concern. This concern is due to carbon dioxide emissions generated from the transportation of food using fossil fuels. Furthermore, Badami and Ramankutty (2015) stated that food production and demand also differ significantly within a country. Although rural areas can produce food for self-sufficiency, most urban areas usually depend on food produced elsewhere. Food produced in urban areas through traditional farming methods does not produce enough food to meet the demand of the urban residents. Thus, making the need for food to be substantially moved from one place to the other (Badami and Ramankutty, 2015; Liu, 2018). According to Al-Kodmany (2018), transporting food by air generates double the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere compared to sea shipping. Fresh produce needs to be transported quickly; therefore, the slow, less polluting option of sea shipment is not viable. Thus, access to locally grown produce on urban farms was feasible to mitigate the negative impacts of transportation on the climate (Al-Kodmany, 2018). Furthermore, the production and consumption of foods that have been grown in urban areas reduce the amount of energy involved in long-distance transport of food and in cooling and storage (Lwasa et al., 2014; Zhongming et al., 2022). It was revealed that foods transported to urban centres arrive in poor conditions and with low quality, especially when refrigeration facilities are lacking. However, with regard to urban farms, environmental and climate impacts are diminished as food distribution would not include much transport or importation (Zhongming et al., 2022). The reduction of air pollution through the reduction of imported food has a knock-on effect on the damage to human health that pollutants cause, such as respiratory diseases (WHO, 2021). According to WHO (2021), exposure to air pollution causes around 4.2 million deaths every year. However, reducing air pollution will mitigate the diseases attributed to it and help reduce the impact of climate change. Studies have revealed that the UK imports 47.3 percent of its vegetables and 84 percent of its fruit, which implied a high reliance on fresh produce imported (Walsh et al., 2022). ‘Nearly 20% of the UK’s fruit and vegetables come from countries at risk from climate breakdown’, said Environmental Audit Committee Chair Mary Creagh (Morrison, 2019). Food sufficiency has become even more prevalent during COVID-19 due to supply chain disruptions and labour shortages, causing fear over global food security. Concerns have been raised on the impact of food prices on the least affluent within the UK, such as pensioners and children in poorer households. Morrison (2019) further explained that plans regarding UK food supplies that could be protected, such as the impact of Brexit, will need to be implemented.

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals  113 In addition, community gardens have been created in vulnerable places in Teresina, in North-eastern Brazil, to contribute to urban farming to provide fresh foods and reduce food imports (Gomes et al., 2019; Zhongming et al., 2022).

FOOD SUFFICIENCY AND THE REALISATION OF THE SDGs The UN’s SDGs are internationally adopted guidelines by the UN Member States aiming to move towards a more sustainable future by balancing economic growth, social development and environment protection (Sani and Scholz, 2021). These set targets for a more sustainable socio-economic growth and environment, set through the 17 goals, are meant to be achieved by 2030 (Sani and Scholz, 2021). However, one of the greatest global challenges lies in achieving the UN’s SDGs (Liu, 2018). With the current high population and urbanisation growth rates, Sani and Scholz (2021) reported that water, food and energy are in high demand. In effect, about 2.7 billion people live without access to proper sanitation, 1.02 billion people are faced with managing undernourished foods, 900 million live without access to clean drinking water, and 1.3 billion are faced with living without electricity. There is therefore the need for encouraging the achievement of these 17 SDGs to deal with all the rising issues associated with the earth. To achieve these 17 goals, numerous organisations and academics have urged knowledge creation and synthesis to drive the achievement of the 17 UN goals (Liu, 2018). UN SDGs should be achieved globally but SDG scores/performance vary from country to country (Sachs et al., 2022). As of 2017, scores for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger, Achieve Food Security, Improve Nutrition, and Promote Sustainable Agriculture) ranged from 20 to 86, with most African countries (e.g., Sudan, Chad, Niger) and some Asian countries (e.g., India, Pakistan) having the lowest scores. Japan, the US, and Western Europe have high SDG 2 scores (Liu, 2018). Sachs et al. (2022) found that most countries have a significant or major barrier in achieving SDG 2. Table 6.3 shows the 2022 global SDG index/rank and the current progress/achievement of SDG 2 (No Hunger) of the top 20 countries globally (Sachs et al., 2022). Monitoring and tracking the goals’ development revealed moderately growing challenges to stagnation. However, Boglárka et al. (2021) add that ecovillage practices can contribute to the realisation of the SDGs including Quality Education (SDG 4), Gender Equality (SDG 5), Clean Water and Station (SDG 6), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11), Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12), Climate Action (SDG 12) and so on. A big step toward creating more resilient cities is reducing resource consumption in the built environment. If combined with sustainable local resource generation, these cities might take on a new level of resilience (Benis et al., 2017). The built environment, however, has an essential role in conserving biodiversity through design, maintenance of built assets and the SDG’s realisation since biodiversity and human well-being was vital in construction (Opoku, 2019). According to Caplow and Nelkin (2007) and Benis et al. (2017), both food supply systems and buildings have significant environmental impacts, and it is being argued that integrating these two ideologies could lead to a reduction of the aggregated environmental impacts in society (i.e., fossil fuel consumption, food security, etc.). Opoku (2019) also suggested that there should be some integration of built assets and the SDG’s realisation into national and regional planning development and strategies. Urban farms have the potential to achieve The National Food Strategy, a government project designed to ensure that the food system met the needs

114  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 6.3

Top 20 global SDG index/rank countries and progress on SDG 2 2022 SDG Index

SDG2: No Hunger Progress

Country

2022 SDG Index Score

Finland

86.5

1

Significant challenges

Denmark

85.6

2

Major challenges

Sweden

85.2

3

Major challenges

Norway

82.3

4

Major challenges

Austria

82.3

5

Significant challenges

Germany

82.2

6

Significant challenges

France

81.2

7

Significant challenges

Switzerland

80.8

8

Significant challenges

Ireland

80.7

9

Major challenges

Estonia

80.6

10

Major challenges

United Kingdom

80.6

11

Major challenges

Poland

80.5

12

Significant challenges

Czech Republic

80.5

13

Major challenges

Latvia

80.3

14

Major challenges

Slovenia

80.0

15

Major challenges

Spain

79.9

16

Major challenges

Netherlands

79.9

17

Major challenges

Belgium

79.7

18

Significant challenges

Japan

79.6

19

Significant challenges

Portugal

79.2

20

Major challenges

Rank

Source:  Sachs et al. (2022).

of citizens, regardless of where they live or what they earn, as well as contribute to achieving SDG 2. Also, citizens received safe, healthy and affordable food, designed to be flexible to mitigate future impacts, restore the natural environment for generations to come and as a contributor to both urban and rural economies (Parsons and Barling, 2021; UK Government, 2019). Food security and the promotion of healthy diets have become even more prevalent amid the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, during the epidemic in Manila, urban farms were utilised to help those affected (Manila Standard, 2021). According to the Manila Standard (2021), the Quezon City Mayor distributed urban farm produce to about 36,000 indigent families, bringing nutritious food to the most affected tables. The Manila City Government project’s success emphasised the significance of urban farms in providing reliable, healthy food sources during a pandemic and subsequently, encouraged the realisation of SDG Goals 2 and 3 (Zero Hunger and Good Health and Well-Being) (Manila Standard, 2021) (see Table 6.4). Displaced workers have been given new opportunities working on these urban farms, encouraging Goals 4 and 8 (Quality Education and Decent Work and Economic Growth) due to the prospect of learning about agriculture and learning to grow and harvest the produce. Inevitably the growth of urban farms promotes industry innovation and infrastructure (Goal 9) and sustainable cities and communities (Goal 11) (Manila Standard, 2021) (see Table 6.4). Climate change (SDG 13) is impacted by both natural causes and human activity. Without the pressing need to meet the growing global food demand, conventional agriculture methods contribute to climate change through GHG emissions. According to Crews and Rumsey (2017), through the traditional agricultural methods, most of the original carbon stock in the soil is released into the atmosphere in the form of CO2, thereby increasing the atmospheric

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals  115 Table 6.4

Contribution of urban farms to the sustainable development goals (SDGs)

SDGs Goal 2

Explanation Zero hunger

Availability of healthy food regardless of where they live or what they earn and reducing the potential impacts of future shocks that could impact food availability.

Goal 3

Good health and well-being

Goal 4

Quality education

Goal 8

Decent work and economic growth

Through the consumption of nutrient-rich fruit and vegetables and workers physically tending the farms. Through employment in urban farms – education in agriculture and education for consumers to grow small-scale produce at home. Encouraging employment through workers for the farms and the multiplier effect on economic growth result from increasing employment.

Goal 9

Industry innovation and infrastructure

Goal 11

Sustainable cities and communities

Urban farms promote innovation through sustainable infrastructure that supports economic development and well-being. Through green design and ecovillages using urban farms and reduced carbon footprint. make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (target 11.3).

Goal 12

Responsible consumption and production

Goal 13

Climate change

Reducing ecological footprint by efficiently growing produce with minimal waste or pollutants. Reducing consumption of imported food. Space efficient whilst minimising damage to the environment and natural habitats.

Source:  Manila Standard (2021).

concentrations of CO2. High concentration of CO2 contributes to air pollution as the single largest environmental health risk in the world and at the same time has been identified by WHO as a major contributor to climate change and global warming (Campbell-Lendrum and Prüss-Ustün, 2019). Furthermore, trillions of dollars can be saved by stabilising or reducing CO2 and other GHG that have been released into the atmosphere through natural and human-related activities (Erickson and Brase, 2019). Hence, encouraging vertical farming would go a long way to contributing toward SDG 13 realisation (see Table 6.4). From Table 6.4, it is revealed that of the 17 SDG’s goals, urban farming could make a significant impact on eight of the goals directly, which all aim at reducing poverty – Goal 1. This to a larger extent shows the interrelatedness and interdependency of one SDG to the others. In addition, Zhongming et al. (2022) stated that when urban agriculture practices are upheld or designed to increase adequate access to healthy and fresh foods at affordable prices, they directly influence the capacity of urban areas to eliminate hunger, poverty, increase health and well-being, reduce inequities and generate decent work. These benefits all align with attaining the SDGs.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Urban farms are becoming increasingly important as cities face the challenge of feeding their growing populations. With global population growth, the demand for food has risen sharply, placing enormous pressure on our cultivated soils. Climate change has already had a devastating impact on our natural world, with over half of the world’s carbon stock lost from cultivated soils. It is therefore critical to find a solution that can provide food for the world’s

116  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals growing population without causing further damage to the environment by over-cultivating land or importing produce. This chapter aimed to explore the potential of urban agriculture as a solution to reduce dependence on imported produce and contribute to the achievement of the UN’s SDGs. Exploring several works of literature showed that, establishing urban farms within cities was an avenue to reduce the negative environmental effects such as climate change, caused by human activities. Economically, transport costs in food production could be drastically reduced as there will be no need for transporting or importing food produce. Furthermore, urban farms help create more resilient cities, aid the urban regions in utilising the green urban spaces to make the urban areas attain food self-sufficiency and promote healthy diets towards the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, encouraging vertical farming would go a long way to contribute towards the realisation of the interrelated and interdependent SDGs. The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic has created the potential for urban farms to be boosted and expand. With the occurrence of the pandemic, transforming the green urban spaces into vertical farms has become more feasible to deal with the food security crisis. In addition, increasing available space in offices could be a potential for these farms, especially as companies are looking to increase their social value and community within offices, in which urban farms would be encouraged. Food security and the promotion of healthy diets have also become even more prevalent amid the COVID-19 pandemic, again urban farms have the potential to facilitate this. Furthermore, urban farms have been viewed as being a stepping-stone for consumers to learn skills to have small-scale farms which would of course further reduce consumption. Again, urban or vertical farms engage a community to tend the crops, gaining health benefits from both consuming and tending the crops. This information reaffirmed the idea that vertical farms would help tackle several of the SDGs. Furthermore, existing urban or vertical farmers could create a cooperative to educate the end users, from restaurants to retailers, about the benefits of urban farms and what benefits they could bring to their businesses. This study would contribute to the current body of knowledge in the area of green urban spaces and SDGs realisation by revealing the significance of urban farming as a green initiative, and the potential they possess to mitigate the adverse effects of climate crises and urbanisation in the environment, society and economy. The limitation of the study is in the fact that it was limited to articles and journals published in the English language, as well as limiting it to the reviewing of several related and relevant literature. An area for further research would be to understand what materials from construction sites could be reused in urban farms and therefore understand fully the role between the construction industry and urban farming.

REFERENCES Al-Kodmany, K. (2018). The vertical farm: A review of developments and implications for the vertical city, Buildings, 8(2), 24–60. APA (2007). APA Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning, American Planning Association, available at: https://​www​.planning​.org/​policy/​guides/​adopted/​food​.htm (Accessed 26 January 23). Ayambire, R.A., Amponsah, O., Peprah, C. and Takyi, S.A. (2019). A review of practices for sustaining urban and peri-urban agriculture: Implications for land use planning in rapidly urbanising Ghanaian cities, Land Use Policy, 84, 260–277.

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals  117 Badami, M.G. and Ramankutty, N. (2015). Urban agriculture and food security: A critique based on an assessment of urban land constraints, Global Food Security, 4, 8–15. Baer-Nawrocka, A. and Sadowski, A. (2019). Food security and food self-sufficiency around the world: A typology of countries, PloS One, 14(3), e0213448. Benis, K., Reinhart, C. and Ferrão, P. (2017). Development of a simulation-based decision support workflow for the implementation of Building-Integrated Agriculture (BIA) in urban contexts, Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 589–602. Birkby, J. (2016). Vertical farming, ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture, 2, 1–12, https://​attra​.ncat​.org/​ publication/​vertical​-farming/​(Accessed 26 January 2023). Blay-Palmer, A., and Koc, M. (2010). Imagining sustainable food systems: The path to regenerative food systems. In A. Blay-Palmer (Ed.), Imagining sustainable food systems: Theory and practice (pp. 168–186). London: Routledge. Boglárka R. N. Varga, A. and Ágnes Sallay, A. (2021). Sustainable development goals in ecovillages, Review on Agriculture and Rural Development, 10 (1–2), 92–99, https://​doi​.org/​10​.14232/​rard​.2021​ .1​-2​.92​-99. Borelli, S. and FAO (2019). Urban food environments and green spaces: Improving people’s access to nutritious food and green spaces, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), 91–92. Bradly, T. (2018). Aeroponics vs. Hydroponics: Which Method is Better for You? Woodworking Toolkit, Available at: https://​woodworkingtoolkit​.com/​aeroponics​-vs​-hydroponics/​ (Accessed 8 March 2022). Brilhante, O. and Klaas, J. (2018). Green city concept and a method to measure green city performance over time applied to fifty cities globally: Influence of GDP, population size and energy efficiency, Sustainability, 10(6), 2031. Brombin, A. (2015). Faces of sustainability in Italian ecovillages: Food as a ‘contact zone’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39, 468–477. Campbell-Lendrum, D. and Prüss-Ustün, A. (2019). Climate change, air pollution and noncommunicable diseases, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 97(2), 160–161. Caplow, T. and Nelkin, J. (2007). Building-integrated greenhouse systems for low energy cooling, In 2nd PALENC Conference and 28th AIVC Conference on Building Low Energy Cooling and Advanced Ventilation Technologies in the 21st Century, Crete Island, Greece, pp. 172–176. CBI Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2020). The European market potential for fresh herbs. available at: https://​www​.cbi​.eu/​market​-information/​fresh​-fruit​-vegetables/​fresh​-herbs/​market​-potential. (Accessed 16 February 2022). Chatterjee, A., Debnath, S. and Pal, H. (2020). Implication of urban agriculture and vertical farming for future sustainability, Urban Horticulture, 157. http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.5772/​intechopen​.91133 Clapp, J. (2017). Food self-sufficiency: Making sense of it, and when it makes sense, Food Policy, 66, 88–96. Cresswell (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research, 2nd Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Crews, T.E. and Rumsey, B.E. (2017). What agriculture can learn from native ecosystems in building soil organic matter: A review, Sustainability, 9(4), 578–596. Despommier, D. (2009). The rise of vertical farms, Scientific American, 301(5), 80–87. Downe‐Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues, Health Care for Women International,13(3), 313–321. Edmondson, J.L., Childs, D.Z., Dobson, M.C., Gaston, K.J., Warren, P.H. and Leake, J.R. (2020). Feeding a city – Leicester as a case study of the importance of allotments for horticultural production in the UK, Science of the Total Environment, 705, 135930. Eichner, M., and Ivanova, Z. (2018). Socioecological aspects of high-rise construction, E3S Web of Conferences, 33, 03065, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1051/​e3sconf/​20183303065. Enriquez, J.P. (2020). Food self-sufficiency: Opportunities and challenges for the current food system, Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research, 31(2), 23984–23989. Erickson, L.E. and Brase, G. (2019). Paris Agreement on climate change: In Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality (pp. 11–22), CRC Press. Farhangi, H.M., Turvani, M.E., van der Valk, A. and Carsjens, G.J. (2020). High-tech urban agriculture in Amsterdam: An actor network analysis, Sustainability, 12(10), 3955, https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ su12103955.

118  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Feenstra, G. (2002). Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field, Agriculture and Human Values, 19, 99–106. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2018). Food and agriculture data (FAOSTAT), https://​www​ .fao​.org/​faostat/​en/​#home. Gilman, R. (1991). The ecovillage challenge: The challenge of developing a community living in balanced harmony-with itself as well as nature-is tough, but attainable, In Context, 29, 10–14. Gomes, J.F.B., Gomes, R.S. and Souza, A.O. (2019). The multifunctionality of urban horticulture and its integration with the city ecosystem: A brief review of concepts and the case of São Luís, Horticultura Brasileira, 37(3), 252–259. Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability, Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. Henley, J. (2020). The future of food: Inside the world’s largest urban farm – built on a rooftop, The Guardian, https://​www​.theguardian​.com/​cities/​2020/​jul/​08/​the​-future​-of​-food​-inside​-the​-worlds​ -largest​-urban​-farm​-built​-on​-a​-rooftop​?fbclid​=​IwAR1​46xQGhZRrR​WB8aSWBswN​_woGvZ​ 4TjF9qetDkuWvyn1Qjm69tJNbd8L7Q, (Accessed 16 February 2022). Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Bodirsky, B.L., Pradhan, P., Barrett, C.B., Benton, T.G., Hall, A., Pikaar, I. and Bogard, J.R. (2021). Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals, The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(1), 50–62. Hussain, M., Butt, A.R., Uzma, F., Ahmed, R., Irshad, S., Rehman, A. and Yousaf, B. (2020). A comprehensive review of climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation on environmental and natural calamities in Pakistan, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 192 (1), 1–20. Kalantari, F., Mohd Tahir, O., Mahmoudi Lahijani, A. and Kalantari, S. (2017). A review of vertical farming technology: A guide for implementation of building integrated agriculture in cities, Advanced Engineering Forum, 24, 76–91, https://​doi​.org/​10​.4028/​www​.scientific​.net/​aef​.24​.76 Khalil, H.I. and Wahhab, K.A. (2020). Advantage of vertical farming over horizontal farming in achieving sustainable city, Baghdad city-commercial street case study, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 745(1), 012173. Kleszcz, J., Kmiecik, P. and Świerzawski, J. (2020). Vegetable and gardening tower of Othmar Ruthner in the Voivodeship Park of Culture and Recreation in Chorzów—The first example of vertical farming in Poland, Sustainability, 12(13), 5378–5401. Lakhiar, I.A., Gao, J., Syed, T.N., Chandio, F.A. and Buttar, N.A. (2018). Modern plant cultivation technologies in agriculture under controlled environment: A review on aeroponics, Journal of Plant Interactions, 13(1), 338–352. Li, F., Sun, Y., Li, X., Hao, X., Li, W., Qian, Y., Liu, H. and Sun, H. (2016). Research on the sustainable development of green-space in Beijing using the dynamic systems model, Sustainability, 8(10), 965–981. Liu, J. (2018). An integrated framework for achieving sustainable development goals around the world, Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal, 1(2), 11–17. Lwasa, S., Mugagga, F., Wahab, B., Simon, D., Connors, J. and Griffith, C. (2014). Urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry: Transcending poverty alleviation to climate change mitigation and adaptation, Urban Climate, 7, 92–106. Malina, M. (2010). Lessons Learned: Advantages and Disadvantages of Mixed Method Research, University of Colorado Denver. Manila Standard (2021). Veggies for 36,000 poor families, https://​manilastandard​.net/​lgu/​ncr/​349647/​ veggies​-for​-36​-000​-poor​-families​.html, (Accessed 18 Mar. 2022). Mir, M.S., Naikoo, N.B., Kanth, R.H., Bahar, F.A., Bhat, M.A., Nazir, A., Mahdi, S.S., Amin, Z., Singh, L., Raja, W. and Saad, A.A. (2022). Vertical farming: The future of agriculture: A review, The Pharma Innovation Journal, 11(2), 1175–1195. Moghimi, F. (2021), Vertical farming economics in 10 minutes, Rutgers Business Review, 6 (1), 122–131. Morrison, O. (2019). UK’s food supply at risk from climate change and imports: Report, Available at: https://​www​.foodnavigator​.com/​Article/​2019/​09/​18/​UK​-s​-food​-supply​-at​-risk​-from​-climate​-change​ -and​-imports​-report​# (Accessed 20 April 2022). Mui, Y., Headrick, G., Raja, S., Palmer, A., Ehsani, J. and Porter, K.P. (2022). Acquisition, mobility and food insecurity: Integrated food systems opportunities across urbanicity levels highlighted by COVID-19, Public Health Nutrition, 25(1), 114–118.

Urban green spaces for urban farms and the sustainable development goals  119 Naskoori, K., Reddy, K.K., Reddy, M.V. and Devi, M.R. (2021). To study the scope of vertical farming in India: A review, The Pharma Innovation Journal, 10(12), 158–162. Opoku, A. (2019). Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 1–7. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.resconrec​ .2018​.10​.011 Pandey, S. (2017). Vertical farming – Key to mitigating world’s hunger?, Science Reporter, 54(4), 14–19. Parsons, K. and Barling, D. (2021). Policy and governance questions about the National Food Strategy, Briefing paper by the Food Systems and Policy Research Group, University of Hertfordshire. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.18745/​pb​.24766, (Accessed 8 March 2022). Peter, A. (2021). These buildings combine affordable housing and vertical farming. Mansueto Ventures LLC. Planning and Construction News (2020). How is the construction sector combatting its waste? available at: https://​www​.pbctoday​.co​.uk/​news/​planning​-construction​-news/​waste​-in​-construction/​65702/​ (Accessed on 29 October 2022). Pradhan, P., Lüdeke, M.K., Reusser, D.E. and Kropp, J.P. (2014). Food self-sufficiency across scales: How local can we go?, Environmental Science and Technology, 48(16), 9463–9470. Prestwich, M. (2020). 2020 Chairman Report. British Herbs, available at: http://​www​.bhta​.org​.uk/​news​ -and​-events/​news/​2020​-chairman​-report/​ (Accessed 16 February 2022). Russo, A. and Cirella, G.T. (2019). Edible urbanism 5.0, Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–9. Sachs, J., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G., and Woelm, F. (2022). From crisis to sustainable development: The SDGs as roadmap to 2030 and beyond, Sustainable Development Report 2022, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sani, Y. and Scholz, M. (2021). Water-energy-food accessibility and tracking progress towards achieving sustainable development goals in the Savannah Region of Katsina State, Nigeria, Water, 13, 3595–3610. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​w13243595 Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences, New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shahda, M.M. and Megahed, N.A. (2022). Post-pandemic architecture: A critical review of the expected feasibility of skyscraper-integrated vertical farming (SIVF), Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 1–22. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​17452007​.2022​.2109123 Steel, C. (2020). Sitopia: How food can save the world, London: Chatto and Windus. Stoltz, J. and Schaffer, C. (2018). Salutogenic affordances and sustainability: Multiple benefits with edible forest gardens in urban green spaces, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2344. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3389/​ fpsyg​.2018​.02344 Tablada, A., Kosorić, V., Huang, H., Lau, S.S.Y., and Shabunko, V. (2020). Architectural quality of the productive façades integrating photovoltaic and vertical farming systems: Survey among experts in Singapore, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(2), 301–318. Thomaier, S., Specht, K., Henckel, D., Dierich, A., Siebert, R., Freisinger, U.B. and Sawicka, M. (2015). Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-Acreage Farming (ZFarming), Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 30(1), 43–54. UK Government (2019). Developing a national food strategy: Independent review 2019, Terms of reference, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Ulug, C., Trell, E. M. and Horlings, L. (2021). Ecovillage foodscapes: Zooming in and out of sustainable food practices, Agric Hum Values, 38, 1041–1059. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Seventieth session on 25 September, A/RES/70/1. Van Aalst M.K. (2006). The impacts of climate change on the risk of natural disasters, Disasters, 30(1), 5–18. Waldron, D. (2018). Evolution of vertical farms and the development of a simulation methodology, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 217, 975–986. Walsh, L.E., Mead, B.R., Hardman, C.A., Evans, D., Liu, L., Falagán, N., Kourmpetli, S. and Davies, J. (2022). Potential of urban green spaces for supporting horticultural production: A national scale analysis, Environmental Research Letters, 17(1), 014052.

120  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals White, K., Hardisty, D. and Habib, R. (2019). The Elusive Green Consumer. Harvard Business Review, available at: https://​hbr​.org/​2019/​07/​the​-elusive​-green​-consumer (Accessed on16 February 2022). Wickison, M. (2016). 25 of the Best Plants for Indoor Hydroponic Gardens, Dengarden, available at: https://​dengarden​.com/​gardening/​indoor​-hydroponic​-garden, (Accessed 8 March 2022). World Health Organization (2021). WHO global air quality guidelines: Particulate matter (PM2. 5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide, World Health Organization (WHO). Zhang, H., Asutosh, A. and Hu, W. (2018). Implementing vertical farming at university scale to promote sustainable communities: A feasibility analysis, Sustainability, 10(12), 4429. Zhongming, Z., Linong, L., Xiaona, Y., Wangqiang, Z. and Wei, L. (2022). Urban Agriculture’s Potential to Advance Multiple Sustainability Goals-An International Resource Panel Think Piece. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Zimmerer, K.S., Duvall, C.S., Jaenicke, E.C., Minaker, L.M., Reardon, T. and Seto, K.C. (2021). Urbanization and agrobiodiversity: Leveraging a key nexus for sustainable development, One Earth, 4(11), 1557–1568.

7. Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development Amritha Palakkadavath Kumarankutty

INTRODUCTION Recent decades have witnessed a rapid growth in the population living in cities. This increase in global population is likely to continue especially in urban areas, giving rise to a greater demand for food and food security. The implications of urbanization on food production are mainly seen in the availability of land for agriculture, change in dietary habits, increase in food prices, income of the people (FAO, 2021), health and other nutritional challenges. Many of these are also compounded by other factors like lack of water, pollution aspects and access to health care. As defined by the United Nations (UN), the dimensions of food security are sufficient availability of food, secured access for food, adequate and need based utilization of food and long-term stability of food supply (FAO, 2021). UN reports say that the whole world is on the verge of a food crisis in terms of hunger and food security. This has been aggravated by the recent COVID-19 pandemic and war outbreak in Ukraine (UN, 2020). Also, the increased cases of food insecurity and malnutrition among poor people have led to an immediate call for action. One of the major effects of this population increase is its effect on the quality and wellbeing of its citizens. With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new factor is added to this in terms of income generation to stabilize the job losses faced by the population, especially the economically weaker sections of society (UN, 2020). Thus, it is prudent to accept that these challenges need to address the provision of healthy and sustainable living environments through the establishment of green areas in an equitable fashion. Urban green spaces have proven to deal with problems related to pollution, as accessible spaces for maintaining health and promoting the hydrological benefits (Puplampu and Boafo, 2021), thus giving it a multi-dimensional function. In addition to these desirable characteristics, by allocating productive green spaces for urban farming the unique opportunity of income generation, public health, and environmental justice comes into the purview. This idea can be made more acceptable when there is an equitable spatial distribution so that opportunities can be accessed by society as a whole. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) holistically address issues, challenges, strategies and actions that have to be taken up by 2030 to protect our planet by developing social, economic and environmental sustainability. Out of the 17 SDGs the chapter focuses on SDG 2 which aims to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. It emphasizes productive green spaces in an urban area as a resource for achieving SDG 2 by eliminating food insecurity and by promoting sustainable agriculture. It is important that special care is taken to include green spaces in urban areas so that it gives urban dwellers an opportunity to be in direct contact with nature. Outdoor activities like recreation, social functions, cultural activities, community gardening and so on, offer such an opportunity to urban dwellers. Thus, it is necessary to develop multifunctional urban green spaces and dif121

122  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ferent kinds of nature elements especially in the neighbourhood, which improves the quality of life. This need for such activities must be clearly included categorically in urban planning poli­cies to create liveable cities and plan green spaces for people (Cheisura, 2004). All coun­ tries should make it a mandatory rule for including such green multifunctional spaces as a part of their city planning. The stra­tegic planning should take care of the environment aspects of that particular city along with its social, cultural and economic status, thus achieving SDG 2 and eventually getting connected to achieve other goals as well.

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS The SDGs and its targets were put forward in 2015 through agenda 2030 and aims to end poverty and to promote peace and prosperity to all across the globe. The 17 goals of sustainable development address the social needs in terms of food, education, health, job opportunities, gender equality and basic needs like water, sanitation, clean energy, along with climate change and other ecosystem services. Though these goals are defined globally, it also respects the national policies, priorities and targets of each country. Each government can decide how the global targets can be achieved through their policies and strategies so that it fosters economic development, environmental protection and social needs. The universal and indivisible nature of SDGs can be achieved only through the involvement of all people and with a profound change in how they think and act (www​.unicef​.org, n.d.). Though uneven, sustainable development has shown progress since its inception in 2015. But due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the war outbreak in Ukraine, every country has faced crisis in the economic, social and health sector, which has eventually made these targets more challenging (UN, 2020). But the continued pursuit of these goals keeps the government focused on growth, but also on inclusion, equity and sustainability. SDG 2 is one of the 17 SDGs and aims to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition to all, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, and promote sustainable agriculture (www​.unicef​.org, n.d.). As per the agenda, the eight targets put forward for SDG 2 are to be achieved by 2030. Reports say that food security in terms of having nutritious food and having a balanced diet is more challenging than eliminating hunger. It is mainly because of income levels, resource constraints, conflicts between nations and climate changes that affect agriculture production. Another target is to end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under five years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons. It is reported that though the proportion of children suffering from stunting has decreased over the years, children under the age of five are still affected by stunting. Most of the cases reported are in southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Due to a lack of nutritional food, 6.9 percent of children under five are affected by wasting. Improved agricultural sustainability is the only solution for these crises (Sawiska, 2019). A need to integrate both biological and ecological processes into food production is the need of the hour. Productive use of people’s capacity in terms of knowledge and skills should be integrated with new technologies to solve the problems related to agricultural production, pest management, irrigation, hydrology and geology (Herrero et al., 2020). Achieving this target will definitely have a positive impact on health and quality of life, which will in turn boost the economy and thus impact other goals. The agricultural techniques and practices and various

Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development  123 investments and strengthening that can be done means the agricultural production capacity can boost food production and its accessibility. Apart from this the income of farmers, and the land tenure system has also affected food production, which has led to the third target in SDG 2 (UN, 2019). It is mainly to double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value-addition and non-farm employment. Though small-scale farmers contribute a major portion to food production in Asian and African countries, their productivity and income generated is less when compared to other counterparts. By reducing input costs by sustainable farming methods, better income and financial stability can be achieved. This would in turn help alleviate poverty, bring in gender equality and ensure sustainable production and consumption patterns. Implementing resilient agricultural practices can create a balance between food production, management of natural resources and uncertainties and how they can improve the livelihood of people. It not only adds to food production but also adds to the entire value chain for agriculture. Climate resilient agricultural practices integrates agricultural development while responding to climate change. Though public investment can enhance productivity and bring in more private investments, the report says that it is declining globally. It says that government spending on agriculture has reduced by 37 percent (UN, 2019). So, there is a need for small scale food producers and investment in technological advances in sustainable agriculture. Measures have to be taken to market the produce, taking into consideration the general market price and the input cost incurred for its production. To achieve SDG 2 the chapter looks into the possibilities of developing green productive spaces in cities which can be multifunctional through active participation of the community. A better quality of environment and life will definitely have an impact on the economy, thus influencing the success of other SDGs.

ACHIEVING SDG 2 THROUGH PRODUCTIVE URBAN GREEN SPACES: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Urban Green Spaces Recent decades have witnessed the rapid growth of the urban population and along with that the significant change in the urban landscape (Nuissl and Siedentop, 2020). Most cities do not grow on any planned line. Those who can afford to, buy space sufficient enough to cater to their needs. Those who are less affluent compromise on the area of land and also on the essential conveniences an urban dwelling should necessarily have. Many people of the upper strata purchase or construct houses as the pride of their possession. Many others are by force of circumstances compelled to live in cities and they have to somehow obtain a dwelling house. A sizable portion of the urban population have migrated to cities from villages in search of a livelihood. Such people cannot buy land or own a house. On the other hand, they erect their homestead on pavements, under trees or on public land until they are driven off from there. Here, sanitation and drinking water becomes a very serious problem to be tackled. Even those who are able to just erect a homestead are not able to leave sufficient open space, provide facilities for waste water treatment, and sewage, especially in cities where such common

124  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals facilities are not provided. Over dependency on motor cars pollutes the atmosphere. As far as the utilization of the urban land is concerned the urban authorities are unable to impose any restrictions. We now get a kaleidoscopic view of residential, commercial and industrial buildings, markets, eating houses and amusement parks, all co-existing, leaving no open space with greenery, which ought to act as the lungs of the city. This happens due to the lack of efficient planning regarding urban open space, whereby urban advantage and city concepts are lost. Therefore, cities of the future should plan for and build a different type of urban structure and space so that the most acute problems of current urbanization are efficiently addressed and tackled. One of the problems which our city faces today is the constraints in managing city wastes. Most of the time urban waste is either thrown or disposed on vacant or unused land within the city limits. The designated landfills which were located in the suburbs of the city earlier have also become part of the city due to urbanization (Amritha and Anilkumar, 2016). These uncontrolled ways of disposing waste have affected the environmental and visual quality of the urban landscapes. Productive Urban Green Spaces Productivity in urban spaces is always associated with integrating urban agriculture as an important infrastructure of a city. Most of the literature available in terms of productive green spaces was focusing on urban agriculture. This literature review helped in understanding various aspects of productive green spaces which can be a source for achieving the targets of SDG 2. One of the pivotal and seminal works in this regard is the theoretical concept put forward by Andre Viljoen as CPUL (Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes) (Viljoen, 2005). This concept mainly promoted the introduction of continuous interlinked spaces in a city which are made productive by offering spaces for growing food. During the evolution of the concept, it mainly focused on three main ideas, one is it being a part of the urban infrastructure, second is its role in the reduction of environmental impacts, and third, for considering the open spaces in a city as a contextual and lifestyle component (Viljoen and Bohn, 2009). Globally, urban agriculture has evolved to meet the needs of the residents in the city (Bohn and Viljoen, 2005). Most of the related examples were focused more on improving the livelihoods of the poor in the urban areas by providing food at lesser rates (Redwood, 2012) and also giving job opportunities for the locals. Organoponics is another attempt developed in Havana, where raised beds were mixed with soil and organic matter which helped in the growth of food products. Such urban organic gardens first came up as a solution for the lack of food security (Altieri et al., 1999). Though there is an emerging interest in urban agriculture in recent years, the CPUL concept seems more theoretical and planners/landscape architects are less prepared to integrate this concept with city planning (Lovell, 2010). Research in the field shows that due to high land value and the availability of enough space in a city, the idea of productive landscapes solely for urban agriculture production is not a practical alternative for urban development. This is mainly due to the fact that certain agricultural production systems might need large areas and might depend heavily on transportation of the products to other consumer cities. This may create negative impacts on the environment (Lovell and Johnston, 2009). Instead, this productive space should be evaluated based on multifunctional benefits derived out of it. Lovell mentions this in her research (Mougeot, 2010) by saying that urban agriculture should provide a range of ecological (biodiversity and

Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development  125 climatic control) and cultural functions (cultural heritage, recreation and visual appeal) that benefits the community. Thus, the scope of this chapter can be extended to the above said ideas so that a productive space can be designed by integrating various functions of a city, like the disposal and treatment of the major portion of solid waste (organic), thereby considering waste management as a function of productive urban green space. This type of integration should match the needs and preferences of the community and the local people while protecting the environment and its resources. Urban agriculture has existed for a long time and has evolved to meet the food and livelihood needs of the people in a city. Many examples on this basis have been cited both in Western and South East Asian countries. In Havana it is documented that urban agriculture has evolved as an approach against the crisis after the Soviet Union collapse (Koont, 2009; Mougeot, 2010). Here they have used the process of ‘organoponics.’ In Beijing and Shanghai this has emerged in the form of organic farms and greenhouses (Feifei, Jianming and Gang, 2009; Girardet, 2005). Here land areas are allotted and retained only for growing food (Girardet, 2005). In many cities urban agriculture has been developed to have more fresh food than processed food which is readily available everywhere. In the US, the planning body APA, are trying to integrate urban agriculture into land use planning. This is mainly aimed at improving the environment and health of the people (American Planning Association, n.d.). This land use application of urban agriculture has been extended to various scales of planning, right from a terrace garden/small private land to a large city scale (Fetouh, 2018). Urban agriculture in India was widely accepted owing to the needs for fresh vegetables without pesticides and also due to the recent increase in food prices (Kumar and Nair, 2004; Orsini et al., 2013). This was mainly done by individuals or institutions in their backyards or on rooftops or by residential neighbourhood associations. There are many initiatives reported which promote organic farming at a residential association level. These initiatives have mainly intended to bring back the tradition of agriculture, to protect the environment from pollution and toxic fertilization and to produce non-poisonous food grains and vegetables through organic farming and to inculcate the culture of farming in the young generation. The produce from such organic farming is also sold in organic outlets within the city. While the significance of urban agriculture in planning has been accepted, very little research has been done to model this with other multifunctional aspects of land use. Sources of Urban Green Spaces It is perceived that most developing countries have not much vacant land to spare and most of them are completely built up. Allotting spaces for developing agriculture is seen as a temporary activity both inside and even on the edges of the city. But research says that a deep look reveals that there are many more spaces in urban areas which have vacant and under-utilized land that can be used for productive purposes. Also, vacant areas set up at the edges of the city should not be neglected just as a buffer space, but rather seen as an essential element of an urban area for growing a productive green system. From the examples from the literature, it is concluded that every productive space recognized or to be established depends on the condition of the urban space. These conditions depend on the availability of the land and its resources and other socio-economic, political and cultural backgrounds of that area (Schipperijn et al., 2010). It is seen that in developing countries, apart from the non-availability of the land, other constraints like land tax or rent and

126  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals other labour costs seem to be a major constraint in developing productive spaces (Celik, 2017). But studies show that the benefits of a productive green space in terms of food production, waste management, income generation, community involvement and environmental benefits outweigh these concerns. Moreover, it helps in improving the economy of a country. As mentioned earlier every town and city is dotted with vacant or underutilized spaces which can be a source for developing productive spaces. These spaces include areas which are not appropriate for built-up uses, or it can be land areas that can be used temporarily for a certain period of time. It can also be well defined spaces within a neighbourhood/community, or even in an individual household space. The following section details how each of these spaces can be considered for developing productive green spaces in an urban area, thus making it more equitable for the existing population. Public unused open spaces The urban population is swelling day by day. The need for getting land for urban cultivation cannot be satisfied. One way out for finding a solution to this is by fully utilizing the public lands which are lying idle. Such lands are probably earmarked for some developmental purposes for the future. Such unutilized or under-utilized areas can be brought under cultivation. There are private lands also which lie unutilized. For all this there must be proper legislative enactments protecting the rights of the owners, with provisions as to how common facilities are provided, how they are shared and how the usufructs are shared. At Intervale Farm in Burlington, VT, the mechanism required for farm and community gardens is provided through a program by which people who are interested in farming gain access to the land and can share their machinery and expertise (Lovell, 2009). A similar arrangement is provided by the municipality of Jakarta which provides support for landowners to utilize it for productive purposes (Pasang et al., 2007). Every bit of land in the public area can be made an infrastructure for developing productive landscapes. These land areas can be parks, cemeteries, church yards, schoolyards or right of ways (ROW) or even traffic islands (Lovell, 2009). While selecting the plants one has to be careful as in some areas the smoke and pollutants from vehicular exhausts will be more when compared to others. Thus, these areas are important in view of landscaping as they provide space for management of organic waste and at the same time excellent ground for food production. Private land and built structures Developing productive green space in private parcels of land range from large farm areas which carry out many profitable activities related to urban agriculture to small backyard gardens within the houses (Westervelt, 2008). This kind of parcel of land has helped people with fresh and healthy food and reduces the burden of transporting food from one city to another, thus conserving energy. One such initiative in Portland, OR, is where land areas are taken up by entrepreneurs to utilize it for growing crops which they termed small-scale share cropping (Haeg and Balmori, 2008). On a smaller scale, when residential plots are put together, they are found to be one of the major contributors of the urban landscape, where people work and enjoy time together in developing landscapes for their utility (Smith et al., 2005). These private parcels can also be used for managing wastes which are generated within a group of households considering the available space for treating and processing the same. Thus, the organic waste from households is cleared off to these parcels for processing and for

Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development  127 reuse for landscaping. Any excess compost/fertilizer produced can be sold in the market and its profit could be shared among the households. The above said idea can be incorporated on a smaller scale, that is, on buildings where roof tops can be used for agricultural production. This will require expertise from architects and landscape architects, especially during the design and construction of a building. The space required for holding the planting medium, its drainage facilities and other supporting facilities needs to be planned well in advance. Having all these facilities within a building helps in the easy operation and maintenance of plants growing on it. Moreover, having roof top gardens help in controlling the microclimate within the building and this advantage is best achieved in buildings located in urban areas. Through many decentralized systems for waste management like small biogas plants, pipe/pot composting facilities are devised, a clear strategy needs to be framed for implementing waste management and landscape planning together in group housing and apartment buildings. Moreover, the choosing of plants needs much attention, as these plants should withstand the varying climatic conditions to which a roof is exposed. But research also says that roof top gardens are best suited for containing green roofs (Gould and Caplow, 2021). The above said spaces show the possible spaces in an urban area for developing productive landscapes at an urban level. From a sustainability perspective, the current research tries to develop such spaces, starting from a neighbourhood level as the scale of a neighbourhood can be very effective for land use planning and design to incorporate sustainable principles (Ericksen, 2008; Ryn and Calthorpe, 2008). The next section of this chapter briefly outlines the literature review based on this possibility. Existing landfills or open dumps Earlier it was only natural that landfills were located in low lying areas on the outskirts of cities. As the cities started growing due to urbanization the landfills became part of the urban landscape itself (Amritha and Anilkumar, 2016). As a matter of fact, segregation of waste is not done at any stage of collection or disposal. Urban solid waste consists of everything one can imagine. All biodegradable waste including the carcass of animals, metallic and non-metallic waste, chemical waste, industrial waste, hospital waste, is all collected indiscriminately and sent up to one destination to be dumped together. Such waste gets accumulated in large quantities and can become a permanent nuisance to environmental and visual stability of an urban setup. These landfills which lie decaying like an ulcer are often conveniently ignored by authorities. However, this must be remedied and requires immediate rehabilitation. An urban space shaped by architects, landscape architects and planners, contains areas earmarked for various purposes like parks, recreation, open space, land used for open dumping of waste and so on. The land used for a landfill can be a space for waste management. This is a stage where utmost care and discrimination in the segregation of waste is made, as studies the world over recommend using only non-biodegradable waste for landfills and that landfills should be used as a last resort for indiscriminate disposal of waste. Whether the area must be treated as one for disposal of waste only or as one for treatment and control of waste is the moot question where conscious intervention is required. Production of organic waste is unavoidable in urban life. Careless dumping of organic waste results in the emission of offensive gases and leachates. Since it lies open, animals and birds feeding on it spread and disperse the organic waste in the surroundings and pollute the wells used as a source of drinking water. When scientific methods are employed, the organic waste can be controlled and managed in

128  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals such a way that it does not cause any nuisance or discomfort to public life and at the same time we get organic manure rich in plant nutrients and also landfill gas as a by-product. Thus, organic waste can be treated and managed in very many ways, which are useful in agriculture and also in landfills. This method can be easily adopted in newly planned sites. Existing landfills and open dumps can also be developed into a productive one by integrating various clean up techniques and waste treatment methods. A Neighbourhood Based Productive Green Space Planning In this chapter a neighbourhood is defined as a space within (subdivision) an urban area which is distinguished from other parts of the city due to its quality, character and the common and beneficial interests the inhabitants have. However, there is not much clarity on the size of neighbourhoods in terms of their functions or population size. Sustainable neighbourhood planning should consider the economic, social, technical and environmental sustainability aspects (Ryn and Calthorpe, 2008). In this section these factors are discussed with respect to the commitment of productive green space development in neighbourhood planning. A neighbourhood level establishment of productive landscape development is experienced in establishing community gardens in public and private parcels of land. It creates a sense of belonging among the people and thus revitalizes such space by reducing crimes and other illegal activities which otherwise can happen on abandoned land (Gorham et al., 2009). In Seattle an initiative called a P patch community program where garden spaces are provided for the people throughout the city, has inculcated the helping and sharing mentalities among the people. Some community gardens are established to help and are offered to immigrants for growing certain plants so that it reflects their cultural landscapes. This is reflected in the home gardens created by Southeast Asian farmers in Florida (Hou et al., 2009). These examples suggest that productive spaces in a neighbourhood can help in fulfilling the actual need of a community (in terms of food, culture etc.), at the same time it gives them an opportunity to change or create new and unique landscapes in their neighbourhood for better living (Ferris et al., 2002; Mougeot, 2010). There are many initiatives that have been done for urban agriculture at a neighbourhood level. One such example is the smart growth initiative where the food produced in the neighbourhood is consumed within the neighbourhood itself. Another venture was to transform large urban lawn areas which were once used for productive purposes back to initial use. Many other initiatives undertaken by the youth have been reported for alleviating many health and social problems within a community by making use of productive spaces in a neighbourhood (Fraser, 2002; Lovell, 2010). These benefits are more alleviated if the space can support other functions of a community. With respect to the concept of productive green spaces as perceived by the current chapter, it is suggested that open spaces in an urban area should be converted to a multifunctional space where the urban organic waste is treated and processed to utilize it as a resource for growing food crops (Parrot et al., 2009). By doing so, the community can become safe and self-sustained simultaneously with respect to managing the organic fraction of the waste produced in their neighbourhood and enjoy a productive green space which adds to the food security of the city.

Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development  129

CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRODUCTIVE GREEN SPACES TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS It is observed that urban agriculture has been an important element in both developed and developing nations. While addressing the targets of SDG 2, the concept of productive green spaces explores the possibility of how other multiple targets which come under the framework of SDGs interact; namely SDG 1 (Poverty Alleviation), SDG 3 (Health), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Sustainable Production and Consumption), SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Bio Diversity and Eco System Services). One of the important advantages of urban agriculture recognized is its influence in providing food security and alleviating poverty (synergy with SDG 1 – No Poverty). Producing food locally has helped people to have a better diet and fight against poor nutrition quality which exists due to the consumption of processed foods (Redwood, 2009). Moreover, food produced can be marketed locally which can help the producer to have a better income out of it (Bohn and Viljoen, 2005; Vitiello, 2008). Thus, the availability of fresh food increases the health and economic concerns of people in a community (synergy with SDG 3 – Good Health and Wellbeing). It also helps in empowering the people in a community by providing jobs for the people (Reid, 2009), cultivating a sense of co-operation and sharing mentality among the people (Reid, 2009), apart from the relaxation they enjoy from the outdoor spaces (Buchecker et al., 2003) (synergy with SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth and SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities). Apart from the production of food, the ecological environmental advantage of urban agriculture needs equal weightage. By producing food locally, it reduces the transportation distance of bringing it from far away and reduces the processing efforts conserving energy. Using native species of crops also contributes to the biodiversity conservation (Lovell, 2010) and helps in modifying the microclimate in a region (Lovell, 2009) (synergy with SDG 13 – Climate Action and SDG 15 – Life on Land). It is seen that urban agriculture can be integrated into different scales from a terrace garden level to a large city level. But there is a growing concern whether there are any risks in growing food in an urban environment since some plants have the capability of absorbing toxins from the air and soil (Hansen, 2016; Lowell, 2010). But studies have shown that these risks are negligible when compared to the huge benefits derived out of growing food crops in an urban area (Doucette et al., 2007; Leake et al., 2009). Another limitation is the perception of agricultural land to other quality open spaces like parks and gardens with recreational facilities. With respect to a sustainable neighbourhood development, developing productive green spaces should not only focus on conserving physical resources but also have the full participation of the people living in it. Despite these initiatives it is observed that people do not perceive these community spaces in the same way as they see other green open spaces (Çelik, 2017). And moreover people seem not to prefer such productive spaces on a temporary basis since the rents charged by the owners seem high. So, it can be concluded that there should be a rule in including productive spaces in a neighbourhood/city/regional planning. It should be noted that productivity of green spaces must be assessed by its multifunctional services and benefits. The benefit is when a productive urban green space is used as a space for organic waste management. The compost mix produced can be used as a fertilizer for plant growth and excess compost mix which is in the form of an enriched soil can be distributed among households in the neighbourhood for developing their home gardens or can be sold on

130  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals the market. There are already people who use their own community’s biodegradable waste for making compost and use it in their home gardens. Vermicompost is one form of such fertilizer which is sold in many houses which is an additional income. Compost from the MSW produced from composting plants is also available on the market. This mix can be sold on the market based on the existing market value. The enriched mix can be made available in shops which sell fertilizers, or it can be sold along with vegetables in organic outlets, as mentioned earlier. Governments can also promote certification of the produce for better acceptability among the people. In India, the certification given by accredited agencies under NAPP (National Accreditation Policy and Programme), certify farm and farming methods and ensure whether they comply with the guidelines of organic farming. Hence, a valid organic certification can be a prerequisite for marketing products from productive landscapes. The concept as presented in this chapter can even refer to any vacant/unused or derelict land within an urban neighbourhood which can be transformed into a productive space. Plants grown at such sites can be edible plants useful for the residents in the neighbourhood and the excess produce can be sold on the market. But productive green spaces are neither intended to sustain themselves based on product sale income nor intended to employ permanent labour. They can be initially designed to rely on volunteers and self-help groups within the community who could solicit outside aid from government programs and agencies which support their social and environment missions. Table 7.1 shows the various forms of green spaces in a neighbourhood, its characteristics and its contribution towards the SDG 2 targets. The costs involved in developing productive urban green spaces are categorized as shown in Figure 7.1. Each neighbourhood in consultation with the municipality has to identify vacant land areas within the neighbourhood/municipality. All the costs involved in the process as shown in Figure 7.1 need to be managed by the community/neighbourhood with the help of relevant funding agencies. In the process of exploring the multi-functional benefits of such land, the productivity is assessed on the yield from the plants, processing of organic waste and the quality of the compost mix which is formed as the final output. In large parcels of neighbourhoods, the municipality/concerned government can charge a certain amount to the residents in the neighbourhood as a tipping fee. This tipping fee is collected from all residents and the cost benefits received by selling the produce from each neighbourhood together can be used to meet the operational and maintenance costs which are involved in developing and maintaining productive urban green spaces. The operation and maintenance costs depend on the kind of process adopted in each site and will depend on the type of land parcels/site conditions, type of plants to be grown and the quantity of organic waste that is to be processed. As per the concept proposed it is concluded that the operations will require a certain amount of manpower. In smaller parcels, the work can be done by an individual or by each household, but in a large neighbourhood or public open spaces, about 75 percent of the total amount of work involved can be done by a hired trained person/caretaker because the process involved (bringing waste to the site, its placement, turning, application of daily cover, watering the plants and helping in harvesting and distribution of the produce) is regular and needs expertise. Since the process is continuous a manpower of two to three hours daily is required for the operation. But, works like community farming (which involves buying new seeds and saplings, monitoring the plant growth, harvesting, packing and distribution of the yield) can involve the community/residents in the neighbourhood and those who process their organic waste as a resource for productive landscapes.

Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development  131 Table 7.1

Various forms of greens spaces

Sources

Forms

Characteristics

Contributions towards the targets of SDG 2

Public unused

Community gardens/

Involves community and managed

By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all

space

small scale share

by people in the neighbourhood.

people, in particular the poor and people in

cropping

Can enjoy the green productive

vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe,

space.

nutritious and sufficient food for all year round.

Community gardening helps in

By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition.

the healthy relationships between

By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and

residents.

incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular

Residents getting their organic

women, indigenous peoples, family farmers,

waste managed without much cost. Spaces open to public.

pastoralists and fishers, including through secure

Public used

Parks, yards of

spaces

public buildings,

and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets

right of ways (ROW)

and opportunities for value addition and non-farm

or even traffic islands

employment.

and roundabouts Private land Built structure

By 2030, ensure sustainable food production

Home gardens or

Cultivation of food on privately

systems and implement resilient agricultural

backyard gardens

owned land.

practices that increase productivity and production,

Roof top gardens

Food cultivation on built structures.

that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen

Controls the micro climate of the

capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme

buildings.

weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and

Vertical gardens

Integrating farming on facades of the built form.

Open dumps

and equal access to land, other productive resources

Existing waste lands

or landfills

that progressively improve land and soil quality.

Through scientific methods organic waste can be managed and this process can be integrated to green spaces by using it for developing crops.

Source:  Author’s own.

The products from such productive green spaces within the neighbourhood are fertilizer free organic produce and the enriched soil/compost formed from the waste mix. The cost of organic products is generally high, as people categorize organic products to be healthy to consume and thus there exists a high demand. Many countries have put in place many awareness programs and thoughts to promote urban agriculture. It should also be noted that they insist on having a minimal amount of farming in every household to support food production. As a part of this move there are already farmers and self-help groups who are involved in farming vegetables and fruits for daily consumption. Moreover, there are many organic outlets which promote selling the surplus farm products. Likewise, the produce from the productive green spaces could be shared among the residents (like a group of households sharing the produce from each bed at a time), and the excess products could be sold in the different types of existing organic outlets as discussed. The selling price of the product will be determined by factors like the general wholesale and retail market prices and also the input costs incurred in the process.

132  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 7.1

Cost of productive urban green spaces

DISCUSSIONS Planners, landscape architects, municipality, and community groups should work together in developing parcels of unused lands right from the site selection/zoning, up to its operation and maintenance aspects. Every municipal administration should prescribe it as a mandatory requirement to provide a stipulated area for productive green spaces as and when such a development is proposed/ planned. Every municipal local body and planner should specifically earmark a suitable area for productive landscapes (centrally located or preferably distributed). It may no longer be necessary to view open spaces in an urban area as just an unutilized space, but rather see it as a space having the potential for food security, poverty alleviation, climate control, protecting the ecosystem services and adding to the aesthetic appeal of the city. Besides, the system provides an opportunity to transform such land parcels within the city into multifunctional areas, thereby integrating solid waste management and landscape development sustainably. The framework proposed contributes to developing specific guidelines for developing any unused open spaces to productive spaces, thus providing a more sustainable land use alternative to such urban open spaces. With reference to each parcel, the area required for the process and the kind of crops to be selected for the process need to be determined. It promotes a decentralized way for managing the biodegradable waste of each neighbourhood. Marketing the products and planting mix obtained from each neighbourhood thus reduces the use of chemical fertilizers in farming/gardening. Despite the extensive benefits of urban agriculture, it is seen that implementing this in urban and regional planning is not given due importance. One of the main limitations of urban agriculture is the limited allocated land for the community who are genuinely interested in growing crops. Most of the time other developments (commercial) provide greater profit than developing agriculture. Another disadvantage of urban agriculture is it requires a suitable

Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development  133 site with respect to the area, location, availability of resources like water, sunlight and so on. However, options of upgrading existing open dumps, non-buildable open spaces, and planning new spaces during early stages of master planning can partially tide over this issue. This aspect of the problem can be also resolved by incentivizing the process of developing productive landscapes through tax waiver schemes, by making it a mandatory rule while planning cities in the future and creating awareness among the public about the benefits of productive landscapes and their integration with waste management in urban areas. Landowners can use up their vacant lands for a productive purpose or lease such land to the interested parties for a period of time for implementing productive landscapes. Local self-government, municipality/corporation may be entrusted with the institutional responsibility of licencing, taxation and monitoring responsibilities of such spaces. While the proposed function is best implemented through a community-based approach, there is a need for the continuous monitoring of such spaces, and that requires a caretaker/ maintenance system with an operational cost. The knowledge and skills necessary to manage these operations for multiple functions, include expertise on environmental, social and economic aspects. The chapter tries to establish a methodology for developing open spaces in an urban area and making it productive by implementing environmentally sound and sustainable strategies of waste management and utilizing the same for landscape development. From a social perspective, productive landscapes supporting urban agriculture contribute to food security, poverty alleviation and economic development within the urban community and promote healthy relationships among the residents. Implementing such productive spaces within an urban fabric can add aesthetic value and support/supplement the economy (through landscape/food/manure production) and will eventually take the city’s people closer to a self-sustained community.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The chapter has discussed SDGs and how SDG 2 can be achieved through the concept of productive urban green spaces. It is observed that implementation of this concept can be achieved through active community participation. This provides an opportunity for the people to relate, commit and contribute to their surroundings and can also be multifunctional, thereby supporting/improving aesthetics and functional quality of the urban open space. It also discussed how green spaces can be any parcel of open space, which can be a park or even an abandoned waste land. It may no longer be necessary to view any vacant parcels in an urban area as a mere waste land, rather, see it as a space having the potential to function as a productive space with multifunctional characteristics. At a broader level, the system proposed contributes to making green spaces in any cityscape resources for agricultural production, food security, income generation and eventually contributing to environmental, social and economic development of a country. In the long run, this concept should find its place in urban planning policies of cities to ensure that our cities, its systems and infrastructure are self-sustainable.

134  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

REFERENCES Altieri, M.A., Companioni, N., Cañizares, K., Murphy, C., Rosset, P., Bourque, M. and Nicholls, C.I. (1999). The greening of the ‘barrios’: Urban agriculture for food security in Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 131–140. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10.1023/ a:1007545304561. American Planning Association. (n.d.). APA Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning. [online] Available at: https://​www​.planning​.org/​policy/​guides/​adopted/​food​.htm Amritha, P.K. and Anilkumar, P.P. (2016). Sustainable solid waste management through landscaped landfills. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(29). doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.17485/​ijst/​2016/​ v9i29/​98583. Bohn, K. and Viljoen, A. (2005). More space with less space: An urban design strategy. In A. Viljoen (Ed.) CPULS: Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes—Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities (pp. 11–16). Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M. and Kienast, F. (2003). Participatory landscape development: Overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1–2), 29–46. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1016/​S0169​-2046(02)00199​-8. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning [online], 68(1), 129–138. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.landurbplan​.2003​.08​.003. Doucette, W.J, Chard, J.K., Fabrizius, H., Crouch, C., Petersen, M., Chard, B., Carlsen, T. and Gorder, K. (2007). Trichloroethylene uptake into fruits and vegetables: Three-year field monitoring study. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(7), 2505–2509. Ericksen, P.J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234–245. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.gloenvcha​.2007​.09​.002. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.4060/​cb4474en Feifei, Z., Jianming, C. and Gang, L. (2009). How urban agriculture is reshaping peri-urban Beijing? Open House International, 34(2), 15–24. Ferris, J., Norman, C. and Sempik, J. (2002). People, land and sustainability: Community gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development. Social Policy & Administration. 35, 559–568. 10.1111/1467-9515.t01-1-00253. Fetouh, M. (2018). Edible landscaping in urban horticulture. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://​www​.researchgate​.net/​publication/​325250086​_Edible​_Landscaping​_in​_Urban​_Horticulture. Fraser, E.D.G. (2002). Urban ecology in Bangkok, Thailand: Community participation, urban agriculture and Forestry. Environments, 30, 37–50. Girardet, H. (2005). Urban agriculture and sustainable urban development. In A. Viljoen (Ed.) CPULS: Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes—Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities (pp. 32–39). Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Gorham, M.R., Waliczek, T.M., Snelgrove, A. and Zajicek, J.M. (2009). The impact of community gardens on numbers of property crimes in urban Houston. HortTechnology, 19(2), 291–296. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.21273/​hortsci​.19​.2​.291. Gould, D. and Caplow, T. (2012). Building-integrated agriculture: A new approach to food production. In Metropolitan Sustainability (pp. 147–170). Woodhead Publishing. Haeg, F. and Balmori, D. (2008). Edible Estates: Attack on the Front Lawn. Metropolis Books: New York, NY, USA, p.128. Hansen, G. (2016). Landscape design with edibles, http://​edis​.ifas​.ufl​.edu/​ep475 [26.03.2016]. Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Benton, T.G., Bodirsky, B.L., Bogard, J.R., Hall, A., Lee, B., Nyborg, K., Pradhan, P., Bonnett, G.D., Bryan, B.A., Campbell, B.M., Christensen, S., Clark, M., Cook, M.T., de Boer, I.J.M., Downs, C. and Dizyee, K. (2020). Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nature Food [online], 1(5), 266–272. doi: https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1038/​s43016​-020​-0074​-1. Hou, J., Johnson, J.M. and, Lawson, L.J. (2009). Greening Cities, Growing Communities: Learning from Seattle’s Urban Community Gardens. University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA, USA.

Equitable productive urban green spaces as a goal towards sustainable development  135 Koont, S., (2009). The urban agriculture of Havana monthly review. An Independent Socialist Magazine, 60(8). Kumar, B.M. and Nair, P.K.R. (2004). The enigma of tropical home gardens. Agroforestry Systems, 61–62(1–3), 135–152. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1023/​.b:​agfo​.0000028995. 13227.ca. Leake, J.R., Adam-Bradford, A. and Rigby, J.E. (2009). Health benefits of ‘grow your own’ food in urban areas: Implications for contaminated land risk assessment and risk management. Environmental Health, 8(Suppl 1), S6. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1186/​1476​-069x​-8​-s1​-s6. Lovell, S.T. (2010). Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability, 2(8), 2499–2522. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su2082499. Lovell, S.T. and Johnston, D.M. (2009). Designing landscapes for performance based on emerging principles in landscape ecology. Ecology and Society [online], 14(1). Available at: https://​www​.jstor​ .org/​stable/​26268059. Mendes, W., Balmer, K., Kaethler, T. and Rhoads, A. (2008). Using land inventories to plan for urban agriculture: Experiences from Portland and Vancouver. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 435–449. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​01944360802354923. Mougeot, L.J.A. (Ed.) (2010). Agropolis. Routledge. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.4324/​9781849775892. Nuissl, H. and Siedentop, S. (2020). Urbanisation and land use change. Human-Environment Interactions, 75–99. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​-030​-50841​-8​_5. Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Womdim, R. and Gianquinto, G. (2013). Urban agriculture in the developing world: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development [online], 33(4), 695–720. doi: https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s13593​-013​-0143​-z. Parrot, L., Sotamenou, J., Kamgnia, B.D. and Nantchouang, A. (2009). Determinants of domestic waste input use in urban agriculture lowland systems in Africa: The case of Yaoundé in Cameroon. Habitat International, 33(4), 357. Puplampu, D.A. and Boafo, Y.A. (2021). Exploring the impacts of urban expansion on green spaces availability and delivery of ecosystem services in the Accra Metropolis. Environmental Challenges, 100283. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.envc​.2021​.100283. Redwood, M. (Ed.) (2012). Agriculture in Urban Planning: Generating Livelihoods and Food Security. Routledge. Reid, Daniel. (2009). Community gardens and food security. Open House International, 34, 91–95. Ryn, S.V. der and Calthorpe, P. (2008). Sustainable Communities: A New Design Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs and Towns. [online] Google Books. New Catalyst Books. Sawicka, B. (2019). Post-harvest losses of agricultural produce. In W. Leal Filho, A. Azul, L. Brandli, P. Özuyar, and T. Wall (Eds) Zero Hunger. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​-319​-69626​-3​_40​-1 Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U.K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen, F. and Randrup, T.B. (2010). Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning [online], 95(3), 130. Smith, R.M., Gaston, K.J., Warren, P.H. and Thompson, K. (2005). Urban domestic gardens (V): Relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landscape Ecology, 20(2), 235–253. United Nations (2019). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. [online] Available at: https://​unstats​ .un​.org/​sdgs/​report/​2019/​The​-Sustainable​-Development​-Goals​-Report​-2019​.pdf. United Nations (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. [online] unstats.un.org. Available at: https://​unstats​.un​.org/​sdgs/​report/​2020/​. Viljoen, A. (2005). CPULs Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities. [online] The University of Brighton. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. Available at: https://​research​.brighton​.ac​.uk/​en/​publications/​cpuls​-continuous​-productive​-urban​-landscapes​ -designing​-urban​-agri Viljoen, A. and Bohn, K. (2009). Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL): Essential infrastructure and edible ornament. Open House International [online], 34(2), 50. Vitiello, D. (2008). Growing edible cities. In Growing Greener Cities: Urban Sustainability in The Twenty-First Century (pp. 259–278). University of Pennsylvania Press, http://​www​.jstor​.org/​stable/​j​ .ctt3fhps5.

136  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Westervelt, A. (2008). A business case for backyard farms. Sustainable Industries Magazine. .unicef​ .org. (n.d.). Assessment of COVID-19 Impact on Poverty and Vulnerability in Iraq. www​ [online] Available at: https://​www​.unicef​.org/​iraq/​reports/​assessment​-covid​-19​-impact​-poverty​-and​ -vulnerability​-iraq.

8. Advancing the sustainable development goals through the promotion of health and well-being in the built environment Alex Opoku, Francis K. Bondinuba, Nana Yaw Barimah Manaphraim and Godwin Kugblenu

INTRODUCTION Health, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) (2016), is “a condition of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not only the absence of sickness or disability.” From ancient nomads to contemporary city dwellers, the environment has been built, formed, and used to its maximum extent to meet human needs; yet, given the present health dangers, the built environment has been scrutinized (Renalds et al., 2010). A substantial amount of research has been conducted on the relationship between buildings and occupants’ physical and mental health, and the recent global pandemic, issues related to the growing global population, and the climate crises facing our world have all brought this interdependence into sharp focus (Emmitt, 2022). The idea that our surroundings can have a significant impact on our health is not new (Engineer et al., 2021). However, Goal three of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which is “to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all people of all ages” has received less attention among built environment professionals and practitioners, particularly in the Global South. The Global South encompasses a group of countries categorized based on similar patterns of socio-economic and political characteristics, and includes Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania. The 100 Resilient Cities (100RC), a Rockefeller Foundation program established in 2013, sought to support all cities worldwide increase their resilience to challenges of the twenty-first century from social, economic to physical challenges amongst others (Spaans and Waterhout, 2017). It is noteworthy that the operational definition of “Resilience” by the Rockefeller’s City Resilience Framework explains it as “the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience” (Spaans and Waterhout, 2017). Like the 100RCs, another group called the C40 cities, a climate leadership group, was set up in 2005 to address climate change concerns. The C40 cities aims at developing and implementing policies and programs capable of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate risks (Heikkinen, Ylä-Anttila et al., 2019). Many policymakers and organizations, including 100RCs and C40 Cities, believe that cities hold the key to addressing the climate emergency challenge because they are the primary centres of economic activity, the epicentre of population growth and urban sprawl, and the largest consumers of energy and resources (Loh et al., 2020). The time has come to move towards communities that purposefully promote both physical and mental well-being because humans have the special capacity to think creatively when planning vibrant communities. While the new field of the built environment and health may 137

138  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals provide some benefits for our generation, with a little foresight, a lot of good science, and a lot of hard work, many generations after us will be able to safely walk or bike home from school (Jackson, 2011). The built environment may affect health directly (e.g., indoor environmental quality) or indirectly through influencing health-related behaviours, such as promoting walking to enhance physical activity (Pinter-Wollman et al., 2018). The recent global pandemic of late 2019 has affected the way we should think about the built environment universally. This is because during the outbreak, we witnessed the challenges that inadequate infrastructure presented us on handling the outbreak. Notwithstanding, the increase in health demands such as diagnostic facilities and tools, treatment and quarantine units for affected individuals had overburdened the health systems and distressed the medical supply chain. Undoubtedly, the likelihood of future pandemic outbreaks is greatly expected by the exploitation of nature and animals, according to several calls made by scientists to raise awareness of this connection between human health and our relationship with the world (Broo et al., 2020). Remarkably, diseases with environmental ethology are typically difficult to identify from diseases with other causes. Currently, it is impossible to tell whether an air pollution-related cardiovascular mortality occurred by looking at the body. Developing the requisite in-depth biological and pathological knowledge necessary to identify the characteristics of specific diseases that are influenced by the environment may require a lot of work (Leonardi, 2012). By carefully planning the development of communities and buildings, built environment specialists can minimize harmful consequences and maximize beneficial effects on health (Pineo and Rydin, 2018).

SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The word “development” may refer to a wide range of endeavours in many different fields. For this reason, the phrase “sustainable construction” has emerged to describe the practice of constructing buildings in a way that minimizes their negative effects on the environment (Ashworth and Perera, 2019). Waste production, carbon dioxide emissions, altered land usage, diminished biodiversity, and rising global temperatures are just some of the ways in which the construction industry has harmed the environment (Zainordin and Zahra, 2021). However, these problems have surfaced more noticeably in Third-World nations. In Malaysia, construction is responsible for 24 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions; in India, 130,477 gigagrams of carbon dioxide equivalent account for 53 percent of national carbon dioxide emissions; and in Nigeria, construction and manufacturing contributed to an out-of-control 827 percent increase in emissions from 2,557 gigagrams to 23,714 gigagrams of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2000 and 2015 (Mathur et al., 2021). Research on the impact of home warmth on respiratory health and well-being in children and adults was conducted as part of attempts to discover the major role of the built environment in supporting SDG 3. Conclusions also stressed the need to provide low-cost, high-quality housing to disadvantaged populations to reduce the widening health disparity (Ige-Elegbede et al., 2022). The health and happiness of building occupants and users may be improved or negatively impacted by the design, layout, and functional elements of the built environment. Healthy buildings, public spaces, and communities have been shown in a variety of studies to decrease people’s exposure to pollutants, encourage more physical activity, and foster social connectedness. Those findings are from Callway et al. (2020). According to recent research (Carmona,

Advancing the sustainable development goals   139 2019; Ige-Elegbede et al., 2022), promoting and enhancing health, as well as safeguarding health, are just some of the many focuses of SDG 3. Success in attaining SDG 3 on health and well-being will have far-reaching consequences for the accomplishment of all other goals, and vice versa (Arora and Mishra, 2019). Target 3.8 of the SDGs emphasizes universal health care as an overarching goal, while the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) focused on battling individual illnesses or improving specific health metrics (Arora and Mishra, 2019). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Health The right to health is the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable level of bodily and mental health, as stated in the WHO constitution. According to the preamble of the WHO Constitution, “health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity,” and “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic condition, or social condition” (Arora and Mishra, 2019). Sixty-seven nations, home to over 75 percent of the world’s population, will need an extra 3.9 trillion US dollars between 2015 and 2030 to reach the SDG health indicators (see Table 8.1). The analysis found that funding from inside the country could cover 85.05 percent of the total cost. Therefore, in most nations, the decision to improve health and well-being for everyone is made politically rather than economically (Mohammed and Ghebreyesus, 2018). Asma et al. (2020) tallied the health-related SDG data availability and gaps, which is important for attaining the health-related SDGs, tracking progress towards reaching universal health coverage, and addressing national health priorities. It is from a global perspective, considering various estimates by renowned international organizations. Table 8.1

The SDG 3 indicators

SDG 3

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Target 3.1

By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births. In addition, all countries should reduce the maternal mortality ratio to less than 140 per 100,000 live births

Target 3.2

By 2030, end preventable deaths of new-borns and children under five years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-five mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births

Target 3.3

By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases

Target 3.4

By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being

Target 3.5

Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol

Target 3.6

By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents

Target 3.7

By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes

Target 3.8

Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all

Target 3.9

By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination

Source:  World Health Organization (2016).

140  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals The SDGs, specifically SDG 3, which focuses on ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all, have significant relevance to the built environment. The built environment, comprising urban planning, architecture, and infrastructure, plays a critical role in shaping the overall health and well-being of communities. Here is a short discussion on the relevance of each target to the built environment: 1. Target 3.1 and 3.2: Improving access to healthcare facilities and services through thoughtful urban planning, better transportation networks, and inclusive infrastructure design can help reduce maternal and child mortality rates. 2. Target 3.3: Controlling the spread of communicable diseases can be accomplished by creating healthy living environments that include proper sanitation, waste management, and access to safe drinking water. Furthermore, urban planning can help to reduce disease transmission by preventing overcrowding and promoting better ventilation in buildings. 3. Target 3.4: To reduce noncommunicable disease mortality and promote mental health, the built environment must encourage physical activity and social interaction by providing green spaces, parks, walking paths, and bike lanes. Access to nature and adequate natural lighting can also improve mental health and overall well-being. 4. Target 3.5: Addressing substance abuse through the built environment can entail creating safe and welcoming community spaces that offer support, education, and prevention and treatment resources. 5. Target 3.6: Designing safer streets and transportation systems, such as traffic calming measures, pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and effective public transportation networks, can help reduce road traffic accidents. 6. Target 3.7: Considering the location and accessibility of these services within the built environment, as well as promoting safe, inclusive, and stigma-free spaces, can help to ensure access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services. 7. Target 3.8: To achieve universal health coverage, healthcare facilities must be easily accessible, widely distributed, and integrated into communities. This necessitates careful urban planning, architecture, and infrastructure design that priorities access to healthcare. 8. Target 3.9: Environmental hazards can be reduced by designing sustainable buildings and infrastructure, using environmentally friendly materials, and implementing effective waste management and pollution control systems. To combat air, water, and soil pollution, urban planning can also promote the preservation of natural ecosystems and the incorporation of green spaces within cities. The built environment plays a crucial role in achieving the objectives of SDG 3, as it shapes the overall health and well-being of communities. Thoughtful urban planning, architecture, and infrastructure design can contribute to creating healthy, inclusive, and sustainable living environments that support the promotion of well-being for all. Health-Related SDG Data Availability Table 8.2 outlines the data availability, disaggregation, and comparability of different health-related indicators under the SDGs. It highlights the current state of data collection and reporting for these indicators, along with the primary sources responsible for compiling and providing the estimates. The table’s importance to the built environment lies in its ability to provide insights into the data availability, disaggregation, and comparability of various

Advancing the sustainable development goals   141 Table 8.2

Health-related SDG data availability

General health-related SDG data availability and gaps globally Indicator topic

Country data availability

Disaggregation

Comparable estimates

Source estimates

3.1.1

Maternal mortality

Fair

Poor

Annual

UN MMEIG

3.1.2

Skilled birth attendance

Good

Good

In prep.

UNICEF, WHO

3.2.1

Under-five mortality rate

Good

Good

Annual

UN IGME

3.2.2

Neonatal mortality rate

Good

Good

Annual

UN IGME

3.3.1

HIV incidence

Fair

Fair

Annual

UNAIDS

3.3.2

TB incidence

Fair

Fair

Annual

WHO

3.3.3

Malaria incidence

Fair

Fair

Annual

WHO

3.3.4

Hepatitis B incidence

Poor

Poor

In prep.

WHO

Fair

Poor

Annual

WHO

3.3.5

Neglected tropical diseases at risk

3.4.1

Mortality due to NCD

Fair

Poor

Every 2-3 years

WHO

3.4.2

Suicide mortality rate

Fair

Poor

Every 2-3 years

WHO

Poor

Poor

Not available

UNODC, WHO WHO

3.5.1

Treatment substance use disorders

3.5.2

Harmful use of alcohol

Fair

Poor

Annual

3.6.1

Death’s road traffic injuries

Fair

Poor

Every 2-3 years

WHO

3.7.1

Family planning

Good

Good

Annual

UNPD

3.7.2

Adolescent birth rate

Good

Good

Annual

UNPD

3.8.1

Coverage index UHC

Good

Fair

In prep.

WHO, World Bank

3.8.2

Financial protection

Fair

Fair

In prep.

WHO, World Bank

3.9.1

Mortality due to air pollution

Fair

Poor

Every 2-3 years

WHO

3.9.2

Mortality due to WASH

Fair

Poor

Every 2-3 years

WHO

Fair

Poor

Every 2-3 years

WHO

Fair

Good

Annual

WHO

Poor

Poor

Not available

WHO

3.9.3 3.a.1 3.b.1

Mortality due unintentional poisoning Tobacco use Access to medicines and vaccines

3.b.2

ODA for medical research

Fair

NA

In prep.

OECD, WHO

3.c.1

Health workers

Fair

Poor

Not available

WHO

Fair

NA

NA

WHO

3.d.1

IHR capacity and emergency preparedness

6.1.1

Drinking water services

Good

Good

Annual

WHO, UNICEF

6.2.1

Sanitation services

Good

Good

Annual

WHO, UNICEF

7.1.1

Clean household energy

Fair

Fair

In prep.

WHO

11.6.1

Air pollution

Good

Good

Annual

WHO

13.1.1

Mortality due to disasters

Fair

Poor

Every 2-3 years

WHO

16.1.1

Homicide

Fair

Fair

Every 2-3 years

WHO

16.1.2

Mortality due to conflicts

Fair

Poor

Every 2-3 years

WHO, UNPD

Source:  Asma et al. (2020).

health-related indicators under the SDGs. These indicators can help guide decision-making and policy development in the built environment by highlighting areas where improvements are needed to enhance the overall health and well-being of communities. By understanding the availability and quality of data for these indicators, policymakers, urban planners, architects, and other stakeholders can make informed decisions when designing and implementing projects in the built environment. This can lead to better resource alloca-

142  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals tion, more targeted interventions, and improved monitoring of the impact of built environment initiatives on health outcomes. Additionally, the table emphasizes the importance of collaboration between international organizations, governments, and local stakeholders in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data related to health-related SDGs. Such collaboration can facilitate the sharing of best practices, innovative solutions, and lessons learned from various built environment projects aimed at improving health and well-being. The following analysis examines the table column by column, offering a comprehensive understanding and insight into the information presented within the table: 1. Data availability: This column indicates the quality of country-level data available for each indicator. Data availability ranges from “Good” to “Fair” to “Poor,” which signifies the extent to which the data is collected and reported across countries. 2. Disaggregation: This column describes the level of disaggregation for each indicator. Disaggregation refers to the ability to break down data by subcategories, such as age, gender, or geographic location. A “Good” rating means data is well-disaggregated, while “Fair” and “Poor” ratings indicate limited or insufficient disaggregation. 3. Comparable estimates: This column shows the frequency at which comparable global estimates are available for each indicator. These estimates are typically published every year, every two to three years, or are in preparation. 4. Source estimates: This column lists the organizations responsible for collecting, compiling, and providing the data for each indicator, such as WHO, UNICEF, UNAIDS, and the World Bank. Table 8.3 illustrates that data availability and disaggregation vary considerably across the different indicators. For example, skilled birth attendance (3.1.2), under-five mortality rate (3.2.1), and neonatal mortality rate (3.2.2) have good data availability and disaggregation, while hepatitis B incidences (3.3.4) and treatment for substance use disorders (3.5.1) have poor data availability and disaggregation. The table also highlights the role of various international organizations in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data related to health-related SDGs. For instance, WHO is involved in providing data for a significant number of indicators, such as mortality due to Table 8.3

Impact of the other SDGs on SDG 3

#

Impact

 

High Impact

Medium Impact

Low Impact

1

No Poverty (SDG 1)

Gender Equality (SDG 5)

Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10)

2

Zero Hunger (SDG 2)

Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG 7)

Life Below Water (SDG 14)

3

Quality Education (SDG 4)

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (SDG 9) Life on Land (SDG 15)

4

Clean Water and Sanitation

Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11)

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

 

Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17)

 

 

 

 

(SDG 6) 5

Decent Work and Economic

6

Responsible Consumption and

(SDG 16)

Growth (SDG 8) Production (SDG 12) 7

Climate Action (SDG 13)

Source:  Howden-Chapman and Chisholm (2018).

Advancing the sustainable development goals   143 non-communicable diseases (3.4.1), suicide mortality rate (3.4.2), and death due to road traffic injuries (3.6.1). In summary, this table provides an overview of the current state of data collection and reporting for health-related SDG indicators. It emphasizes the need for improved data availability, disaggregation, and comparability to effectively monitor progress towards achieving these goals. Furthermore, it highlights the critical role played by international organizations in collecting and disseminating this data. Linking SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) With Other SDGs One of the most universal objectives is “ensuring a healthy life and promoting well-being for all ages,” which is related to all the other SDGs (Guégan et al., 2018). As such, the SDG Index scores as created by the United Nations (UN) custodian agencies are relevant to monitoring and assessing progress with efforts designed to achieve each SDG. The SDG Index assesses each country’s total and inclusive output on the 17 SDGs, allocating equal weight to each goal. The score symbolizes a country’s position between the worst possible outcome (score of 0) and the target (score of 100) (Wackernagel et al., 2017). At higher SDG Index scores, there is a stronger correlation between SDG Index scores and well-being, as shown by the quadratic link between the two that was established by De Neve and Sachs (2020). Human well-being is central to the 2030 Agenda for a sustainable future, and the research found that more complicated and contextualized policy measures are required to accomplish sustainable development and enhance well-being at the same time. The increased focus on planetary health and systems thinking highlights the extensive connection between environmental and human health (Howden-Chapman and Chisholm, 2018).

HEALTH, WELL-BEING, AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT There is mounting evidence that our surroundings, especially the built environment, affect our physical and mental health in a variety of ways (Engineer et al., 2021). A safer and healthier community is one that has been thoughtfully planned and constructed. People can be helped to maintain their health and well-being for the rest of their lives by designing built environments that encourage walking, cycling, physical activity, taking public transportation, and interacting with neighbours. Conversely, communities’ physical, mental, and social health may be negatively affected by poorly constructed built environments (New South Wales Ministry of Health, 2020). Transformations in the building and construction industries are occurring in response to pressing global challenges in the areas of climate action, health and welfare, and resource efficiency and circularity. The quality of our lives is greatly affected by the built environment. Our houses, schools, places of employment, and places of hospitality are all part of the urban fabric that makes our cities desirable places to live. The World Green Building Council (WGBC) suggests that structures might be covert foes to our health and well-being (WGBC, 2020). WGBC (2020) has created a high-quality educational resource called the Framework, which is shown in Figure 8.1. It is structured around six pillars that are essential to fostering health and well-being. The ideas are conceptual, making them applicable to an international audience and many parties. It has applications for architects, residents, developers, health experts,

144  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: WGBC (2020).

Figure 8.1

Principles for a healthy, sustainable built environment

Table 8.4

The principles of health, well-being and sustainable built environment framework

Principles

Description

Sub-principle

Protect Health

Protect and improve health

Air Quality, Water Quality, Mental Health, and

Prioritise Comfort

Prioritize comfort for building users

Thermal Comfort, Lighting, Acoustics, Visual and

Harmony with Nature

Design for harmony between the

Biophilic Design, Access to Nature, Biodiversity, and

natural and built environments

Nature-Based Solutions

Facilitate positive behaviour and

Active Design, Nutrition, Hydration, and Social

health

Connectivity

Create positive social value with

Human Rights, Construction Worker Health,

buildings and communities

Community Health, Social Value

Take climate action

Climate Change Mitigation, Adaptation and

Infectious Disease Ergonomic Inclusive Design

Facilitate Healthy Behaviour Create Social Value Take Climate Action

Resilience, Water Efficiency, Resource Efficiency and Material Health

Source:  Authors’ construct (2023).

environmentalists and government officials. The six principles unpinning the WGBC’s health, well-being and sustainable built environment framework are explained in Table 8.4. Built Environment and Health Many studies have shown a correlation between people’s exposure to both natural and man-made elements of their surroundings and their health and happiness. These findings include the objective and subjective components of people’s home, work, and play environments. Accordingly, public health and planning experts are increasingly advocating for the built

Advancing the sustainable development goals   145 and natural environments to be considered crucial elements in determining health (Bird et al., 2018). Air and noise pollution, low-quality housing, and land use patterns have been identified by the WHO (2016) as contributing to 23 percent of worldwide mortality (Pineo, 2019). The percentage of people living in cities has risen to over 50 percent and is expected to keep rising in the years to come. According to Tuhkanen et al. (2022), a prominent element in the debate over sustainable development over the next few decades will be the necessity for changes to urban environments as people migrate from rural to urban settings. We need to learn how to make the most of the opportunities that urban areas provide to foster well-being in addition to economic prosperity. With so many people packed into such a small area, so much pollution being produced, and so many negative effects being felt (on the environment, on society, and on the economy), this is an absolute need. A more people-oriented, sustainable, equitable, social, and enjoyable city life is a priority for both the UNs New Urban Agenda (NUA) and its SDGs. Remarkable progress has been made in recent decades to increase overall and healthy life expectancy, decrease maternal and child mortality, improve early warning, reduce risks, manage national and global health risks, and lessen the burden of non-communicable diseases. Non-communicable diseases are diseases which are not transferrable or infectious to the uninfected. As such, they are developed on an individual basis and influenced by varying parameters such as genetics, congenital anatomic defects, as well as from chemical, physical and other environmental factors. Notable examples include cancers, diabetes, hypertension, obesity and poor mental health (Bigna and Noubiap, 2019; World Health Organization, 2016). Communicable diseases, often referred to as contagious, infectious or transmissible diseases, are ailments in a host resulting from the presence and growth of the disease-causing agents called microbes. The microbes are classified into bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites and are transmitted via insect vector bites, airborne routes, contaminated surfaces, bodily fluid contacts, and blood products amongst others. Common examples of communicable disease include COVID-19, hepatitis (A, B, C), sleeping sickness, syphilis, measles and salmonellosis (Edemenkong and Huang, 2022). However, despite progress in implementing the 2030 Agenda in all WHO European Member States, current projections show that the burden of communicable diseases will increase (Menne et al., 2020). Hanc et al. (2019) report that the construction sector has lately shown increased interest in the health and well-being topic via a variety of industry-led initiatives. New building certification systems with a singular emphasis on health and well-being have emerged as one of the most significant projects, as have many well-received studies from the WGBC. Even though there have been significant theoretical and practical advances in the field of the built environment’s effect on health, it is still crucial that this information be expressed and translated in a way that is understandable and accessible to a wider audience and to better illustrate how modifications to the built environment can affect health and well-being (Lisa, 2013). Research over extended periods of time shows that teenage health and development may take a nosedive when people in the area are exposed to high crime rates, substandard housing, and other negative aspects of the community (Ige-Elegbede et al., 2020). Anxiety, depression, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)/Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), substance abuse, aggressive behaviour, asthma, heart disease, and obesity are just some of the many physical and mental health issues that have recently been linked to the built environment, particularly poor urban planning, and inadequate housing. When residents of a community are living in substandard conditions, it may be an indication that they are under extreme

146  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals mental and physical stress (Srinivasan et al., 2003). In recent years, it has become clearer that characteristics in the built environment that encourage sedentary habits and unhealthy surroundings contribute to major health problems and premature death (Andreucci et al., 2019). For example, a plethora of studies have concluded that long-term exposure to road traffic noise may increase the risk of ill-health effects such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity and diabetes amongst others (Foraster et al., 2018; Pyko et al., 2017; Roswall et al., 2015). The built environment has an obvious impact on people’s health. Exposure to environmental contaminants, a lack of access to green space and good food, and social isolation are all ways in which the built environment may negatively affect health. Psychiatric disorders, excess weight, and degenerative illnesses are only a few of the outcomes that may be precipitated by the causes. It is crucial to remember that the built environment does not necessarily have a negative impact on people’s health all the time. Green space, walkability, and community involvement are all examples of how the built environment may improve people’s health and happiness. Urban Green Space and Health Currently, more than half of the world’s population resides in cities, and this number is projected to rise. Despite the many reviews of empirical research on the relationship between nature and human health, relatively few of them have specifically addressed urban settings (Kondo et al., 2018). Urban green spaces may include areas with “natural surfaces” or “natural settings,” but they may also include certain types of urban greenery, such as street trees, and they may also include “blue space,” which includes aquatic features like ponds and coastal zones. Public parks are a common example of green spaces in metropolitan areas, although other definitions may also include private gardens, woodlands, children’s play places, non-amenity areas (such as roadway verges), riverfront pathways, beaches, among others (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2018). According to Wolch et al. (2014), urban green spaces, such as parks, forests, green roofs, streams, and community gardens, offer essential ecosystem services and promote physical activity, psychological well-being, and the public health of urban residents. Urban green spaces support the ecological integrity of cities and can help preserve the public health of urban residents through its ecosystem services. Green spaces may also restore groundwater, filter air, reduce noise, clean up pollution, cool down temperatures, and supply food. For instance, trees in metropolitan areas may lessen air pollution by absorbing specific airborne toxins from the sky whilst equally reducing noise levels (Beckett et al., 1998; Santamouris and Osmond, 2020). For city dwellers, greenery and urban forests can help to lower the incidence of heat-related illnesses by cooling and shading an area and so lowering temperature (Santamouris and Osmond, 2020). Green spaces have been linked to improved pregnancy outcomes, a decrease in cardiovascular disease, lower rates of early death, and advantages to the immune system, metabolism, and mental health. Although there are other health risks associated with green spaces, including exposure to allergens (like pollen), pesticides, herbicides, vector-borne diseases spread by arthropods (like Lyme disease or dengue), accidental injuries brought on by activities carried out in green space areas, and excessive UV radiation exposure, epidemiological data suggest that exposure to green spaces may have positive health effects (Rojas-Rueda et al., 2019). Increasing the biodiversity of such areas by fostering a wide variety of flora and fauna may

Advancing the sustainable development goals   147 benefit human health (Houlden et al., 2021). Perhaps the answer to the question of why urban green spaces permit a certain level of mental “switching-off” lies less in what they offer (i.e., facilities) and more in what they do not; rest. As a result, resting and spending time in settings such as parks with low demands on cognitive attention, can have significant restorative potential especially at parks where nature abounds and urban elements like buildings, generally, do not exist (Collins et al., 2022). Planning to promote health There are urgent calls to reconsider disease prevention strategies in the twenty-first century due to the significant global health challenges that are being faced. Planning cities in a way that minimizes non-communicable diseases and traffic accidents while also managing rapid urbanization is a crucial component of the solution (Giles-Corti et al., 2016). Urban planners and public health professionals have once again been persuaded of the need for inclusive approaches to improve population health and achieve health equity considering the severe health disparities present in cities around the world and the increasingly complex urban environments that they are working in (Northridge and Freeman, 2011). The worst health issues and preventable deaths are disproportionately prevalent in neighbourhoods that experience a variety of other inequalities, including a lack of basic water and sanitation services, high poverty rates, residential segregation, and a concentration of environmentally harmful facilities in almost all cities throughout the world (Corburn, 2005). There is the assumption that quality of health of individuals is only a matter for health care professionals but contrarily, a concern for health and well-being becomes essential to many elements of national and municipal policies. Why is this so? It is because, for instance, when it comes to the obesity epidemic that is ravaging many industrialized nations, we can see that answers are being sought not just in health care but in food policy, retailing, recreation, and transportation. In the same way, there are other dimensions to the relationship between health and preparing for a variety of non-communicable diseases (Barton and Grant, 2013). According to Corburn (2004), although the prevention of infectious disease outbreaks in urban areas was the shared objective of public health and urban planning when they first began, there is now minimal overlap between the two disciplines and the division of the fields has contributed to the lack of coordination in attempts to improve the health of urban inhabitants and the general failure to perceive connections between, for instance, the built environment and the health disparities faced by low-income communities and people of colour. He further posits that public health is beginning to seriously investigate the role of land use decisions and how the built environment affects population health, despite the increased focus public health has given biomedical factors that may be responsible for disparities in morbidity and mortality rates between the well-off and least well-off. Urban planners must put increasing health as their top priority if they are to successfully address many of the issues that cities face because lack of access to jobs, commodities, services, inadequate housing, poverty, stress, and environmental pollution all influence health (Barton and Tsourou, 2000). Making cities sustainable towards the SDGs According to estimates, roughly 70 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050, resulting in increased consumption of energy and resources (Elgazzar and El-Gazzar, 2017); however, even though cities may contribute to environmental degradation, they still provide many benefits to society (Devisscher et al., 2019). The elimination of slum-like conditions, the

148  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals provision of affordable transit options, the reduction of urban sprawl, the improvement of the protection of cultural assets, the addressing of urban resilience and climate change issues, the improvement of urban management (pollution and waste management), and other measures are all part of SDG 11: “Sustainable Cities and Communities” (Kufeoglu, 2022). As one’s residential location inside a city affects one’s access to infrastructure, employment opportunities, one’s consumption patterns, environmental impact, and vulnerability to natural catastrophes, it is a major element in defining socioeconomic and health disparities (Gilles-Corti et al., 2020). These among other imperative reasons imply that, humans need to attach an urgency to improving their environment if they desire a positive impact on their health. Depletion and degradation of our natural resources, as well as the planet’s incapacity to sustain human existence due to a few health concerns, are reducing the standard of living for several billion people throughout the globe (Fagunwa and Olanbiwoninu, 2020). Saiu et al. (2022) argues that state and local governments have considerable influence over socioeconomic and environmental concerns that are more concentrated in urban areas. The process of “SDGs operationalization” necessitates localizing, modifying, implementing, and monitoring the SDGs also at the local urban scale because, in a global vision, every government is free to establish its own national goals and figure out how to incorporate those goals into domestic policies. Reference is made to Agenda 2030, whereby the 11th SDG addresses “sustainable cities and communities,” and the “Urban Health Rome Declaration,” adopted at the European “G7 Health” summit, details the strategic aspects and efforts to enhance public health in cities. Health is the precondition for urban sustainable development and the top goal for urban planners; WHO (2016) “Make Cities and Human Settlements Inclusive, Safe, Resilient, and Sustainable” is a strong summary of the intricate link between urban planning and public health (Rebecchi and Capalongo, 2021). Designing for health and well-being The emphasis of the construction industry and research is moving from producing just adequate spaces to going above and beyond in terms of how they promote task performance and improve people’s health and well-being (Torresin et al., 2020). A growing amount of evidence suggests that the layout of our urban spaces influences our health, adding to the list of elements known to affect our well-being. Diseases like TB, pneumonia, and diarrhoea have all been linked to shabby urban infrastructure and architecture (Sara et al., 2019). Disease, environmental degradation, and growing inequality are all linked to, or made worse by, the built environment (Pineo, 2022). Changes to urban transportation, housing, land use, renewable energy production, and waste management that are well-planned and sustainable can have a lot of different effects (Vardoulakis et al., 2020). Some of these effects include better public health, less inequality, and more productivity. Indoor air quality and health Indoor environments are characterized by a combination of outdoor contaminants, typically associated with vehicular traffic and industrial activities, which can enter the building through penetrations and/or through natural and mechanical ventilation systems, and indoor contaminants, which are initiated within the building and come from sources like combustion (such as burning fuels, coal, wood, tobacco products, and candles), emissions from building materials and furnishings, central heating and cooling systems, and other sources (Cincinelli and Martellini, 2017). Additionally, the term “indoor air pollution” is used to describe the haz-

Advancing the sustainable development goals   149 ardous chemical, biological, and physical contamination that is present in our homes, schools, and places of work on a regular basis (Abass, 2018). The Air Resources Board (ARB) of the US Environmental Protection Agency reports that many pollutants accumulate quickly indoors, resulting in higher levels—between 25 and 62 percent higher than normally found outside—particularly in newly constructed homes where tighter construction prevents particles from escaping. Approximately 2.4 billion people, or about one third of the world’s population, are estimated to create severe home air pollution by cooking over open flames or inefficient stoves fuelled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung, and agricultural waste), and coal. It is thought that 3.2 million people die too soon every year because they used kerosene or other solid fuels in their kitchens that polluted the air (Sepadi and Nkosi, 2023). The leading causes of mortality among the 3.2 million people who lost their lives owing to inhaling polluted air in their homes were cardiovascular disease (32 percent), cerebrovascular disease (23 percent), respiratory infection (21 percent), COPD (19 percent), and cancer of the lung (6 percent) (Estol, 2019; Manisalidis et al., 2020). The majority of the 86 million healthy life years lost this year due to air pollution in the home were experienced by women in poor and medium-income nations. Sick building syndrome To initiate the discussion on the Sick Building Syndrome (SBS), it is important to understand what a syndrome is. A syndrome is a collection of recognizable symptoms repeatedly occurring together and ultimately pointing to the ailment it describes. Examples of syndromes include Down syndrome, Marfan syndrome, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and so on, with each characterized by essentially specific symptoms enabling objective diagnosis of the condition. In Kim Arnold’s publication entitled “Sick Building Syndrome”, he describes SBS as “situations in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a building, yet no specific illnesses or cause can be identified” (Arnold, 2001). In a later definition by Greer (2007), he describes SBS as “a group of non-specific symptoms with a temporal connection to a particular building, but with no specific or obvious cause”. SBSs are ubiquitous among workers and often result in under-productivity. Symptoms of SBS include fatigue, headache, dry cough, itchy skin, and respiratory mucosal lining irritation. It is noteworthy that, victims report relief soon after leaving the building (Abdel-Hamid, Hakim et al., 2013). A review by Ghaffarianhoseini et al. (2018) and similar studies, revealed triggers of SBS complaints spanned areas of building dampness, poor ventilation, poor lighting, noise exposures at odd hours, poor air quality, hazardous electromagnetic frequencies, chemical agents, biological agents (pathogens), and psychosocial contributors like depression and anxiety at work (Meggs, 1993; Sternberg et al., 1994). Considering the multi-dimensional factors at play, it implies that a quest to provide realistic solutions to the concepts of health in the built environment demands an equally multifaceted approach involving diverse professions to curb the menace in a holistic manner. This change in approach which shifts from the traditionally one-expert led style to the innovative-all-hands-on-deck style promises to intensify efforts at improving the built environment for health.

150  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Impacts of home lighting on human health Prior to the 1940s, natural light from the sun served as buildings’ primary light source, with artificial lighting acting as a backup. Electric lighting transformed the workplace in just 20 years by providing the majority or all the occupants’ lighting needs (Edwards and Torcellini, 2002). Since it was first used, daylighting’s physics have not changed, but how buildings are designed to use it has. As a statement of architecture and to save energy, daylighting is frequently incorporated into buildings. However, the advantages of daylighting go beyond those related to energy and architecture (Edwards and Torcellini, 2002). It is undeniable that daylight has a profound impact on human psychology and physiology. This, along with its role in the learning process and its impact on mood, awareness, vision, and circadian rhythms, makes poorly lit classrooms detrimental to students’ health and ability to learn (Obralic and Jeghel, 2021). Light is important for visual performance and safety and plays a vital role in regulating human physiological functions (Osibona et al., 2021). For the nervous and endocrine systems to work properly and for the release of hormones like melatonin, light is crucial. The pineal gland controls the body’s circadian rhythm by releasing melatonin in a 24-hour cycle in response to the amount of light received. The hormone is at its peak during the dark hours of the night, promoting sound sleep, and at its lowest during the light hours of the day, promoting alertness (Osibona et al., 2021). It has been discovered that the spectral power distribution of the light incident at the eyes has a more significant impact on ratings of discomfort glare than it does on disability glare. When compared to light sources with less short-wavelength content, light sources with more short-wavelength content cause more uncomfortable glare at the same luminance level. Therefore, for the same amount of light reaching the eyes, light sources with a higher content of blue light, such as cool white light sources, may be perceived as causing more uncomfortable glare (Bartlett et al., 2021). In addition to causing glare that can impair vision, exposure to too much light can also harm the eyes depending on the amount of time spent in the light and the light source’s luminance, angular size, and spectrum (Bartlett et al., 2021). Light, like water or food, is used by the body as a nutrient in metabolic processes. Natural light stimulates important biological functions in the brain and is divided into colours that are important to our health. The inability to perceive colours from light on a cloudy day or in poor lighting conditions can affect our mood and energy level (Edwards and Torcellini, 2002). Thermal comfort Several interrelated and ephemeral factors contribute to the subjective experience of thermal comfort (Djongyang et al., 2010). It is becoming more urgent to investigate how the changing climate and ageing population affect people’s exposure to ambient heat. There is substantial extra mortality during cold and heat waves, and ambient temperature has a large and rapid impact on morbidity (Ormandy et al., 2016). The comfort and, by extension, efficiency of building occupants are affected by a few factors, one of which is the building’s thermal environment. Researchers have spent a lot of time considering how temperature affects efficiency (Bueno et al., 2021). How long someone can tolerate temperatures that are too high or too low for them depends on a few factors, including their age, health, gender, how well they have acclimatised to the local climate, and how long they have been there (Ormandy et al., 2016). Our homes should be havens of warmth and safety from the weather’s worst, but that protection often comes at

Advancing the sustainable development goals   151 a high price. Studies on fuel poverty and health show that as energy prices rise, people may become more frugal with their use of electricity and gas for heating and cooling, which can have negative effects on people’s health (Hansen et al., 2022). A recent study by Hansen et al. (2022) surveyed 303 seniors (aged 61–98) living on their own to determine how weather changes affected their health. Cold weather was associated with 36 percent of cases of illness, the most common being coughs and colds (44 percent), followed by painful joints (33 percent), shortness of breath (19 percent), and influenza (14 percent). Fatigue (56 percent), shortness of breath (22 percent), insomnia (17 percent), and dizziness (17 percent) were the most reported symptoms among those who spent time outdoors in hot weather. Negative side effects such as sickness, throwing up, tripping, and headaches were also reported.

Source: Adapted from Hansen et al. (2022).

Figure 8.2

Impact changing weather conditions on health

Two-thirds of survey respondents’ homes were more than 20 years old and lacked wall insulation, whereas newer homes were better insulated. More respondents with winter illnesses, such as asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, and heart conditions, lived in uninsulated houses than in insulated houses (Hansen et al., 2022). Participants generally coped well with thermal changes, with no significant effects on their health and well-being; however, they believed that temperature variations affected ailments. When internal operative temperatures were perceived to be satisfactory, self-reported health and well-being were good, but declined when temperatures were too warm or too cold. Participants mostly used adaptive strategies to deal with thermal variation, with cooling and heating used sparingly due to cost concerns (Hansen et al., 2022). In terms of measuring thermal comfort, a predictive model was discovered and used to identify air temperature, air velocity, mean radiant temperature, relative humidity, clothing insulation and activity level to develop the Predictive Mean Vote (Fanger, 1986). Kaushik et al. (2020) conducted a study to determine the impact of each of these components on thermal comfort. The study ranked six indoor environmental parameters based on their impact on occupant thermal comfort and productivity. This study confirmed previous research findings that temperature and relative humidity have a significant impact on thermal comfort and productivity.

152  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Acoustic environment There may be an effect on indoor environments when noises from both inside and outside are mixed. Therefore, the user may be influenced by noises in both close proximity and farther off, including those in the interior and outdoor surroundings. Sounds may be either airborne or structure-borne depending on whether they are transmitted via or originate from the building’s façade, ventilation apertures, building structure, or building services (Torresin et al., 2020). Maintaining a peaceful acoustic environment at healthcare facilities is essential to ensuring the well-being of patients, visitors, and staff (CISCA, 2010). The best masking strategies for indoor spaces consider how people perceive sound and use a combination of indoor and outdoor sounds (i.e., wanted versus unwanted sounds). Because of their more commonplace presence in outdoor areas, natural elements present more of a challenge when used in an indoor setting. Though current urban soundscape approaches employ natural sounds (like water sounds) to cover up artificial ones, implementing them indoors is more challenging (Torresin et al., 2020). The “acoustic environment,” “people,” and “context” are the three main pillars on which the meaning of a soundscape rests. The idea came from urban and outdoor studies (Torresin et al., 2019) that tried to shift the focus from the negative effects of environmental sounds to their positive effects. Scientists are daily adding to research that re-examines the acoustics of the environment under the more positive concept. The discussion has shifted from the traditional view of focusing on sounds as “noise” to reviewing such as a “resource” rather than “waste” (Kang and Schulte-Fortkamp, 2016; Kang et al., 2016). Constructive sounds in the form of music have been demonstrated to have therapeutic healing effects on patients while negatively, noise affects patient’s recovery, sleep disturbance and stress levels (Codinhoto, Tzortzopoulos et al., 2009). Biophilic design theories suggest that sound can be used to bring people closer to nature. If natural outdoor settings are not available, natural-sounding artificial recordings can be used instead. Nevertheless, supplemental noises should only be used if “wanted” by building occupants, if they are coherently combined with visual stimuli, if they are suitable for the tasks to be completed and the intended use of the building, if they are designed and evaluated using soundscape methods, and if they are developed through participatory processes (Torresin et al., 2020). Indoor soundscape science contributes to the ongoing pursuit of health and well-being in building research and practice by providing a perceptual perspective on building and room acoustics, allowing for the delivery of satisfactory spaces that go beyond what is merely acceptable and harmless (Torresin et al., 2020).

IMPLICATION FOR POLICY AND RESEARCH Even though health and well-being are now included in the SDG monitoring framework’s 169 objectives and 232 indicators, this review has highlighted the positive and negative implications of improved health and well-being on the achievement of SDG 3 specifically. Therefore, we believe that there is a strong argument for prioritizing and funding efforts to improve health and well-being as a powerful enabling instrument for sustainable development. Better health and happiness may be achieved via integrated policies and interventions in settings as diverse as schools, hospitals, businesses, and government agencies. To ensure that everyone has access to quality healthcare, universal health coverage must include wellness and preventative care in its core mission. It is critical to raise awareness and knowledge among

Advancing the sustainable development goals   153 the global built environment community about how health and well-being services affect the SDGs. In general, it can be stated that future research on health and well-being in the built environment needs to focus on: (i) designing for system resilience in the built environment; (ii) transdisciplinary modelling of health and well-being and the SDGs’ interactions in the built environment; and (iii) connecting interventions in health and well-being with SDG outcomes. To play its transformative role in ensuring that the SDGs are met by 2030, the built environment research and health communities must work together to activate existing knowledge, generate new insights, and develop decision-supporting tools for health authorities and urban communities, particularly in the Global South.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The responsibility of fostering a healthy built environment extends far beyond the domain of medical professionals, as research has demonstrated a strong relationship between an individual’s physical and mental well-being and their surroundings. To achieve this goal, a collaborative approach is needed, involving urban planners, construction companies, architects, interior designers, and other built environment experts, as well as ordinary citizens. SDG 3 aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages,” while SDG 11 focuses on making “cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.” These two goals are intrinsically connected, as a healthy built environment contributes significantly to the overall health and well-being of individuals and communities. As we move forward, stakeholders and individuals must take deliberate steps to promote the physical and mental well-being of people within the built environment. Implementing strict regulations on the industry is necessary to mitigate the effects of climate change, biodiversity loss, land use changes, and the carbon dioxide emissions associated with building processes. Additionally, sustainable, and innovative designs that prioritize energy efficiency, resource conservation, and the use of eco-friendly materials should be encouraged. Furthermore, creating inclusive and accessible spaces that cater to the diverse needs of the population is essential. This includes designing for people with disabilities, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups. Public spaces should be designed to promote social interaction, physical activity, and access to green spaces, which are crucial for mental well-being. Urban planning should prioritize the development of public transportation systems and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure that encourages walking and cycling, reducing pollution levels and promoting physical activity. Access to essential services such as healthcare, education, and recreational facilities should be easily reachable and available to all residents. Community engagement and collaboration between local authorities, businesses, and residents play a vital role in shaping the built environment. By involving the community in the planning and decision-making processes, the resulting environment will better reflect the needs and desires of its inhabitants, ultimately fostering a healthier and more sustainable living environment. The connection between health and the other SDGs makes it even more critical to promote healthy communities. Achieving SDG 3 and SDG 11 requires a multi-disciplinary approach that acknowledges the interconnected nature of these goals, emphasizing the need for holistic solutions. By working together, stakeholders can create built environments that promote health, well-being, and sustainability, contributing to a better and more equitable future for all.

154  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

REFERENCES Abass, R. (2018). Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Ghana). Abdel-Hamid, M. A., Hakim, S. A., Elokda, E. E. and Mostafa, N. S. (2013). Prevalence and Risk Factors of Sick Building Syndrome Among Office Workers. The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 88(2), 109–114. Andreucci, B. M., Russo, A. and Olszewska-Guizzo, A. (2019). Designing Urban Green Blue Infrastructure for Mental Health and Elderly Well-being. Sustainability, 11(22). Arnold, K. L. (2001). Sick Building Syndrome Solutions. Professional Safety, 46(6), 43. Arora, N. K. and Mishra, I. (2019). United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and Environmental Sustainability: Race Against Time. Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 339–342. Asma, S. L., Rafael, C., Somnath, S., Soumya de Fátima, M., Maria, Y., Naoko, V., Elena, M., Awoke, R., Michael, D., Lalit, M., Renm M. and Christopher J. L. (2020). Monitoring the Health-Related Sustainable Development Goals: Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Improved Measurement’, The Lancet, 395(10219), 240–246. Bartlett, T., House, C. and Place, U. W. (2021) ‘Impacts of Home Lighting on Human Health’, pp. 453–475. Barton, H. and Grant, M. (2013). Urban Planning for Healthy Cities. Journal of Urban Health, 90, 129–141. Barton, H. and Tsourou, C. (2000). Healthy Urban Planning. 1st ed. London: Routledge. Beckett, K. P., Freer-Smith, P. and Taylor, G. (1998). Urban Woodlands: Their Role in Reducing the Effects of Particulate Pollution. Environmental Pollution, 99(3), 347–360. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ S0269​-7491(98)00016​-5 Bigna, J. J. and Noubiap, J. J. (2019). The Rising Burden of Non-Communicable Diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Lancet Global Health, 7(10), e1295–e1296. Bird, E. L., Ige, J. O., Pilkington, P., Pinto, A., Petrokofsky, C. and Burgess-Allen, J. (2018). Built and Natural Environment Planning Principles for Promoting Health: An Umbrella Review. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–13. Broo, D. G., Lamb, K., Ehwi, R. J., Pärn, E., Koronaki, A., Makri, C. and Zomer, T. (2021). Built Environment of Britain in 2040: Scenarios and Strategies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102645. Bueno, A. M., de Paula Xavier, A. A. and Broday, E. E. (2021) Evaluating the Connection Between Thermal Comfort and Productivity in Buildings: A Systematic Literature Review, Buildings, 11(6). Callway, R., Pineo, H. and Moore, G. (2020). Understanding the Role of Standards in the Negotiation of a Healthy Built Environment. Sustainability, 12(23), 9884. Carmona, M. (2019). Principles for Public Space Design, Planning to do Better. Urban Design International, 24, 47–59. Cincinelli, A. and Martellini, T. (2017). Indoor Air Quality and Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11). CISCA (2010). Acoustics in Healthcare Environments, p. 36. Available at: http://​www​.cisca​.org/​files/​ public/​Acoustics in Healthcare Environments_CISCA.pdf. Codinhoto, R., Tzortzopoulos, P., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G. and Cooper, R. (2009). The Impacts of the Built Environment on Health Outcomes, Facilities, 27(3/4), 138–151. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​ 02632770910933152 Collins, C., Haase, D., Heiland, S. and Kabisch, N. (2022). Urban Green Space Interaction and Well-being–Investigating the Experience of International Students in Berlin During the First COVID-19 Lockdown. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 70, 127543. Corburn, J. (2004). Confronting the Challenges in Reconnecting Urban Planning and Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 541–546. Corburn, J. (2005). Urban Planning and Health Disparities: Implications for Research and Practice. Planning, Practice and Research, 20(2), 111–126. De Neve, J. E. and Sachs, J. D. (2020). The SDGs and Human Well-being: A Global Analysis of Synergies, Trade-offs, and Regional Differences. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–12. Devisscher, T., Konijnendijk, C., Nesbitt, L., Lenhart, J., Salbitano, F., Cheng, Z. C., Lwasa, S. and Van den Bosch, M. (2019). SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities–Impacts on Forests and

Advancing the sustainable development goals   155 Forest-based Livelihoods. Sustainable Development Goals: Their Impacts on Forests and People, pp. 349–385. Djongyang, N., Tchinda, R. and Njomo, D. (2010). Thermal Comfort: A Review Paper’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 626–2640. Edemekong, P. F. and Huang, B. (2022). Epidemiology of Prevention of Communicable Diseases. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing. Edwards, L. and Torcellini, P. (2002). A Literature Review of the Effects of Natural Light on Building Occupants A Literature Review of the Effects of Natural Light on Building Occupants’. Contract, 55. Elgazzar F. R. and El-Gazzar R. F. (2017). Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities, or Both? A Critical Review and Synthesis of Success and Failure Factors (SCITEPRESS), pp. 250–257. Emmitt, S. (2022). Building Health and Well-being. Building Research and Information, 50, 1–5. Engineer, A., Gualano, R. J., Crocker, R. L., Smith, J. L., Maizes, V., Weil, A. and Sternberg, E. M. (2021). An Integrative Health Framework for Well-being in the Built Environment. Building and Environment, 205, 108253. Estol, C. J. (2019). Is Breathing Our Polluted Air a Risk Factor for Stroke? International Journal of Stroke, 14(4), 340–350. Fagunwa, E. O. and Olanbiwoninu, A. A. (2020). Accelerating the Sustainable Development Goals Through. Access Microbiology, 2. Fanger, P. O. and Christensen, N. K. (1986). Perception of Draught in Ventilated Spaces. Ergonomics, 29(2), 215–235. Foraster, M., Eze, I. C., Vienneau, D., Schaffner, E., Jeong, A., Héritier, H., Rudzik, F., Thiesse, L., Pieren, R. and Brink, M. (2018). Long-Term Exposure to Transportation Noise and its Association with Adiposity Markers and Development of Obesity. Environment International, 121, 879–889. Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Alwaer, H., Omrany, H., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Alalouch, C., Clements-Croome, D. and Tookey, J. (2018). Sick Building Syndrome: Are We Doing Enough? Architectural Science Review, 61, 99–121. Giles-Corti, B., Vernez-Moudon, A., Reis, R., Turrell, G., Dannenberg, A. L., Badland, H., Foster, S., Lowe, M., Sallis, J. F., Stevenson, M. and Owen, N. (2016). City Planning and Population Health: A Global Challenge. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2912–2924. Gilles-Corti, B., Lowe, M. and Arundel, J. (2020). Achieving the SDGs: Evaluating Indicators to Be Used to Benchmark and Monitor Progress towards Creating Healthy and Sustainable Cities. Health Policy, 124(6), 581–590. Greer, C. (2007). Something in the Air: A Critical Review of Literature on the Topic of Sick Building Syndrome. World Safety Journal, 16(1), 23–26. Guégan, J. F., Suzán, G., Kati-Coulibaly, S., Bonpamgue, D. N. and Moatti, J.-P. (2018). Sustainable Development Goal# 3, “Health and Well-being”, and the Need for More Integrative Thinking. Veterinaria México OA, 5(2). https://​doi​.org/​10​.22201/​fmvz​.24486760e​.2018​.443 Hanc, M., McAndrew, C. and Marcella, U. (2019). Conceptual Approaches to Well-being in Buildings: A Scoping Review. Building Research and Information, 47(6), 767–783. Hansen, A., Williamson, T., Pisaniello, D., Bennetts, H., van Hoof, J., Arakawa Martins, L., Visvanathan, R., Zuo, J. and Soebarto, V. (2022). The Thermal Environment of Housing and Its Implications for the Health of Older People in South Australia: A Mixed-Methods Study. Atmosphere, 13(1), 96. Heikkinen, M., Ylä-Anttila, T. and Juhola, S. (2019). Incremental, Reformistic or Transformational: What Kind of Change do C40 Cities Advocate to Deal with Climate Change? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 21(1), 90–103. Houlden, V., Jani, A. and Hong, A. (2021). Is Biodiversity of Greenspace Important for Human Health and Well-being? A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 66. Howden-Chapman, P. and Chisholm, E. (2018). Goal 3. Ensure Healthy Lives and Promote Well-Being for All at All Ages. A New Era in Global Health, 81–126. Ige-Elegbede, J., Pilkington, P., Orme, J., Williams, B., Prestwood, E., Black, D. and Carmichael, L. (2022). Designing Healthier Neighbourhoods: A Systematic Review of the Impact of the Neighbourhood Design on Health and Well-being. Cities and Health, 6(5), 1004–1019. Jackson, J. R. (2011). The Impact of the Built Environment on Health: An Emerging Field. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1382–1384.

156  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Kang, J., Aletta, F., Gjestland, T. T., Brown, L. A., Botteldooren, D., Schulte-Fortkamp, B., Lercher, P., van Kamp, I., Genuit, K., Fiebig, A. and Coelho, J. L. B. (2016). Ten Questions on the Soundscapes of the Built Environment. Building and Environment, 108, 284–294. Kaushik, A., Arif, M., Tumula, P. and Ebohon, O. J. (2020). Effect of Thermal Comfort on Occupant Productivity in Office Buildings: Response Surface Analysis. Building and Environment, 180, 107021. Kondo, C. M., Fluer, M. J., McKeon, T. and Branas, C. C. (2018). Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 445. Kufeoglu, S. (2022). SDG-11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. In Emerging Technologies. Sustainable Development Goals Series (pp. 385–408). Springer, Cham. Leonardi, Giovanni S. (2012). Epidemiology of Environmental Hazards. In I. A. Kreis et al. (Eds), Essentials of Environmental Epidemiology for Health Protection: A Handbook for Field Professionals (pp. 8–12). Oxford Academic. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​med/​9780199663415​.003​.0002 Lisa, M. W. (2013). Between Health and Place: Understanding the Built Environment, Toronto: Wellesley Institute. Loh, S., Foth, M., Caldwell, G. A., Garcia-Hansen, V. and Thomson, M. (2020). A More Than-Human Perspective on Understanding the Performance of the Built Environment. Architectural Science Review, 63(3–4), 372–383. Meggs, W. J. (1993). Neurogenic Inflammation and Sensitivity to Environmental Chemicals. Environmental Health Perspectives, 101(3), 234–238. Menne, B., Aragon de Leon, E., Bekker, M., Mirzikashvili, N., Morton, S., Shriwise, A., Tomson, G., Vracko, P. and Wippel, C. (2020). Health and Well-being for All: An Approach to Accelerating Progress to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Countries in the WHO European Region. European Journal of Public Health, 30(1), 3–9. Mohammed, A. J. and Ghebreyesus, T. A. (2018). Healthy Living, Well-being and the Sustainable Development Goals. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(9), 590. New South Wales Ministry of Health (2020). Healthy Built Environment Checklist Available [Online] at: https://​www​.health​.nsw​.gov​.au/​urbanhealth/​Publications/​healthy​-built​-enviro check.pdf. Northridge, M. E. and Freeman, L. (2011). Urban Planning and Health Equity. Journal of Urban Health, 88, 582–597. Obralic, A. and Jeghel, S. (2021). The Case Study on Significance of Daylight in Classroom Setting at Sarajevo Campus. European Scientific Journal ESJ, 17(1), 19–45. Ormandy, D. and Ezratty, V. (2016). Thermal Discomfort and Health: Protecting the Susceptible from Excess Cold and Excess Heat in Housing. Advances in Building Energy Research, 10(1), 84–98. Osibona, O., Solomon, B. D. and Fecht, D. (2021). Lighting in the Home and Health: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 609. Pineo, H. (2019). Increasing Physical Activity and Equity in Urban Regeneration. The Lancet, 22, 367–368. Pineo, H. (2022). Towards Healthy Urbanism: Inclusive, Equitable and Sustainable (THRIVES) – An Urban Design and Planning Framework from Theory to Praxis’. Cities and Health, 6(5), 974–992. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​23748834​.2020​.1769527 Pineo, H. and Rydin, Y. (2018). Cities, Health and Well-being. London: Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Pinter-Wollman, N., Jelić, A. and Wells, N. M., (2018). The Impact of the Built Environment on Health Behaviours and Disease Transmission in Social Systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1753), 20170245. Pyko, A., Eriksson, C., Lind, T., Mitkovskaya, N., Wallas, A., Ögren, M., Östenson, C.-G. and Pershagen, G. (2017). Long-Term Exposure to Transportation Noise in Relation to Development of Obesity—A Cohort Study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(11), 117005. Rebecchi, A. and Capalongo, S. (2021). Healthy Design and Urban Planning Strategies Framing the SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities. European Journal of Public Health, 31(3). Renalds, A., Smith, H. T. and Hale, J. P. (2010). A Systematic Review of Built Environment and Health. Family and Community Health, 33(1), 68–78.

Advancing the sustainable development goals   157 Rojas-Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Gascon, M., Perez-Leon, D. and Mudu, P. (2019). Green Spaces and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. The Lancet Planetary Health, 3(11), 469–477. Roswall, N., Høgh, V., Envold-Bidstrup, P., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Ketzel, M., Overvad, K., Olsen, A. and Sørensen, M. (2015). Residential Exposure to Traffic Noise and Health-Related Quality of Life—A Population-Based Study. PLoS One, 10(3), e0120199. Saiu, V., Blečić, I. and Meloni, I. (2022). Making Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) Operational at Suburban Level: Potentials and Limitations of Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 96, 106845. Santamouris, M. and Osmond, P. (2020). Increasing Green Infrastructure in Cities: Impact on Ambient Temperature, Air Quality and Heat-Related Mortality and Morbidity. Buildings, 10(12), 233. Sara, R. and Jones, M. (2019). Co-constructing Community Well-being: Developing a Framework to Identify How Student-Community Collaborative Public Space Projects Impact on Community Well-being. Designing for Health and Well-being: Home, City, Society, 187. Sepadi, M. M. and Nkosi, V. (2023). Personal PM2. 5 Exposure Monitoring of Informal Cooking Vendors at Indoor and Outdoor Markets in Johannesburg, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 2465. Spaans, M. and Waterhout, B. (2017). Building Up Resilience in Cities Worldwide–Rotterdam as Participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme. Cities, 61, 109–116. Srinivasan, S., O’Fallon, R. L. and Dearry, A. (2003). Creating Healthy Communities, Healthy Homes, Healthy People: Initiating a Research Agenda on the Built Environment and Public Health. American Journal on Public Health, 93(9), 1446–1450. https://​doi​.org/​10​.2105/​AJPH​.93​.9​.1446 Stenberg, B., Eriksson, N., Höög, J., Sundell, J. and Wall, S. (1994). The Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) in Office Workers. A Case-Referent Study of Personal, Psychosocial and Building-Related Risk Indicators. International Journal of Epidemiology, 23, 1190–1197. Torresin, S., Albatici, R., Aletta, F., Babich, F., Oberman, T. and Kang, J. (2019). Acoustic Design Criteria in Naturally Ventilated Residential Buildings: New Research Perspectives by Applying the Indoor Soundscape Approach. Applied Sciences, 9(24), 5401. Torresin, S., Aletta, F., Babich, F., Bourdeau, E., Harvie-Clark, J., Kang, J., Lavia, L., Radicchi, A. and Albatici, R. (2020). Acoustics for Supportive and Healthy Buildings: Emerging Themes on Indoor Soundscape Research. Sustainability, 12(15), 6054. Tuhkanen, H., Cinderby, S., De Bruin, A., Wikman, A., Adelina, C., Archer, D. and Muhoza, C. (2022). Health and Well-being in Cities-Cultural Contributions from Urban form in the Global South Context. Well-Being, Space and Society, 3, 100071. Vardoulakis, S., Salmond, J., Krafft, T. and Morawska, L. (2020). Urban Environmental Health Interventions Towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Science of the Total Environment, 748, 141530. Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L. and Lin, D. (2017). Making the Sustainable Development Goals Consistent with Sustainability. Frontiers in Energy Research, 18. WGBC (2020). A Global Project of the Health and Well-being Framework Six Principles for a Healthy, Sustainable Built Environment Executive Report (November). WHO Regional Office for Europe (2018). Organization and Financing of Public Health Services in Europe: Country Reports. Wolch, R. J., Byrne, J. and Newell, P. J. (2014). Urban Green Pace, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. World Health Organization (2016). Urban Green Spaces and Health (No. WHO/EURO: 2016-3352-43111-60341). World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. World Health Organization (2022). Report on the Technical Expert Meeting on Selection and Prioritization of Noncommunicable Disease Primary Care Facility-Based Indicators, 9 February, 1–4 March 2022. WorldGBC (2020). Health and Well-being Framework: Six Principles for a Healthy, Sustainable Built Environment. World Green Building Council (WorldGBC): London.

9. Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda for sustainable development Alex Opoku, Edna Twumwaa Frimpong, Samuel Ekung and Renee Etokakpan

INTRODUCTION The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aims to achieve a worldwide equilibrium between economic growth, social equity, and environmental protection that is beneficial to both developed and developing nations (Kioupi and Voulvo, 2020). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which promotes gender balance as one of its fundamental goals, affirms that advancing gender equality is essential to realising human rights and advancing society through every single objective and expectation (Pederson, 2018). The SDGs are based on the guiding principle of ‘Leaving No One Behind’. This means that progress toward meeting the goals should be evaluated in light of how effectively the social and economic development of the world is progressing (Fei et al., 2021). To live up to the SDGs’ motto, “Leave No One Behind,”gender equality and balance is crucial to realise because it has become so widespread over time in both developed and developing nations (Dawes, 2020). Gender inequality and women’s empowerment are newly minted challenges to global sustainable development, brought to the forefront by today’s patriarchal culture. Thus, sustainable development is a topic of the current discussion, with the 2030 Agenda for SDGs aiming to achieve a global balance between economic growth, social fairness, and environmental protection that benefits both developed and developing nations (Rasche, 2020). Thus, gender equality and sustainable development can thus reinforce each other in powerful ways. Women’s educational attainment has increased worldwide over the past few decades, but this has not translated into gender balance advancement in all fields of labour (ILO, 2016; Norberg and Johansson, 2021). Despite the compelling rationale for gender diversity in the built environment (BE), women are still underrepresented and rarely advance in the field. They have spent a great deal of time and energy fighting against discrimination and bias in the workplace, and they are beginning to succeed in their efforts to remove the practise of assigning employees to jobs based on their gender (Lekchiri and Kamm, 2020). It can be seen from existing literature that gender balance amongst males and females in the BE is more geared towards males. Due to this, inequality and gender bias has seen that as women climb up the hierarchy in organisations, the narrower it becomes for them (Smith and Gayles, 2018). Therefore, developing a more effective theoretical framework on gender inequality in the BE could assist in implementing mandatory policies to achieve gender parity. It is only prudent that this study is undertaken to bring out the construction industry’s critical role in the implementation of the SDGs. The gap identified has, therefore, made it necessary to undertake this study which aims at exploring the critical role of gender equality in achieving 158

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  159 the 2030 SDGs. The chapter is divided into five main sections with this section introducing readers to the theme under investigation. The second section presents the concept of equality and diversity. It is followed by the section on gender equality in the BE sector which presents a discussion of SDG 5, promoting gender balance in the BE and gender equality impact across the SDGs. The fourth section explores the status of women in the construction and real estate sector. The final section concludes the study by drawing connections for advancing gender equality and the SDGs.

THE CONCEPT OF GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE As investors and other stakeholders put it, the need for diversity is no longer a nice thing to have, it is a must-have (Dixon-Fyle et al., 2020). The public’s intensified expectations for companies, both private and issuers alike, have dovetailed with the growing interest of investors in environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, which include diversity and inclusion (PWC, 2017). The phrase diversity refers to differences in individuals, gender, and identity. Diversity within the workplace encompasses having a different range of people in an organisation, in terms of their ages, races, nationalities, genders, and other characteristics (Moore et al., 2020). A lack of diversity and gender equality leads to missed possibilities for growth and innovation, but a diverse workforce can drive better outcomes that can enhance business growth and brand reputation. Driving diversity from the top by having a good gender balance is key to driving change. A vibrant, modern economy that enables sustainable inclusive growth is built on the foundation of gender equality, which is a fundamental human right (OECD, 2017). Peace Corps (2020) refers to gender as the socially constructed roles and obligations that society deems suitable for men and women. Hence, gender equality can be defined as women and men having equal access to all aspects of society, including economic participation and decision-making, and their unique perspectives, experiences, and needs being recognised and respected (UNCTAD, 2016). Gender equality between and among women and men, girls and boys refers to the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of persons that are not contingent on whether they are born male or female or if they conform to masculine and feminine ideals (Warth and Koparanova, 2012). Based on recent research, it is plausible to assume that gender diversity and equality in the workplace contribute to the achievement of other vital SDGs as well. However, the culturally rooted nature of discrimination against women and its manifestation has prompted initiatives in many nations throughout the world to promote SDG 5 for achieving equality and diversity in society (Girardone et al., 2021). Gender balance has a great correlation with improved organisational performance and the need has come for more companies to voluntarily embrace gender diversity and equality as part of their overall corporate strategy. Gender diversity on boards can improve the quality of board discussions, ensuring that more information is disseminated to investors, and increase oversight and monitoring activities (Shoham et al., 2020). Additionally, gender diversity in corporate boards fosters fresh ideas and improves the effectiveness of the decision-making processes (Manita et al., 2021; Sraieb and Labadze, 2022). Studies by Boukattaya and Omri (2021) indicate that gender diversity on boards is positively associated with corporate social responsibility (CSR) and adversely connected with corporate social irresponsibility (CSI)

160  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals as women are more accepting of ethical corporate methods and less susceptible to unethical attitudes (Lara et al., 2017). Companies benefit from having more women on their boards because they can tap into a wider range of perspectives when making strategic decisions about social and environmental issues. In a recent collaboration by the Diligent Institute with ESADE Centre for Corporate Governance (Frimpong, 2022), it was found that among the board effectiveness metrics that Diligent employs, board diversity has the strongest correlation with environmental and social (E&S) scores. The research conducted on over 6,000 publicly traded companies from Diligent’s database reveal that on average, companies with gender equality are associated with better E&S scores (the correlation score between these two variables equals 0.29). Moreover, the correlation between ESG performance and financial risk is attenuated when boards include women. If a company does well in terms of ESG factors, it will attract more investors and raise its market value, both of which will assist in lowering the company’s risk profile (Jizi, 2017; Shakil, 2021). In the global construction industry, only 2.7 percent of chief executive officers (CEOs) and 12.3 percent of key managers are female, despite SDG target 5.5.2 highlighting an increased proportion of women in managerial positions as a key indicator of progress (Ritchie et al., 2018). African Development Bank research reveals that only 12.7 percent (364 of 2,865) of board directorships in 307 public companies situated in 12 African nations are held by women (African Development Bank, 2015). This is 4.6 percent fewer than the 17.3 percent of women on the boards of the 200 largest firms globally (African Development Bank, 2015). Low education and training, traditional attitudes, lack of role models, women’s lack of assertiveness, and lack of access to labour-market information are all factors that perpetuate the absence of women in these roles (Onditi and Odera, 2017). Although women make up half of the world’s population, they are still disadvantaged and face inequality significantly in areas including health care, education, economic involvement, earning capacity, and political decision-making, according to 2017 Global Gender Report issued by the World Economic Forum (Schwab et al., 2017). Though improvements have been achieved, the economic participation and opportunity gap has only been closed internationally to a rate of 58 percent, highlighting the significant gaps that still exist between men and women in terms of their successful pursuit of wealth and success (World Economic Forum, 2021). Gender mainstreaming is therefore essential to prevent the reinforcement of inequalities that can have negative impacts on relations between men and women (Vida, 2021). Gender mainstreaming entails incorporating gender considerations into the development, planning, implementation, supervision, and assessment of all programs, policies, and initiatives promoting equality and addressing diversity (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2021; Yumarni and Amaratunga, 2018). Due to their superior value judgement, risk tolerance, and decision-making skills, women can be more outspoken than men. Hence, socially constructed identity categories must be overcome to shape the future workforce through gender-sensitive efforts, capacity building through diversity and inclusion, and cultural transformation (Zabaniotou et al., 2021). Sustainable Development Goal 5 (Gender Equality) in Focus SDG 5 stipulates gender equality as an objective characterised by three aspects: increased participation in parliament, girls’ and women’s access to education, and women’s empower-

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  161 ment (UN, 2019; Widegren and Sand, 2021). It has a mission to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Empowerment of women refers to the ability of women to have self-worth, decision-making power, access to opportunities and resources, power and control over their own life inside and beyond the house, and the ability to affect change independently from their sex (Küfeoğlu, 2022; Peace Corps, 2020). The empowerment of women promotes economic growth, social development, and stable, equitable communities. According to the UN Global Compact (2022) equal participation by men and women might add $28 trillion to the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2025. The SDGs of the United Nations (UN) emphasise women’s empowerment as a crucial development objective and the significance of gender equality in addressing global issues. Thus, to achieve this goal, we must end all forms of discrimination against women and girls worldwide, both in the public and private domains (Koehler, 2016). The addition to the agenda of a separate global goal, SDG 5, dedicated to achieving gender equality and women’s rights represents a significant success. This makes gender equality and the protection of women’s rights feasible (Rosche, 2016). A topic of interest for Fredman et al. (2016) is the inability of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to address issues of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. MDG 3’s (Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women) narrow focus draws attention to the fact that, while some targets have been met in some nations such as women’s participation in education, others, such as gender inequality in the distribution of unpaid work, equal access to productive resources, and women participation in decision-making remain unaffected by discriminatory laws, violence against women and girls’ sexual and reproductive rights (Razavi, 2016). As a result of this, groups that advocate for the rights of women continue to play a significant role in the effort to achieve sustainable development. The global framework for development emphasises gender equality both as a separate target (SDG 5) and as a cross-cutting dimension of all of the SDGs (Widegren and Sand, 2021). The SDG Gender Index, a tool that was released in 2019 was designed to complement and display the global status of gender equality with the most up-to-date statistics available concerning the 2030 Agenda’s vision of gender equality (Equal Measures 2030, 2019). There are a total of nine targets and fourteen indicators to track the progress of SDG 5 which seeks to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls by 2030 (UN, 2019), as outlined in Table 9.1. The goals for sustainable development are established by these targets. The indicators offer the status, progress, and assessment monitoring techniques, chosen per the relevant goals and measured globally, or at the regional and national levels. According to UN Women (2022), the first seven of these goals directly address issues that women face, such as ending harassment, violence, early marriage, and genital mutilation; bringing attention to and valuing unpaid work; empowering women to hold leadership positions in all spheres of life, and rights to reproductive health and financial resources. However, the final two goals provide a blueprint for achieving and sustaining gender equality. Creating a more gender-balanced society entails more than just including women or guaranteeing them access to social services (Cole et al., 2019), rather, it calls for an end to gendered power relations, the protection of women’s human rights, the transformation of masculinities, the promotion of greater social and economic inclusion, the empowerment of civil society, and the promotion of sustainability and peace through state policies and practises. They can be attained as part of resolving all modern difficulties by incorporating a gendered analysis throughout (Hosein et al., 2020).

Goal 5 – Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

non-discrimination based on sex Indicator 5.2.1: Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age

everywhere

Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the

public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of

exploitation

Indicator 5.5.2: Proportion of women in managerial positions

economic and public life

Indicator 5.5.1: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments

opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political,

Indicator 5.4.1: Proportion of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location

cutting, by age

Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal

nationally appropriate

the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as

provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and

Target 5.4: Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the

age 18

marriage and female genital mutilation

Indicator 5.3.2: Proportion of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone female genital mutilation/

Indicator 5.3.1: Proportion of women aged 20-24 years who were married or in a union before age 15 and before

Target 5.3: Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced

other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by age and place of occurrence

Indicator 5.2.2: Proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons

Indicator 5.1.1: Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce and monitor equality and

Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against women and girls

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Sustainable Development Goal 5: Targets and Indicators

Table 9.1

162  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

sexual relations, contraceptive use and reproductive health care Indicator 5.6.2: Number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee full and equal access to women and men aged 15 years and older to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education Indicator 5.a.1: (a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure Indicator 5.a.2: Proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control Indicator 5.b.1: Proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone, by sex

reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of

the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing

Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

Target 5.a: Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic

resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other

forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in

accordance with national laws

Target 5.b: Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular, information

women’s empowerment

for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and

Source:  United Nations (2015).

girls at all levels

Indicator 5.c.1: Proportion of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and

Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation

and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women

Indicator 5.6.1: Proportion of women aged 15-49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding

Target 5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Sustainable Development Goal 5: Targets and Indicators

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  163

164  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Equal employment of women would help companies better exploit their talent pool, which might boost growth. Reducing barriers to women’s economic engagement would enhance welfare and growth, and equal access to inputs would boost female company productivity (Kassinis et al., 2016). Women have been concentrated as educators, healthcare workers, and social workers, as well as in most administrative and low-paying service occupations (Morgan et al., 2020). Men, on the other hand, account for over 60 percent of all jobs in the construction, manufacturing and agriculture sectors (Clarke et al., 2017). There is a $2.5 trillion yearly budget deficit in developing nations, making it impossible to achieve the SDGs with present levels of investment in SDG-relevant sectors (UNCTAD, 2014). Reality also contradicts the gender financing difference. Gender equality is not cost-neutral. Therefore, achieving SDG 5 will require funding and actions from donors, governments, the private sector and civil society to ensure the achievement of SDG 5. Hence, gender equality and women rights demand targeted, systematic support in national budgets and development plans (Caren et al., 2008). Gender Equality Impact on the Realisation of the SDGs Gender equality and empowering all women and girls is not only a clear goal of the 2030 Agenda, but it is also a key driver of sustainable development in all of its aspects, such as ending poverty and hunger, promoting prosperity and inclusive growth, and building peace. So, the SDGs must be implemented and monitored in a way that takes a gender perspective into account (UN Women, 2018). Gender equality transcends all 17 SDGs and is expressed in 45 targets and 54 indicators for the SDGs. Twenty-two percent of the indicators for the 17 SDGs are gender specific, suggesting that gender equality is a critical, overarching goal in the 2030 Agenda. This is because few of the other SDGs incorporate gender-specific indicators (Eden and Wagstaff, 2021). According to UN Women and UN DESA Statistics Division (2021), SDG 5 is proven to have beneficial effects on encouraging economic growth and labour productivity (SDG 8) and strengthening human capital through health (SDG 3) and education (SDG 4), which has significant implications for reducing poverty (SDG 1). Gender equality is also essential for achieving food security (SDG 2) and combating climate change (SDG 13), in addition to enhancing resilience to climate-related disasters and managing natural resources. Moreover, giving equal opportunity for women’s participation in decision-making processes contributes to more peaceful and inclusive communities (SDG 16). Sustainable development cannot be achieved without women’s participation, and international norms and standards on women’s and girls’ human rights and gender equality provide a solid basis for moving forward with action to improve women’s crucial role in this effort. All of the major international human rights documents explicitly forbid discrimination based on sex (Lohani and Aburaida, 2017). Moreover, gender equality can be a catalytic policy that accelerates the speed of increasing gender equality in all aspects of society, resulting in a faster increase in progress toward attaining the 2030 Agenda (UN Women, 2018). Therefore, the importance of gender mainstreaming for sustainable development is emphasised in the 2030 SDGs. Whether the SDGs are achieved in terms of environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, or social sustainability, it will be due in large part to the active participation and equal involvement of women (Yakovleva et al., 2022). Therefore, sustainable development is the economic, social, and environmental progress that guarantees both present and future levels of human well-being and dignity, ecological integ-

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  165 rity, gender equality, and social justice (Onditi and Odera, 2017; Yakovleva et al., 2022). The importance of women’s work cannot be overstated, as it influences every aspect of women’s lives and is essential to their economic and social advancement. In economic terms, it means that men and women receive the same pay and benefits for the same labour (UNCTAD, 2018). Interactions among workers, workplace conditions, organisational diversity, human rights, worker equity and justice, inclusion and community health and safety all play pivotal roles in social advancement (Lee and Suh, 2022). The UN has prioritised a focus on gender parity in its sustainability efforts, and global initiatives to advance women’s equality have been launched in the past directly related to the MDGs (Esquivel and Sweetman, 2016; Yakovleva et al., 2022). Gender equality and sustainable development are linked for various reasons (Leach et al., 2016). First, it is a moral and ethical imperative: establishing gender equality and realising women’s human rights, dignity, and capacities is vital to a just and sustainable society. Second, it is crucial to reduce the disproportionate impact of economic, social, and environmental shocks and pressures on women and girls, which undermines their human rights and their key responsibilities in their families and communities. Third, building women’s autonomy and capabilities improve gender equality and sustainable development outcomes. In order to magnify the voice of women’s rights organisations in the policy process, the UN Sustainable Development process agreed in 1992 to provide women their own observer space, named the Women’s Major Group (WMG). Its role is to ensure effective public engagement of women’s NGOs in UN policy processes on Sustainable Development, the post-2015 development agenda, and environmental problems (Gabizon, 2016). Governments, the business sector, and civil society are committed to attaining Goal 5 of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls for a sustainable future for the planet. As noted in the 2019 SDG Report, gender equality is a vital area for action to guarantee progress across targets, including poverty alleviation, reduced inequality, and especially economic growth (Tavares and Canuto, 2019).

PROMOTING GENDER BALANCE AND EQUALITY IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The BE is a physical component of the urban environment that has close ties to the social environment comprised mostly of all things that humans build and modify (Sadeghi and Jangjoo, 2022). It includes man-made features such as buildings and parks, as well as infrastructure like electricity, water and transportation (Coleman, 2017). Additionally, the BE sector has far-reaching effects on individual and social resilience, health, and well-being as a result of its work in planning, designing, constructing, and managing urban settings, buildings, and infrastructure (Raiden and King, 2021). The BE sector includes the building and real estate industries, which are both essential to environmental sustainability. Due to how closely related all of the SDGs are to work in the BE, this industry is crucial to bringing about constructive social change and guaranteeing gender parity. It is believed that the predominance of men in the business discourages potential job seekers from entering the field due to a dearth of female role models and mentors (Lawlor, 2021). Again, the underrepresentation of women can also be ascribed to cultural and institutional issues, as well as the preconceived notion that some design, engineering, surveying, management and planning professions of the BE are still seen as inappropriate for women to hold. However, promoting gender inclusion in the BE not only

166  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals diversifies the industry but also allows women to contribute their uniqueness, creativity, and different views to problem-solving and strategic thinking, which complement those of their male counterparts (Mosimanegape and Ijasan, 2022). The equality, diversity, and inclusion of women in the BE may attract further women to enter the sector. Thus, according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), gender balance in the workforce might generate US$28 trillion for the global economy by 2025 (Ashikali et al., 2020). Furthermore, ensuring gender equality in the BE creates a welcoming and secure workplace. In the execution of infrastructure projects, gender balance initiatives can be implemented during construction, design, and procurement activities (Morgan et al., 2020). Status of Women in the Construction Sector International norms and standards on women and girls’ human rights and gender equality provide a solid foundation for taking action to strengthen the important role of women in achieving sustainable development. All of the major international human rights instruments say that discrimination based on sex is against the law. This is especially true in less developed countries (Ceylan, 2020). Gender issues in construction are also a worldwide problem. Women make up only about 9–13 percent of the construction industry, and that number has not changed much over the years (Navarro-Astor et al., 2017). Casse and De Troyer (2020) found that, structural and cultural barriers hinder the integration of women in the construction industry/sector. Inappropriate and poor working and employment conditions (especially long working hours), fragmented employment, discriminatory recruitment, inadequate opportunities for work-life balance, and the persistence of traditional stereotypes and sexist macho attitudes are all factors (A4ID, 2021). Women do not usually work in building construction because of culture, tradition, and religious beliefs. Most of the women working in construction are managers, secretaries, messengers, helpers, or labourers, jobs that require little expertise (Jwasshaka and Amin, 2019; Jimoh et al., 2016). The need for physical strength in fields like construction may explain why men still outnumber women in these fields. Women are not typically hired as architects or civil engineers on building sites, even though these roles do not require them to perform any physical labour (Jahn, 2010). This gender gap affects all professionals and trades. Women and men view construction as a profession for males. Such biased perceptions have long-lasting effects since few women try to break hurdles and glass ceilings (Clott, 2017). A mentality shift among employers, predominantly the male workforce, and potential women workers can take generations. Drawing women to building trades and management remains uncertain (Nakabonge, 2022). However, in 2014, 8.9 percent of construction workers were women, and in 2018, that number rose to 9.9 percent, according to the National Association of Women in Construction (Norberg and Johansson, 2021). Promoting gender equality within the construction sector is crucial for luring in and keeping talent that can boost efficiency (Tatli et al., 2013). The construction industry has the potential to contribute to the advancement of gender equality by increasing awareness, refuting stereotypes about the industry being male-dominated, and encouraging more women to enter the field (Powell et al., 2010). As a result of not having the same access to or knowledge of available training programmes, women are at a disadvantage in the workplace (Opoku and Williams, 2018). According to ILO (2015), training opportunities, construction-focused edu-

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  167 cation advocacy, and access to equitable employment are the most crucial factors in achieving gender parity in the sector. Also, Parra-Martínez et al. (2021) demonstrate that women may succeed and advance their careers in the construction industry if they are encouraged to pursue higher education and given access to and information about appropriate training opportunities. The latest research by Turner et al. (2021) shows that successful women in construction have high levels of resilience despite receiving little to no support at work. In addition, of the 2.7 percent of CEOs and 12.3 percent of key managers that are female, their male counterparts remain better compensated and hold more prestigious positions. Gender Balance at Board Level: The Case of Female Directors in the Real Estate Sector The real estate market is a major economic force worldwide. There was a total of $873 billion in commercial property transactions worldwide in 2017, according to PWC and Urban Institute (2018). Investors from all over the world are attracted to this sector because of the enormous investment opportunity it presents. Several governments have employed gender quotas and targets to influence the conversation over time. In countries with stricter gender quotas, such as Norway and France, gender diversity in boardrooms has progressed significantly further (Hamplová et al., 2022). Nineteen percent of senior leadership positions and 7 percent of CEO positions were occupied by women, according to a study of 668 listed European companies done by European Women on Boards (EWOB, 2019). According to our Modern Leadership Report (2022), approximately 26 percent of companies in the real estate market have female board members, according to available data. The report also discovered that this is below the global average with the sector with the most female presence being the utility sector, at 31 percent. Four organisational performance metrics which include return on equity (ROE), return on invested capital (ROIC), return on assets (ROA) and total shareholder return (TSR), are used to measure organisational performance. Data from Figure 9.1 reveals organisations with more than 30 percent of female directors have a higher ROE. Companies with more than 30 percent of women directors outperform their peers by 200 percent. The average ROE of real estate firms with more than 30 percent that are women is 10 percent. Less than 30 percent female representation has a 5 percent ROE. Data suggests the association is strongest when real estate companies have 31–35 percent of female board members. The average ROE for companies with female directors between this range has an average ROE of 19 percent. Though the average ROE drops when the range of average female directors increases, the correlation still outperforms companies in the lower quartile. Companies in the lower quartile have an average ROE of 3 percent compared to upper quartile ROE percentage of 8 percent (Diligent Institute, 2022). The data from Figure 9.2 suggests that companies with an average female director representation of more than 30 percent have a stronger correlation to ROIC. For companies with female directors greater than 30 percent, their return on equity outperforms their peers by 150 percent. The average ROIC of companies in the real estate industry with more than 30 percent female representation is 3 percent. Comparatively, companies with less than 30 percent female representation have an average ROE of 2 percent. However, the data suggests that the correlation is strongest when companies in the real estate industry have a female representation between 31–35 percent on their boards. The average ROE for companies with female directors between this range has an average ROE of 4 percent. Though the average ROE drops when the

168  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Diligent Institue (2022).

Figure 9.1

Average ROE vs percentage of female directors

Source: Diligent Institute (2022).

Figure 9.2

Average ROIC vs the percentage of female directors

range of average female directors increases, the correlation still outperforms companies in the lower quartile. Companies in the lower quartile have an average ROE of 2 percent compared to upper quartile ROE percentage of 3 percent (Diligent Institute, 2022). Using ROA as a measure of organisational performance, the findings are not different from the other return metrics used earlier. The data from Figure 9.3 suggests that companies with an average representation of female directors greater than 30 percent outperform their peers with a lower average of female directors on their boards by 1.3 times. While the average ROA of companies with more than 30 percent representation is 2.4 percent, that of companies with less than 30 percent representation is 1.8 percent. Companies in the upper quartile of greater

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  169

Source: Diligent Institute (2022).

Figure 9.3

Average ROA vs the percentage of female directors

Source: Diligent Institute (2022).

Figure 9.4

Average TSR percent vs the percentage of female directors

gender balance have an average ROA of 3 percent, that of companies in the lower quartile have an average ROA of 2 percent (Diligent Institute, 2022). Average TSR however gives a different picture. The data from Figure 9.4 suggests that there is weak correlation between greater degree of gender balance and TSR in the real estate industry. While companies with female director representation of less than 30 percent on their boards have an average TSR of 28 percent, the data suggests that companies with an average female representation of more than 30 percent have an average TSR of 22 percent. However, we also find that companies in the top quartile of greater degree of gender balance have an average TSR of 27 percent compared to an average TSR of 25 percent for companies in the lower quartile (Diligent Institute, 2022).

170  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Towards the goal to eradicate inequality and advance diversity, it is recommended that firms have a gender-balanced board leadership and management team, that men and women receive equal attention when making business choices, and that they be given equal access to training and advancement opportunities (ISO, 2018). Therefore, it is crucial to involve all stakeholders in order to create and reinforce legal and institutional arrangements on gender equality that would ensure women’s access to resources and their effective involvement in all levels of societal decision-making (Hirsu et al., 2019). A gender-responsive strategy to executing the 2030 Agenda must be emphasised as essential (Leal Filho et al., 2022).

GENDER EQUALITY AND THE FUTURE OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Barnard and Dainty (2017, p. 141) remark, “[the landscape is] toxic for those who do not conform to the white, male heterosexual stereotype of the construction worker and the homosocial relationships surrounding”. In the BE, gender perspective is important to the development of varied, inclusive and classless sustainable projects (Parra-Martinez et al., 2021). A gender-balanced sustainable project portrays mutual attention to people’s needs and the environment, provides defence against internal and external discrimination and promotes eco-feminism. Whereas society is favourably inclined to the male dominance as the predictor of success in policy implementation such as the SDGs, actual performance of policy implementation is subjective; the roles of men and women are equally promoted to produce positive outcomes (Özparlak and Gürol, 2022). However, underrepresentation of women at the decision-level of organisations is seminal. Collaborative parity is beneficial to the realisation of the SDGs, however, inherent disposition towards gender equality in the BE is sensitive and biased. Like in other sectors, though the BE may have witnessed decreased gender-based issues, gender inequality is still an endemic depriving opportunity among women (Baker et al., 2021; Ling et al., 2020; Manesh et al., 2020). Gender issues in the BE include inequalities, discrimination, marginalisation and social exclusion. Mainstreaming gender into SDGs requires the knowledge of multifaceted communal procedures in which people are defined, cooperate and linked to achieve set goals (Manandhar et al., 2018). The network of processes at the envisaged plane, however, operates at interpersonal and institutional levels in society. Across these layers, the role of gender in achieving societal goals is undisputable but modifiable. Women roles are pivotal to education, workforce and agriculture (Alzubaidi, 2021). Gender equality assumes a cross-cutting role in achieving and catalysing other SDGs, however, it also develops complex relationships with transformation to the various SDGs. Gender does not only occupy a grandstand in SDGs with a specific stand-alone goal, but also encompasses gender-related contexts in several SDGs. In SDG3 alone, many gender-sensitive parameters exist, which are health related; therefore, gender is deemed to influence health and well-being. SDG 4 (education) and SDG 8 (decent work) are two critical gender dispositions with extensive research interests in the context of the BE. Both perspectives predispose gender disparity in the BE; and developing these frontiers would strengthen gender equality and promote gender-related gaps obstructing SDGs. Amidst this unspoken logic, limited engagement is reported about improving these dimensions to facilitate implementation, monitoring and evaluation of SDGs in the BE. The emerging narratives also extend the latent interactions among SDGs to the desired parity between stakeholders in the BE in terms of gender.

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  171 Feminist criticisms of inherent structural issues in the SDGs show the dearth of social and economic structures, inability to address the gap in structural imbalance in power equation and overarching penchants to traditional economic models. Goetz (2016) emphasised the dearth of collective actions between genders and inclination to addressing issues affecting women in neglect of men. This is also reflected in the body of research in the BE, where gender-based studies showed empathy towards addressing issues affecting women (Baker, French and Ali, 2021; Ling et al., 2020; Manesh et al., 2020; Mathews and Nunn, 2020). Whilst the disadvantaged position of women has advanced significantly in research, respite needs to be given to male counterparts to achieve a balanced gendered engagement for SDGs. In the emerging discourse too, on the attention dedicated to women’s concerns within the SDGs through political participation and economic empowerment, the latter only embeds women within the traditional economic model. Gender equality is yet to be received as equal economic opportunities (Esquivel, 2016), and very little is done to tackle over-population of women in informal sectors, vast wage gaps and work-related exclusions (Manesh et al., 2020). The BE is at the heart of SDGs based on its pivotal roles in developing a sustainable world. Crux to a sustainable world lies gender equality (Parra-Martinez, Gutierrez and Gilsanz-Diaz, 2021), however, amidst the vastly established nexus between gender, ecosystem and economy, the relationship between gender (women’s) issues and environmental issues is less easily mainstreamed (Sen, 2019). Besides advocating policies for promoting gender balance (SDGs 5 and SDG 10), SDGs also empower the disadvantaged genders to contribute in several areas affecting other goals collaboratively with men through mandating equal opportunities for all. Özparlak and Gürol (2022) demonstrated that organisations with women deemed sensitive to environmental problems in decision-making boards, achieve greater positive environmental impact; therefore, gender equality increases environmental performance. Mainstreaming this context for the BE can build on the disparity between men and technology and women and nature to kickstart related research from an ecological systems’ perspective. Thus far, not much research offers the portrayal of the overlap between gender and ecology generally (Hennebry et al., 2019; Khalikova, Jin and Chopra, 2021). Research publications in this category either explored definite ecological issues with targeted gendered effects or critiqued the economic models underlying SDGs from ecofeminist viewpoints. “The world is on fire” (Widegren and Sand, 2021), and the notion of “we” exigent to collective gendered responsibility is missing. Bridging this gap is important to all industries including the BE for accelerated SDGs implementation. The issue for the BE is not only that the stakeholders need to do more critical mass in funding, but more support and energy must be invested in innovative problem-solving, and devolution of more powers to women as the way forward. Solutions created to solve gender-based issues must be flexible fitting adaptable uses in different sectors and regions. Parra-Martinez (2021) advocated that the BE can kickstart this vision through curriculum. Stakeholders must design, develop and assess BE programmes from gender-based perspectives as the most progressive approach to tackling and optimising gender issues to upscale SDGs implementation. Gender and SDGs are not in tandem, competitive goals, but retain the ability to create requisite synergies to enhance SDGs in the BE. Achieving these frontier demands: inclusivity for men-related biases in the society, elaboration of ways to promoting mutual synergies, managing differences and optimising joint-benefits. The interactions between various SDGs and gender issues discussed previously produces both collaborations and paradoxes in the BE, therefore, the shape of knowledge in this research area requires further theoretical conceptual-

172  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals isations. Important dimensions with scanty engagement must be addressed regarding the capabilities needed and obstacles to overcome for a smooth transition to gendered transformations offered by the SDGs. Intersectionality as Research Paradigm Despite the spread of organisational gender-based research, impactful research is yet needed to unravel the expansive creation of gender issues and measurement of inequalities across various levels in the sector. Prior research reveals that gendered and sexualised interactions that occur in the industry would not be acceptable elsewhere (Wright, 2016), thus there is an onus to support the most marginalised in the BE. Specifically, the BE needs to promote research hinged on an intersectional approach in dissecting inequalities and barriers that undermine the social context of SDGs in the sector. “The ultimate aim of intersectionality is to challenge inequality and enact change to eliminate it” (Rodriguez et al., 2016, p. 207); as a research paradigm it is uniquely placed in its ability to interrogate and disrupt the systems of oppression which are reproduced in the workplace and present barriers to the career progression of women in the workplace. As we work to achieve SDG 5 within the BE, there is a need to explore with nuance, the dynamics which present being cisgender, white, heterosexual, and male as the default within the organisation. Intersectionality promotes the understanding of networks between gender-sensitive factors, procedures and systems across the different strata of society (Manandhar et al., 2018). Widegren and Sand (2021) support the need to close this gap in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields. There is existing research on the strategies employed by women to navigate these spaces and how these strategies shift across class, sexuality, gender presentation, race, and body size (Denissen and Saguy, 2014; Miriam, 2001; Wright, 2016), but the topic remains underexplored. The path to achieving SDG 5 lies in multidisciplinary research and transitioning from theory to practical projects, where gender diversity is prioritised using integrated intersectional practice.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The SDGs are predicated on the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and protection of the environment for all people. This means that there is a huge opportunity for active collaboration with the 2030 Sustainable Agenda to reduce the gender gap. The promotion of gender equality in recent years emerged as a hot topic and a major priority for global bodies like the UN. Perspective can be gained by considering SDG 5, which seeks to “promote gender equality and empower all women and girls”. Global organisations such as the UN’s Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), Men Engage Alliance and governments recognise gender inequity. To achieve gender equality, where men, women, boys, and girls have equal rights and opportunities, sustainable development must serve as a roadmap. The concept of sustainable development must therefore include gender equality and an intersectional approach as an intrinsic part. It necessitates the understanding of the inclusion of women’s rights, women’s participation in decision-making, and women’s physical integrity as essential components. In order to identify and support a framework for sustainable development that

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  173 advances this goal, a gendered pathway approach is required to investigate and address existing barriers.

REFERENCES A4ID (Advocates for International Development) (2021). The Legal Guide to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). London, United Kingdom. https://​www​.a4id​.org/​sdgs/​sdg​-5​-gender​ -equality/​[Accessed November 2022]. African Development Bank (2015). Report on where are the women: Inclusive boardrooms in Africa’s top listed companies. Alzubaidi, F. (2021). Role of women in sustainable development in Jordan: The role of post development agenda. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 24(1), 1–21. Ashikali, T., Groeneveld, S. and Kuipers, B. (2020). The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams. Review of Public Personnel Administration 41(3), 497–519 https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0734371X19899 Baker, M., French, E. and Ali, M. (2021). Insights into ineffectiveness of gender equality and diversity initiatives in project-based organizations. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(3), Article 04021013. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1061/​(ASCE)ME​.1943​-5479​.00008 Barnard, S. and Dainty, A. (2017). Coming out and staying in: How sexual orientation and gender identity matters in construction employment. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 171(3), 141–148. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1680/​jmuen​.17​.00026. Boukattaya, S. and Omri, A. (2021). Impact of board gender diversity on corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility: Empirical evidence from France. Sustainability, 13(9), 4712. Caren, G., Bahadur, C., Handbury, J. and Elson, D. (2008). The Financial Requirements of Achieving Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. In Mayra Buvinić et al. (Ed.) Equality for Women: Where do we Stand on Millennium Development Goal 3? (pp. 207–259). The World Bank. Casse, C. and De Troyer, M. (Ed.) (2021). Gender, working conditions and health: What has changed? The European Trade Union Institute Report 143. Retrieved 10:23 15 April 2023, from https://​www​ .etui​.org/​publications/​gender​-working​-conditions​-and​-health Ceylan, S., (2020). Gender Issues in the built environment: A study on the role of architecture for a sustainable society. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 9, 748–762. Clarke, L., Michielsens, E. and Snijders, S. (2017). Misplaced Gender Diversity Policies and Practices in the British Construction Industry: Developing an Inclusive and Transforming Strategy. In Valuing People in Construction (pp. 130–150). Routledge. Clott, A. (2017). Glass Ceiling. In B.S. Turner (Ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory (pp. 1–2). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1002/​9781118430873​.est0465 Cole, K., Plaisir, J.Y., Reich-Shapiro, M. and Freitas, A. (2019). Building a gender-balanced workforce. YC Young Children, 74(4), 39–45. Coleman, S. (2017). Australia state of the environment 2016: Built environment, independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Energy. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. Dawes, J. (2020). Applying gender lenses to the interlinkages and synergies between SDGs: Making sure that Agenda 2030 will not leave women behind. Center for Gendered Innovations in Science and Technology Research: Korea, p. 178. Denissen, A.M. and Saguy, A.C. (2014). Gendered homophobia and the contradictions of workplace discrimination for women in the building trades. Gender & Society, 28(3), 381–403. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1177/​0891243213510781 Dixon-Fyle, S., Dolan, K., Hunt, V. and Prince, S. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. Mckinsey & Company. https://​www​.mckinsey​.com/​featured​-insights/​diversity​-and​-inclusion/​ diversity​-wins​-how​-inclusion​-matters [Accessed November 2022]. Eden, L. and Wagstaff, M.F. (2021). Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 gender equality. Journal of International Business Policy, 4(1), 28–57.

174  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Equal Measures 2030 (2019). Harnessing the Power of Data for Gender Equality: Introducing the 2019 EM2030 SDG Gender Index. Available at: https://​www​.equalmeasures2030​.org/​ Esquivel, V. (2016). Power and the sustainable development goals: A feminist analysis. Gender and Development 24(1), 9–23. European Institute for Gender Equality (2021). Gender Mainstreaming; EIGE, EU, 2021. Available online: https://​eige​.europa​.eu/​gender​-mainstreaming/​what​-is​-gender​-mainstreaming [Accessed November 2022]. European Women on Boards (EWOB) (2019). European Women on Boards Gender Diversity Index. https://​e​uropeanwom​enonboards​.eu/​portfolio/​gdi​-2019/​?v​=​d71bdd22c8bb [Accessed November 2022]. Fei, W., Opoku, A., Agyekum, K., Oppon, J.A., Ahmed, V., Chen, C. and Lok, K.L. (2021). The critical role of the construction industry in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs): Delivering projects for the common good. Sustainability, 13(16), 9112. Fredman, S., Kuosmanen, J. and Campbell, M. (2016). Transformative equality: Making the sustainable development goals work for women. Ethics & International Affairs, 30(2), 177–187. Frimpong, E.T. (2022). Modern Governance and ESG: Connecting Board Effectiveness and ESG Maturity. Diligent Institute https://​www​.diligentinstitute​.com/​research/​modern​-governance​-and​-esg/​ [Accessed October 2022]. Gabizon, S. (2016). Women’s movements’ engagement in the SDGs: Lessons learned from the Women’s Major Group. Gender & Development, 24(1), 99–110. Girardone, C., Kokas, S. and Wood, G. (2021). Diversity and women in finance: Challenges and future perspectives. Journal of Corporate Finance, 71, 101906. Goetz, A., Marie, H. and Jenkins, R. (2016). Gender, security, and governance: The case of sustainable development goal 16. Gender & Development, 24(1), 127–137. Hamplová, E., Janeček, V. and Lefley, F. (2022). Board gender diversity and women in leadership positions–are quotas the solution? Corporate Communications: An International Journal (ahead-of-print). Hennebry, J., Hari, K.C. and Piper, N. (2019). Not without them: Realising the sustainable development goals for women migrant workers. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(14), 2621–2637. Hirsu, L., Hashemi, L. and Quezada-Reyes, Z. (2019). SDG 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. RMIT University, Melbourne. Hosein, G., Basdeo-Gobin, T. and Gény, L.R. (2020). Gender mainstreaming in national sustainable development planning in the Caribbean. United Nations, New York, NY, USA. ILO (2015). Baseline Study to Assess Gender Disparities in Construction Sector Jobs. International Labour Office (ILO): Geneva. ILO (2016). Women at Work: Trends 2016. International Labour Office (ILO): Geneva. ISO (2018). Contributing to the UN Sustainable Development Goals with ISO standards. International Organization for Standardization. Jahn, M. (2010). Discrimination against women in the construction industry in South Africa. University of Pretoria, South Africa. Jimoh, R.A., Oyewobi, L.O., Adamu, A.N. and Bajere, P.A. (2016). Women professionals’ participation in the Nigerian construction industry: Finding voice for the voiceless. Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: An International Journal, 8(1), 1429–1436. Jizi, M. (2017). The influence of board composition on sustainable development disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5), 640–655. Jwasshaka, S.K. and Amin, N.F. (2019). Gender discrimination in building construction industry in Nigeria: Threat to achieving goal-5 of vision 2030. World Journal of Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 33–41. Kassinis, G., Panayiotou, A., Dimou, A. and Katsifaraki, G. (2016). Gender and environmental sustainability: A longitudinal analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(6), 399–412. Khalikova, V.R., Jin, M. and Chopra, S.S. (2021). Gender in sustainability research: Inclusion, intersectionality, and patterns of knowledge production. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(4), 900–912. Kioupi, V. and Voulvoulis, N. (2020). Sustainable development goals (SDGs): Assessing the contribution of higher education programmes. Sustainability, 12(17), 6701.

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  175 Koehler, G. (2016). Tapping the sustainable development goals for progressive gender equity and equality policy? Gender & Development, 24(1), 53–68. Küfeoğlu, S. (2022). SDG-5 Gender Equality. In  Emerging Technologies (pp. 277–288). Springer, Cham. Lara, J.M.G., Osma, B.G., Mora, A. and Scapin, M. (2017). The monitoring role of female directors over accounting quality. Journal of Corporate Finance, 45, 651–668. Lawlor, S. (2021). Is Sustainability Leadership in the Built Environment ‘Women’s Business?’ The National Association of Women in Construction. Retrieved from https://​www​.nawic​.com​.au/​common/​ Uploaded​%20files/​IWD​%20Report​.pdf. Leach, M., Mehta, L. and Prabhakaran, P. (2016). Gender equality and sustainable development: A pathways approach. The UN Women Discussion Paper, 13, 2016. Leal Filho, W., Kovaleva, M., Tsani, S., Țîrcă, D.M., Shiel, C., Dinis, M.A.P., Nicolau, M., Sima, M., Fritzen, B., Lange Salvia, A. and Minhas, A. (2022). Promoting gender equality across the sustainable development goals. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–22. Lee, M.T. and Suh, I. (2022). Understanding the effects of environment, social, and governance conduct on financial performance: Arguments for a process and integrated modelling approach. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 100004. Lekchiri, S. and Kamm, J.D. (2020). Navigating barriers faced by women in leadership positions in the US construction industry: A retrospective on women’s continued struggle in a male-dominated industry. European Journal of Training and Development, 44(6/7), 575–594. Ling, F.Y.Y., Zhang, Z. and Tay, S.Y.L. (2020). Imposter syndrome and gender stereotypes: Female facility managers’ work outcomes and job situations. Journal of Management Engineering, 36(5), 04020061. doi​.org/​10​.1061/​(ASCE)ME​.1943​-5479​.0000831. Lohani, M. and Aburaida, L. (2017). Women empowerment: A key to sustainable development. The Social ION, 6(2), 26–29. Manandhar, M., Hawkes, S., Buse, K., Nosarit, E. and Magar, V. (2018). Gender, health and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Policy & Practice, 96, 644–653. Manesh, S.N., Choi, J.O., Shrestha, B.K., Lim, J. and Shrestha, P.P. (2020). Spatial analysis of the gender wage gap in architecture, civil engineering, and construction occupations in the United States. Journal of Management Engineering, 36(4), 04020023. Manita, R., Bruna, M.G., Dang, R. and Houanti, L.H. (2018). Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: Evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 19(2), 206–224. Miriam, F. (2001). Hard hats & homophobia: Lesbians in the building trades. New Labor Forum, 8(2001), 25–36. Moore, K.J., Xiong, S., Bhattacharya, M., Bustamante, G., Calvert, C. (2020). Beyond diversity: Focusing on and enhancing inclusion in the society for epidemiologic research. American Journal of Epidemiology, 189(10), 1042–1046, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​aje/​kwaa111 Morgan, G., Bajpai, A., Ceppi, P., Al-Hinai, A., Christensen, T., Kumar, S., Crosskey, S. and O’Regan, N. (2020). Infrastructure for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. UNOPS, Copenhagen, Denmark. Mosimanegape, N.T. and Ijasan, K. (2022). Creating An Inclusive Built Environment: Achieving Gender Equality in the Real Estate Industry (No. 2022–033). African Real Estate Society (AfRES). Nakabonge, W. (2022). A gender gap in construction: Barriers to gender equality (Unpublished Dissertation). Luleå University of Technology, Sweden. Navarro-Astor, E., Román-Onsalo, M. and Infante-Perea, M. (2017). Women’s career development in the construction industry across 15 years: Main barriers. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 15(2), 199–221. Norberg, C. and Johansson, M. (2021). Women and “ideal” women: The representation of women in the construction industry. Gender Issues, 38(1), 1–24. OECD (2017). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Staff. The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle. Onditi, F. and Odera, J. (2017). Gender equality as a means to women empowerment? Consensus, challenges and prospects for post-2015 development agenda in Africa. African Geographical Review, 36(2), 146–167.

176  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Opoku, A. and Williams, N. (2018). Second-generation gender bias: An exploratory study of the women’s leadership gap in a UK construction organisation. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 35(1), 2–3. Özparlak, G. and Gürol, B. (2022). The role of diversity on the environmental performance and transparency. https://​doi​.org/​10​.21203/​rs​.3​.rs​-2381862/​v1 Parra-Martínez, J., Gutiérrez-Mozo, M.-E. and Gilsanz-Díaz, A. (2021). Inclusive higher education and the built environment. A research and teaching agenda for gender mainstreaming in architecture studies. Sustainability, 13(5), 2565. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su13052565 Peace Corps, (2020). Global issues: Gender equality and women’s empowerment. https://​ www​ .peacecorps​.gov/​educators/​resources/​global​-issues​-gender​-equality​-and​-womens​-empowerment [Accessed October 2022]. Powell, A., Dainty, A. and Bagilhole, B. (2010). Achieving gender equality in the construction professions: Lessons from the career decisions of women construction students in the UK. In Procs 26th Annual ARCOM Conference (Vol. 6, No. 8). PWC (2017). Getting Serious About Diversity and Inclusion as Part of Your ESG Reporting. https://​www​.pwc​.com/​us/​en/​services/​esg/​library/​diversity​-equity​-inclusion​-reporting​.html [Accessed November 2022]. PWC and the Urban Land Institute (2018). Emerging Trends in Real Estate: The Global Outlook for 2018. https://​www​.pwc​.com/​gx/​en/​industries/​financial​-services/​assets/​pwc​-etre​-global​-outlook​-2018​ .pdf Raiden, A. and King, A. (2021). Social value, organisational learning, and the sustainable development goals in the built environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 172, 105663. Rasche, A. (2020). The United Nations Global Compact and the Sustainable Development Goals. In Research Handbook of Responsible Management (pp. 228–241). Edward Elgar Publishing. Razavi, S. (2016). The 2030 agenda: Challenges of implementation to attain gender equality and women’s rights. Gender & Development, 24(1), 25–41. Ritchie, H., Roser, M., Mispy, J. and Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2018). Measuring progress towards the sustainable development goals. SDG-Tracker.org, website. Rodriguez, J.K., Holvino, E., Fletcher, J.K. and Nkomo, S.M. (2016). The theory and praxis of intersectionality in work and organisations: Where do we go from here? Gender, Work & Organization, 23(3), 201–222. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​gwao​.12131. Rosche, D. (2016). Agenda 2030 and the sustainable development goals: Gender equality at last? An Oxfam perspective. Gender & Development, 24(1), 111–126. Sadeghi, A.R. and Jangjoo, S. (2022). Women’s preferences and urban space: Relationship between built environment and women’s presence in urban public spaces in Iran. Cities, 126, 103694. Schwab, K., Samans, R., Zahidi, S., Leopold, T.A., Ratcheva, V., Hausmann, R. and Tyson, L.D. (2017). The Global Gender Gap Report 2017. World Economic Forum. Sen, G. (2019). Gender equality and women’s empowerment: Feminist mobilization for the SDGs. Global Policy, 10, 28–38. Shakil, M.H. (2021). Environmental, social and governance performance and financial risk: Moderating role of ESG controversies and board gender diversity. Resources Policy, 72, 102144. Shoham, A., Lee, S.M., Khan, Z., Tarba, S.Y. and Ahammad, M.F. (2020). The effect of board gender diversity on cross-listing. Journal of Corporate Finance, 65, 101767. Smith, K.N. and Gayles, J.G. (2018). Girl power: Gendered academic and workplace experiences of college women in engineering. Social Sciences, 7(1), 11. Sraieb, M.M. and Labadze, L. (2022). A dynamic perspective on the gender diversity–firms’ environmental performances nexus: Evidence from the energy industry. Sustainability, 14(12), 7346. Tatli, A., Vassilopoulou, J. and Özbilgin, M. (2013). An unrequited affinity between talent shortages and untapped female potential: The relevance of gender quotas for talent management in high growth potential economies of the Asia Pacific region. International Business Review, 22(3), 539–553. Tavares P. and Canuto O. (2019). Turning Promises into Reality – The Business Case for Gender Equality in Achieving the SDGs. https://​www​.policycenter​.ma/​opinion/​turning​-promises​-reality​-​%E2​ %80​%93​-business​-case​-gender​-equality​-achieving​-sdgs [Accessed November 2022]. The Global Modern Leadership Report (2022). Board Diversity Gaps. Diligent Institute. https://​www​ .diligent​.com/​board​-diversity​-gaps/​ [Accessed November 2022].

Gender equality in the built environment towards the 2030 agenda  177 Turner, M., Holdsworth, S., Scott-Young, C.M. and Sandri, K. (2021). Resilience in a hostile workplace: The experience of women on site in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 39(10), 839–852. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Seventieth session on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1. UN Global Compact (2022). UN Sustainable Development Goals. https://​www​.unglobalcompact​.org/​ what​-is​-gc/​our​-work/​social/​gender​-equality [Accessed October 2022]. UN Women (2018). Why Gender Equality Matters Across All SDGs. Turning Promises into Action: Gender Equality in the, 2030, p.72., Available at: https://​www​.unwomen​.org/​en www​ UN Women (2022). Explainer: Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender Equality https://​ .unwomen​.org/​en/​news​-stories/​explainer/​2022/​09/​explainer​-sustainable​-development​-goal​-five [Accessed November 2022]. UN Women and UN DESA Statistics Division (2021). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals the Gender Snapshot 2021. https://​www​.unwomen​.org/​en/​digital​-library/​publications/​2021/​ 09/​progress​-on​-the​-sustainable​-development​-goals​-the​-gender​-snapshot​-2021 [Accessed November 2022]. UNCTAD (2014). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development World Investment Report.  UNCTAD website: https://​unctad​.org/​press​-material/​developing​-countries​-face​-25​-trillion​ -annual​-investment​-gap​-key​-sustainable [Accessed November 2015]. Vida, B. (2021). Policy framing and resistance: Gender mainstreaming in Horizon 2020. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 28(1), 26–41. Warth, L. and Koparanova, M.S. (2012). Empowering Women for Sustainable Development (pp. 1–26). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Widegren, K. and Sand, J. (2021). Gender and Sustainability: An International Research Review. Gender Action, The Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research. World Economic Forum (2021). Global Gender Gap Report 2021, Insight Report, available at http://​ reports​.weforum​.org/​global​-gender​-gap​-report​-2021/​dataexplorer [Accessed 10 April 2023]. Wright, T. (2016). Gender and Sexuality in Male-Dominated Occupations: Women Working in Construction and Transport. London: Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature. Yakovleva, N., Vazquez-Brust, D.A., Arthur-Holmes, F. and Busia, K.A. (2022). Gender equality in artisanal and small-scale mining in Ghana: Assessing progress towards SDG 5 using salience and institutional analysis and design. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 92–102. Yumarni, T. and Amaratunga, D. (2018). Gender mainstreaming and sustainable development goals: A systematic literature review in post disaster reconstruction area. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 229, p. 02016). EDP Sciences. Zabaniotou, A., Boukamel, O. and Tsirogianni, A. (2021). Network assessment: Design of a framework and indicators for monitoring and self-assessment of a customized gender equality plan in the Mediterranean Engineering Education context. Evaluation and Program Planning, 87, 101932.

10. Education for sustainable development, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals Alex Opoku, Samuel Ekung, Godwin Kugblenu and Emad S. N. Mushtaha

INTRODUCTION Since the end of the twentieth century, global concerns for sustainable development have grown significantly (Hong et al., 2022). Education and sustainable development are both topics of considerable relevance and it is impossible to adequately address each of these extremely important subjects in isolation (Walid and Luetz, 2018). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations’ (UN) General Assembly in September 2015 after three years of consultations involving several parties and negotiations between governments (Bexell and Jonsson, 2017). They came to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by combining the environmental and development agendas with the focus on “building a sustainable world where environmental sustainability, social inclusion and economic development are equally valued”. Many sustainability challenges are emerging around the world and human behaviour is seen as the root cause of these challenges that humanity faces. Humans have been involved in activities that are gradually putting the world in a position where our very own survival is threatened. For these pressing issues of sustainability to be properly addressed and eradicated, there must be instilled in individuals the right values, attitudes and behaviours for change to happen (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2019). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) can provide the knowledge, awareness and action that empowers people to transform themselves and transform societies. However, what we see at present is that our education system does not contribute to sustainable living in any way, and this is due to the fact that learners and educators fail to recognize the opportunities to question themselves as to whether their own lifestyles and practices contribute to making the planet better for their contemporaries and for the future generation. ESD though, defined differently by different authors, can be defined as a process of equipping students with the knowledge and understanding, attributes and skills which are needed to live in a way that affords protection to the environment as well as ensure social and economic well-being. The ESD agenda was developed to recognize and modify the educational system by advancing and inspiring sustainability in people’s minds (Zguir and Koc, 2021). Proper education will play a key role in achieving Goal 4 of the SDGs that has been set to save the planet and to alleviate poverty. This is important since human capital is built and developed through education, which in turn encourages development, innovation and also aids in eliminating gender and other inequalities that exist (Sachs et al., 2022). Goal 4, which “aims to ensure inclusive equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” is seen by the 2030 Agenda as the focal point of realization of the other SDGs such as 178

Education for sustainable development  179 Goal 3 on Health and Well-being, Goal 5 Gender Equality, Goal 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth, Goal 12 Responsible Consumption and Production, and Goal 13 Climate Change and Mitigation (Webb et al., 2017). Therefore, there is a need to incorporate aspects of Sustainable Development in curricula at all educational levels, most importantly, at the primary level. Further, since teachers are the central focus for education quality in the primary and secondary levels, much attention must also be given to how teachers are recruited, trained and motivated (Bruns et al., 2019). Due to the fact that education is the central focus of realization of many other SDGs, it must be made accessible to all and sundry and as part of human rights, should be accessed freely, especially at the primary level (Thamrin, 2020).

SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The built environment can be referred to as all structures that are built by man and comprises all things that are physically part of a city, a town or village, which provides a setting for human activity (Portella, 2014). Recent disasters, both natural and man-made, have brought attention to the built environment’s fragility (Bosher et al., 2007). As a sector using approximately half of non-renewable resources, the construction industry is seen as the least sustainable industry globally (Opoku, 2019). A built asset that is sustainably planned, designed, and built contributes to the quality of the built environment required for positive human health and well-being (Opoku, 2019). Sustainable buildings have enormous potential to assist in achieving these goals, and the built environment sector plays a crucial role in addressing these complex issues. In fact, unless the enormous potential in the built environment sector is unlocked, it will be impossible to realize the goal of a climate-neutral Europe (Europe Regional Network, 2019). Improved biodiversity in the built environment could be a game changer for the construction industry. If biodiversity loss is to be reduced, a built environment designed, constructed, managed, and controlled by human interactions with biodiversity should be the new approach. A well-designed and well-constructed built asset creates habitats for wild species to thrive. It is argued that there is a good opportunity for global biodiversity loss to be addressed through urban development because more than half of the urban development required by 2030 is yet to be built; new urban development projects should use sustainable construction practices to deliver low carbon buildings and green infrastructure (Opoku, 2019). Redefining the relationship between the built and natural environments is necessary to build a more sustainable society. The built environment produces a lot of waste while using a lot of energy and resources. A sustainable built environment should aim at reducing environmental impacts in terms of energy, carbon, waste, or water; this will involve creating a built environment that produces more than it consumes with environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits (Opoku, 2016). Opoku and Ahmed (2012) identified some of the challenges that are reducing the efforts to have a sustainable construction sector. It was identified that the current construction workforce lacks the necessary expertise and knowledge for sustainable building. The procurement procedures and contract types used in the construction sector, where it is believed and practiced that the lowest price wins, are impeding efforts to promote sustainability in the sector. Further, it was stated that in order to move these issues forward and receive full support from company boards, intra-organizational leaders who promote sustainability may run into priority conflicts

180  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals since they are not required to be organizational leaders in an executive position. The second most difficult obstacle to the adoption of sustainability was the perception that the practices involved in sustainability projects were more expensive. This demonstrates how the third most difficult factor, the current financial crisis, is having a negative impact on sustainability in the construction industry. The implementation of sustainable construction practices within construction organizations faces difficulties. Real or perceived costs, client demands, contract demands, and a lack of understanding of sustainability are common obstacles. When pursuing sustainable construction practices, construction organizations from both contractor and consultant backgrounds face “increased capital cost” as the most important challenge. To address value rather than cost, the construction industry should restructure its procurement procedures and contract requirements. This would help address some of these issues. Sustainability plays a crucial role in the construction sector and has an impact on all aspects of business operations. However, there has not been much research, if any, linking leadership and sustainability in the field of construction management (Opoku and Ahmed, 2012).

EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ESD refers to the educational process that focuses on the long-term prospects for the environment, the economy, and society (UNESCO, 2005). According to Longhurst et al. (2014:5), ESD is defined as: The process of equipping students with the knowledge and understanding, skills and attributes needed to work and live in a way that safeguards environmental, social and economic wellbeing, both in the present and for future generations.

Societies generally expect educational systems to prepare young people for future careers and/ or further education. The educational system is viewed as having a socializing role, and it is expected to help prepare young people to take on their responsibilities in helping to shape the complex society in which we all now live (Aguiar et al., 2021). ESD can be defined as a process of equipping students with the knowledge and understanding, attributes and skills which are needed to live in a way that affords protection to the environment as well as ensure social and economic well-being. A person is considered to have sustainability literacy when they possess an understanding of the necessity for change and have acquired the relevant knowledge and skills. This literacy is believed to be crucial for enhancing employment opportunities, professional proficiency, economic success, and overall social well-being (Murray et al., 2007: 83). Additionally, Parkin et al. (2004) assert that sustainability literacy not only involves acquiring knowledge and skills, but also the ability to make decisions and take action towards promoting sustainable development, both as individuals and as a society. In an attempt to define education in line with the SDGs, Leite (2022) identified three categories of definitions. These are Global Citizenship, ESD and Climate Change Education (CCE). Global Citizenship was defined as education that equips students of all ages to play active roles in creating more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, and secure societies, both locally and globally. It can be summed up as “learning to coexist.” It was founded on three types of learning: cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioural.

Education for sustainable development  181 In addition, ESD was explained as education that equips students to make informed decisions and take responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society for current and future generations. It was best described as “learning to live sustainably.” It addresses sustainable lifestyles and ways of life, climate change, biodiversity, environmental sustainability, greening the economy and sustainable consumption, environmental stewardship, and disaster risk reduction. Environmental education (EE) gave way to ESD, which added a holistic view of sustainable development with a stronger emphasis on the social and economic facets (Didham and Ofei-Manu, 2015). Further, CCE was defined as an education to assist people, particularly youth, in understanding, addressing, mitigating, and adapting to the effects of climate change. It promotes the changes in attitudes and behaviours required to move the world toward more sustainable development and to raise a new generation of climate change-aware citizens. It addresses various climate change responses, such as mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning. Education aimed at promoting sustainable development aims to produce students who are advocates of global citizenship, responsible stewards of the environment, and who possess a strong sense of social justice, ethics, and overall well-being. The goal is to equip graduates with the necessary knowledge and skills to address the pressing issues society faces in creating a sustainable future (Longhurst et al., 2014). Sustainability literacy involves acquiring knowledge and skills that promote the integration of social, environmental, and economic aspects of sustainable development (Dyer and Selby, 2004). Educational institutions play a vital role in developing the intellectual capacity needed by future generations to respond to the challenges of sustainable development. This can be accomplished by incorporating sustainable development into the curriculum content and delivery (EAUC, 2009). ESD is about equipping students with the abilities to think creatively and critically, collaborate with others, and take positive actions. This can only be achieved through the creation of curricula and pedagogy that provide students with the knowledge and skills to adopt more sustainable behaviours (HEFCE, 2009). In recognition of the crucial role that education, teaching, and research play in promoting sustainability, the UN declared 2005 to 2014 as the Decade for ESD (UNESCO, 2005). The United Kingdom (UK) responded by developing a sustainable development strategy in 2005, entitled “Securing the Future: Delivering the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.” The strategy emphasized the significance of education in providing young people with the skills and knowledge necessary for achieving sustainable development and argued that sustainability literacy should be a fundamental competency among graduates (DEFRA, 2005). ESD aims to incorporate the beliefs, principles, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education. Delivering Education for Sustainable Development Universities play a crucial role in imparting the necessary skills for sustainable development (Longhurst et al., 2014). Sustainability literacy is crucial for graduates in terms of their employability, professional effectiveness, economic success and social well-being (Murray et al., 2007). According to Rowe (2002), sustainable development should be integrated throughout higher education curricula so that every student on every course is equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to support a sustainable society. Sustainability literacy should be a fundamental competency for all graduates to be competitive in the job market (Longhurst

182  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals et al., 2014). Sustainable development can be incorporated into the curriculum by fully integrating it into courses or adding it as a separate module. In a joint study conducted by the UK National Union of Students (NUS) and the Higher Education Academy (HEA), students suggested that sustainability literacy should be integrated into the existing curriculum content (Drayson et al., 2013). However, they were open to alternative methods such as adding new content to courses, studying a specific module or participating in extracurricular activities that promote the teaching and learning of sustainable development (Drayson et al., 2013). Effective pedagogical approaches for education for sustainable development include hands-on activities, simulations, project-based learning and problem-based learning, which enable students to connect their learning to real-world problems and situations (Longhurst et al., 2014). Education for sustainable development helps students understand the impact of their actions and decisions on society. The teaching of sustainability literacy in higher education is important for students of all disciplines as graduates need to have the knowledge and skills for sustainable development in their chosen careers. It is crucial that graduates acquire the necessary sustainability knowledge and skills required in the job market. Achieving sustainable development requires a change in behaviour and mindset, and education plays a key role in this. Educators in the built environment field must determine what to teach in terms of sustainability literacy and, more importantly, how to teach it using appropriate pedagogical methods. Sustainability Literacy Skills and Competencies The definitions of competence and competency are provided first. The word “competency,” which has its roots in the United States of America (USA), refers to superior performance and high motivation and focuses on behaviour, motivations, and other personal traits. This characterization is attribute-based because it is based on the individual’s personal characteristics. The British term competence, which has a connection to job performance, describes practical abilities, as well as knowledge and comprehension of the workplace. Competency-based education is outcome-focused because it focuses on empowering people to interact successfully in a variety of situations and contexts in order to help transform their structures (Bianchi, 2020). The knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that enable effective, embodied action in the world with respect to real-world sustainability problems, challenges, and opportunities, depending on the context, are referred to as sustainability competences in relation to sustainability (Bianchi, 2020). All the above forms of education are geared towards the development of key competencies in tackling issues that are backtracking activities geared towards building a sustainable world. UNESCO (2005) identified 11 competencies that SDGs education seek to achieve. The key competencies represent cross-cutting competencies that are necessary for all learners of all ages worldwide. These competencies can be understood as transversal, multifunctional, and context-independent. Systems thinking competency: the ability to recognize and comprehend relationships; analyze complex systems; consider how systems are embedded within various domains and scales; and deal with uncertainty (Rieckmann, 2018). Anticipatory competency: the capacity to comprehend and assess various futures—possible, probable, and desirable—to imagine one’s own futures, to use the precautionary principle, to weigh the effects of one’s choices, and to deal with risks and change (Rieckmann, 2018; Straková and Cimermanová, 2018).

Education for sustainable development  183 Normative competency: the capacities to comprehend and consider the standards and principles that guide one’s behaviour, as well as to negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals, and targets in a setting of competing interests, uncertain information, and contradictions (Rieckmann, 2018). Strategic competency: the capacity to jointly design and carry out innovative actions that promote sustainability both locally and globally (Gardiner and Rieckmann, 2015; Rieckmann, 2018). Collaboration competency: the capacity to absorb knowledge from others, respect others’ needs, perspectives, and actions (empathy), relate to others and be sensitive to their needs (empathic leadership), handle group conflicts, and promote collaborative and participatory problem solving (Gardiner and Rieckmann, 2015; Rieckmann, 2018). Critical thinking competency: the capacity to challenge conventions, practises, and beliefs; to consider one’s own values, perceptions, and behaviour; and to participate in the sustainability discourse (Rieckmann, 2018). Self-awareness competency: the capacity to consider one’s place in both one’s community and society at large, to continually assess and further motivate one’s actions, and to deal with one’s feelings and desires (Rieckmann, 2018). Integrated problem-solving competency: the broad capacity to integrate the aforementioned competences to tackle complex sustainability problems using a variety of problem-solving frameworks and to come up with workable, equitable, and inclusive solutions (Rieckmann, 2018). Aguiar, Camargo-Cruz and Resende (2021) identified three competencies which include teaching, reflecting or visioning and networking. ESD requires a different and more constructive approach to teaching. Through constructivism, teachers must understand that acquiring competencies is a self-directed and active process that can be fostered but not created. Any professional development initiative must place educator empowerment at the core. Teachers are crucial change agents in educational systems. For educational transformation to be successful, educators must be driven to do so, as well as capable of and supported in doing so (UNECE, 2011). Educators are the most influential actors in ensuring that children are gaining quality education and effective learning (Didham and Ofei-Manu, 2015). UNECE identified competencies for educators in education for sustainable development. There are three broad classifications of these competencies which include the holistic competencies, envisioning change: past, present, and achieving transformation: people, pedagogy and education systems future and of educators that are central to the transfer of knowledge. The holistic approach includes three interrelated components: integrative thinking, inclusivity and dealing with complexities. Integrative thinking addresses the dual nature of the challenges of sustainable development, which call for an understanding of how changes in one area of the world may affect other areas as well as how current decisions may affect the future. Further, inclusivity refers to a willingness to consider a variety of perspectives when negotiating a sustainable future. Contradictions and dilemmas are common features of sustainable development issues; different perspectives can both underpin and provide solutions to these issues. While embracing different perspectives, educators must be open about their own worldviews so that they are not hidden from or imposed on students. Dealing with complexities allows ESD educators to provide opportunities for learners to engage with and build bridges across a variety of concepts and ideas. While listing the entire

184  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ESD knowledge base would be impractical, the UNECE Strategy for ESD and the UNESCO International Implementation Scheme for the UN’s Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) suggest a wide range of concepts and topics that can serve as entry points, such as: peace studies; ethics and philosophy; citizenship, democracy and governance; human rights; poverty alleviation; cultural diversity; biological and landscape diversity; environmental protection; ecological principles and an ecosystem approach; natural resource management; climate change; personal and family health among others. Envisioning change covers competences relating to three dimensions: learning from the past, inspiring engagement in the present and exploring alternative futures. Understanding past developments critically and completely, including their underlying causes, is part of learning from the past (Kop and Hill, 2008). Understanding both successes and failures in the cultural, social, economic, and environmental spheres helps draw lessons. Because of the importance of the issues we face today, active participation in the present is essential. For example, our world is marked by massive inequality, with millions living in poverty while others engage in unsustainable use of the planet’s resources, exceeding natural systems’ carrying capacity and thus jeopardizing their regenerative capacities. Exploring alternative futures leads to the discovery of new pathways, which is an important step toward achieving sustainable development. This process uses scientific evidence to uncover current beliefs and assumptions that underpin our decisions, and it encourages creative thinking about a wide range of possibilities (Loorbach, 2007). Achieving transformation covers competences that operate at three levels: transformation of what it means to be an educator; transformation of pedagogy, that is, transformative approaches to teaching and learning; transformation of the education system as a whole. Transformation of what it means to be an educator is required because education systems are made up of the people who work within them, and educators who can change their own practice as critical reflective practitioners will be key to changing these systems. Positive relationships between educators and students are critical (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2019). To incorporate learners’ prior knowledge, transformative pedagogy offers opportunities for participation as well as the growth of imagination, creativity, and innovation. Because our current systems have not supported sustainable models of development, transformation of education systems is crucial. Although society clearly values the role that formal education plays, change is required to make sure that the system offers instruction that encourages students to think about sustainability in all of their life decisions (Sipos et al., 2008). The growing pressure to enhance the environmental performance of the construction industry is the primary justification for integrating sustainability into degree programmes in construction. Additionally, studies from Australia and other countries show that the perception of higher education as the primary source of sustainability-focused construction education is growing (Graham and Graham, 2010). In addition, resource-efficient design and construction, allows people to do more with less, and helps to reduce the negative environmental consequences of resource consumption. However, the environmental effects of buildings are the result of a complex set of design and management decisions, and good environmental design and construction can prevent more than just the damage caused by resource use. It is therefore critical that students of building professions understand how the many decisions they make can contribute to the creation of environmentally sustainable buildings, and this awareness should begin in the classroom (Graham and Graham, 2010).

Education for sustainable development  185 Higher education institutions can help to achieve the SDGs by producing graduates with the necessary sustainability knowledge, skills, attitudes, and attributes. Higher education providers are encouraged to collaborate with professional bodies to ensure that sustainability literacy is fully embedded in the competency framework for accredited programmes delivered at universities (Opoku and Egbu, 2018). Experts agree that special sustainability competencies are required for individuals to critically reflect on their ontologies and epistemologies and as well take action as appropriate. Sustainability competencies also known as twenty-first century competencies, carry aspects like systems thinking, wise decision-taking, the ability to anticipate future events, some strategic and inter-personal competencies, among others (Gokool-Ramdoo and Rumjaun, 2017). Pedagogies for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) all agreed to parallel articles on education, training, and public awareness, with Member States also approving work plans. Agenda 21 principles and underpinning frameworks continue to guide conceptual thinking and planning for ESD, from the global level through to regional actions and Local Agenda 21 initiatives (Legrouri, 2017). Education has come into shape during the focus of discussions of the post-2015 development agenda as a crucial tool for achieving sustainable development. Throughout all grades and forms of education, ESD is advancing the transformation of teaching and learning practises by implementing formal, non-formal and informal methods that stimulate pupils to ask questions, analyze, think critically, and make decisions, that are cooperative rather than competitive, and that are more flexible and student-centred (Didham and Ofei-Manu, 2015). The pedagogical strategies that work best in the context of ESD typically have an authentic component that allows students to connect what they are learning to actual issues and circumstances. The interconnected nature of many issues in sustainable development is likely to be reflected in a strong interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary element (Wright, 2014). Further, Wright (2014) identified that experiential and interactive teaching methods are especially well suited to sustainable development education, especially when they encourage students to develop and consider their own and other people’s values. It was further indicated that transformative learning is sometimes the result of critical reflection on values and presumptions. Peer learning, collaboration, and participatory learning strategies are also promoted both inside and outside of the classroom, exposing students to a variety of viewpoints and inspiring them to come up with original responses. A paradigm shift is more important than ever for reversing harmful power dynamics and igniting critical thinking and transformative action. The new paradigm can be divided into first and second order changes, where the first order change fosters the acknowledged desire to depart from well-known unsustainable patterns of living and the second order change entails setting up the necessary framework to enhance everyone’s standard of living (Gokool-Ramdoo and Rumjaun, 2017). Gokool-Ramdoo and Rumjaun (2017) confirmed the need for a new approach to development and education that focuses on three principles which were earlier discovered by Yamaguchi and Chan (2014). These principles include creativity (creation of new values), self-reliance (enhancement of life with diverse abilities) and collaboration (social participation). These are the essential components of critical pedagogy. Thus, critical pedagogy plays

186  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals a crucial role in developing sustainability competencies that can enable people to challenge hegemonic paradigms and become aware of the connections between sustainable development components like agriculture, energy, habitat, economy, education, and democracy (Gokool-Ramdoo and Rumjaun, 2017). Most students would have learned about sustainability, knowingly or unknowingly, through previous formal education or through informal means, and they may hold a variety of value positions. It is therefore critical that prior knowledge and attitudes be considered when planning teaching and learning activities. Students’ learning for and about sustainability in higher education is not limited to the formal curriculum. Effective ESD calls for appropriate and effective pedagogies that engage students in transformative learning and these include activities that are experiential, collaborative, and learner-centred; while incorporating reflective and active learning (Howell, 2021) calls for comprehensive strategy in addressing socially significant challenges in a complete and multifaceted manner (Burmeister et al., 2012). ESD teaching should avoid restricted and normative approaches, which are simply intended to change the students’ attitudes or to coach them to cope in an already defined future, but instead, should develop ways to democratically engage students in personal and global change in accordance with their own beliefs and experiences (Juntunen and Aksela, 2014). ESD pedagogies often promote social critique, contextual analysis, and critical thinking because they involve discussion, analysis and application of values (Laurie et al., 2016). Whenever possible, teaching, learning, and assessment should take informal and campus learning opportunities into account (Gokool-Ramdoo and Rumjaun, 2017). Similarly, Venkataraman (2009) earlier indicated that for educators to embrace education for sustainable development, they must collaborate with educational researchers to collect authentic assessment data that will inform curricular reform and define best practises.

EDUCATION AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Although it is still challenging to conduct, tracking global progress toward universal access and educational attainment is statistically simple. However, determining whether education enables societal change toward sustainability is more difficult (Didham and Ofei-Manu, 2015). It is crucial for states, multinational national corporations, and intergovernmental organizations to dedicate resources to ensuring capacity building for their workers and educational training for groups in the community to have a skilled population, because low education levels make it difficult for a country and corporations to operate optimally (Bello, 2020). The importance of education cuts across every field. Irina Bokova, the Director-General of UNESCO, emphasized the importance of education when she stated that education has a catalytic impact on the well-being of individuals and the future of our planet. Education has the responsibility to be in gear with the twenty-first century challenges and aspirations and foster the right types of values and skills that will lead to sustainable and inclusive growth and a peaceful living together. Embarking on the path of sustainable development will require a profound transformation of how we think and act (UNESCO, 2005). Quality education is recognized as one of the most powerful and proven drivers for ensuring sustainable development, which can be applied in a variety of educational contexts, both formal and informal, and can result in numerous benefits for the general public (García et al., 2020). UNESCO (2020)

Education for sustainable development  187 argues that, the ESD framework is a transformational lifelong learning process and an integral part of quality education consisting of learning content and outcomes, pedagogy, and the environment as illustrated in Figure 10.1. ESD is a key driver of achieving all the other SDGs and helps in achieving social transformation.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 10.1

ESD as enabler for the SDGs

Generally, many researchers have alluded to the importance of education in both the short-term and long-term development of a country, but more specifically, the long-term. According to one study, ensuring that all children in low-income countries graduate from school with basic reading skills could reduce global poverty by 12 percent, which would lift 171 million people out of poverty (EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2011). By ensuring that all young people have access to basic education and skill levels by 2030, the OECD predicted that lower- and middle-income countries would experience a 28 percent increase in GDP annually over the following 80 years (Hanushek, 2015). Quality education provides an even more significant boost to economic growth compared to simply increasing attainment (Didham and Ofei-Manu, 2015). ESD has its origins in the history of two fields that have historically attracted the attention of numerous stakeholders, especially the UN: education and sustainable development (Agbedahin, 2019).  The integration of ESD into all formal, non-formal, and informal learning settings depends on policy. To facilitate a change in the educational systems, we require pertinent and coherent policies. The responsibility to make sure that educational systems are ready for and responsive to new and emerging sustainability challenges falls primarily on the shoulders of the ministries of education around the world. Among other things, this entails developing pertinent indicator frameworks that establish standards for learning outcomes and incorporating ESD into curricula and national quality standards (UNESCO, 2005).

188  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals SDG 4 – Targets and Indicators and the Link with the Built Environment There is still a significant amount of work that needs to be completed with regards to the 17 SDGs (Nakicenovic et al., 2015). In September 2015, the UN General Assembly accepted 17 SDGs which consist of 169 objectives, and 91 of these objectives require additional clarification. It is crucial to establish metrics to track the progress towards these objectives on various levels, including local, national, regional, and global, as well as across different sectors. In order to effectively monitor and evaluate the progress towards these targets, procedures and standards for monitoring and evaluation must be established. This will ensure that the progress towards achieving the SDGs is accurately measured and effectively communicated. From the list of targets, the following are identified as those that would have tremendous impact on education within the built environment space. The goal of ensuring significant mobilization of resources by 2030 (as indicated in SDG 1 target 1a and indicator 1.a.2) has the potential to greatly contribute to promoting education in the built environment as a part of the SDGs (Leal Filho et al., 2019). Adequate and predictable funding from various sources, including enhanced development cooperation, would allow developing countries, particularly least developed countries, to implement programs and policies aimed at ending poverty in all its forms. This funding could then be used to invest in education and the built environment, including building and upgrading schools, providing teachers with proper training and resources, and creating safe and accessible learning environments. This would not only help to improve access to education, but also to improve the quality of education and the overall learning experience for students. The goal of ensuring that all girls and boys complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education by 2030 has the potential to greatly contribute to promoting education in the built environment as a part of the SDGs. By providing all children, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status, with access to education, it opens up the opportunity to study the trends in development in the built environment. As curriculums are inclusive of materials that expose global environmental challenges, learners will be abreast of general trends in all sectors including the built environment. In the field of the built environment, having a skilled workforce can help to ensure that construction projects are completed efficiently and effectively, and that the structures that are built are safe and sustainable. For example, having workers with skills in energy-efficient building techniques and materials can help to reduce the environmental impact of new construction projects and ensure that they are built to last (Harris et al., 2021). Investing in the skills development of individuals can also help to create new job opportunities in the growing field of sustainability and the built environment. This can include positions in renewable energy, green building design, and sustainable urban planning, among others. By working to increase the number of individuals with relevant skills for employment and entrepreneurship, it can help to create a future in which sustainability is integrated into all aspects of the built environment, from construction and design to operation and maintenance. This will help to create a more sustainable and livable future for all. Table 10.1 presents SDG 4 target 4.4 and 4.5 and highlights the importance of technical and vocational education which is key for the development of the built environment. By ensuring that all individuals, regardless of gender, disability, or socioeconomic status, have access to education and vocational training, we can help to create a more diverse and skilled workforce in the field of the built environment. This can lead to a greater variety of perspectives and ideas being brought to the table and can help to ensure that the needs of all

Education for sustainable development  189 Table 10.1 Target 4.4

Target 4.4 and 4.5 of the sustainable development goals By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship

4.4.1

Proportion of youth and adults with information and communications technology (ICT) skills, by type of skill

4.4.2

Percentage of youth/adults who have achieved at least a minimum level of proficiency in digital literacy skills

4.4.3

Youth/adult educational attainment rates by age group and level of education

Target 4.5

By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations

4.5.1

Parity indices (female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples and conflict-affected, as data become available) for all education indicators on this list that can be disaggregated

4.5.2

Percentage of students in a) early grades, b) at the end of primary, and c) at the end of lower secondary education who have their first or home language as language of instruction

4.5.3

Existence of funding mechanisms to reallocate education resources to disadvantage populations

4.5.4

Education expenditure per student by level of education and source of funding

4.5.5

Percentage of total aid to education allocated to least developed countries

Source:  Adapted from IAEG-SDGs (2016).

members of society are taken into account when designing and building sustainable communities (Rieckmann, 2018). In addition, providing access to education and vocational training can help to empower individuals and communities to take an active role in promoting sustainability in their own lives and communities. This can include individuals and communities taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint, conserve resources, and promote sustainable practices in their own homes and communities (Rieckmann, 2018). By working to eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to education and vocational training for all, we can help to create a more sustainable future in which all individuals have the skills and knowledge they need to contribute to a greener, more equitable world. By providing education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and nonviolence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and its contribution to sustainable development, we can help to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills they need to be active, informed, and responsible citizens (Leicht, 2018). In the field of the built environment, education and awareness about sustainability can help individuals to make informed choices about the buildings and communities in which they live and work. This can include choosing to live in energy-efficient buildings, using public transportation, and reducing their overall carbon footprint (Leicht, 2018). In addition, education about sustainability can help to create a culture of sustainability in the built environment. This can include promoting sustainable practices in construction, design, and operation and maintenance of buildings and communities (Edwards Jr et al., 2020). Although it is still challenging to conduct, tracking global progress toward universal access and educational attainment is statistically simple. However, determining whether education enables societal change toward sustainability is more difficult (Didham and Ofei-Manu, 2015). It is crucial for states, multinational national corporations, and intergovernmental organizations to dedicate resources to ensuring capacity building for its workers and educational training for groups in the community to have a skilled population because low education levels make it difficult for a country and corporations to operate optimally (Bello, 2020).

190  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

THE ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN ACHIEVING THE SDGs Education plays a key role in the realization of the 17 SDGs. Goal 4 on education is made up of ten targets. Looking at target 4.3, we see that there is the introduction of vocational, technical tertiary and adult education into the global development agenda, stating that, “By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational, and tertiary education including university”. In addition to that are two other targets which deal with some other aspects of higher education delivery and these are target 4.b, which calls for many study abroad scholarships for students from developing countries, and target 4.7, which challenges schools and universities to include key sustainability concepts such as climate change, human rights and peace studies into the curriculum (Owens, 2017). Higher education institutions have the responsibility to create a more sustainable world because the individuals who are in future going to assume managerial and leadership positions of organizations, whether private or public, or individuals who are going to lead political parties, social movements and companies are getting their training at these universities (Abad-Segura and Gonzalez-Zamar, 2021). However, in this time where inequalities are rising, there is the issue of climate change and a range of major societal challenges. A critical challenge that is faced by education is how to best equip individuals, citizens, scholars and leaders to help them implement significant change and avert future crisis (Storey and O’Regan, 2017). There is no doubt whatsoever that a nation’s economic prosperity is directly impacted by the proper design and operation of its educational system (Priyadarshini and Abhilash, 2020). In order to achieve SDGs, particularly Goal 4 which “aims to ensure inclusive equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”, nations must separately design their own strategy, plans, and programs and such initiatives ought to be developed in areas of specialized scientific knowledge (Artyukhov Artem et al., 2021), particularly in universities. This is so because by the time a student is entering college or university, they must have studied recycling, waste management and energy saving at primary school, studied citizenship lessons which included sustainability and debated issues of social justice during ‘A’ levels, hence, when they come to university, they do not need to be taught again how to recycle their bottles and cans, although some still do. But instead, they should be challenged on sustainability, incorporated in their modules, and a curriculum that enhances their career prospects and enables them to become well informed members of society (Dyer et al., 2006). Because education and research are specifically acknowledged in a number of the SDGs, universities should be actively involved in achieving these goals and additionally, universities play a far larger role in accomplishing the SDGs because they can support their implementation, spark change, and promote social prosperity through study programs, curriculum, and research (Perović and Kosor, 2020). In the new global development agenda, which aims to reduce poverty while fulfilling social demands, higher institutions have a significant, multi-faceted role (Zhou et al., 2019) because they provide important skills and knowledge for developing the complex, sustainable and integrated solutions that the SDGs demand (Jamison and Meggan, 2021). Educators in higher education institutions should give students the chance to learn about making decisions that consider the three pillars of sustainability, that is, social, environmental and economic, both now and in the future, and, by being proactive and dedicated to sustainability initiatives, they will create globally responsible citizens who will make wiser decisions

Education for sustainable development  191 now, and in the future (Zizka and Varga, 2021). Therefore, there is need for change in all curriculums across various educational levels in order for students to receive sustainability literacy, because the only way for us to create a vision of a sustainable future that will enable us to act both individually and collectively as empowered and engaged citizens is through transformative change (Hayles and Holdsworth, 2015).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Education is essential for the achievement of the SDGs. Unsustainable activities such as deforestation, overfishing, excessive carbon emissions, and widespread pollution are leading to serious consequences for the planet and its inhabitants. These activities are altering the delicate balance of the earth’s ecosystems and causing widespread destruction to natural habitats and wildlife. In the move towards a sustainable future, it is crucial that public awareness initiatives are increased about the importance of sustainable practices. This can be achieved through proper education. Education can help people understand the impact their actions have on the environment, and how they can make changes in their daily lives to reduce that impact. It can also help to dispel myths and misunderstandings about sustainability and encourage people to adopt environment-friendly practices. For example, people can learn about the benefits of reducing their carbon footprint, using renewable energy sources, reducing waste, and protecting natural habitats. Education can also help people understand the interconnections between different aspects of the environment and the wider consequences of unsustainable activities. Transitioning to sustainable lifestyles and practises poses significant challenges for society, and education is clearly critical to making this happen. The examples presented here show how ESD can effectively shape curricula and programmes. Embracing ESD at all levels of education, as well as evaluating programmes and efforts to establish best practises in ESD, is critical to producing citizens who see sustainable development as a guiding principle in their lives. In conclusion, public awareness through education is the key to moving the world towards sustainability. Only by educating the public about the importance of sustainable practices, and empowering them to make positive changes, can we hope to protect the planet and secure a sustainable future for ourselves and future generations.

REFERENCES Abad-Segura, E. and Gonzalez-Zamar, M.-D. (2021). Sustainable economic development in higher education institutions: A global analysis within the SDGs framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 294. Agbedahin, A.V. (2019). Sustainable development, education for sustainable development, and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: Emergence, efficacy, eminence, and future. Sustainable Development, 27(4), pp.  669–680. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1002/​sd​.1931. Aguiar, D.R. da C., Camargo-Cruz, P.E.A. and Resende, F.G. (2021). Climate change and environmental education. Periódico Eletrônico Fórum Ambiental da Alta Paulista, 17(3), https://​doi​.org/​10​.17271/​ 1980082717320213046. Artyukhov Artem, V.I., Vasylieva, T. and Lyeonov, S. (2021). The role of the university in achieving SDG 2 and 7: A Ukrainian case. E3S Web of Conferences, 250.

192  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Bello, I. (2020) Sustainable development goals (SDGs) for education in Nigeria: An examination of Etisalat corporate social responsibility in Nigeria’s post-basic education sector. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(5–6), pp.  562–575. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​02601370​.2020​.1836051. Bexell, M. and Jonsson, K. (2017). Responsibility and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Forum for Development Studies, 22(1), pp. 13–29. Bianchi, G. (2020). Sustainability competences, EUR 30555 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://​data​.europa​.eu/​doi/​10​.2760/​200956 Bosher, L., Carrillo, P., Dainty, A., Glass, J. and Price, A. (2007). Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment: Toward a strategic agenda for the United Kingdom. Disasters, 31(3), pp. 236–255. Bruns, B., Macdonald, H.I. and Scneider, R.B. (2019). The politics of quality reforms and the challenges for SDGs in education. World Development, pp. 27–38. Burmeister, M., Rauch, F. and Eilks, I. (2012). Education for sustainable development (ESD) and chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, pp. 59–68. DEFRA (2005). Securing the future - delivering UK sustainable development strategy, [Online], available at: https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​publications/​securing​-the​-future​-delivering​-uk​-sustainable​ -development​-strategy, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), (Accessed May 2022). Didham, R.J. and Ofei-Manu, P. (2015). The role of education in the sustainable development agenda. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, (July), pp.  95–134. http://​www​.jstor​.org/​stable/​ resrep00786​.12. Drayson, R., Bone, E., Agombar, J. and Kemp, S. (2013). Student Attitudes Towards and Skills for Sustainable Development. York: HEA. Dyer, A. and Selby, D. (2004). Centre of Excellence for Teaching and Learning. Education for Sustainable Development, Stage 2 Bid; University of Plymouth. Dyer, A., Selby, D. and Brian, C. (2006). A centre for excellence in education for sustainable development. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(2), pp. 307–312. EAUC (2009). Embedding Sustainable Development in the Curriculum, available at: http://​www​.eauc​ .org​.uk/​sorted/​embedding​_sustainable​_development​_in​_the​_curric, Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC), (Accessed June 2014). Edwards Jr, D.B., Sustarsic, M., Chiba, M., McCormick, M., Goo, M. and Perriton, S. (2020). Achieving and monitoring education for sustainable development and global citizenship: A systematic review of the literature. Sustainability, 12(4), p.1383. García, E.G., Magaña, E.C. and Ariza, A.C. (2020). Quality education as a sustainable development goal in the context of 2030 agenda: Bibliometric approach, Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(15), pp. 1–18. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​SU12155884. Gardiner, S. and Rieckmann, M. (2015). Pedagogies of preparedness: Use of reflective journals in the operationalisation and development of anticipatory competence. Sustainability, 7(8), pp. 10554–10575. Gokool-Ramdoo, S. and Rumjaun, A.B. (2017). Education for sustainable development: Connecting the dots for sustainability. Journal of Learning for Development, 4(1), pp. 72–89. Available at: https://​doi​ .org/​10​.56059/​jl4d​.v4i1​.170. Graham, P. and Graham, P. (2010). Building education for the next industrial revolution: Teaching and learning environmental literacy for the building professions. Construction Management & Economics, 18(8), pp. 917–925. Hanushek, E. (2015). Universal basic skills should become the primary development goal, (May), pp. 1–5. Harris, F., McCaffer, R., Baldwin, A. and Edum-Fotwe, F. (2021). Modern Construction Management. John Wiley and Sons. Hayles, S.C. and Holdsworth, E.S. (2015). Curriculum change for sustainability. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(1), pp. 25–48. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2009). Sustainable development in higher education: Update to strategic statement and action plan. Available online from: http://​www. hefce​.ac​ .uk/​pubs/​hefce/​2009/​09​_03/​#exec (Accessed June 2020) Hong, X., Calderon, A. and Coates, H. (2022). Universities and SDGs: Evidence of engagement and contributions, and pathways for development. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, pp. 1–22.

Education for sustainable development  193 Howell, A.R. (2021). Engaging students in education for sustainable development: The benefits of active learning, reflective practices and flipped classroom pedagogies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 325. IAEG-SDGs (2016). Final list of proposed Sustainable Development Goal indicators, Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal (IAEG-SDGs) Indicators (E/ CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1). Jamison, A. and Meggan, M. (2021). Developing the capacities for meeting the SDGs: Exploring the role of a public land-grant institution in the civic engagements of its African alumni. Higher Education, 81, pp. 145–162. Juntunen, M.K. and Aksela, M.K. (2014). Education for sustainable development in chemistry- challenges, possibilities and pedagogical models in Finland and elsewhere. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, pp. 488–500. Kioupi, V. and Voulvoulis, N. (2019). Education for sustainable development: A systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes. Sustainability, 11(21), pp. 1–18. Kop, R. and Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3), pp. 1–13. Laurie, R., Tarumi-Nonoyama, Y. and Hopkins, C. (2016). Contributions of education for sustainable development (ESD) to quality education: A synthesis of research. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 10(2). Leal Filho, W., Tripathi, S.K., Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O.D., Giné-Garriga, R., Orlovic Lovren, V. and Willats, J. (2019). Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(2), pp.179–190. Legrouri, A. (2017). UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development DESD Monitoring, and Evaluation Shaping the Future We Want. Leicht, A., Combes, B., Byun, W.J. and Agbedahin, A.V. (2018). From agenda 21 to Target 4.7: The development of education for sustainable development. Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development, 25. Leite, S. (2022). Using the SDGs for global citizenship education: Definitions, challenges, and opportunities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(3), pp.  401–413. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​14767724​ .2021​.1882957. Longhurst, J.W.S., Bellingham, L., Cotton, D., Isaac, V., Kemp, S., Martin, S., Peters, C., Robertson, A., Ryan, A., Taylor, C. and Tilbury, D. (2014). Education for Sustainable Development: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers. Technical Report. QAA: Gloucester. Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition Management: New Mode of Governance for Sustainable Development. Utrecht: International Books, p. 327. Lu, Y., Nakicenovic, N., Visbeck, M. and Stevance, A.S. (2015). Policy: Five priorities for the UN sustainable development goals. Nature, 520(7548), pp. 432–433. Murray, P., Brown, N. and Murray, S. (2007). Deconstructing sustainability literacy: The cornerstone of education for sustainability? The role of values. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 2(7), pp. 83–92. Opoku, A. (2016). SDG2030: A sustainable built environment’s role in achieving the post-2015 United Nations sustainable development goals. In P.W. Chan and C.J. Neilson (Eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5–7 September 2016, Manchester, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 2, pp. 1149–1158. Opoku, A. (2019). Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, pp. 1–7. Opoku, A. and Ahmed, V. (2012). Embracing sustainability practices in UK construction organizations leadership. Emerald Insight [Preprint]. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​BEPAM​-02​-2013​-0001. Opoku, A. and Egbu, C. (2018). Students’ perspectives on the relevance of sustainability literacy in a postgraduate built environment program. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 14(1), pp.  46–58. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​15578771​.2017​.1286417. Owens, L. T. (2017). Higher education in the sustainable development goals framework. Euro J Education, 52, pp. 414–420. Parkin, S., Johnson, A., Buckland, H. and White, E. (2004). Learning and Skills for Sustainable Development: Developing a Sustainability Literate Society. HEPS, London.

194  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Perović, L.M. and Kosor, M. (2020). The efficiency of universities in achieving sustainable development goals. Amfiteatru Economic, 22(54), pp. 516–532. Portella, A. A. (2014). Built environment. In: C. A. Michalos (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-being Research. Dordrecht: Springer. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-94​-007​-0753​-5​_240 Priyadarshini, P. and Abhilash, C.P. (2020). From piecemeal to holistic: Introducing sustainability science in Indian universities to attain UN sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247. Rieckmann, M. (2018). Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in education for sustainable development. Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development, 39, pp. 39–59. Rowe, D. (2002). Environmental Literacy and Sustainability as Core Requirements: Success Stories and Models. Teaching Sustainability at Universities (pp. 79–103). New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Sachs, D.J., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C. and Fuller, G. (2022). Sustainable Development Report. From Crisis to Sustainable Development: The SDGs as Roadmap to 2030 and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sipos, Y., Battisti, B. and Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), pp. 68–86. Storey, M. and O’Regan, P. (2017). Responsible management education: Mapping the field in the context of the SDGs. International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), pp. 93–103. Straková, Z. and Cimermanová, I. (2018). Critical thinking development—A necessary step in higher education transformation towards sustainability. Sustainability, 10(10), p. 3366. Thamrin, H. (2020). Educational aspects in efforts to realize SDGs in Indonesia. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy, 04(11), pp. 473–477. UNESCO (2005). UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2004-2014, [Online, available at: http://​www​.unesco​.org/​new/​en/​education/​themes/​leading​-the​-international​-agenda/​education​-for​ -sus​tainabledevelopment/​, (Accessed June 2020). UNESCO (2020). Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris. Venkataraman, B. (2009). Education for sustainable development. Environment, 51(2), pp. 8–10. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.3200/​ENVT​.51​.2​.08​-10. Walid, M. and Luetz, M.J. (2018). From education for sustainable development to education for environmental sustainability: Reconnecting the disconnected SDGs. In P.W.L. Filho (Ed.) Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​978​-3​-319​-63007​-6​_49 Webb, S., Holford, J., Hodge, S., Milana, M. and Waller, R. (2017). Lifelong learning for quality education: Exploring the neglected aspect of sustainable development goal 4. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(5), pp. 509–511. Wright, T. (2014). Education for sustainable development. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, (June), pp.  1814–1816. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-94​-007​-0753​-5​_839. Zguir, F.M. and Koc, M. (2021). Embedding education for sustainable development (ESD) and SDGs in curriculum: A comparative review in Qatar, Singapore and New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 319. Zhou, L., Rudhumbu, N. and Olumide, A. (2019). Role of higher education institutions in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. In G. Nhamo and V. Mjimba (Eds.) Sustainable Development Goals and Institutions of Higher Education. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​-030​-26157​-3​_7 Zizka, L. and Varga, P. (2021). Teaching sustainability in higher education institutions: Assessing hospitality students’ sustainability literacy. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 33(4), pp. 242–257.

PART III PLANET, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

11. Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals Vian Ahmed, Sara Saboor, Hessa Ahmed Alshamsi, Fatima Ahmed Almarzooqi, Mariam Abdalla Alketbi and Fatema Ahmed Al Marei

INTRODUCTION Global warming and the impact of CO2 emissions have been at the forefront of the world’s problems. As such, sustainability has gained huge popularity over the years, as evidenced by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by United Nations (UN) General Assembly as a joint pathway for Prosperity, People, Planet, Peace, and Partnership (Sachs et al., 2019). The SDGs envelop the widespread concerns people face worldwide and outline them in 17 interlinked goals intended to be achieved by 2030. This results in the world committing to these goals to avoid the repercussions. An inclination towards integrating these goals can be witnessed in almost every sector (Fukuda-Parr, 2016). However, one of the essential sectors that touch every aspect of our lives, such as the economy, water and electricity distribution systems, roads, bridges, infrastructure, and transportation that integrate the macro and micro level of our surroundings, is defined as the built environment. The sector encompasses various sub-sectors, such as construction, transportation, manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesale, and plays a significant role in the success of many others, such as education and trading, to name a few. Thus, due to the sector’s multifaceted effects, it is pertinent to examine and integrate the SDGs for improving the sector. Several studies have been reported in the literature that looks into the sector in relation to various SDGs such as Goal 7: Accessible Clean Energy, Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, and Goal 13: Climate Action. In addition, the built environment has also been recognized as a major contributor of greenhouse gasses (GHG) which is evident from the reports that state 50 percent of the global material (42.4 Gt) and 20 percent of GHG emissions (>9Gt of CO2 eq) are consumed annually by the built environment (U.S. Environmental, 2022). Thus, due to the dynamic nature and magnitude of energy consumption and almost a third of overall GHG emissions by the sector, the EU aims to cut GHG emissions by 80-95 percent by 2050 compared to 1990 (EEA, 2022). To achieve this aim, many contributions and useful enhancements have been made to the building sector to reduce the burning fossil fuels process and increase the focus on generating energy from clean sources. To have a positive impact on the environment that will reflect directly in decreasing GHG emissions and endorse the target of achieving energy efficiency, especially in the buildings sector, the Zero Energy Buildings (ZEBs) was introduced (Wells et al., 2018). Thus, the introduction of Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs) was considered critical in achieving SDGs as they have the potential to address several challenges related to sustainable 196

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  197 development. NZEBs are buildings that produce as much energy as they consume, resulting in a net-zero energy balance. Achieving this involves reducing energy demand, increasing energy efficiency, and utilizing renewable energy sources. Thus, this shows the significance of NZEBs for sustainable development. In addition, the NZEBs can be viewed under the compliance of SDGs. Firstly, NZEBs play a significant role in addressing climate change, which is one of the most pressing challenges facing the world today. Buildings account for nearly 40 percent of global energy consumption and approximately one-third of GHG emissions (IEA, 2019). Secondly, NZEBs can help to reduce energy poverty by providing access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy. According to the International Energy Agency, 789 million people still lack access to electricity (IEA, 2021). By producing their own energy, NZEBs can help to provide energy access to people who currently lack it. This aligns with SDG 7, which aims to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. Thirdly, NZEBs can contribute to economic development by creating new jobs and stimulating innovation in the renewable energy sector. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, the renewable energy sector employed 11.5 million people globally in 2019 (IRENA, 2020). By promoting the use of renewable energy sources, NZEBs can create new jobs in this sector and stimulate innovation. This aligns with SDG 8, which aims to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. Thus, this indicates that NZEBs are significant for sustainable development as they can address several challenges related to climate change, energy poverty, and economic development. To comply with SDGs, NZEBs must be designed and constructed with a holistic approach to sustainability, considering the needs of all stakeholders. Achieving this will require collaboration between policymakers, industry stakeholders, and the wider community to promote the widespread adoption of NZEBs and the transition to a low-carbon economy. This chapter, therefore, calls for the need to adopt green construction practices and effective management of natural resources to ensure mitigation in terms of the reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emission through NZEBs.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT Built environment is defined as the human made space that represents groups and communities living and working together (Renalds et al., 2010). Thus, the built environment represents a dynamic environment that evolves with time, since nomadic primitive cultures to urban dwellers of today, that not only encompasses green spaces, but covers broad aspects of our lives from the economy, water and electricity distribution systems, roads, bridges, infrastructure, and transportation. However, though the built environment forms the foundation of the facilities, provides safer shelter, and economic activities that we enjoy today, it is considered a major hotspot of resource use and environmental impacts such as global warming through the consumption of conventional sources of energy, accounting for the consumption of 12 percent of the world’s drinkable water, 40 percent of energy wastage and 35 percent of scarce natural resources, which in turn produces 40 percent of the total global carbon emissions (Hamilton et al., 2020). Where the building and construction sector enjoys the most attention due to a rise in its energy

198  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals consumption and GHG emissions, which accounts for approximately 30 to 40 percent respectively of the total quantities as compared to the other sectors, is shown in Figure 11.1.

Source: Hamilton et al. (2020).

Figure 11.1

Energy consumption and GHG emissions per sector

Moreover, the sector’s environmental impact is only going to get worse. According to estimates, 70 percent of the world’s population will reside in cities by 2060. Global material consumption is predicted to double as a result of urbanization, with an increase in the building and construction industries accounting for one-third of this growth. Therefore, for the long-term resilience of both people and the planet, according to policy and targets proposed by the SDGs it is essential to reduce emissions from buildings and urban infrastructure and convert to sustainable resources (Bryan, 2022). Therefore, it is pertinent to understand the SDGs proposed by the UN that align with the built environment.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT Sustainable development is defined as any kind of development that occurs for the present generation in order to get their demands and needs without affecting future generations from reaching their own needs and requirements as well (Abrahams, 2017). Thus, it is pertinent to understand and adopt the SDGs proposed by the UN under the sustainable development agenda of 2030. While the successful implementation of these goals will benefit the global community, countries adopting the SDGs in their national/local policies will be at the forefront of the drive to achieve the global goals. However, from the 17 different goals with 304 indicators and 169 tasks to perform as proposed by the UN, only five goals have been considered that align with the vision of a sustainable built environment. Goal 7 – Affordable and Clean Energy: The main concern of the goal is the ever-rising percentage of individuals who have access to electricity from 78 to 90 percent between 2000 and 2018, while the number of those without it fell to 789 million. Thus, with the increasing

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  199 population, the need for inexpensive energy, and a fossil fuel-based economy is causing significant alterations to our environment. Therefore, the goal calls out to invest in thermal, wind, and solar power, increase energy productivity, and ensure that everyone has access to energy. In addition, increasing infrastructure and modernizing technologies will also help all nations deliver cleaner, more efficient energy, which will promote development and benefit the environment (Raiden and King, 2021). Thus, to sum up the goal intends to ensure clean and sustainable sources to generate energy such as solar, wind and biomass and the choice of the source entirely depends on the climate of the country. Furthermore, building such energy sources should be at an acceptable price from the economic perspective (Barbier and Burgess, 2017). The goal targets: ● Ensure that everyone has access to modern, cheap, and dependable energy services by the year 2030. ● Significantly increase the proportion of renewable energy in the world’s energy mix by the year 2030. ● Double the pace of global energy efficiency growth by 2030. ● Enhance international collaboration by 2030 to make it easier for people to access clean energy research and technology, such as improved and cleaner fossil fuel technology, renewable energy, and energy efficiency, and to encourage investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology. ● By 2030, improve technology and infrastructure to provide modern, sustainable energy services to all developing nations, especially the least developed nations, small island developing states, and landlocked developing nations. Goal 9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The goal highlights the significance of innovation and infrastructure investment as catalysts for economic expansion. Moreover, mass transit, renewable energy, the development of new industries, and information and communication technologies are all becoming increasingly significant as more than half of the world’s population moves into cities. Furthermore, the goal proposed that in order to create new jobs and encourage energy efficiency, for example, technological advancement is essential to addressing both economic and environmental problems in a long-term manner (Barbier and Burgess, 2017). Investing in scientific research and innovation, as well as promoting sustainable industries, are all crucial methods to support sustainable development. In addition, the goal focuses on closing the digital divide in order to guarantee equitable access to knowledge and information, as 90 percent currently lack an Internet connection, especially in the developing world, where there are more than 4 billion people. Thus, the main targets of the goal that aligns with the built environment were: ● To support economic growth and human well-being, create high-quality, dependable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transnational infrastructure, with a focus on universal access at fair prices. ● Promote equitable and sustainable industrialization, increase the sector’s contribution to employment and GDP by a significant amount by 2030, taking into account national conditions, and double that contribution to the least developed countries. ● Improve the integration of small businesses into value chains and markets as well as their access to financial services, particularly inexpensive loans, especially in developing nations.

200  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ● By 2030, all nations should act in accordance with their own capacities to modernize infrastructure, remodel industries to make them sustainable, and adopt cleaner, more environmentally friendly technology and industrial processes. ● Enhance scientific research, modernize industrial sectors’ technological prowess in all nations, particularly developing nations, and, by 2030, promote innovation and greatly raise the ratio of R&D personnel to every 1 million people as well as public and private R&D spending. ● Improve financial, technological, and technical assistance to African nations, the least developed nations, landlocked developing nations, and small island developing states to enable the construction of sustainable and resilient infrastructure in emerging nations. ● Support domestic technological development, research, and innovation in emerging nations, by making sure that the regulatory climate is favourable for, among other things, industrial diversification, and the addition of value to commodities. ● By 2020, significantly expand access to information and communications technologies and work toward granting all people in the world affordable access to the Internet. Goal 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities: The goal raised concerns of the growing population that results in more than half of dwellers being urban. Two-thirds of humanity—6.5 billion people—will be living in cities by 2050. Thus, it will be impossible to achieve sustainable development without fundamentally altering how we design and maintain our cities. Moreover, slums have become a major aspect of urban life as a result of the fast urbanization caused by rising populations and increased migration, especially in emerging nations. Thus, the goal emphasizes building resilient societies and economies, safe and affordable housing, and career and business possibilities as necessary components of sustainable city development. Investments in public transportation, the development of green public areas, and enhanced urban planning and administration using inclusive and participatory methods are all part of it (Raiden and King, 2021). The goal thus targets: ● Ensure that everyone has access to essential services, including housing, by 2030. Upgrade slums. ● Improve road safety by expanding public transportation and ensuring that everyone has access to safe, affordable, accessible, and sustainable transportation systems by the year 2030. Pay particular attention to the needs of the elderly, women, children, people with disabilities, and those in vulnerable situations. ● Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization by 2030, as well as global capacity for inclusive, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management. ● Increased protection and preservation of the world’s cultural and natural heritage. ● Reduce disaster-related deaths, injuries, and direct economic losses, especially those connected to water, by a large amount compared to the world gross domestic product by 2030. ● Reduce the negative per capita environmental effect of cities by 2030, with a focus on air quality, municipal waste management, and other factors. ● By 2030, ensure that everyone has access to green places that are secure, welcoming, and inclusive, especially for women, children, older people, and people with disabilities. ● By improving national and regional development planning, support connections between urban, peri urban, and rural communities on the economic, social, and environmental fronts.

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  201 ● Significantly increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and putting into practice integrated policies and plans by 2020 with a focus on inclusion, resource efficiency, climate change mitigation and adaptation, disaster resilience, and developing and putting into practice holistic disaster risk management at all levels in accordance with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. ● Support the construction of sustainable and resilient structures using local materials in the least developed countries, particularly by providing financial and technical help. Goal 12 – Responsible consumption and production: This goal highlights that there is an urgent need to lower our ecological footprint by altering how we produce and use resources in order to achieve economic growth and sustainable development. The largest consumer of water on the planet, irrigation, now accounts for close to 70 percent of all freshwater used for human consumption. Important goals to reach this aim include the effective management of our shared natural resources and the manner in which we get rid of toxic waste and pollution. Moreover, it is equally crucial to encourage trash reduction and recycling among enterprises, industries, and consumers, as well as assisting developing nations in shifting to more sustainable consumption patterns by 2030. The majority of people on the planet continue to consume much too little to even cover their most basic necessities (Barbier and Burgess, 2017). Thus, the goals target: ● Implement the ten-year framework of programs for sustainable consumption and production with participation from all nations, industrialized nations taking the lead, and consideration for the abilities and development of developing nations. ● Realize sustainable resource management and effective usage by 2030. ● Reduce food losses along production and supply chains, such as post-harvest losses, and cut back on global per capita food waste by 2030. ● To minimize the negative effects on human health and the environment, by 2030, achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and their wastes throughout their life cycles, in compliance with accepted international frameworks, and drastically reduce their release to air, water, and soil. ● Reduce trash production by a significant amount by 2030 through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. ● Encourage businesses to implement sustainable practices and to incorporate sustainability information into their reporting cycle, particularly large and international businesses. ● Promote sustainable public procurement methods in line with national plans and priorities. ● By 2030, make sure that everyone has access to the necessary knowledge and is aware of sustainable development and environmentally friendly lifestyles. ● Aid developing nations in enhancing their technological and scientific capabilities to adopt more sustainable production and consumption patterns. ● Create and use technologies to track the effects of sustainable development on sustainable tourism that supports local economies and promotes their products and cultures. ● Justify ineffective fossil fuel subsidies that promote wasteful consumption by eliminating market distortions, taking into account national circumstances, including taxation restructuring, and gradually eliminating those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, while fully taking into account the unique needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing any potential negative effects on their development in a way that protects the poor.

202  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Goal 13 – Climate Action: This goal has been introduced to protect the planet and ozone layer from climate change, maintaining the global temperature and reducing the impact of toxic gas emissions on the environment. The goal highlights the fact that there is not a single nation that is untouched by the severe repercussions of climate change (Reckien et al., 2017). In comparison to 1990, GHG emissions have increased by more than 50 percent. If we do nothing, global warming will continue to alter our climate system, with potentially disastrous results. Disasters caused by climate change claim hundreds of billions of dollars in annual economic losses. Not to mention the human toll of geophysical disasters, which between 1998 and 2017 resulted in 1.3 million fatalities and 4.4 billion injuries and are 91 percent climate related. In addition, the goal proposed to raise $100 billion yearly to support poor nations’ requirements for climate change adaptation and investments in low-carbon development by 2020. Moreover, the goal envisions that providing assistance to vulnerable areas will directly support both Goal 13 and the other SDGs (UN, 2020). Efforts to include catastrophe risk reduction measures, sustainable resource management, and human security into national development strategies must coexist with these actions. With strong political will, greater investment, and use of current technology, it is still conceivable to keep the rise in the global mean temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with the goal of 1.5°C, but this calls for swift and aggressive group action. The goal targets: ● Boost global adaptability and resistance to climate-related dangers and natural disasters. ● Include climate change mitigation measures in national planning, strategy, and policies. ● Enhance climate change education, awareness-raising, and institutional and human capacity for impact reduction, early warning, and adaptation. ● Implement the commitment made by developed-country parties to the UNFCCC to a goal of mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and as soon as possible fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization. ● Promote measures to improve the ability of least developed nations and small island developing states to effectively plan for and manage climate change, with an emphasis on women, youth, and local and marginalized populations. Thus, it can be concluded from the above that the goals mentioned above align with the intent of the chapter to adopt sustainable development practices in the built environment as the selected SDGs highlighted in the chapter can be used as a measure to evaluate the projects, align them with the targets of the agenda and determine the progress of the projects in achieving the specific goals. The five goals adopted align with the aim of the chapter that focuses on sustainability, energy, and environment and how these goals are related and impact the built environment. Thus, the second part of the chapter focuses on determining and comparing how buildings of different sustainable classification have an impact on the environment by taking into account measurement variables such as energy management, energy efficiency and climate.

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  203

SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES Energy, sustainability and sustainable development are related to each other as each practice pulls out the need for the next step. By logic, after harvesting the energy from different clean and sustainable sources, the necessity of managing the energy will arise as one of the concerns that may face the developed countries that are involved in these agreements of achieving the call of sustainability. According to Golušin et al. (2012), the energy management concept is defined as professionally controlling, monitoring, and maintaining the produced and consumed energy in a very efficient way. This is helpful for measuring/calculating the electricity consumption for homes, organizations, and buildings, which will lead to creating different techniques to save energy. Besides that, energy management emphasises on three significant perspectives, which are: environment, economy, and energy efficiency. Therefore, to sum up it can be highlighted that the energy and building sectors are under pressure to use clean, renewable sources and highly advanced systems that decrease and control the energy demand. On this basis, “The World Green Building Council” stated to move toward a zero-carbon environment by having a complete zero carbon operation for all new buildings in 2030. Furthermore, in 2050 for all existing and new buildings to operate 100 percent at a zero-carbon level (Attia, 2018). Thus, adopting energy efficiency in the building sector will have a substantial positive enhancement on the environment and economic perspectives. On the environment perspective, applying this concept will contribute to reducing the GHG emissions and solving a lot of environmental issues. Similarly, on the economic perspective, the contribution will be achieved by reducing the cost of maintenance and operation (Ahmed et al., 2021). Moreover, it is crucial to emphasize that buildings’ cooling systems account for 70 percent of their electrical load. Therefore, since these buildings continue to demand a significant amount of electricity, these designs need to be integrated during the construction stage in order to improve and enhance the energy consumed in the air conditioning systems. As a result, it’s essential to put in place a solution that improves energy efficiency (Papadopoulou et al., 2013). Furthermore, waste will grow significantly as human activities and behaviours continue to expand through time. As a result, maximizing building efficiency will cut down on energy waste. In which case managing waste energy will be easier for new, efficient buildings that are incorporating new technologies. The next section will therefore investigate different sustainable classification types of buildings.

SUSTAINABLE CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS Buildings have a significant impact on global energy use. The building industry has a considerable impact on both the overall use of natural resources and the emissions produced. A building uses energy from the time it is built until it is demolished. Throughout a building’s lifespan, energy is required both directly and indirectly. A building uses direct energy for its construction, operation, rehabilitation, and demolition, whereas it uses indirect energy to produce the building materials and technological installations. Globally, there is a lot of building being done to prepare for the population shift to cities, which is predicted to reach 60 percent by the year 2030. The importance of this development boom in preventing the depletion of our resources cannot be overstated (Chwieduk, 2003).

204  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Buildings can be divided into residential and non-residential categories based on their intended use. Residential structures can be further broken down into single-family homes and multi-family homes, whereas non-residential structures are those utilized for commercial purposes, such as offices, schools, and universities. However, the buildings are not only differentiated based on the purpose of the use of these buildings but also the sustainable classification and construction practices adopted to build. Li et al. (2015) investigated the variations in building energy use and how they relate to the environment to serve as a foundation for energy savings and carbon emission reduction. The study adopted TRNSYS software to model the heating and cooling energy consumption of various building types in the Tianjin city between 1981 and 2010. By using percentile methods, the daily or hourly extreme energy consumption was calculated, and the effect of the climate on extreme energy consumption was examined. The findings revealed that days of excessive cooling consumption increased in large venue buildings while days of extreme heating consumption appeared to have decreased over the past 30 years for residential and large venue structures. There were no appreciable changes in the days of severe energy consumption for commercial buildings, however there was a downward trend in the consumption of extreme heating energy. Moreover, daily extreme energy use for large arena buildings did not correlate with climate variables, however extreme energy consumption for commercial and residential structures did. Further multiple regression analysis revealed that maximum temperature, dry bulb temperature, solar radiation, and minimum temperature all had an impact on the heating energy consumption for commercial buildings. These factors together can account for 71.5 percent of the variation in the daily extreme heating energy consumption. Only the temperature of the wet bulb was connected to the daily excessive cooling energy usage for commercial buildings (R2 = 0.382). Four climate variables affected the daily excessive heating energy usage for residential buildings, but the dry bulb temperature had the greatest influence. Thus, it can be stated that the purpose or the usage of the buildings that is, residential, or commercial may or may not have such a major impact on the sustainability measures and environment as supported by the SDGs as well. Thus, the construction practices and sustainable classification of the buildings are the major players in determining the sustainable impact of these buildings. Therefore, it is pertinent to understand the different classifications of the buildings and how they impact the environment. Across the globe, a considerable percentage of buildings frequently account for about 40 percent of the total final energy demand. About 57 percent of the ultimate energy consumption in the EU’s residential sector is utilized for space heating, 25 percent for domestic hot water, and 11 percent for electricity. Therefore, adopting and implementing energy efficient measures have great potential to ensure sustainability (Neyestani, 2017). However, apart from energy saving practices and hopefully achieving further considerable reductions in energy consumption in the building sector, it is necessary to implement environmentally friendly energy technologies. These include modernizing heat sources, ventilation, automation, and heat metering, as well as improving other installed equipment. However, focusing on sustainable energy buildings means we can consider multi-step methodology that allows for energy conversation and environmental protections in the buildings. 1. An economical feasible method for energy efficiency. 2. Adopting energy-savings measures beneficial to the environment.

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  205 3. Seeking to strike a balance between the needs for energy in the present and in the future and those of the environment, all the while conserving energy resources and preserving a healthy environment for future generations. Thus, three different types of buildings can be categorized using the techniques stated above: energy efficient buildings, environmentally friendly buildings and sustainable buildings. Energy Efficient Buildings Energy efficient buildings are conventional buildings that adopt energy-efficiency measures either while developing new structures before the construction process begins or for old buildings that need to be renovated. However, both new and old buildings have a lot of common problems. To achieve large reductions in energy consumption and to enhance the indoor environment, thermal modernization of old structures or buildings constructed lately but in poor thermal condition is undertaken (Chua and Chou, 2010). The economic viability of potential interventions is taken into account during energy efficiency activities when renovating existing housing stock. They are concentrated on lowering the energy demand in buildings, which is mostly accomplished by improving or replacing building envelope components, the elimination of heat losses in local heating and cooling systems and local heat sources, including automation and control, and the complete or partial switching of heat sources. Thus, all of these strategies that allow for achieving significant reduction in energy consumption are based on standard energy conservation practices combined with the introduction of cutting-edge technologies, including the use of renewable energy. However, adopting such practices for conventional buildings still causes disequilibrium between economics, energy efficiency, and environmental protection. Thus, a better type of building is the solution. Environmentally Friendly Buildings One could argue that normative building standards and mortgage requirements influence energy conservation in buildings. The energy efficient structure has an appropriate envelope, excellent thermal characteristics, excellent control over all heating and electric systems, high efficiencies, and the use of heat recovery. These all reduce the amount of energy the building consumes, which is good for the environment. But it just addresses a portion of the issue. What fuel is used for energy production, what technique of energy conversion is employed, and as a result, how much environmental pollution results from particular energy generation processes, energy transmission, and end-use of the energy, are crucial environmental issues (Chwieduk, 2003). Thus, the idea of environmentally friendly buildings is typically accomplished by incorporating the following cutting-edge technologies and measures based on renewable sources and waste (of energy and materials) into a building: ● A concept of low-energy architecture aiming to use passive solar and to make use of the building itself, either to gain as much solar energy as possible or to protect the building from the Sun, depending on season and climatic conditions connected with proper design of building surrounds, including trees and plants; application of daylighting. ● Incorporating photovoltaic and thermal solar-activated systems into building frameworks. ● Seasonal energy storage, both short-term and long-term (e.g., subsurface thermal energy storage); space heating using heat pumps based on renewables or waste heat.

206  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ● Sorting, gathering, and utilization or repurposing of wastes. ● Water management, which includes installing water-saving devices, treating water, and using rainwater and wastewater again. Thus, the environmentally friendly buildings or sustainable buildings are often recognized as buildings designed and constructed in accordance with the green construction practices. It is obvious that the concept of environmentally friendly buildings combines the primary objectives of energy efficiency and environmental protection, yielding solutions that can be referred to as “human-friendly building methods.” Implementing such measures leads to enhanced indoor environmental quality, benefits for personal health as well as for the economy, and decreased pollution in both the local and global environment. The strategy for sustainable buildings is formed once all energy performance, environmental, and indoor climate standards are met, and the right level of service is guaranteed. Sustainable Buildings/Net Zero Energy Buildings Energy, water, and material “flows” through a structure are the three most crucial “flows” that are highlighted in sustainable-building studies. Along with water and materials, energy is another resource that may be conserved. Building and service designers take these three factors’ roles in the processes of building development, construction, use, and decomposition into consideration (not demolition). All the components of environmentally friendly and energy efficient buildings can be found in a sustainable building’s strategy (Torcellini et al., 2006). Additionally, emphasis is placed on the promotion of quality, which includes: the quality of the indoor environment, the residential area’s quality and the quality of the construction materials. With the focus on the protection of energy, water, and land resources in the present and the future, while examining buildings from a sustainable point of view, the use of renewable and recycled resources is encouraged because they allow the life cycle of a building and all of its components to be closed: renewable resources are replenished by nature, while recycled goods and materials are given a second chance and are used as raw materials for new products. When choosing materials, consideration is given to how they will affect the environment over their whole existence. The quality of life, both indoors and in the neighbourhood, is thought to be closely related to environmental quality. Therefore, literature emphasises on the adoption of green construction practices, sustainable and energy efficient buildings knowns as NZEBs that allows for mitigating the reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emission. The next section will therefore look into the significance of adopting NZEBs and how it corresponds to targets set by the SDGs.

NET-ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS NZEBs encompass a paradigm shift towards environmental sustainability affecting the development and construction policies of nations across the world. Net zero waste heat buildings are less common compared to NZEBs (Omar, 2020). The development of residential NZEBs has the potential to drastically cut energy use and GHG emissions. Energy infrastructure connections, renewable energy sources, and energy-efficiency measures are three primary cat-

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  207 egories of NZEB design considerations (Wu and Skye, 2021). The subject of net zero energy is becoming more and more crucial for reducing climate change. The UN projects that by 2030, there will be 8.5 billion people on the planet, and that number will rise to 9.7 billion by 2100. The ongoing use of non-renewable resources and the growing population have had negative effects on the ecosystem and the climate (Moghaddasi et al., 2021). Thus, the concept of NZEB was introduced based on using sustainable and renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and biomass to generate electricity for the entire building. Furthermore, the total amount of energy consumed shall be equal to the energy produced. That could be achieved by connecting ZEB to the electricity grid. For instance, if ZEB produces an excess amount of electricity, this will be transmitted through the grid lines and will be beneficial to other facilities. Similarly, ZEBs have the ability to import electricity from the grid if the energy generated is not enough (Brambilla et al., 2018). By implementing such a concept, the reflection on the high-energy consumption, especially for the buildings sector and their impact on the environment will be minimized as shown in Figure 11.2.

Source: Brambilla et al. (2018).

Figure 11.2

Net-zero energy buildings

Thus, it can be seen from the figure above that NZEBs are able to maximize energy efficiency and reduce consumed energy by using sustainable materials, it also allows the prioritization of on-site renewables and utilizes off site renewables. Moreover, it offers an adequate heating and cooling system as the key to the overall quality performance of the building, optimizes building-grid integration and on-site storage (Krarti and Dubey, 2018). However, there are no systems or technologies used in the conventional building to enhance or control the energy usages. Therefore, the consumed energy in these buildings dramatically depends on the behaviour of its occupants which results in having variations in the energy where some buildings use more power than others (Anju, 2017). Thus, the adoption of green construction practices and NZEBs allows for cost optimality, exploiting renewable energy sources, passive design strategies and minimizing building energy demand as shown in Figure 11.3 below that corresponds to the target and goals proposed by SDGs such as Goal 7: Accessible Clean Energy, Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and

208  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Infrastructure, Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities and Goal 13: Climate Action and with the EU Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) that specifies that by the end of 2050 all new buildings shall be “nearly zero energy buildings” (Annunziata et al., 2013).

Source: Anju (2017).

Figure 11.3

Net-zero energy buildings and SDGs

ZEBs are employed in many different ways, depending on the location of the renewable energy source or on the amount of energy produced and consumed (Anju, 2017). Location: The first type is determined by the precise location of the renewable energy source, or ZEB, which is referred to as on-site if it is situated on the building’s property. In contrast, if the renewable energy source was located off-site from the building, the ZEB used that term. Additional electricity will be produced in these types of buildings and used for transmission (Wu and Skye, 2021). Amount of Energy: The second type of ZEBs is based on the total amount of energy produced and used. For instance, if annual energy consumption exceeds annual energy generation, it is the Nearly Zero Energy Building (NZEB). However, if the annual energy generated exceeds the actual need, the structure is known as a Net Plus Energy Building (NPEB) (Brambilla et al., 2018). Both types of ZEB could be implemented based on the condition of the building as well as the location of the source. This will reflect the flexibility of implementing such a concept in different situations. This indicates the benefit of the NZEB over traditional and conventional buildings; the same findings were presented by Rey-Hernández et al. (2020), who conducted a study to examine the consumption of energy over the years 2020 to 2080 using a simulator on “DesignBuilder” software. The study showed that the consumption of the lighting system would not have a significant change. However, the energy consumption from the heating system will reduce over the same period. On the other hand, a considerable increase will appear on the energy consumption of the cooling systems. Figure 11.4 below demonstrates the performance of the energy for lighting, heating and cooling systems.

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  209

Source: Rey-Hernández et al. (2020).

Figure 11.4

Energy consumption for different systems

On this basis, many countries such as the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) initiated different technologies and systems to increase the energy efficiency and performance of the NZEBs such as below (Runde, 2015): ● Using a renewable energy source as a generation system, or photovoltaic (PV) solar panels in order to produce a clean source of energy. ● Reducing the energy consumption from the lighting system by retrofitting the type of light fixtures and having an operable and transparent window to allow a large amount of sunshine to enter the building. ● Enhancing the cooling systems by lowering the energy consumed from the air conditioning. That could be achieved by roof monitors that permit the air flow. Also, creating a unique façade design such as a lot of glazing surrounding the building to influence the thermal mass of the building by exposed concrete walls and floors for perfect insulation. ● Adopting different types of sensors and electro-chromic glass to reduce the amount of energy consumed and increase the performance of the NZEBs. To elaborate more, a number of studies in the literature reveal the effectiveness of NZEB by comparing the performance of NZEB and conventional building in terms of energy efficiency. As an example, University of Wollongong tested energy efficiency on one of its NZEBs, the sustainable building research centre (SBRC). The SBRC reaches a high level of energy efficiency credited to a range of design choices. These choices are solar PV that is installed as arrays on both sides of the building. Also, photoelectric light sensors that detect the level of the sunlight to either turn the lighting system on or off (Anderson et al., 2016). The researcher compared the SBRC building with another Australian commercial building, and found that the annual loads of heating and cooling system for the SBRC building were only 45 percent of the loads in the conventional building. Also, the lighting power density for the SBRC building was five times lower than the traditional building. Moreover, the magnitude of the SBRC energy intensity was much less than the typical commercial buildings. Moreover, Torcellini et al. (2006) found that NZEBs have positive impacts on many environmental aspects. One of the main impacts of NZEBs is zero site energy, in which whatever

210  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals amount of energy produced is equal to the consumed one. Another positive impact of NZEBs is zero source energy, which means there is no loss in the source of energy since all generated energy is used. In addition, zero emission is the most critical impact of NZEBs. The zero emissions refer to the zero CO2 emissions by these buildings. Thus, to demonstrate the significance and effectiveness of the NZEBs, the chapter looks into comparing buildings of different sustainable classification. The chapter aims to establish how the performance and quality of NZEBs are directly associated with energy efficiency and the amount of saved energy.

EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF NET ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS To evaluate the energy performance of buildings, which is a significant measure that tracks the energy efficiency of buildings and encourages the end user to enhance the performance of their buildings for a higher quality of life, the chapter focuses on comparing three distinct building types on the American University of Sharjah (AUS) campus in order to evaluate and compare their energy performance in terms of energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. The Campus Service Center, the Engineering Building, and the Business Administration Building are the facilities that are being targeted. The Campus Service Center is categorized as an NZEB, the School of Business Administration is categorized as a sustainable building, and the Engineering Building is categorized as a conventional building. These three buildings were chosen among the other buildings in AUS because they represent different sustainability levels. Therefore, comparing the buildings in terms of energy efficiency, environment (CO2 emission), and energy waste management highlights the effectiveness and implication of the adoption of NZEBs. Energy Efficiency The energy efficiency of each building represents how effective a building is in terms of energy usage. Therefore, according to Chua and Chou (2010) the following equation could be used to calculate the energy efficiency of a building to create a comparison between the three selected buildings: Consumed Energy Produced Energy

​​=   ​_____________        ​   × 100​

​ ​  ​ E ​Ein​  ​

​η  ​=    ​_   out ​    × 100​

Where, ​η​is the efficiency as a percentage (%), ​Ein​  ​is the energy produced from the generation plant in (kWh), ​Eout ​  ​is the energy consumed from building users in (kWh). The equation is adopted to calculate the production and consumption of energy of each building. In order to do so, the study looks into collecting electricity consumption data of each building with the aid of a representative of the AUS sustainable centre. The representative provided an Excel spreadsheet that consists of the electricity consumption in kilo-watt hour

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  211 (kWh) of each building for seven years from 2012 to 2018 separately, year by year, without 2012, 2013 and 2018 as they have zero consumption in one of the months; but the calculation was done for six years in order to compare the buildings in the same manner. Figure 11.5a, 11.5b and 11.5c below show the electricity consumption for each building.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 11.5a Electricity consumption of engineering building

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 11.5b Electricity consumption of business administration building The Engineering Building (Figure 11.5a), followed by the Business Administration Building (Figure 11.5b), has the largest electricity use, while the Campus Service Center has the lowest consumption (Figure 11.5c). These findings demonstrate that each building’s energy use corresponds to its kind and categorization. Another method conducted to support the earlier findings was to determine the energy score of the buildings, which is a measure of energy usage and its associated costs, that defines how efficient a building is. The energy score ranges from 0 to 100, where the highest number indicates a more efficient building. The energy score for the three categories of buildings were calculated for the period between (2013–2018).

212  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 11.5c Electricity consumption of campus service centre building

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 11.6

Energy score of all buildings

Table 11.1

Energy score of all buildings

Energy Score (%)  

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

Average

SBA

35

34

33

33

26

0

161

26.8333

CSC

84

81

83

81

82

0

411

68.5

EB

0

27

29

26

25

0

107

17.8333

Source:  Author’s own.

However, as indicated from Table 11.1 and Figure 11.6 the energy scores for years 2013 and 2018 could not be calculated as they also have a few months with zero consumption. Figure 11.6 illustrates that the Campus Service Center has the highest score, implying it is more energy efficient, followed by the Business Administrative Building, and lastly the Engineering Building. These findings align with the classification of the identified buildings.

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  213 Moreover, the experiment is conducted to compare the three buildings in terms of CO2 emissions. Environment (CO2 Emission) To further compare the impact of the three different sustainability buildings on the environment, the CO2 amount emitted from the electricity consumption of the building was measured and calculated based on the equation as stated below: ​C ​O2​ ​ Emission from the electricity consumption ​ (ton C ​O2​ ​) ​  ​ =   Total electricity consumption from the building ​ (kWh) ​*  Grid emission factor​(​ton C ​O2​ ​ / ​kWh​)​

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 11.7a CO2 emission of engineering building

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 11.7b CO2 emission of business administration building For Sharjah, the grid emission factor is 0.65-ton CO2/kWh. Therefore, Figure 11.7a, 11.7b and 11.7c show the calculated CO2 emissions of all the buildings. The results indicate that the Engineering Building has the highest CO2 emission followed by the Business Building; and the Campus Service Center, which align with the classification of the building. Moreover, to understand the impact of these buildings on climate change the

214  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 11.7c CO2 emission of CSC building

Figure 11.8

Climate change impact of CO2 emission

study calculated the radiative forcing (W/m^2) and the temperature (K) raised by the buildings and illustrated them in Figure 11.8. As demonstrated in Figure 11.8, a building’s negative impact on climate change will increase in direct proportion to its CO2 emission: the Engineering Building, followed by the Business Administration Building, and finally the Campus Service Center - NZEB, which has the lowest temperature value. Thus, it is inferred from the graph that having the highest CO2 emission causes the highest temperature to be raised and affects climate change. These findings thus emphasize the significance of NZEBs and their diminished environmental impact in accordance with the SDGs.

Net-zero energy buildings and the sustainable development goals  215

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The concept of NZEBs has attracted a lot of interest recently as it is vital to achieving SDGs. An NZEB is a structure with zero net energy consumption and zero carbon emissions. It generates as much energy annually as it uses. These structures are crucial steps toward a sustainable future since they can lessen buildings’ carbon footprints and slow down climate change. In conclusion, NZEBs are essential to achieving the SDGs. They support the development of clean, affordable energy, environmentally friendly towns and cities, effective climate action, and ethical consumption and production. NZEBs should therefore be a top priority for decision-makers, owners of buildings, and developers who are dedicated to creating a more sustainable future. They allow increasing stability and dependability of the energy system, lower GHG emissions, and encourage responsible consumption and production. NZEBs are, in the end, an important step toward a more sustainable future for all. Therefore, to meet the SDGs that mitigate the adverse impact of the built environment in general and buildings in particular, the concept of NZEBs is essential. Thus, to demonstrate the above the chapter looked into the benefits of NZEBs by comparing buildings classified sustainably different in terms of energy efficiency and CO2 emission. The chapter thus concludes that the Campus Service Center (NZEB) has the best energy performance in terms of energy efficiency, CO2 emission and climate change to other buildings. The experiment results align with the classification of the targeted building, where the Engineering Building, being the conventional building, proves to be the least efficient building with high CO2 emissions and climate change. Thus, NZEBs are capable of consuming all the electricity produced without any wasted energy.

REFERENCES Abrahams, G. (2017). Constructing definitions of sustainable development. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 6(1), 34–47. Ahmed, V., Saboor, S., Almarzooqi, F. A., Alshamsi, H. A., Alketbi, M. A., and Al marei, F. A. (2021). A comparative study of energy performance in educational buildings in the UAE. Construction Economics and Building, 21(3), 33–57. Anderson, J., Robinson, D. A., and Ma, Z. (2016). Energy analysis of net zero energy buildings: A case study. In P. Kvols. Heiselberg (Ed.) CLIMA 2016: Proceedings of the 12th REHVA World Congress (pp. 1–10). Denmark: Aalborg University. Anju, M. (2017). Comparison of cost and energy efficiencies of zero energy residential building and conventional building. International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI), 6(7), 64–71. Annunziata, E., Frey, M., and Rizzi, F. (2013). Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: The state-of-art of national regulations in Europe. Energy, 57, 125–133. Attia, S. (2018). Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB): Concepts, frameworks and roadmap for project analysis and implementation. Butterworth-Heinemann. Barbier, E. B., and Burgess, J. C. (2017). The sustainable development goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Economics, 11(1). Brambilla, A., Salvalai, G., Imperadori, M., and Sesana, M. M. (2018). Nearly zero energy building renovation: From energy efficiency to environmental efficiency, a pilot case study. Energy and Buildings, 166, 271–283. Bryan, K. (2022). Climate change and the built environment: Why is it so important? https://​www​ .bsigroup​.com/​en​-GB/​blog/​Built​-Environment​-Blog/​climate​-change​-and​-the​-built​-environment​-why​ -is​-it​-so​-important/​ Chua, K., and Chou, S. (2010). Energy performance of residential buildings in Singapore. Energy, 35(2), 667–678.

216  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Chwieduk, D. (2003). Towards sustainable-energy buildings. Applied Energy, 76(1), 211–217. https://​ doi​.org/​https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​S0306​-2619(03)00059​-X EEA (2022). 20EU achieves 20-20-20 climate targets-20-20 climate targets. https://​www​.eea​.europa​.eu/​ highlights/​eu​-achieves​-20​-20​-20 Fukuda-Parr, S. (2016). From the millennium development goals to the sustainable development goals: Shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender and Development, 24(1), 43–52. Golušin, M., Ivanović, O. M., and Vučenov, S. (2012). Sustainable energy management-a prerequisite for the realization Kyoto Protocol. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 1(2), 24–34. Hamilton, I., Rapf, O., Kockat, D. J., Zuhaib, D. S., Abergel, T., Oppermann, M., … Steurer, N. (2020). 2020 global status report for buildings and construction. United Nations Environmental Programme. International Energy Agency (2019). Global status report for buildings and construction. Retrieved from https://​www​.iea​.org/​reports/​global​-status​-report​-for​-buildings​-and​-construction​-2019 International Energy Agency (2021). Energy access outlook 2021. Retrieved from https://​www​.iea​.org/​ reports/​energy​-access​-outlook​-2021 International Renewable Energy Agency (2020). Renewable energy and jobs – annual review 2020. Retrieved from https://​www​.irena​.org/​publications/​2020/​Jun/​Renewable​-energy​-and​-jobs​-Annual​ -review​-2020 Krarti, M., and Dubey, K. (2018). Review analysis of economic and environmental benefits of improving energy efficiency for UAE building stock. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 14–24. Li, M., Shi, J., Guo, J., Cao, J., Niu, J., and Xiong, M. (2015). Climate impacts on extreme energy consumption of different types of buildings. PLOS One, 10(4), e0124413. Moghaddasi, H., Culp, C., Vanegas, J., and Ehsani, M. (2021). Net zero energy buildings: Variations, clarifications, and requirements in response to the Paris Agreement. Energies, 14(13), 3760. Neyestani, B. (2017). A review on sustainable building (green building). Available at SSRN 2968885. Omar, O. (2020). Near zero-energy buildings in Lebanon: The use of emerging technologies and passive architecture. Sustainability, 12(6), 2267. Papadopoulou, A. G., Al Hosany, N., Karakosta, C., and Psarras, J. (2013). Building synergies between EU and GCC on energy efficiency. International Journal of Energy Sector Management. Raiden, A., and King, A. (2021). Social value, organisational learning, and the sustainable development goals in the built environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 172, 105663. Reckien, D., Creutzig, F., Fernandez, B., Lwasa, S., Tovar-Restrepo, M., Mcevoy, D., and Satterthwaite, D. (2017). Climate change, equity and the sustainable development goals: An urban perspective. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 159–182. Renalds, A., Smith, T. H., and Hale, P. J. (2010). A systematic review of built environment and health. Family and Community Health, 68–78. Rey-Hernández, J. M., San José-Alonso, J. F., Velasco-Gómez, E., Yousif, C., and Rey-Martínez, F. J. (2020). Performance analysis of a hybrid ventilation system in a near zero energy building. Building and Environment, 185, 107265. Runde, T. P. (2015). Net zero energy buildings: An introduction for valuation professionals. Appraisal Journal, 83(2). Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., and Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​s41893​-019​-0352​-9 Torcellini, P., Pless, S., Deru, M., and Crawley, D. (2006). Zero energy buildings: A critical look at the definition (No. NREL/CP-550-39833). National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). UN, (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. United Nations Publications, New York, USA. Available at: https://​unstats​.un​.org/​sdgs/​report/​2020/​The​-Sustainable​-Development​-Goals​ -Report​-2020​.pdf (Accessed: 10 April 2023) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2022). Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. https://​www​ .epa​.gov/​ghgemissions/​global​-greenhouse​-gas​-emissions​-data Wells, L., Rismanchi, B., and Aye, L. (2018). A review of net zero energy buildings with reflections on the Australian context. Energy and Buildings, 158, 616–628. Wu, W., and Skye, H. M. (2021). Residential net-zero energy buildings: Review and perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 142, 110859.

12. Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals Nutifafa Geh, Fidelis Emuze and Ericsson Mapfumo

INTRODUCTION With the intent to transform the world and build the future we want, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with their 169 associated targets were adopted by government representatives who met at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York in 2015 (UN, 2015). The SDGs build upon the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and seek to improve the living conditions of people, protect the planet, and promote peace worldwide. At the core of the SDGs, also known as Agenda 2030, is the principle of pursuing development in a manner that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, which is popularly termed sustainable development (SD) (WCED, 1987). SD as a concept presently shapes the activities of governments, organisations, individuals, and all sectors of society, harnessing resources and coordinating efforts to achieve these global goals. The unsustainable patterns of consumption and production are the root cause of the triple planetary crises – climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution (UN, 2022). The construction industry is a significant consumer of raw materials and waste producer (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2022). Hence, the sector has a significant role in contributing its expected quota to enable the realisation of the SDGs. This requires the re-assessment and re-strategizing for activities relating to the extraction of raw materials, the production of building elements/materials, the design and construction processes, the operation of buildings, and the demolition of buildings at the end of useful life (Bisht, 2022; Gbadamosi et al., 2019; Jueza and Franca, 2022; Mushonga, 2022; Orsini and Marrone, 2019). In other words, business cannot continue as usual. Momentum is still building, and although much has changed and improved in the construction industry in the past decades, there are still opportunities that industry players can seize to improve and enhance construction activities to keep the industry on the path of sustainable living (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2021). In any given society, the total building stock comprises buildings that have been constructed long ago and those that have been newly built. Because of the principles enshrined in SD, buildings constructed from the late 1980s onwards were more likely, in an organised and proactive manner, to be designed and constructed with higher sustainability targets in mind, especially in developed countries. For instance, in Europe, legislative frameworks such as the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU and the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU have shaped the discourse and the construction of sustainable buildings (EU, 2010). Additionally, since about 75 percent of buildings in the European Union (EU) are classed as energy inefficient (Coyne and Denny, 2021), the ‘Renovation Wave strategy’ which was recently adopted in 2019, is advancing the renovation of the EU’s building stock to improve energy efficiency and accelerate the transition to clean energy (EU, 2020; Iralde et al., 217

218  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals 2021). In other parts of the world, it is reported that countries are using building codes to chart the course for the construction and maintenance of low‑energy buildings. Still, its application in Sub-Saharan Africa and South and Central America is low (UNEP, 2021). Grants have also been made available to promote retrofit projects in some parts of the world (Pillai et al., 2021). Despite the achievements across the globe, it is evident that there is still a significant number of old and newly constructed buildings which perform poorly in terms of sustainability; hence, the continuous operation of such buildings without any intervention will only jeopardise the efforts being made to decarbonise the built environment. According to UNEP (2021), the decarbonisation of the building stock is not on track to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement, which is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit global temperature increase in this century to 2°C as compared to pre-industrial levels. Therefore, there is a need to ensure newly constructed buildings are nearly zero carbon neutral and retrofit existing buildings to acceptable, sustainable levels. Thus, this chapter highlights how retrofitting buildings contributes to achieving the SDGs and presents the way forward in transitioning to a green economy.

THE PATHWAYS TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE To fail to plan is to plan to fail. It is therefore commendable that world leaders have over the years been proactive in planning and setting global developmental goals to build synergy across the globe. In 2000, world leaders signed the Millennium Declaration, which became the MDGs, and committed to working towards achieving eight measurable goals by the end of 2015. Currently, there is commitment to the 17 SDGs which have been operational since 2015 and expected to end by 2030, paving the way for new targets to be pioneered by the UN. The 17 SDGs have 169 targets, which garner global action in areas of critical importance for the planet and humanity. The UN has consistently reported progress on the achievements of the SDGs, and the 2022 report showed that although the action is being taken by various countries to achieve the set targets, the SDGs are ‘in grave jeopardy due to multiple, cascading and intersecting crises’ (UN, 2022, p. 5). It was observed that the ravages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and wars in some parts of the world, including the impact of climate change worldwide, are aggravating food, energy, humanitarian, and refugee crises. The path to a sustainable future ought to be pursued by all people across the globe, and, likewise, there must be contribution from all sectors, including the construction sector. Although these paradigm shifts present challenges to the construction industry, they also equally offer opportunities that stakeholders can explore and tackle to produce enormous benefits to propel the sector’s transition to a sustainable future. In advancing this transition is the need to connect the dots and offer insight into areas that have the potential to make positive contributions to the sectors’ drive for sustainability. The Building Sector and the SDGs Buildings perform essential functions in society. In developed countries, most buildings have already been constructed (GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP, 2020). As such, developed countries are largely challenged by the need to renovate existing buildings, whilst developing countries tend to focus more on accelerating the construction of new buildings (IPCC, 2022). The construction and operation of buildings are dependent on the consumption of resources. Regardless of

Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals  219 the type of building, building materials available from the environment (both land and water bodies) are extracted and used for construction. Concerning building operations, resources such as energy are used to power heating and cooling systems, gadgets and perform many other functions (IPCC, 2022). In view of pursuing SD in the building sector, various innovations and improvements to building design and construction processes have been made in modern times. The way raw materials have been sourced, the production of building elements, and the disposal of building elements after useful life have been questioned, and alternative solutions were proffered. It is evident in the literature that researchers have given enormous attention to the above subjects over the years, both from developed and developing country perspectives. For example, alternative pathways for aggregate utilisation in a socio-ecologically viable manner have been given (Bisht, 2022), and strategies to mitigate the impact of sand extraction on land and water bodies have been provided (Jueza and Franca, 2022; Mushonga, 2022). It was also presented that coal bottom ash, palm kernel clinker, recycled glass, and waste granite dust can be suitable replacements for sand in concrete production (Dinh et al., 2022). Furthermore, Orsini and Marrone (2019) provided insight into processes that could facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions from construction materials during production. Because of technological advancement, offsite construction techniques have emerged, and tools such as building information modelling and robots have been developed to enhance construction processes (Gbadamosi et al., 2019; Grigoryan and Semenova, 2020). As for the operation of buildings, it is acknowledged in the literature that this aspect holds great potential to decarbonise the built environment and strategies such as improving building energy efficiency levels, reducing energy demand, and increasing renewable power generation were recommended to enhance sustainability performance (Georgiadou and Hacking, 2012; Wang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). Likewise, it is recognised that it is vital to ensure that buildings and their cooling systems are designed and operated to be resilient to the impacts of climate change to protect occupants from potentially dangerous indoor thermal conditions (Zhang et al., 2021a). There are several studies which can be cited, and collectively they offer the pathway for the sustainable transition of the building sector. The SDGs are directly and indirectly linked to various building-related subjects or vice versa. Some of the goals that are identifiable with the sector, for which it needs to contribute to, include Goals 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Specifically, for example, Target 6.6 seeks to increase water use efficiency across all sectors of society, and buildings have played a critical role in this aspect (Alawneh et al., 2018). Due to the negative effect of fossil fuels, there is the target to increase the share of renewable energy (RE) in the global energy mix (Target 7.2), and solar photovoltaics (PVs) have been deployed to generate green energy for consumption in buildings (Geh et al., 2022). Doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency is also essential, which is Target 7.3. Contributions have been made by retrofitting buildings (Okorafor et al., 2020) to achieve this target partly. Additionally, without the construction and building sector, it is impossible to ‘ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums’ (Target 11.1). Concerning Target 11.c, the aim is to support nations to build sustainable and resilient buildings using local materials (Target 11.c), and local building materials such as hemp-based products are being promoted by experts as alternatives in developing countries (e.g., Agyekum et al., 2022). Construction is heavily reliant on the consumption of natural resources and waste is also generated, hence the target of advancing the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources (Target 12.2) and reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse (Target 12.5)

220  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals are also associated to the sector. Climate action is critically necessary for lowering emissions (Target 13.3) to avert global catastrophe and constructing buildings that seek to achieve net zero carbon emission targets is one of many strategies adopted by building sector stakeholders to contribute to the sector’s quota to the SDGs (World Green Building Council [WorldGBC], 2020).

RETROFITTING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE SDGs Retrofitting is a process of replacing and upgrading systems and technology in an existing building to address its technological or environmental obsolescence. Retrofit begins by undertaking an energy audit and overall performance evaluation of the building to establish the current cost of the building and identify opportunities for saving it using retrofit (Che Husin et al., 2019). The process can be complex and involving; hence scholars have investigated and offered guidelines for the delivery of retrofit projects (e.g., Okorafor et al., 2020). Retrofit simulation projects have also been presented in the literature and can be helpful in decision-making in other projects (e.g., Lassandro and Turi, 2017; Li et al., 2021; Ohene et al., 2022; Teamah et al., 2022). Because uncertainty of return on investment in retrofit projects is a barrier (e.g., Liu et al., 2020; McDonnell and Sinnott, 2010), examples of actual gains are essential because they provide evidence that retrofitting is beneficial. By acquiring data over two years on actual energy consumed in residential dwellings, which were retrofitted, Coyne and Denny (2021) provided a perspective on the matter. They showed that, on average, improvements to roofs, walls, broilers, and incorporating solar heating reduces energy use by 1,091 kWh/year in the examined cases. In all, it appears that research on retrofitting is on the rise. It is evident that retrofitting existing buildings is proven as an efficient solution to optimise building performance to prolong building lifespan, especially historical buildings (e.g., Bertone et al., 2016; Iralde et al., 2021; Khairi et al., 2017; Ruparathna et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2021a). Retrofitting is seen as an essential part of the pursuit of SD, and its footprints are evidenced in the SDGs. For instance, Target 9.4 of the SDGs says, ‘by 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action following their respective capabilities’ (SDG 9, 2015). To enhance the sustainability of existing building stock, it was noted that there is an urgent need to accelerate retrofitting on a massive scale worldwide (UNEP, 2021). This is necessary because the existing unsustainable building stock altogether makes up the largest share of the global building stock. The green buildings we have now are insufficient to make an appreciable positive impact on a global scale. Besides, buildings that are not resource-efficient will cost more to maintain and heat/cool, resulting in higher energy bills. Therefore, it appears that there is no other way but to retrofit the building stock worldwide. Various strategies can be employed in retrofitting buildings, and their choice depends on the objectives to be achieved, as shown in Table 12.1. Also, choices are based on the local philosophy or knowledge and how people see the world (Sandberg et al., 2016). The literature points to many approaches, and whether they are passive or active strategies, they will directly or indirectly improve the energy performance of buildings (Iralde et al., 2021; Okorafor et al., 2020; Panagiotidou et al., 2021). Scholars have observed that proper insulation improves the variability of indoor temperature, and efforts have been directed at insulating/re-insulating

Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals  221 Table 12.1

Retrofit strategies

No.

Measures

Target

1

Building fabric/envelope solutions: 

Reducing energy use/maximise demand-side

Insulation works, upgrade/replacement of roofs (e.g., green roofs), doors,

management

window systems, introduction of shading systems, natural ventilation/lighting, improving airtightness, etc. 2

Mechanical solutions: 

Reducing energy use/maximise demand-side

Upgrade or replacement of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; management energy-efficient equipment-upgrade of boilers etc. 3

Lighting solutions: 

Reducing energy use/maximise demand-side

LED lighting, re-wiring, and installation of building management systems, etc. management 4 5

Micro-energy supply solutions:

Renewable energy supply/maximise

Introduction of PV systems, micro-wind & hydropower, etc.

supply-side management

Water use and supply solutions:

Minimise consumption/maximise supply

Install water-efficient appliances and fixtures, including water treatment or

through recycling

recycling systems, rainwater harvesting systems, etc.

Note:  Key references include Che Husin et al., 2019; Coyne and Denny, 2021; Finnegan, 2018; GlobalABC/IEA/ UNEP, 2020; Iralde et al., 2021; Khairi et al., 2017; May and Griffiths, 2015; Ohene et al., 2022; Okorafor et al., 2020; Panagiotidou et al., 2021; Pillai et al., 2021; Ruparathna et al., 2016; Teamah et al., 2022; Walker et al., 2022; and Wang et al., 2021.

walls, floors, and roofs. There would be times when it will be advantageous to replace/upgrade windows, roofs and seal all openings to enhance airtightness (Finnegan, 2018; Iralde et al., 2021; Mapfumo, 2016; Walker et al., 2022). Heating and cooling technology can significantly reduce energy consumption in buildings (UNEP, 2021). Hence the upgrade of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems is essential in retrofitting buildings (Panagiotidou et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2022). With the emergence of smart buildings, innovative building management and control systems can be adopted when buildings are retrofitted to enhance building performance (Eini et al., 2021; Ruparathna et al., 2016). Another important retrofit strategy is to address energy supply by developing micro-RE plants on-site (Che Husin et al., 2019; Finnegan, 2018; Iralde et al., 2021; Panagiotidou et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2022). Potential SDG Contributions from Building Retrofits The contributions that retrofitting brings to the realisation of the SDGs can be categorised as direct and indirect benefits, which are discussed and illustrated in Figure 12.1. The impacts will not be felt if only a few buildings are retrofitted. However, the impacts will be monumental when it is executed on a massive scale worldwide. The points raised are therefore discussed within the context of the above reasoning, where the global building stock is retrofitted on a massive scale. SDG 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all According to the UN, the rate of degradation of the world’s water-related ecosystems is alarming, and over 733 million people live in countries with high and critical levels of water stress (UN, 2022). Due to unreasonable practices and inefficient government regulation or the lack of it, sometimes, wastewater from buildings is discharged into gutters which then flow into water bodies. Such activities ultimately negatively impact the quality of water. Contrarily,

222  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals it is common that in well-planned vicinities, community sewer systems are available, and wastewater is collected and treated. Other times, it is possible to have water treatment systems installed in individual homes or commercial properties, where water used in the buildings can be recycled for reuse on the premises. In cases where suitable systems are unavailable during retrofit works, the appropriate missing services/equipment can be incorporated. Some aspects of SDG Target 6.3 seek to improve water quality by reducing pollution, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater, and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse of water globally. As such, water treatment systems deployed during retrofit works can contribute to the realisation of the SDGs. As shown by some scholars, various water recycling plants can be adopted to achieve green building targets, whether in new builds or retrofitted buildings (Wang et al., 2019). Furthermore, water efficiency is at the core of most retrofit works, and an aspect of this is captured under SDG 6.4 – to increase water-use efficiency across all sectors substantially. As shown in the literature, retrofit projects can deliver water-efficient buildings (Bertone et al., 2016). Therefore, it would be beneficial if building owners and industry players worked together to maximise the benefits these opportunities offer. SDG 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all It is estimated that electricity demand in buildings reached 18 percent of global electricity demand in 2019, and there was an increase of about 161 percent in demand from 1990–2019 (IPCC, 2022, pp. 9–31). Due to the many benefits RE offers, both developed and developing countries have made diverse investments, in proportion to their financial strength, in various RE technologies. It was reported that the share of RE in the total final global energy consumption reached 17.7 percent in 2019 (UN, 2022). Concerning energy use in buildings, the data showed that RE consumption in buildings increased by 4.1 percent annually on average between 2009 and 2019 (REN21, 2021). The built environment, therefore, has a lot to offer if the world wants to ‘ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all’. As demonstrated in the literature, retrofit projects which will enhance the energy performance of buildings will likely incorporate RE and adopt measures that will enhance energy efficiency (Iralde et al., 2021; Panagiotidou et al., 2021; Ruparathna et al., 2016; Sharifi, 2021). Therefore, retrofitting the existing building stock will immensely contribute to increasing the share of RE in the global energy mix (SDG 7.2) and double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency (SDG 7.3). This is important because the annual energy-intensity improvement rate of 1.9 percent in 2019 needs to increase to 3.2 percent to achieve the global goals in 2030 (UN, 2022). SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Human settlements, such as cities, towns, and villages, have evolved over the years. There is an increasing need to ensure they are resilient and sustainable in the face of actual and expected climate change impacts. By retrofitting, buildings can be resilient, and settlements will be safer (Pagliano et al., 2016; Sharifi, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021a). Especially in developing countries, slums are common in some cities, and it is estimated that there are over 1 billion slum dwellers (UN, 2022). Some houses lack essential services such as toilets (Okyere and Kita, 2016). Retrofitting, therefore, addresses SDG 11 by contributing to ‘ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums’ (Target 11.1).

Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals  223

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 12.1

Potential SDG contributions from building retrofits

SDG 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts Due to human activities, which include those related to the construction and operation of buildings, the build-up of GHG is progressively accelerating beyond what is naturally acceptable. The unprecedented increase in GHG levels is the cause of climate change – the changes to long-term weather patterns (Baker, 2016). The UN opined that climate change is humanity’s ‘code red’ warning (UN, 2022). The recent report, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2022, by the IPCC highlighted the recent emission figures, among other things. It was reported that, in 2019, approximately 21 percent of global GHG emissions (12 GtCO2eq.) came from buildings – 18 percent were embodied emissions from the use of cement and steel, 24 percent were direct emissions produced on-site, and the larger share, being 57 percent, were emissions that are attributed to indirect emissions from the offsite generation of electricity and heat (IPCC, 2022). To reduce building emissions, it is adduced that, among other things, there needs to be a significant reduction in energy demand, acceleration of electrification through RE sources and dealing with the embodied carbon of building materials and emissions from construction processes (UNEP, 2021). Embodied carbon is defined as ‘the sum impact of all the carbon emissions attributed to the materials throughout their life cycle (extracting from the ground, manufacturing, construction, maintenance and end of life/disposal)’ (GlobalABC/ IEA/UNEP, 2020, p. 67). And according to UNEP, to achieve the Paris Agreement, the global buildings and construction sector must almost completely decarbonise by 2050 (UNEP, 2021). Hence, the earlier that contributions are made from the building sector through retrofitting, the better the chances of achieving the Paris Agreement. Therefore, in addition to making human settlements resilient, contributing to sustainable consumption and production, increasing the share of RE in the global energy mix, and enhancing water efficiency, retrofitting also contributes to combating climate change and its impacts on the environment (SDG 13).

224  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

THE WAY FORWARD It is well established that pursuing sustainable development is good for the planet and healthy for human life. In pursuit of sustainability, both mitigation and adaptation strategies are being applied. Climate change mitigation actions are anthropogenic interventions that diminish the sources or enhance the sinks of GHGs, whilst adaptation involves adjusting natural or human systems in response to expected or actual climate change impacts, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (IPCC, 2001). Contributions are required from all sectors and, likewise, inputs have been made from developed and developing countries. The built environment has made essential contributions, and major improvements have been made over the years leading to a steady rise in the adoption of green buildings globally (He, 2022; Hoxha and Shala, 2019; Yas and Jaafer, 2020). The demand for green buildings is driven by client demand, government policies and incentives, green building certification schemes, economic and environmental benefits, and many other factors (Dwaikat and Ali, 2018; Oyetunji et al., 2022). To augment the advancements that green buildings garnered to position the sector on a sustainable path, there needs to be a proportionate contribution from retrofitting the existing building stock in both developed and developing countries. According to the UN, the world needs to ‘adopt low-carbon, resilient and inclusive development pathways that will reduce carbon emissions, conserve natural resources, … and advance the transition to a greener, more inclusive and just economy’ (UN, 2022, p. 5). To make progress and achieve the level of results required, support is needed from the government and the private sector. Within this context, the strategies that can chart the way forward are discussed here. Policy instruments can be used as tools to engender the construction and maintenance of low-energy/carbon buildings (IPCC, 2022). In some cases, some countries have used building codes. According to UNEP, as of September 2021, 80 countries have developed building codes. Whilst building codes were standard in developed countries; it was observed that the countries with the least coverage of mandatory codes were in Sub-Saharan Africa and South and Central America (UNEP, 2021). Europe, for example, has been proactive in retrofitting its existing building stock because of legislative instruments (energy directives/renovation wave strategy); there have been talks about transitioning to zero-energy buildings, but it has advanced further, and the focus is now on zero-carbon buildings (D’Agostino et al., 2021; EU, 2020; Galvin, 2022). According to IPCC, there is the opportunity to access the power of building energy codes/regulations as a regulatory instrument to cut down the emissions from both existing and new buildings (IPCC, 2014, 2022). Hence, in countries where building codes are non-existent, it is vital that government and private industry players work together to identify possible solutions, learn from examples from other countries, and adopt building codes or strategies to re-focus the building/construction sector to use low-carbon processes and products. The strategies/policies must address both new constructions, as well as define performance indicators or standards for existing buildings using retrofitting (GlobalABC/IEA/ UNEP, 2020). More so, efforts must not end at only developing policies, but enforcement of the policies is of crucial importance so that tangible results can be achieved. The unavailability of money in the case of private property owners and the non-allocation of budget in public institutions is found to be significant barriers that hamper retrofitting (Bertone et al., 2016, 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Xue et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021b). To overcome the financial barriers, a variety of funding schemes can be useful: public funding schemes (Iralde et al., 2021); dedicated credit lines delivered through banks for retrofit projects, grants and

Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals  225 rebates (Foggia, 2018; GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP, 2020; Pillai et al., 2021). For instance, the EU Sustainable Finance Strategy has been beneficial in financing development projects in Europe. In South Africa, it was reported that Business Partners Limited, a leading non-bank financial institution, closed $44 million in green financing from the International Finance Corporation to retrofit commercial properties (UNEP, 2021). Grants have also been provided to low-income households in Ireland for retrofit works (Pillai et al., 2021). Similar financing strategies can, therefore, be engineered for use in different parts of the world. Additionally, financial and non-financial incentives can be used to support the improvement of existing building performance (GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP, 2020). Financial incentives could be a reduction in property tax or tax exemption for some or all respective costs associated with building retrofit profits. Another scheme found to engender retrofitting of buildings is ‘building labelling’ (IPCC, 2014). For example, in South Africa, the government is by law requiring the compulsory display of Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) at the entrance of some non-residential buildings – the EPC indicates how much energy is used to operate the building (GBCSA, 2021). Other building labelling schemes are available in the USA, UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand (Zhang et al., 2021b). By knowing the energy usage intensity of a building and determining that the building is performing poorly, the only remedy will be to retrofit the building. Such schemes can be adopted on a massive scale across countries to accelerate building retrofitting globally. Retrofitting of buildings is not complete if building professionals and the know-how that they bring to the construction are not considered. For buildings to be retrofitted, there is the need for tradesmen to have the requisite expertise and knowledge on retrofit solutions. This is sometimes difficult to measure or ascertain in some African communities since there are no building standards, or if they are available, they might be outdated. This complicates attempts to understand how building retrofits work. In addition, there is a lack of experience with some of the technologies that can be used to retrofit buildings, particularly the use of technology – for example, the use of drones to obtain an aerial view of construction sites as a way to undertake an assessment of energy efficiency in buildings, especially for tall structures (Sandberg et al., 2016). Therefore, the promotion and capacity-building of stakeholders are also vital to breaking the barrier of limited knowledge and expertise (Liu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021b). By increasing awareness and building capacity, the decision-making process can be smoother to encourage more sustainable choices and deliver sustainable building retrofits (GlobalABC/ IEA/UNEP, 2020). The stakeholders requiring capacity-building, according to GlobalABC/ IEA/UNEP (2020), are government officials, building professionals, product and material manufacturers, financiers and developers, and the public. For instance, professionals should be educated on ways to undertake the most cost-effective retrofits that comply with policies. For the public, awareness campaigns can be helpful in educating on cost-effective retrofit measures building owners or occupants can implement, including information and tools regarding how to access funding (GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP, 2020). Partnerships are also vital for the success of projects/programmes, and Xue et al. (2022), for example, proposed a public–private-people partnership (PPPP) model as a potential co-creation-based approach to promote the building refurbishment market. As espoused in SDG 17, global goals cannot be achieved through the effort of only one group of people but the responsibility rests on everyone. It is acknowledged that there needs to be global and multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilise and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources, to support the achievement of the SDGs in all countries, particularly

226  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals in developing countries (UN, 2015). Thus, for the retrofit campaign to be successful, public, private, civil society, and citizen engagement/partnership should be enhanced and harnessed to create a world that brings peace and prosperity to people and protects the planet.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The SDGs have curated one of the most suitable systems to harness action from all parts of the world in a coordinated manner that brings prosperity to people, makes the world safer and protects the planet. They are the essential ingredients for transformation and a vehicle for empowerment worldwide, providing mutual benefit for all countries. The 17 SDGs are associated with the building and construction sector in one way or another, either directly or indirectly. For instance, the building industry is a heavy consumer of raw materials; hence SDG 12, which targets sustainable consumption and production patterns, is directly related. Sector activities are known to contribute to global carbon emissions significantly. For this reason, measures are undertaken by stakeholders to ensure the sector is incrementally reducing its negative impact by making positive gains through the adoption of sustainable practices. The global building stock can be viewed as a constituent of old and newly constructed buildings. Buildings that were constructed decades ago, although they might have some sustainable features or elements, may not have sufficient modern features because of the different approaches to delivery at the time of construction. Even for newly constructed buildings which are not very efficient, the need is there to improve efficiency and performance. Thus, retrofitting such buildings to include modern green building technologies is necessary to enhance building efficiency and performance and bring tangible and intangible benefits to the property owner/occupants (Che Husin et al., 2019; May and Griffiths, 2015). Various approaches are available for retrofitting buildings and can be deployed together or in isolation to achieve different results. Building fabric solutions tend to include the insulation of building envelopes to enhance airtightness and the introduction of shading or natural ventilation/lighting. Air-conditioning units can also be replaced or upgraded to reduce energy consumption. Other energy supply and demand management options can involve using LED lights, installing building management systems, and deploying RE technologies. Concerning the benefits that can be garnered, it was observed that retrofitting contributes to the realisation of SDG 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13. Retrofits that enhance water efficiency, including water treatment/recycling, add to ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water (SDG 6). The deployment of RE is also on the rise when buildings are retrofitted, which increases the share of RE in the global energy mix (SDG 7). The impact of unsustainable human behaviour is evident through climate change and making cities and human settlements resilient is vital for human prosperity. Therefore, enhancing the resilience of buildings helps to achieve SDG 11. Promoting material efficiency, using sustainable products, and adopting sustainable construction processes contribute to SDGs 12 and 13. Several other indirect co-benefits can be generated. For example, retrofitting school buildings and desisting from extracting sand from delicate marine environments can all, respectively, contribute to enhancing quality education (SDG 4) and reducing marine pollution (SDG 14). To accelerate progress in decarbonising the global building stock using retrofitting, multi-stakeholder engagement is necessary to develop and enforce building codes and relevant policies that can engender adoption. In some economies, financial support, incentives,

Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals  227 and building labelling schemes are required to motivate property owners. Promotion and capacity-building are also necessary for stakeholders, such as government officials, building professionals, product and material manufacturers, financiers and developers, and the public. Success depends on the synergy between government, the corporate sector, and individuals, but governments, mostly being the single largest property owner, must lead by example by making sure that existing government buildings are retrofitted to be low-emission and resource-efficient and likewise ensuring that buildings that are currently constructed are high-performance, sustainable buildings.

REFERENCES Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E. and Oppon, J.A. (2022). Factors limiting the adoption of hemp as an alternative sustainable material for green building delivery in Ghana, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 40(2): 202–218. Alawneh, R., Ghazali, F.E.M., Ali, H. and Asif, M. (2018). Assessing the contribution of water and energy efficiency in green buildings to achieve United Nations sustainable development goals in Jordan, Building and Environment, 146: 119–132. Baker, S. (2016). Sustainable Development, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, USA. Bertone, E., Sahin, O., Stewart, R.A., Zou, P., Alam, M. and Blair, E. (2016). State-of-the-art review revealing a roadmap for public building water and energy efficiency retrofit projects, International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(2): 526–548. Bertone, E., Stewart, R.A., Sahin, O., Alam, M., Zou, P.X.W., Buntine, C. and Marshall, C. (2018). Guidelines, barriers and strategies for energy and water retrofits of public buildings, Journal of Cleaner Production, 174: 1064–1078. Bisht, A. (2022). Sand futures: Post-growth alternatives for mineral aggregate consumption and distribution in the global south, Ecological Economics, 191: 107233. Che Husin, S.M., Mohd Zaki, N.I. and Abu Husain, M.K. (2019). Implementing sustainability in existing building through retrofitting measures, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(1): 1450–1471. Coyne, B. and Denny, E. (2021). Retrofit effectiveness: Evidence from a nationwide residential energy efficiency programme, Energy Policy, 159: 112576. D’Agostino, D., Tzeiranaki, S.T., Zangheri, P. and Bertoldi, P. (2021). Data on nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs) projects and best practices in Europe, Data in Brief, 39: 107641. Dinh, H.L., Liu, J., Ong, D.E.L. and Doh, J.H. (2022). A sustainable solution to excessive river sand mining by utilizing by-products in concrete manufacturing: A state-of-the-art review, Cleaner Materials, 6: 100140. Dwaikat, L.N. and Ali, K.N. (2018). The economic benefits of a green building – Evidence from Malaysia, Journal of Building Engineering, 18: 448–453. Eini, R., Linkous, L., Zohrabi, N. and Abdelwahed, S. (2021). Smart building management system: Performance specifications and design requirements, Journal of Building Engineering, 39: 102222. EU. (2010). ‘Energy’, available at: https://​energy​.ec​.europa​.eu/​topics/​energy​-efficiency/​energy​-efficient​ -buildings/​energy​-performance​-buildings​-directive​_en (accessed 5 September 2020). EU. (2020). ‘Renovation wave: Doubling the renovation rate to cut emissions, boost recovery and reduce energy poverty’, available at: https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​commission/​presscorner/​detail/​en/​IP​_20​ _1835 (accessed 3 September 2022). Finnegan, S. (2018). New Financial Strategies for Sustainable Buildings: Practical Guidance for Built Environment Professionals, Routledge. Foggia, G. Di. (2018). Energy efficiency measures in buildings for achieving sustainable development goals, Heliyon, e00953. Galvin, R. (2022). Net-zero-energy buildings or zero-carbon energy systems? How best to decarbonize Germany’s thermally inefficient 1950s-1970s-era apartments, Journal of Building Engineering, 54: 104671.

228  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Gbadamosi, A.-Q., Mahamadu, A.-M., Oyedele, L.O., Akinade, O.O., Manu, P., Mahdjoubi, L. and Aigbavboa, C. (2019). Offsite construction: Developing a BIM-Based optimizer for assembly, Journal of Cleaner Production, 215: 1180–1190. GBCSA. (2021). ‘GBCSA urges building owners to know and show their energy performance’, available at: https://​gbcsa​.org​.za/​gbcsa​-urges​-building​-owners​-to​-know​-and​-show​-their​-energy​-performance/​ (accessed 1 August 2022). Geh, N., Emuze, F. and Das, D.K. (2022). Key factors influencing deployment of photovoltaic systems: A case study of a public university in South Africa, in Gorse, C., Scott, L., Booth, C. and Dastbaz, M. (Eds.), Climate Emergency - Managing, Building and Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals, Springer, Switzerland, AG, pp. 105–118. Georgiadou, M. and Hacking, T. (2012). Strategies and techniques to future‐proof the energy performance of housing developments, International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 6(2): 160–174. GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP. (2020). GlobalABC Roadmap for Buildings and Construction, IEA, Paris. Grigoryan, E.A. and Semenova, M.D. (2020). Automation of the construction process by using a hinged robot with interchangeable nozzles, Materials Today: Proceedings, 30: 380–387. He, B.-J. (2022). Green building: A comprehensive solution to urban heat, Energy and Buildings Buildings, 271: 112306. Hoxha, V. and Shala, F. (2019). The benefits and challenges of sustainable buildings in Prishtina, Kosovo, Facilities, 37(13–14): 1118–1152. IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. IPCC. (2014). ‘Climate change 2014 synthesis report: Adaptation and mitigation’, available at: https://​ ar5​-syr​.ipcc​.ch/​topic​_adaptation​.php (accessed 5 October 2022). IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Iralde, N.S.I., Pascual, J. and Salom, J. (2021). Energy retrofit of residential building clusters. A literature review of crossover recommended measures, policies instruments and allocated funds in Spain, Energy and Buildings, 252: 111409. Jueza, C. and Franca, M.J. (2022). Physical impacts of sand mining in rivers and floodplains, Encyclopedia of Inland Waters, 4: 225–230. Khairi, M., Jaapar, A. and Yahya, Z. (2017). The application, benefits and challenges of retrofitting the existing buildings, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 271: 012030. Lassandro, P. and Turi, S.D. (2017). Façade retrofitting: From energy efficiency to climate change mitigation, Energy Procedia, 140: 182–193. Li, Q., Zhang, L., Zhang, L. and Wu, X. (2021). Optimizing energy efficiency and thermal comfort in building green retrofit, Energy, 237: 121509. Liu, G., Li, X., Tan, Y. and Zhang, G. (2020). Building green retrofit in China: Policies, barriers and recommendations, Energy Policy, 139: 111356. Mapfumo, E.T. (2016). Assessing Window Improving Options on a Listed Building, MPhil Thesis. Leeds: Leeds Beckett University. May, N. and Griffiths, N. (2015). Planning Responsible Retrofit of Traditional Buildings, Sustainable Tranditional Buildings Alliance, London, UK. McDonnell, A. and Sinnott, D. (2010). Barriers and enablers to energy efficient retrofitting of dwellings in Ireland, in Egbu, C. (Ed.), Proceeding of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6–8 September, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Leeds, UK, pp. 1437–1446. Mushonga, T. (2022). The dynamics of Zimbabwe’s sand mining frontier, The Extractive Industries and Society, 12: 101123. Ohene, E., Hsu, S.-C. and Chan, A.P.C. (2022). Feasibility and retrofit guidelines towards net-zero energy buildings in tropical climates: A case of Ghana, Energy and Buildings, 269: 112252. Okorafor, C., Emuze, F., Das, D., Awuzie, B.O. and Haupt, T. (2020). An artefact for improving the delivery of building energy retrofit project in South Africa, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(4): 619–635.

Retrofitting buildings towards the realisation of the sustainable development goals  229 Okyere, S.A. and Kita, M. (2016). See, this is a very good place; we are doing many things: Residents’ activities and satisfaction in Abese Informal Settlement, La, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 18(2): 77–100. Orsini, F. and Marrone, P. (2019). Approaches for a low-carbon production of building materials: A review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 241: 118380. Oyetunji, A.K., Oluleye, B.I., Olukolajo, M.A. and Chan, D.W.M. (2022). Is green good: Unveiling the latent benefits of sustainable housing delivery, Cities, 129: 103809. Pagliano, L., Carlucci, S., Causone, F., Moazami, A. and Cattarin, G. (2016). Energy retrofit for a climate resilient child care centre, Energy & Buildings, 127: 1117–1132. Panagiotidou, M., Aye, L. and Rismanchi, B. (2021). Optimisation of multi-residential building retrofit, cost-optimal and net-zero emission targets, Energy and Buildings, 252: 111385. Pillai, A., Tovar, M. and Curtis, J. (2021). An examination of energy efficiency retrofit scheme applications by low-income households in Ireland, Heliyon, 7: e08205. Plank, B., Streeck, J., Krausmann, F., Virag, D., Haberl, H. and Wiedenhofer, D. (2022). From resource extraction to manufacturing and construction: Flows of stock-building materials in 177 countries from 1900 to 2016, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 179: 106122. REN21. (2021). Renewables 2021 Global Status Report, REN21 Secretariat, Paris, available at: https://​ abdn​.pure​.elsevier​.com/​en/​en/​researchoutput/​ren21(5d1212f6​-d863​-45f7​-8979​-5f68a61e380e)​.html. Ruparathna, R., Hewage, K. and Sadiq, R. (2016). Improving the energy efficiency of the existing building stock: A critical review of commercial and institutional buildings, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53: 1032–1045. Sandberg, H.N., Sartori, I., Heidrich, O., Dawson, R., Dascalaki, E., Dimitriou, S., Vimmr, T., et al. (2016). Dynamic building stock modelling: Application to 11 European countries to support the energy efficiency and retrofit ambitions of the EU, Energy and Buildings, 132: 26–38. SDG9. (2015). ‘Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation’, available at: https://​sdgs​.un​.org/​goals/​goal9 (accessed 6 September 2022). Sharifi, A. (2021). Co-benefits and synergies between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review, Science of the Total Environment, 750: 141642. Teamah, H.M., Kabeel, A.E. and Teamah, M. (2022). Potential retrofits in office buildings located in harsh Northern climate for better energy efficiency, cost effectiveness, and environmental impact, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 162: 124–133. UN. (2015). ‘Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, available at: https://​sdgs​.un​.org/​goals (accessed 1 September 2022). UN. (2022), The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022, New York, USA, available at: https://​ unstats​.un​.org/​sdgs/​report/​2022/​The​-Sustainable​-Development​-Goals​-Report​-2022​.pdf. UNEP. (2021). 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, available at: https://​ globalabc​ .org/​ resources/​publications/​2021​-global​-status​-report​-buildings​-and​-construction. Walker, L., Hischier, I. and Schlueter, A. (2022). Does context matter? Robust building retrofit decision-making for decarbonization across Europe, Building and Environment, 226: 109666. Wang, H., Cui, D., Han, J.-L., Cheng, H.-Y., Liu, W.-Z., Peng, Y.-Z., Chen, Z.-B., et al. (2019). A2 O-MBR as an efficient and profitable unconventional water treatment and reuse technology: A practical study in a green building residential community, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 150: 104418. Wang, Z., Liu, X., Deng, G., Shen, H. and Xu, Z. (2021). A framework for retrofitting existing houses to nearly zero energy buildings: Development and a real-life case study, Energy and Buildings, 252: 111438. WCED. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, available at: https://​su​stainabled​evelopment​.un​.org/​content/​ documents/​5987our​-common​-future​.pdf. WorldGBC. (2020). ‘Health and wellbeing framework: Six principles for a healthy, sustainable built environment’, available at: https://​worldgbc​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​WorldGBC Health %26 Wellbeing Framework_Exec Report_FINAL.pdf (accessed 25 December 2021).

230  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Xue, Y., Temeljotov-salaj, A. and Margaret, C. (2022). Renovating the retrofit process: People-centered business models and co-created partnerships for low-energy buildings in Norway, Energy Research and Social Science Social Science, 85: 102406. Yas, Z. and Jaafer, K. (2020), Factors influencing the spread of green building projects in the UAE, Journal of Building Engineering, 27: 100894. Zhang, C., Berk, O., Levinson, R., Heiselberg, P., Olesen, B.W., Chiesa, G., Sodagar, B., et al. (2021a). Resilient cooling strategies – A critical review and qualitative assessment, Energy & Buildings, 251: 111312. Zhang, H., Hewage, K., Karunathilake, H., Feng, H. and Sadiq, R. (2021b). Research on policy strategies for implementing energy retrofits in the residential buildings, Journal of Building Engineering, 43: 103161. Zhang, S., Ma, M., Xiang, X., Cai, W., Feng, W. and Ma, Z. (2022). Potential to decarbonize the commercial building operation of the top two emitters by 2060, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 185: 106481.

13. Circular economy in the built environment: A catalyst for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) Alex Opoku, Kofi Agyekum, Iva Bimpli and Ellen Amoh

INTRODUCTION There is widespread agreement worldwide that there has to be a fundamental change in how commodities and services are produced and consumed because our current resource consumption surpasses the planet’s ability to generate new resources. By 2050, waste generation will outgrow population growth by a factor of more than two (Storebrand Asset Management, 2021). The highest political institutions in the world have continued to be concerned about ensuring the planet’s sustainability ever since the United Nations (UN) adopted the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 and, 15 years later, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The European Commission created the European Union (EU) Action Plan for the Circular Economy (CE) in 2015 as part of its efforts to move away from a linear economy (LE) and toward one where waste generation is reduced to a minimum and resources are in use for as long as feasible (Rodriguez-Anton et al., 2019). The CE is a concept that the EU is now pushing; numerous governments, including those of China, Japan, the UK, France, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland, as well as numerous enterprises throughout the world have embraced the concept (Korhonen et al., 2018). The CE has gained prominence as a means of reversing today’s linear ‘take-make-waste’ culture and tackling the risks and problems associated with escalating social and environmental issues (The Delphi Group, 2021). In 2015 there was a turning point for social and environmental activism. It witnessed the creation of a plan to eradicate poverty, combat inequality, and save the environment. Governments are working to achieve the SDGs by 2030, and the race is still on even after eight years have passed with seven to go. Recent reports on progress illustrate where we should concentrate our efforts: while economy-related goals are almost complete, education, sustainable cities, and communities, particularly relating to climate change, need to catch up. Although significant progress has been made in inequality, poverty, and health, much work still needs to be done. The CE can help in this situation because it addresses the problem of scarcity and ensures everyone has access to what they need without placing an undue load on the planet (Sutherland and Kouloumpi, 2022). In a CE, resources are used more efficiently by minimizing natural resource extraction, increasing waste prevention, and maximizing the environmental, social, material, and economic values throughout the life cycles of raw materials, components, and finished goods. The world’s fastest-growing category of hazardous solid waste is electronic waste. Tackling this issue will necessitate global cooperation, economic incentives that safeguard workers’ rights, and management strategies that minimize detrimental effects on both the environment and human health (Awasthi et al., 2019). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation and other 231

232  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals practitioners have successfully integrated the CE into the discourse of ‘green growth,’ arguing that it is possible to decouple GDP from primary resource consumption and associated emissions to sustain economic growth. This has significantly boosted the CE in the past ten years (Velenturf and Purnell, 2021). The CE operates simply because the current global production and consumption systems cannot continue with their linear material flows. On the one hand, current extraction rates cannot continue indefinitely due to the finite nature of non-renewable resources, including land, fossil fuels, and other materials (minerals). However, on the other hand, the extreme levels of waste production and emissions have brought attention to the environment’s constrained ability to handle the wastes of the present unsustainable production and consumption systems, which aim to satiate the demands of societies that are becoming more affluent and demanding (Brandão et al., 2020).

THE CONCEPT OF CIRCULAR ECONOMY The CE concept has recently attracted more attention in talks about industrial growth to address environmental issues and advance sustainable development (SD) (Korhonen et al., 2018). The CE is, by definition, an economic model whose goal is to generate goods and services sustainably by reducing resource consumption and waste (raw materials, water, and energy) and the production of waste (Solar Impulse Foundation, 2020). Academics have proposed a wide range of sustainable development indicators (SDI), businesses, governmental organizations, and environmental agencies since the Brundtland Commission called for the development of new methods to measure progress toward SD in 1987 and the adoption of CE ideas is becoming more frequently advised as a practical means of achieving the objectives of SD (Saidani et al., 2019). The current global economy is based on a linear process where resources are taken from the earth, turned into products, and eventually discarded as waste (Amudjie et al., 2023). Contrarily, in a CE, waste production is halted at the source (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012); ‘Reuse, recycle, reduce, rethink!’. The Danish government was recently advised to switch from the current LE to a CE using this term by an advisory committee of business executives. According to this vision, the current LE is characterized by a ‘buy-and-throw-away’ mentality involving excessive natural resource exploitation and accumulation of polluting waste products. As scarce raw materials are extracted from the environment and put through the ‘linear’ process of production and consumption, they are eventually returned to it as harmful waste. A CE, in contrast, aims to reduce the number of raw materials used per unit of output and recycle waste materials as much as possible so that they can be used as inputs in future production (Sorensen, 2018). Although the LE was quite effective at producing material riches in industrialized countries up to the twentieth century, it has shown vulnerabilities in the new millennium, and the eventual breakdown is predicted to happen soon; hence, the CE, which was conceptualized by economists concerned with the environment, is intended to replace the traditional LE (which is characterized by the frequently quoted line of take - make - dispose) (Sariatli, 2017). CE principles are being adopted globally as a way to achieve SD, reduce waste, and create new economic opportunities (Sharma et al., 2021). In Africa, CE approaches are being used to address challenges such as waste management, sustainable agriculture, and e-waste management (Shittu et al., 2021). Examples include waste-to-energy initiatives, upcycling and local

Circular economy in the built environment  233 production, circular cities programs, and sustainable agriculture practices. In Asia, CE initiatives are being implemented to address challenges such as waste management, air pollution, and sustainable production. Examples include CE roadmaps, sustainable fashion initiatives, and e-waste management programs (Awasthi et al., 2019). In Europe, CE principles are being incorporated into policy frameworks and business models to promote sustainable production and consumption. Examples include the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan, circular design initiatives, and circular business models (Whicher et al., 2018). Although a significant portion of recyclable material is already utilized within the United States (US), the nation requires additional infrastructure to meet the requirements of this rigid supply chain. In the US, CE approaches are being used to address challenges such as waste management, sustainable production, and resource depletion (Lee, 2018). Examples include circular cities programs, sustainable fashion initiatives, and circular design initiatives. Overall, CE principles are being embraced globally as a way to promote sustainability, reduce waste, and create new economic opportunities. As awareness of the concept grows, more businesses, governments, and organizations are expected to adopt circular economy approaches to address environmental and social challenges. Circularity is often categorized into different types of loops, each representing a different level of material recovery and waste reduction. These loops are: closed loop, biological loop, technical loop, open loop, down cycling loop and upcycling loop. The closed loop represents a fully circular system where the materials used are continually recycled and repurposed. There is no waste generated, and the system runs indefinitely. For instance, to establish circular and sustainable systems for production, a comprehensive and ground-breaking approach is necessary. Such an approach should consider designing materials and finishes that can be recycled at the end of their life. In this regard, bio-based processes can offer viable options to ensure that materials remain in a closed loop (Ribul et al., 2021). The biological loop involves organic materials being returned to the earth, either through composting or other natural processes. This loop ensures that biological materials are returned to the ecosystem and do not contribute to waste. On the other hand, technical loop represents a system where materials are repurposed, reused, and recycled multiple times in industrial processes. Although there may be some waste generated, it is minimized, and materials are kept in circulation as long as possible (Jansen et al., 2022). In a study to determine which of these solutions performs better in the built environment (BE), it was found by Jansen et al. (2022) that neither a purely biological nor purely technical solution performs best overall, but that a purposeful hybrid solution can mitigate the disadvantages of both pathways. Further, it was recommended that future research must assess more building components and other hybrid variants. Lee (2018) outlines 14 CE categories and provides specific criteria that activities must fulfil to be considered as significant contributions to the CE. These criteria require evaluations of resource efficiency improvements and assessments of the activities’ lifecycle impacts to demonstrate their substantial contributions to the CE. Figure 13.1 presents the various categories of activities that significantly contribute to the CE under four areas. These categories include the design and production of products and assets that enable CE strategies, reuse, repair, and repurposing of end-of-life or redundant products, separate collection and reverse logistics of wastes and redundant products, and the development and deployment of tools, applications, and services enabling CE strategies. The table also includes specific criteria that activities must fulfil to be considered substantial contributions to the CE, including assess-

234  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ments of resource efficiency gains and evaluations of impacts on a lifecycle basis (European Commission et al., 2020).

Source: European Commission et al. (2020).

Figure 13.1

Categorization system for the circular economy

CIRCULARITY IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Buildings accounted for a third of the world’s energy use and 40 percent of the material consumption in the 1990s. Two decades later, the building industry continues to be the largest user of raw materials and is responsible for 25–40 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. The BE is the area of the economy that has the most significant impact on the environment, and it is essential to the transition to a CE (Pomponi and Moncaster, 2017). Significant threats to health, well-being, and the environment have emerged due to projections for a growing global population and shifting consumption habits. This has accelerated growth, the exploitation of natural resources, and the resulting environmental effects (Munayo et al., 2020). By 2050, it is anticipated that 70 percent of the world’s population will reside in urban regions, up from more than half in 2008 (Elgazzar and Elgazzar, 2017). The transition to a CE in the construction sector necessitates a comprehensive approach to understanding the whole life cycle of a building and the construction value chain, which involves stronger stakeholder integration. Considering the CE tenets and utilizing an eco-design strategy that encourages more resource-conserving processes of manufactured construction goods can decrease resource

Circular economy in the built environment  235 consumption and environmental consequences (Munayo et al., 2020). In this way, CE transition opportunities are based on the adoption of concepts of flexibility and modularity, more efficient resources, and waste reduction to provide and maintain the BE, in addition to investing in digital technology and innovative practices to create more value in the sector (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). The complexity of urban sustainability, which results from sector-specific realities like material-intensive urbanization processes, high building energy use, and slow building stock turnover, highlights the urgency of implementing new sustainable practices to break the cycle and avoid path dependency. CE might be a part of the solution to the world’s sustainability issues (Jeonsuu et al., 2020). Key elements of CE in the BE include: ● Building design for disassembly and reuse of components Buildings should be modular, adaptable, and simple to break down into their component pieces so that the materials can be utilized again to build new structures. This construction design method allows materials to be recycled and reused rather than thrown away as waste, which lowers waste and preserves resources (Wittmer and Gössling, 2017). In addition, reusing materials results in lower embodied energy, which means that less energy is needed to generate new materials, which raises the building’s overall sustainability. Use standard building component sizes and shapes, use modular construction methods, use durable materials that are simple to maintain and repair, considering future building uses, and adaptability. Collaboration between designers, engineers, and contractors is an essential element of building design for disassembly and reuse of components (Steiner and Guitart, 2017). ● Use of materials with high recyclability and low embodied energy A key component of sustainable building design is using materials with a high recycling rate and low embodied energy. The total amount of energy used in manufacturing, delivering, and installing construction materials is referred to as embodied energy. Materials with low embodied energy use less energy during production, lowering the building’s carbon footprint (Pinho et al., 2017). In addition, after a building’s life cycle, highly recyclable materials can be recycled or used again, reducing waste and protecting resources. Reclaimed wood, brick, stone, recycled steel, aluminium, plastic, bamboo, and other sustainably harvested wood products, recycled glass, non-toxic, low-emission paints and adhesives, and concrete constructed with recycled aggregates are some of these materials (Jha, 2019). By incorporating these materials into building design and construction, we may reduce the BE’s adverse environmental effects and establish more resilient, sustainable communities. ● Energy-efficient building operation The use of renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal; smart building technologies for energy management and control, efficient water systems, such as low-flow fixtures and rainwater harvesting, employee education and behaviour change programs to reduce energy waste, and energy-efficient HVAC systems and insulation can all help a building operate more efficiently (Kim and Dong, 2016). Energy-efficient building operations can minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, slash energy costs, and create a more comfortable and sustainable environment for building occupants by reducing energy use and enhancing energy efficiency (Martínez-Peñuela et al., 2017). High energy-efficient buildings are also

236  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals more desirable to renters, can command higher rents, and can increase the value of properties, which benefits both building owners and tenants. ● Integration of renewable energy sources The goal is to reduce the building’s dependence on fossil fuels and decrease its carbon footprint. There are several ways to integrate renewable energy sources into buildings, including photovoltaic (PV) systems for generating electricity from sunlight, solar thermal systems for heating water and space heating, wind turbines for generating electricity, geothermal systems for heating and cooling, bioenergy systems, such as biomass boilers and waste-to-energy systems, green roofs and walls for insulation, cooling, and water management (Gallegos and Alarcón, 2021). Integrating renewable energy sources into buildings can provide numerous benefits, including reduced energy costs, lower GHG emissions, and increased energy independence. It also helps to create more resilient and sustainable communities, as buildings with renewable energy sources can operate even during power outages (Martínez-Peñuela et al., 2019). Enablers and Barriers to Circularity in the Built Environment The CE concept has gained significant attention in recent years, with abundant literature and resources being produced on the topic. However, while this body of knowledge provides a general understanding of CE principles, it is important to note that different sectors and products require a more specific and tailored approach to implement circularity truly (Hart et al., 2019). This includes understanding each sector’s unique challenges and opportunities and developing strategies and solutions tailored to those specific needs. The world’s first standard for a CE for organizations has been established, providing a framework for companies to follow to implement circular practices (Hart et al., 2019). However, according to a study by Rizos et al. (2021), companies that attempt to implement CE approaches may encounter a range of barriers. These barriers can stem from various sources, including existing policies, economic conditions, supply chain issues, technological constraints, consumer preferences, and internal company organization. A study by Rios et al. (2021) also categorized seven barriers to implementing and adopting circularity. These include economic, educational, cultural, technical, environmental, regulatory, and technological challenges. Cultural barriers refer to the social, behavioural, and managerial factors that can impede the development of a CE. These barriers can include entrenched attitudes toward a LE, differences in perceptions of ownership and status, and a tendency for organizations or individuals to work in silos rather than collaborate (Hart et al., 2019). Regulatory barriers refer to the policy and legal framework that can impede the development of a CE. These barriers can include issues with current legislation and regulations that could be more conducive to a circular model and a lack of fiscal incentives for businesses and individuals to adopt circular practices. They can also include a need for more standards and certifications required for a CE to function (Hart et al., 2019). Financial barriers refer to issues related to the financial market that can impede the development of a CE. This can include factors such as the cost of raw materials and property ownership and difficulties securing investment for circular projects. These barriers may not be related to the fiscal environment but rather to the overall functioning of the financial market (Hart et al., 2019). Finally, sectoral barriers refer to specific challenges that apply primarily to the BE, such as design, construction, ownership, maintenance, modification, dismantling,

Circular economy in the built environment  237 Table 13.1 #Category

1 Economic

2 Educational

3 Cultural

4 Technical

5 Environment

6 Regulatory

7 Technological

Summary of barriers to implementing CE in the built environment Barriers to CE in the built environment 1.

Underdeveloped market for salvaged components

2.

Limited viable CBMs for construction

3.

Unclear financial case for CE (cost benefits)

4.

Short-termism of clients who expect a quick ROI

1.

Lack of stakeholders’ knowledge and awareness of CE strategies and benefits

2.

Confusion between reuse and recycling

3.

Stakeholders’ need for experience and skills in CE strategies

4.

Lack of public awareness of life cycle costs and benefits

1.

Competitive and fragmented nature of the construction sector

2.

Perceived lack of aesthetics, quality, and safety of salvaged components

3.

Lack of trust in the supplier of salvaged components

4.

Lack of leadership from designers

1.

Current buildings were not designed for disassembly

2.

Damages during deconstruction

3.

Lack of standardization and transportability of building components

4.

Conflicting goals between pre-engineered structures and future reuse

1.

The environmental benefits of reuse are not guaranteed

2.

Downcycling of building components

3.

Not all materials can be environmentally effectively recycled

4.

Trade-offs between different sustainability strategies may hinder CE

1.

Existing regulations and codes hinder reuse and repair

2.

Policies ignore resource extraction and demand

3.

Warranty issues of using reused materials

4.

Lack of standards for reused and recycled building products

1.

Lack of data about the availability, quality, and quantity of salvaged building components

2.

Lack of sorting and processing technologies for salvaged components

3.

Lack of technology and infrastructure to assess the quality and performance of salvaged components

4.

Lack of circularity metrics and EOL information in existing design tools

Source:  Cruz et al. (2021).

reuse, and disposal of buildings and infrastructure. These barriers may be unique to the BE sector and can impede the development of a CE. Table 13.1 indicates each category and the number of challenges identified as barriers to CEs. Numerous studies have also explored the enablers for CE implementation in the BE. For instance, Benites and Osmond (2023) explored the perceptions and practices of BE professionals regarding current practices and sustainability tools in the sector in light of a regenerative circularity for the BE. Figure 13.2 provides a summary of the key enablers of CE implementation in the BE. It is evident that using regenerative and circular design principles in the BE can lead to more sustainable development. Incorporating bio connectivity, which emphasizes nature-based design, biomimicry, and the benefits of ecosystems, can help to regenerate the environment and improve social well-being within the framework of planetary boundaries and doughnut economics.

238  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Authors’ design, information adapted from Benites and Osmond (2023).

Figure 13.2

Summary of the circular economy enablers in the built environment

CIRCULARITY AND THE DECARBONIZATION OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The BE is transitioning towards a CE, moving away from the traditional linear model. This change will impact all aspects of the BE, from the design and construction of buildings to the materials used and waste management. As a result, new business models will emerge to support and drive the circular BE (Thelen et al., 2018). The shift towards a circular BE necessitates the participation of all parties involved in the value chain. Establishing long-lasting partnerships among key stakeholders, such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and Green Building Council, is crucial to successfully implementing the circular BE. These key stakeholders can play a vital role in equipping industry players with the necessary tools and resources to adapt to their new roles in the value chain (Metabolic, 2022). Mercader-Moyano and Esquivias (2020) identified that optimizing resource use and waste reduction could be done by incorporating recycled materials, minimizing new materials, selecting environmentally friendly products, and implementing effective construction and demolition waste management. One key aspect of this approach is ‘design for disassembly,’ which involves designing buildings and products to facilitate material recovery, value reten-

Circular economy in the built environment  239 tion, and future use. This can help to reduce the amount of waste generated and promote a more sustainable building industry (Mercader-Moyano and Esquivias, 2020). The BE plays a significant role in using global resources, with 40 percent of materials used for construction worldwide. Construction and demolition (C&D) waste is a significant portion of total waste generated in the EU, at 25–30 percent. This waste includes a wide range of materials such as concrete, bricks, gypsum, tiles, ceramics, wood, glass, metals, plastic, solvents, asbestos, and excavated soil, many of which can be recycled (Thelen et al., 2018). The benefits of a circular BE extend beyond just the recycling of materials. It also affects the balance between new construction and renovations (Thelen et al., 2018). While renovations are often more circular and cost-effective, they may only sometimes be feasible (Ghaffar et al., 2020). To measure the impact of the CE in the BE, it should be considered in terms of saved material and energy costs, reduced water usage, saved spatial resources, decreased negative externalities, and increased local job creation through the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in the reuse, repair, and refurbishment market (Thelen et al., 2018). Flexible and multi-functional building design can be achieved by incorporating modular components that can be easily refurbished in the future (Vinals et al., 2018). This is done using durable materials with a longer technical lifespan and implementing digital material documentation. This design approach allows the building to adapt to different uses and prolongs its useful life (Thelen et al., 2018). Reuse is an essential aspect of the CE in the BE and can occur at various stages in a building’s life cycle (Foster, 2020). This includes reusing materials during the design and construction of a building and harvesting reusable materials during deconstruction or refurbishment. Effective reuse requires efficient stock management and modular (de)construction methods (Sanchez et al., 2019). Reuse can refer to raw materials and products, with reused products such as building elements or components (such as windows or doors). It typically has a higher value than raw materials‌(Vefago et al., 2013). This approach conserves resources and reduces the construction process’s environmental impact and cost (Thelen et al., 2018). Sharing materials and industrial symbiosis involve utilizing waste materials or products from other sources as inputs for construction projects. This can be achieved by identifying opportunities for collaboration between demolition yards, construction sites, and local industries (Bain, 2010). For example, gypsum waste produced by the chemical industry can be used to manufacture plasterboard. Industrial symbiosis and co-creation occur when companies, often from different industries or sectors, exchange resources such as by-products, information, and assets. This approach conserves resources and helps foster collaboration and innovation between different industries (Thelen et al., 2018). Maximum re-introducing of materials into use cycles after disposal primarily refers to material recycling (Al-Salem et al., 2009). Buildings are designed to incorporate recycled materials, with the selection of materials based on their ability to be recycled without downcycling. This approach requires excluding materials that contain hazardous substances that can remain legacy substances in the material stock. This conserves resources and helps reduce pollution and waste (Thelen et al., 2018). The relationship between the producer and client extends beyond the building’s delivery and transfer of ownership. The producer’s extended responsibility in the CE will significantly impact cost savings for maintenance and adaptation during the building’s use phase for the occupants and at the end of its life. This approach not only improves the financial sustainability of the building but also supports the CE by extending the useful life of the building and

240  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals reducing waste (Thelen et al., 2018). As part of ideas to decarbonize the BE, the following were identified by literature as some actions and initiatives that could achieve such an aim. 1. Energy efficiency: Improving the energy efficiency of buildings can significantly reduce their carbon footprint. This can be achieved through insulation, efficient heating and cooling systems, and renewable energy sources (Galvez-Martos, 2013). Investments in energy efficiency can decrease a building’s carbon footprint by up to 32 percent over a decade, with the most significant reductions seen in states with the highest energy savings and heavy reliance on coal-fired power generation. Conversely, states with high usage of alternative energy sources experience relatively smaller carbon reductions (Kneifel, 2010). 2. Renewable energy: Utilizing renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower, can help to reduce the carbon emissions associated with buildings (Fridleifsson et al., 2008; Rahman et al., 2022). Geothermal heat pumps powered by electricity from fossil fuels can decrease CO2 emissions by at least 50 percent compared to boilers fuelled by fossil fuels. However, if the electricity used to drive the geothermal heat pump comes from renewable sources such as hydropower or geothermal energy, the emissions savings can reach 100 percent. The potential for CO2 emission reduction through geothermal heat pumps is estimated to be 1.2 billion tonnes annually or around 6 percent of the world’s total emissions (Fridleifsson et al., 2008). 3. Retrofitting: Retrofitting existing buildings to make them more energy-efficient can be a cost-effective way to reduce their carbon footprint (Huang et al., 2012; Mehndi and Chakraborty, 2020). For example, an external shading system can block out unwanted heat gain from the sun, thus reducing the cooling load on the air conditioning system. When evaluating energy-efficient retrofitting projects, it is important to consider not only annual savings and economic payback time but also the payback period in terms of energy and CO2 emissions reductions (Huang et al., 2012). 4. New construction: Building new structures to be energy-efficient and green from the start can help to reduce emissions over their lifecycle. The innovation of building information modelling. 5. BIM Technology: BIM provides a new means of predicting, managing, and monitoring the environmental impacts of project construction and development through virtual prototyping/visualization technology (Wong et al., 2015). 6. Policy and regulations: Governments can play a vital role in decarbonizing the BE by implementing policies and regulations that encourage energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy. To effectively reduce CO2 emissions in the building sector, it is important to have both mitigation plans and schemes in place and standardized frameworks and guidelines. These strategies include enforcing standards and policies, conducting impact assessments, adopting low-carbon technologies, and limiting energy consumption. In addition, to be successful in the fight against climate change, it is essential that all stakeholders actively participate in reducing CO2 emissions (Ahmed et al., 2020). These are just a few examples, and there may be other innovative solutions that can be implemented as well. Circular Economy Practices Towards Decarbonization of the Built Environment The CE, a long-standing principle in resource management and production economics, has recently gained prominence among policymakers to advance decarbonization beyond

Circular economy in the built environment  241 energy-related efforts and address the limitations of current partial decarbonization efforts (Sen et al., 2021). CE business models offer profitability and growth by boosting production efficiency, reducing risk, and pursuing new revenue streams. The environmental and ecological benefits of reduced resource consumption, reuse, and recycling are seen as additional positive outcomes (Sen et al., 2021). A comprehensive set of macro and sector-level policies is needed to transition to a CE. Resource efficiency and CE must be viewed as systemic issues, recognizing the economic advantages such as competitiveness, new business prospects, innovation, and increased resilience against resource scarcity and price volatility (OECD, 2021). The CE completes the solution to the climate crisis. A CE strategy can drive a renewable energy-powered economy and change product design and use by reducing GHG emissions across value chains, preserving embodied energy in products and storing carbon in products and soils (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). The CE plays a role in decarbonizing the energy sector by focusing on reducing emissions from energy production and emissions from energy installations in the supply chain. The current policy approach primarily calculates direct energy production emissions within national borders using IPCC-based emission factors for fossil fuels and electricity (Sen et al., 2021). Clear public policy frameworks are crucial to ensure that CE approaches complement decarbonization policies and do not hinder decarbonization efforts when adopted at the organizational or sectoral level, regardless of the benefits assumed from partial or complete circularity. This is important economically (Sen et al., 2021). According to Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2021), CE strategies can reduce emissions by 40 percent in 2050 for four key industrial materials (cement, steel, plastic, and aluminium) and 49 percent in the food system. This approach offers a cost-effective and systemic solution to meeting emissions targets, bringing them 45 percent closer to net zero. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are crucial to reducing energy-related CO2 emissions by over 90 percent by 2050. Renewables like wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuels in two-thirds of the world and are projected to provide 60 percent of global electricity by 2050. Emerging technologies like ‘power-to-x’ show potential for zero-carbon energy systems, but the investment still needs to be faster (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). The CE completes the picture of what is needed to address the climate crisis. It offers a strategy that transforms how products are made and used and are powered by renewable energy. This framework reduces GHG emissions across the economy by retaining embodied energy in products, reducing emissions across value chains, and sequestering carbon in the soil (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). Adopting CE practices can help with the decarbonization of the BE in several ways: 1. Materials efficiency: By reusing and recycling materials, CE practices reduce the need for new materials, reducing the carbon emissions associated with their extraction, processing, and transportation. In addition, the dialogue and cooperation about patterns in material use and waste flows involving experts from the extractive industries, product designers, and recyclers will be essential to fostering the technological and policy innovations required to promote further advancement (Mulvaney et al., 2021). 2. Energy efficiency: Buildings designed for disassembly and material recovery are often more energy efficient, as they can easily adapt to changing needs and technologies. Additionally, recycling materials requires less energy than producing new materials. The most effective way to encourage deconstruction and recycling quality and quantity is to consider the recycling potential of all building components during the design phase

242  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals and investigate innovative methods for design for deconstruction. These studies should consider local expertise and vernacular architecture because they have benefits like environmentally friendly design, accessibility to materials, environmental compatibility of materials, localization of construction techniques, local employment, and lower construction costs (Saghafi and Teshnizi, 2011). 3. Water conservation: By conserving water, CE practices can reduce the carbon footprint of buildings, as water treatment and distribution are energy-intensive processes (Joensuu et al., 2020). 4. Waste reduction: The CE promotes waste reduction by recovering value from waste; this reduces the need for energy-intensive waste management and disposal processes and new materials. When co-recycling is used, carbon emissions in a decarbonized energy system can be reduced to almost zero. Choosing a thermochemical recycling path in more carbon-intensive energy systems is crucial to reducing carbon emissions (Vela et al., 2022). 5. Renewable energy: CE practices can also facilitate the integration of renewable energy sources into the BE. For example, by designing buildings for disassembly, it becomes easier to retrofit them with new, more efficient systems such as solar panels (Shojaei et al., 2021). Overall, CE practices can help to decarbonize the BE by reducing the need for new materials, improving energy and water efficiency, reducing waste, and facilitating the integration of renewable energy sources. Circular Economy as a Tool for Achieving the SDGs The SDGs’ achievement is contingent on their alignment with sustainable concepts such as the CE, which should be viewed as a complementary structure providing synergistic reinforcement. Similarly, a globally operated CE relies on the support of a comprehensive framework, such as the one outlined in the 2030 Agenda. To succeed in both commitments while ensuring mutual benefits, it is necessary to understand how they are linked (Houbeaut, 2021). Identified synergies should be leveraged, and trade-offs should be efficiently addressed through innovative strategies, policy developments, and adapted implementation methods. To accomplish this, the causal directions should be scrutinized to concentrate efforts where they are needed and avoid ineffective actions that may result from a misunderstanding of the cause and the effect (Houbeaut, 2021). The CE model is one of the few powerful tools that can help accelerate progress toward the SDGs (Global Compact Network Canada, 2022). The CE gives us the tools to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss together while addressing important social needs (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). It empowers us to increase prosperity, job creation, and resilience while reducing GHG emissions, waste, and pollution. The CE model is a method of transforming the use and management of our limited resources. The CE model seeks to improve resource efficiency by prioritizing renewable input, maximizing product life cycle, and investigating ways to reuse by-products and waste (Global Compact Network Canada, 2022). Table 13.1 illustrates the various principles of CE and the various SDGs that could be achieved based on those principles.

Circular economy in the built environment  243 While the CE model has the potential to support all 17 SDGs, the Global Compact Network Canada (2022) has identified the SDGs most likely to benefit from CE initiatives. Table 13.1 shows how each CE principle can be aligned with individual SDGs and their associated targets. Identifying internal and external motivation drivers is critical for successfully adapting the circularity model and the SDGs framework. Implementing a CE requires complex and dynamic changes in technical and behavioural aspects (Bertassini, 2021). A materiality assessment is a critical step in this process because it assists in identifying the key priorities that are important to your organization and where you can have a real, measurable impact. To accelerate the SDGs through the CE framework, governments, civil society, scientists, academia, and the private sector must collaborate, mobilizing existing and new resources. The multi-stakeholder collaboration will be essential for leveraging the interlinkages between the SDGs and the CE model to increase their effectiveness and accelerate progress toward meaningful impact (Global Compact Network Canada, 2022). SDG 12 and Circularity in the Built Environment The CE requires that: responsible product care extends to the use and post-use phases; virgin material use is minimized; and programmed obsolescence is phased out (Thelen et al., 2018). The benefits of the circular BE go beyond just the amount of materials that can be reused. It also affects the proportion of new construction versus renovations. While renovating is often more circular and cost-effective, it is only sometimes feasible. The success of the CE in the BE should be evaluated based on the savings in materials, energy, and water costs, efficient use of space, reduction of negative impacts on the environment, and the creation of local job opportunities through the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises that specialize in reuse, repair, and refurbishment (Thelen et al., 2018). In the broader concept of sustainability, CE is emerging as a novel approach. The transition from a linear to a circular economic model is gaining attention as the world moves toward a more sustainable economy. The BE can contribute to sustainable consumption and production patterns in several ways: 1. Energy Efficiency: Energy-efficient buildings reduce energy consumption, reducing GHG emissions and supporting sustainable production patterns. A study by Ganda and Ngwakwe (2014) highlights the multiple roles that energy efficiency plays in promoting sustainable economic development. By reducing carbon emissions, energy efficiency helps mitigate climate change’s effects. It also creates jobs, reduces poverty, and promotes sustainable livelihoods. 2. Renewable Energy: Integrating renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, or geothermal, into the BE helps reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, thereby reducing GHG emissions (Omer and Mohtasham, 2015). 3. Materials and Waste Management: Building construction and maintenance practices that prioritize using locally sourced, recycled, and low-emission materials help reduce waste, conserve natural resources, and reduce the environmental impact of production (Usón, 2013). 4. Water Management: Efficient water use and management in buildings helps reduce water consumption, conserve water resources, and reduce the environmental impact of production (Hussin, 2013).

244  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 13.2 CE Principles

The link between the principles of circular economy and the SDGs Relevant SDGs SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy

PRINCIPLE 1 Prioritize Renewable Inputs

Relevant SDG Targets 7.a By 2030, enhance cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and advanced and cleaner fossil fuel technology.

SDG 9 Industry,

9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them

Innovation, and

sustainable, with increased resource efficiency and greater adoption of clean and

Infrastructure

environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes.

SDG 12 Sustainable Consumption and Production

12.2 Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. 12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle. 8.2 Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading, and innovation, including focusing on high-value added

SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth PRINCIPLE 2

and labour-intensive sectors. 8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation in accordance with the 10-year framework of

Maximize Product

programmes on sustainable consumption and production.

Use

9.5 Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of SDG 9 Industry,

industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by

Innovation, and

2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research

Infrastructure

and development workers by 1 million people and public and private research and development spending. 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping

SDG 6 Clean Water and

and minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the

Sanitation

proportion of untreated wastewater, and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.

SDG 11 Sustainable Cities

11.6 By 2030, reduce cities’ adverse per capita environmental impact, including

and Communities

special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. 12.3 By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.

PRINCIPLE 3

SDG 12 Responsible

12.4 By 2030, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and

Recover

Consumption and

all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international

By-products and

Production

frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water, and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

Waste

12.5 By 2030, reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. 14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, SDG 14 Life Below Water particularly from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution. 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of SDG 15 Life on Land

terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, particularly forests, wetlands, mountains, and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.

Source:  Global Compact Network Canada (2022).

Circular economy in the built environment  245 5. Access to Services and Transportation: Encouraging sustainable modes of transportation, such as cycling and public transport, and providing access to services within walkable distances can reduce energy consumption and emissions associated with transportation (Ahmed and Monem, 2020; Haque et al., 2013). By incorporating these elements, the BE can play a significant role in promoting sustainable consumption and production patterns and mitigating the negative impacts of human activities on the environment.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The construction industry plays a vital role in a nation’s economic development. However, the sector has come under fire for operations and procedures that produce large amounts of waste while impeding the achievement of targets for sustainable growth. There is, therefore, a clarion call for adopting a more sustainable approach. The SDGs may be achieved by implementing the CE as a comprehensive strategy for waste reduction. While the CE’s acceptance and implementation can lead to job creation and economic growth, particularly in terms of GDP growth, through its effects on the environment, pollution can be decreased as a result. Also, the CE can help to achieve the SDGs set by the UN in several ways: 1. No Poverty (SDG 1): The CE can create new business opportunities and jobs, particularly in areas such as waste management and resource recovery, which can contribute to reducing poverty. 2. Zero Hunger (SDG 2): By reducing waste and improving resource efficiency, the CE can help to ensure that resources are used more sustainably and equitably, which can help to address food insecurity and malnutrition. 3. Good Health and Well-Being (SDG 3): The CE can help improve health by reducing pollution and waste and promoting safe and sustainable products and materials. 4. Quality Education (SDG 4): The CE can provide educational opportunities related to waste management, product design, and resource efficiency, which can help to develop a more sustainable and knowledgeable workforce. 5. Gender Equality (SDG 5): The CE can help to create more inclusive and equitable economic opportunities, particularly for women and girls, who are often disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation and poverty. 6. Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6): The CE can help reduce water pollution and conserve water resources by reducing waste and increasing water use efficiency. 7. Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG 7): The CE can help reduce energy use and GHG emissions by promoting the efficient use of resources and developing renewable energy sources. 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8): The CE can create new economic opportunities and jobs, as well as reduce the costs associated with resource extraction, production, and disposal. 9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (SDG 9): The CE can promote innovation in areas such as product design, waste management, and resource efficiency, which can contribute to economic growth and the development of sustainable infrastructure.

246  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

REFERENCES Abdel Wahed Ahmed, M.M. and Abd El Monem, N. (2020). Sustainable and green transportation for better quality of life case study greater Cairo–Egypt. HBRC Journal, 16(1), pp.17–37. Ahmed Ali, K., Ahmad, M.I. and Yusup, Y. (2020). Issues, impacts, and mitigations of carbon dioxide emissions in the building sector. Sustainability, 12(18), p.7427. Al-Salem, S.M., Lettieri, P. and Baeyens, J. (2009). Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid waste (PSW): A review. Waste Management, 29(10), pp.2625–2643. Awasthi, A.K., Li, J., Koh, L. and Ogunseitan, O.A. (2019). Circular economy and electronic waste. Nature Electronics, 2(3), pp.86–89. Bain, A., Shenoy, M., Ashton, W. and Chertow, M. (2010). Industrial symbiosis and waste recovery in an Indian industrial area. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(12), pp.1278–1287. Benites, H.S. and Osmond, P. (2021). Bioconnections as enablers of regenerative circularity for the built environment, Urban Planning, 6(4), pp.25–39. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.17645/​up​.v6i4​.4373. Benites, H.S. and Osmond, P. (2023). ‘Professionals Regarding Regenerative and Circular Approaches’. Bertassini, A.C., Ometto, A.R., Severengiz, S. and Gerolamo, M.C. (2021). Circular economy and sustainability: The role of organizational behaviour in the transition journey. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), pp.3160–3193. Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D. and Finnveden, G. (Eds) (2020). Handbook of the Circular Economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. available from: https://​doi​.org/​10​.4337/​9781788972727 [Accessed 25 October 2022]. Cruz Rios, F., Grau, D. and Bilec, M. (2021). Barriers and enablers to circular building design in the US: An empirical study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(10), pp.1–17. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1061/​(asce)co​.1943​-7862​.0002109. Elgazzar, R.F. and Elgazzar, R.F. (2017). Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities or Both? A Critical Review and Synthesis of Success and Failure Factors. In Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems; SCITEPRESS–Science and Technology Publications, Lda: Setúbal, Portugal, 2017; pp. 250–257. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012). Circular Economy Introduction. [online] ellenmacarthurfoundation. org. Available at: https://​www​.elle​nmacarthur​foundation​.org/​topics/​circular​-economy​-introduction/​ overview. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2021). Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change 2021 reprint, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 3(26 September), p.71. Available at: https://​ emf​.thirdlight​.com/​link/​w750u7vysuy1​-5a5i6n/​@/​preview/​1​?o​%0Ahttps://​emf​.thirdlight​.com/​link/​ 2j2gtyion7ia​-n3q5ey/​@/​preview/​1​?o​%0Awww​.elle​nmacarthurfoundation​.org. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Schempp, C. and Hirsch, P. (2020). Categorisation system for the circular economy: A sector-agnostic categorisation system for activities substantially contributing to the circular economy. Publications Office. https://​data​.europa​ .eu/​doi/​10​.2777/​172128 Foster, G. (2020). Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to reduce environmental impacts. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152, p.104507. Fridleifsson, I.B., Bertani, R., Huenges, E., Lund, J.W., Ragnarsson, A. and Rybach, L. (2008). The possible role and contribution of geothermal energy to the mitigation of climate change. In IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources, Proceedings, Luebeck, Germany, 20(25), pp.59–80. Gallegos, C.L. and Alarcón, P.G. (2021). Renewable energy integration in buildings: A systematic review. Journal of Renewable Energy, 158, pp.78–94. Gallego-Schmid, A., Chen, H.M., Sharmina, M. and Mendoza, J.M.F. (2020). Links between circular economy and climate change mitigation in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, p.121115. Galvez-Martos, J.L., Styles, D. and Schoenberger, H. (2013). Identified best environmental management practices to improve the energy performance of the retail trade sector in Europe. Energy policy, 63, pp.982–994. Ganda, F. and Ngwakwe, C.C. (2014). Role of energy efficiency on sustainable development. Environmental Economics, 5(1), pp.86–99.

Circular economy in the built environment  247 Ghaffar, S.H., Burman, M. and Braimah, N. (2020). Pathways to circular construction: An integrated management of construction and demolition waste for resource recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, p.118710. Global Compact Network Canada (2022). Circular Economy to Fast-track the SDGs, p. 18. Haque, M.M., Chin, H.C. and Debnath, A.K. (2013). Sustainable, safe, smart—three key elements of Singapore’s evolving transport policies. Transport Policy, 27, pp.20–31. Hart, J. et al. (2019). Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: The case of the built environment. Procedia CIRP, 80(January), pp.619–624. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.procir​.2018​.12​.015. Houbeaut, M. (2021). ‘Interconnections between the Circular Economy and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), A Systematic Study’ (Dissertation). KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. Retrieved from: https://​urn​.kb​.se/​resolve​?urn​=​urn:​nbn:​se:​kth:​diva​-314123 Huang, Y., Niu, J.L. and Chung, T.M. (2012). Energy and carbon emission payback analysis for energy-efficient retrofitting in buildings—Overhang shading option. Energy and Buildings,  44, pp.94–103. Hussin, J.M., Rahman, I.A. and Memon, A.H. (2013). The way forward in sustainable construction: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Advances in Applied Sciences, 2(1), pp.15–24. Jansen, B.W., van Stijn, A., Eberhardt, L.C.M., van Bortel, G. and Gruis, V. (2022). The technical or biological loop? Economic and environmental performance of circular building components. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 34, pp.476–489. Jeonsuu, T., Edelman, H. and Saari, A. (2020). Circular economy practices in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276. Jha, D. (2019). Building with Reclaimed and Recycled Materials: A Guide to Sustainable Design and Construction. New York: Routledge. Kim, J. and Dong, D. S. (2016). Building energy management systems: A review of the state of the art. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 9(4), pp. 362–379. Kneifel, J. (2010). Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in new commercial buildings. Energy and Buildings, 42(3), pp.333–340. Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A. and Seppala, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, pp.37–46. Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A. and Birkie, S.E. (2018). Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, pp.544–552. Lee, G. (2018) The State of the Circular Economy in America. Trends, Opportunities, and Challenges. Circular CoLab. https://​static1. Squarespace​.com/​static/​5a6c​a9a2f14aa1​40556104c0, 5, 1537407484112. Martínez-Peñuela, F., Sánchez, R. and San-José, A. (2019). The future of renewable energy in buildings: A Review of the literature. Journal of Energy Policy, 127, pp.199–208. Martínez-Peñuela, F., Sánchez, R. and San-José, A. (2017). Energy management in buildings: A review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp.368–382. Mehndi, S.M. and Chakraborty, I. (2020). Simulation for a cost-effective and energy efficient retrofits of the existing building stock in India using BIM. In 2020 International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Applications (IC3A) (pp.237–243). IEEE. Metabolic (2022) ‘Circularity in the Built Environment in Europe: Opportunities to drive implementation’. [online] Available at: https://​circulareconomy​.europa​.eu/​platform/​sites/​default/​files/​laudesbuilt​ _report​_v10​_tj​-lr​.pdf. (Accessed: 2 June 2022). Mohtasham, J. (2015). Renewable energies. Energy Procedia, 74, pp.1289–1297. Mulvaney, D., Richards, R.M., Bazilian, M.D., Hensley, E., Clough, G. and Sridhar, S. (2021). Progress towards a circular economy in materials to decarbonize electricity and mobility. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 137, p.110604. Munayo, M. R., Tavares, S. F. and Braganca, L. (2020). Towards circular and more sustainable buildings: A systematic literature review on the circular economy in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260. OECD (2021). Towards a more resource-efficient and circular economy: The role of the G20, A background report prepared for the 2021 G20 Presidency of Italy, Available at: https://​www​.oecd​.org/​ environment/​waste/​OECD​-G20​-Towards​-a​-more​-Resource​-Efficient​-and​-Circular​-Economy​.pdf (Accessed 10 April 2023).

248  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Omer, A.M. (2008). Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(9), pp.2265–2300. Pinho, S.R., Oliveira, M.R. and Oliveira, H. (2017). Eco-efficiency of building materials: A review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, pp.2652–2661. Pomponi, F. and Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, pp.710–718. Rahman, A., Farrok, O. and Haque, M.M. (2022). Environmental impact of renewable energy source based electrical power plants: Solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, tidal, ocean, and osmotic. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161, p.112279. Ribul, M., Lanot, A., Pisapia, C.T., Purnell, P., McQueen-Mason, S.J. and Baurley, S. (2021). Mechanical, chemical, biological: Moving towards closed-loop bio-based recycling in a circular economy of sustainable textiles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 326, p.129325. Rizos, V., Bryhn, J., Alessi, M., Righetti, E., Fujiwara, N. and Stroia, C. (2021). Barriers and enablers for implementing circular economy business models: Evidence from the electrical and electronic equipment and agri-food value chains CEPS Research Report Barriers and enablers for implementing circular economy business models: Evidence, CEPS Research Report, CEPS, Brussels. Available at: www​.ceps​.eu. Rodriguez-Anton, J.M., Rubio-Andrada, L., Celemín-Pedroche, M.S. and Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M. (2019). Analysis of the relations between the circular economy and sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(8), pp.708–720. Saghafi, M.D. and Teshnizi, Z.A.H. (2011). Building deconstruction and material recovery in Iran: An analysis of major determinants. Procedia Engineering, 21, pp.853–863. Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F. and Kendall, A. (2019). A taxonomy of circular economy indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, pp.542–559. Sanchez, B., Rausch, C. and Haas, C. (2019). Deconstruction programming for adaptive reuse of buildings. Automation in Construction, 107, p.102921. Sariatli, F. (2017). Linear economy versus circular economy: A comparative and analyser study for optimization of economy for sustainability. Journal on Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development, 6, pp.31–34. Sharma, H.B., Vanapalli, K.R., Samal, B., Cheela, V.S., Dubey, B.K. and Bhattacharya, J. (2021). Circular economy approach in solid waste management system to achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery. Science of The Total Environment, 800, p.149605. Shittu, O.S., Williams, I.D. and Shaw, P.J. (2021). Global e-waste management: Can WEEE make a difference? A review of e-waste trends, legislation, contemporary issues and future challenges. Waste Management, 120, pp.549–563. Shojaei, A., Ketabi, R., Razkenari, M., Hakim, H. and Wang, J. (2021). Enabling a circular economy in the built environment sector through blockchain technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 294, p.126352. Solar Impulse Foundation (2020). Circular Economy. How to Shape a Sustainable Future Circular Economy. [online] solarimpulse.com. Available at: https://​solarimpulse​.com/​circular​-economy​ -solutions​#. (Accessed: 4 April 2021). Sorensen, P.B. (2018). From the linear economy to the circular economy: A basic model. Scholarly Journal, 74(1), pp.71–87. Steiner, A.R. and Guitart, M.C. (2017). Design for disassembly in the built environment: An overview of current knowledge and practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, pp.230–243. Storebrand Asset Management (2021). Circular Economy Whitepaper. [Online]. Available at: https://​ www​.storebrand​.no/​asset​-management/​publikasjoner/​_/​attachment/​inline/​1647615a​-e8c4​-476a​-a106​ -41ef5bf26cab:​1​d68a114758​b7da89fa60​41c247e7af​1f92ee8d2/​20210922​_Circular​_Economy​.pdf. [Accessed 20 October 2023]. Sutherland, A.B. and Kouloumpi, I. (2022). How the Circular Economy Can Help us Reach the Sustainable Development Goals. [online] Available at: https://​www​.circle​-economy​.com/​blogs/​ how​-the​-circular​-economy​-can​-help​-us​-reach​-the​-sustainable​-development​-goals. [Accessed 16 November 2022].

Circular economy in the built environment  249 The Delphi Group (2021). Circular Economy and the Built Environment sector in Canada, Final Report, APRIL 9, 2021. Available at: https://​delphi​.ca/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​04/​Circularity​-in​-Canadas​ -Built​-Environment​-Final​-Report​-April​-14​-2021​.pdf [Accessed 25 October 2022]. Thelen, D., Van Acoleyen, M., Huurman, W., Thomaes, T., Van Brunschot, C., Edgerton, B. and Kubbinga, B. (2018). Scaling the Circular Built Environment: pathways for business and government. Geneva: World Business Sustainable Business Council (WBCSD). Available at: https://​docs​.wbcsd​ .org/​2018/​12/​Scaling​_the​_Circular​_Built​_Environment​-pathways​_for​_business​_and​_government​ .pdf. Usón, A.A., López-Sabirón, A.M., Ferreira, G. and Sastresa, E.L. (2013). Uses of alternative fuels and raw materials in the cement industry as sustainable waste management options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, pp.242–260. Vefago, L.H.M. and Avellaneda, J. (2013). Recycling concepts and the index of recyclability for building materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 72, pp.127–135. Vela, I.C., Vilches, T.B., Berndes, G., Johnsson, F. and Thunman, H. (2022). Co-recycling of natural and synthetic carbon materials for a sustainable circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, p.132674. Velenturf, A.P.M. and Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, pp.1437–1457. Vinals, J., Urgoiti, E., Guerra, G., Valiente, I., Esnoz-Larraya, J., Ilzkovitz, M., Franćeski, M., Letier, P., Yan, X.T., Henry, G. and Quaranta, A. (2018). Multi-functional interface for flexibility and reconfigurability of future European space robotic systems. Advances in Astronautics Science and Technology, 1(1), pp.119–133. Whicher, A., Harris, C., Beverley, K. and Swiatek, P. (2018). Design for circular economy: Developing an action plan for Scotland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, pp.3237–3248. Wittmer, M. and Gössling, S.A. (2017). The circular economy and its relevance for the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, pp.2723–2731. Wong, J.K.W. and Zhou, J. (2015). Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Automation in Construction, 57, pp.156–165.

14. Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001) towards the delivery of sustainable development goal 12 Rosemary Horry, Colin A. Booth and Abdul-Majeed Mahamadu

INTRODUCTION ISO 14001 is a means of managing the environmental impacts of an organisation. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), who created this standard has published numerous standards and other documents through international collaboration. These standards aim to support the economic, environmental, and social pillars of sustainable development, and a document has also been issued by ISO stating how these standards contribute to the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) and how they can help to transform our world, as proposed in the UN’s 2030 Agenda (Edenhofer, 2014). While many traditionalists still see ISO 14001 as a compliance standard (Fonseca et al., 2017), where the focus is on, for example, discharge consents and waste management legislation, it must be remembered that this is a system and, as such, can be adapted to whatever is required by the organisation using it. That is, in many respects, the beauty of these standards is that the organisation decides on the aims and objectives that they wish to deliver. So this type of standard can be used to implement work to support the delivery of the SDGs (Horry et al., 2022; Morioka et al., 2017; Topple et al., 2017). As stated, ISO 14001 has been used since its creation to ensure compliance with relevant environmental legislation, reduce waste, minimise resource use and improve corporate reputation (Fonseca and Domingues, 2018; Zeng et al., 2005). Cost savings have been reported as being one of the major benefits in terms of materials/resources saved, along with improved customer satisfaction and reduced pollution, but this requires knowledgeable staff. As one of the main barriers is cited as being lack of knowledge and the need for training, the primary question should be what do the workforce need to know to enable them to engage with not only ISO 14001 but also sustainable resource use and SDG-12? A good starting point may be for them to understand the history of sustainability, and how society has reached this point. This basically can be shown as the idea of sustainability gaining momentum in 1989 when the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development released the “Our Common Future” report, also known as the Brundtland report (UN, 2022). This brought to the public’s attention the idea of sustainable development. Despite the time that has elapsed since this date governments and other organisations are still trying to find ways to promote this work from the use of legislation, guidance and voluntary standards. However, this may cause more questions, such as why is it not being delivered? Why are we doing it if others are not? This then needs to be justified and an explanation of the history may help to highlight the issues which have existed over the years. Agenda 21 followed on from the Rio Conference in 1992 250

Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001)   251 as noted by Spangenberg et al. (2002); this came a few years after the Brundtland report was released, and proposed ways that society could be more sustainable. However, a serious challenge existed, in relation to the delivery of the proposals which were initially put forward in the Brundtland report: to ensure not only economic development, but also social development, and environmental protection. The idea was that the world’s population was to be provided with an improved standard of living while also protecting the environment. The proposals, at the time, required a huge shift in the way that society had for many years been operating and a shift from a purely economic based agenda, to one with more equitable values. The journey towards sustainable development with Agenda 21 has been ongoing, but more action was needed. This appeared in the form of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) and then the updated SDGs. The focus in this chapter is that of SDG-12. SDG-12 is responsible for ensuring responsible consumption and production patterns. However, it must be questioned as to whether it is possible for this to be achieved in a world with so many differing sectors where the usual economic processes focus on profit rather than the triple bottom line. In this chapter, to answer that issue the construction sector will be used as an example. Construction in the UK is thought to produce 47 percent of the total CO2 emissions (BIS, 2010), and the sector uses many non-renewable materials such as clay and limestone. The production of cement globally is the third highest manmade producer of CO2 (Andrew, 2018), following transport and energy production. One tonne of cement causes 780kg of CO2 (Tang et al., 2021), so it is not only the raw materials but also the amount of CO2 produced that requires this sector to closely examine its operations, material choices and responsible consumption overall. Then of course consideration must be given to the waste; it is estimated that 10-15 percent of building materials are wasted, another valuable resource lost. So as a sector construction uses a vast array of resources, it would be sensible then both in economic and sustainability terms for them to ascertain how they can contribute to the delivery of the targets within SDG-12. To do this firstly it would be necessary to ascertain the resources they are using, where these are sourced from and whether they are renewable or non-renewable and then to examine the practicality of reducing the consumption. So, to enable the investigation of these factors a construction business could take a systems approach. One such approach could be to adopt an environmental management system such as ISO 14001, where the aspects/impacts of the business operations are a major focus which would include the non-renewable resources used and the waste produced. This chapter will explore the benefits and barriers of implementing environmental management systems in the construction sector and demonstrate how ISO 14001 and its associated training towards sustainability are key in facilitating the delivery of SDG-12.

THE EARTH’S FINITE RESOURCES The Earth is one planet with a population of over 8 billion people who all want and deserve a certain standard of living and housing. Existing approaches and lifestyle to support the global population are putting a huge strain on the planet’s natural resources. The building of houses, workplaces, and infrastructure are amongst the deliverables of the construction industry. The construction sector is the largest consumer of energy, globally consuming one third of the absolute energy consumption and, as a result, producing a considerable amount of CO2. As a society we cannot just assume that resources will always be available as a society.

252  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Therefore, consideration must be given as to whether alternative design methods and construction materials or approaches to construction are receiving serious consideration to reduce the demand on the precious resources used, particularly those that are non-renewable. If everyone on the planet were to achieve the same standards of living a huge number of resources would be required, so to enable equity there must be some changes in the way that society manages these actions, to ensure parity for all without stripping the planet of every resource there is. Developed nations will need to re-examine their thoughts and ideas concerning what is a normal build, they will need to consider the implications of their actions and that the global resources are just that global and, therefore, not to be just supplied to the highest bidder but shared equitably between all. This means that as a global society, consideration must be given to not only how to ensure equity amongst the population but also that some people will need to reassess how they live, and companies will need to discover new and innovative means of ensuring that material resources are not just used once and then discarded. The construction sector uses a huge number of materials, but it is also increasingly known for reusing them when buildings are demolished. In fact, some modern buildings are now designed with foresight to follow cradle-to-cradle principles (Booth et al., 2012); whereby, timbers are pre-marked at the construction stage to later indicate to demolition teams where to cut at the dismantling stage so as to salvage the most material. So, in this respect, the AEC sector is being responsible concerning the reuse aspect of the waste hierarchy. Still, the way the construction operates may not be the best in terms of the use of resources or the production of CO2 resulting from the production of those resources, for example concrete.

Source: Tech Recycle (2023).

Figure 14.1

Diagram of the waste hierarchy

Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001)   253 Waste Prevention is the most preferred option of the waste hierarchy (Figure 14.1); if we have a closed-loop approach to construction where all resources are reused, it could be said that it fits in the prevention sector, although realistically, there will always be some waste, so it is more reduced waste. However, that is better than just disposing of the waste by either landfill or incineration. This type of approach does require more thought and leads from a cradle-to-grave lifecycle approach to a cradle-to-cradle thought process. Some construction firms have embraced this option and have set up recycling companies as part of their operations where builders and the public can source bricks, timber and other building materials that are pre-used. So not just reducing the waste but making a profit from these items and considering responsible consumption. A win-win. However, there are others where the demolition was just crushed. While this is then reused as an aggregate, the question, which needs to be considered, is whether this is the best option for responsible consumption. This is one reason why SDG-12 is about how we approach responsible resource use and consumption. Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) The UN SDGs are goals that followed on from the UN MDGs as previously mentioned but rather than focusing purely on human benefits they are a mix of economic, social, and environmental development objectives with themes, such as the focus of this chapter which is Resource Consumption to combat climate change and its impacts by 2030 (Rosati and Faria, 2019). The SDGs are designed to encourage and enable sustainable development for society (UN, 2022). Topple et al. (2017) investigated how businesses were implementing SDGs and noted that multinational organisations were choosing to engage with the SDGs and extending this to their supply chains, be they based in the developed or developing world and that this leadership provides a means of encouraging more sustainable practices (Ball et al., 2022). However, questions still exist as to how organisations can measure their performance concerning the delivery of these objectives (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017). This type of approach demonstrates the need to move from purely managing the environment, which can be very focused on limits and measurable targets for achievement, to sustainability, which is more nebulous, but this will not be achieved without addressing many challenges. Govindan et al. (2013) noted a significant challenge is how to bring into being the findings of the Brundtland report, while Robert et al. (2005) were concerned about how sustainability can be measured. Maybe, however, it is not about how it can be measured but more about what is the right thing to do; what is the responsibility of the organisation to the environment and society as a whole?

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ISO 14001 is a voluntary environmental management system (EMS), which was originally set up in 1996 and has been updated in both 2004 and 2015. An EMS sets out to provide a framework, by which organisations can manage their environmental aspects and impacts to ensure that they comply with legislation, prevent pollution, and continually improve on their performance. As noted by BSi (2015), an EMS aims to enable organisations to prevent

254  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals pollution, deliver continual improvement and comply with legislation. A major selling point of ISO 14001 is that it is flexible, leaving companies to decide what issues they wish to focus on and how they go about approaching those issues. The standards aim to deliver continual improvement but does not actually specify a level of improvement or harm reduction (i.e., pollution prevention) and has been accused of not delivering sustainability (Brown, 2016). Jones and Laquidara–Car (2018) have suggested that the standard is being used to create economic value, cost savings or increased market share and opportunities for business rather than environmental improvements. Studies since 2000 have examined the benefits and barriers to the use of this system for managing the environmental impacts of companies’ operations (Bailey et al., 2021; Owolana and Booth, 2016; Shen and Tam, 2002). However, in considering the benefits and barriers it is essential to remember that businesses exist to make money; if they are not economically successful, they will fail and cease to exist. As Drucker (1953 p. 11) notes “business management has failed if it does not produce economic results”. So, while businesses should protect the environment and do good in society, there is a primary need for them to be economically viable. However, if consideration is given to this last point, are environment protection, societal benefit, and economic survival that far apart? If consideration is given to this in relation to SDG-12, it could be inferred that responsible consumption is about using resources in the most efficient manner, reducing waste, reusing materials where and whenever possible, sourcing locally and, thereby, reducing transport costs, looking to use less materials and, therefore, again reducing costs. If consideration is given to the benefits of using an EMS, it can be seen that cost savings are again an important benefit (Bailey et al., 2021; Owolana and Booth, 2016). It is accepted that businesses do of course exist to produce an economic benefit to society, but this does not exclude them from making other positive contributions in relation to society and the environment. To enable this to happen they need a mechanism to monitor and gauge their progress against. It has been noted in research that potential links exist between environmental rating tools and the SDGs (Alawneh et al., 2018; Gibberd, 2015). Gibberd (2015) proposed a combination of the ecological footprint criteria and the Human Development Index to bring about a BEST index. While Alawaneh et al. (2018) combined a water and energy efficiency method, which could be developed to assess and improve the UN SDGs delivery. However, this work on the SDGs must be considered in relation to the risk that any potential benefit has and that any benefit which is achieved should not always be the lowest hanging fruit as a public relations (PR) tool, but that it must be to improve the organisation’s performance in relation to social, economic, and environmental objectives. This caused the suggestion that standards that are delivering on sustainability are actual market mechanisms, for example, carbon trading (Bon and Hutchinson, 2010). Putting that issue aside for a moment, it is possible to do both, to make a profit, benefit economically and still deliver on sustainability. In respect of the construction sector, Lynch and Mosbah (2017) reviewed how the construction sector could contribute to the delivery of SDGs highlighting SDG-1 (no poverty), SDG-9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) and SDG-11 (sustainable cities and communities). However, it is Goubran et al. (2019) who also note that buildings play a part in the use of renewable energy (SDG-7), and in the SDG of interest here that of SDG-12 (sustainable consumption and production); but while this chapter focuses on SDG-12 it is noted that there may be issues with organisations purely focusing on

Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001)   255 Table 14.1

Top ten benefits of ISO 14001 in the AEC sector

# Benefits 1 Improved environmental performance 2 Cost reduction 3 Enrich corporate and public image 4 Compliance with regulations 5 Competitive advantage 6 Reduce waste generation at source 7 Customer satisfaction/demand 8 Protect the environment 9 Employee environmental awareness 10 Reduced environmental impacts

Source:  Based on Horry et al. (2022).

one SDG, and their work to improve that singular objective may have negative impacts on other targets (Allen et al., 2019; Moyer et al., 2018). For companies that are undergoing any phase of change the primary reason for engaging in that change is the benefits, which will be delivered because of the actions taken. Table 14.1 provides a breakdown of the most often cited benefits of engaging in ISO 14001, most notably: improved environmental performance (Owolana and Booth, 2016), improved corporate image (Turk 2009, 2012) and compliance with regulations (Johnson, 2020; Turk, 2009); whilst some of the least reported ones are: subcontractor relations (Turk, 2009) and to facilitate trade (Sakr et al., 2010). However, it is the barriers that are of most interest in relation to how these may prevent or slow the delivery of SDG-12 (Table 14.2). The most often reported barriers are cost (Babakri et al., 2003; Johnson 2020), and lack of expertise and training (Schmidt and Osebold, 2017; Turk, 2012). These are of particular importance to the discussions later in this chapter. However, before we go on to look at these issues, we should also note the least reported barriers are the industry not being ready (Kein et al., 1999) and the complexity of the standards (Turk 2009), which could also be linked to a lack of training or understanding. Therefore, to examine in more detail the issues of lack of expertise and training (Schmidt and Osebold, 2017; Turk, 2009), and the complexity of the standards (Turk, 2009), consideration needs to be given by each individual company as to where the skills and knowledge of their staff lie or more importantly where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding. It is conceivable that training is required to deliver on SDG-12 in relation to responsible consumption but the issue also links to SDG-4 (the need for quality education). Therefore, within an organisation by providing training for the staff to improve the resource efficiency this also helps them to make an impact in relation to the delivery of SDG-4, but that is not all; due to the links that exist between the SDGs this would also contribute to decent work and economic growth (SDG-8) as any organisation that engages with these issues will be seen by potential employees as being better places to work. So, while the focus of this chapter is on the delivery of SDG-12, there are opportunities to make concomitant improvements in other areas. While there are many barriers cited for lack of engagement with ISO 14001 (Table 14.2), those most frequently reported can be rectified with training and, in doing so, will increase the environmental awareness of employees. Environmental awareness is listed as a benefit of using an EMS (Table 14.1). The same, therefore, by inference, must be the case in relation

256  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 14.2

Top ten barriers of ISO 14001 in the AEC sector

# Barriers 1 Cost 2 Lack of stakeholder support 3 Lack of expertise 4 Lack of training 5 Lack of stakeholder demand 6 Lack of employee involvement 7 Time 8 Documentation 9 Lack of knowledge about ISO 14001 10 Existing subcontractor system

Source:  Based on Horry et al. (2022).

to the SDGs as if employees are unaware of the environmental issues, then they will also be unsure of the wider sustainability issues represented within the SDGs. The benefits that can be experienced by an organisation engaging in this would be similar to those seen in the use of ISO 14001; not only has it been shown that employees recognise when they are being valued by a company, for example, through the training provided to improve their knowledge and skills, which in turn encourages them to perform to a higher level within their day-to-day tasks, but it is also acknowledged that a workforce is a valuable commodity to any organisation. If the people doing the jobs have a good understanding of the environmental impact and sustainability opportunities, then they are likely to understand why procedures may have changed or why they are being more careful with waste from a process. They may also understand where there are options to make savings, such as where there are opportunities for reuse or where resources are being used unnecessarily: thereby, saving not only the resources but also making cost savings due to the reduced amount of materials required. Without training employees may not question particular processes and procedures as it may just be “the way we have always done it”. By providing training a workforce is given the opportunity to engage in discussions on how a company wants to be more sustainable and then they are also given the opportunity to put forward their own ideas on how things can be improved. Jia-Fang (2010) stated that training improves performance but also enables an opportunity to show a company in a positive light in relation to how they value their staff. This idea of developing trained staff is thought to provide those staff with more satisfaction in their role and by default increase both productivity and profit (Champathes, 2006). Training is chiefly about increasing an employee’s knowledge and, therefore, improving performance. However, it also enables a bridge in relation to the gap that exists between current knowledge and what is required or deemed necessary within an organisation to make necessary improvements. There are, of course, many ways that training can be delivered. Traditionally, this would have been face-to-face but since the Covid pandemic there is an increasing reliance to offer online training, or it could be through working with a trained colleague who shares their knowledge and experience to improve the performance of their team or by shadowing a work colleague. Training is to improve an employee’s performance and/or an organisation’s performance. David (2006) noted that it is not just about increasing the ability of the employee but to also improve their thinking in terms of creativity to facilitate better decisions. This is supported by

Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001)   257 Svenja (2007) who views training as developing self-efficacy in the workplace. Any organisation looking to engage with the SDGs needs to firstly ensure that its staff understand what the SDGs are, in terms of where they have come from, how they have been developed and what their purpose is in terms of the future of the planet. However, training is not just about delivering information to an audience who are purely recipients of the information. It is about engaging the workforce to develop that creative thinking, which will enable them to come up with innovative ideas that help the organisation to improve and prosper, for example, by reducing the resource consumption within the organisation. A workforce is key to this work; their understanding of where there is wastage within the production or construction process is invaluable and using training means they are provided with the opportunity to share that knowledge and to be listened to. This creates a partnership between the workforce and the management, and it is that partnership which increases the profitability and productivity of the organisation. Chen et al. (2004) noted that if workers are in a work environment where they feel that they don’t understand why a task is being performed, they may become disenfranchised and may decide to leave the organisation, as they no longer feel they fit or belong. In this type of scenario, the sudden focus on SDGs may be a shock to some of the employees, they may not have heard of these before and may feel they cannot ask for fear of being seen as out of touch. An organisation can help by introducing everyone to the ideas in a managed and thought through way where the staff and managers are encouraged to engage and brought along with the ideas rather than being dictated to. They could help form the strategy for increased impact in relation to sustainability through focus groups and peer discussions as part of the training and this could include, for example, SDG-12 as a discussion point on where they feel materials are wasted within the business operations. The aim is not to disenfranchise workers due to their lack of knowledge on sustainability but to encourage them to help the company by using their knowledge of working practices to improve performance in terms of economic, social, and environmental aspects. It is vital that the training is provided at an early stage, so the workforce and the senior management are on this journey to a more responsible future by improving the operations of the organisation together. Creating a workforce who understand the reasons for the new style of operation and buy into the direction of the company as has been previously stated will produce a more productive and more engaged organisation. They will feel part of the process. For instance, participants who took part in a recent interview process (Horry et al., 2023) noted that training is fundamental to the success of ISO 14001 because it is that understanding that is required to deliver on the standard; therefore, if an organisation is looking to reduce its resource consumption, again it is training that is going to be fundamental for the delivery of the objectives. It has already been noted but it is worth repeating the benefits that training delivers including increasing job satisfaction, productivity and reducing staff losses, as trained staff increasingly feel part of the organisation. The nature of today’s society means that increasingly people are having to upskill as a constant; this is in terms of the machines used but also the changes in understanding of business operations and how knowledge and science move forward because of environmental uncertainty (Tai, 2006) in areas such as climate change and resource availability. Change is recognised as being the new normal but to deal with such change requires training and the time and opportunities to consider how as an organisation such issues impact on the operations and where opportunities exist to move forward. An understanding of the issues and how these can be managed within business is something which is individual to each organisation and, while Testa et al. (2018) notes, organisational

258  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals leaders are expected to talk to their staff about the environmental management, compliance objectives and their company’s sustainability strategy, there is no rule book written for how to do this. It is down to the individual company and the situations and communication strategies of that individual organisation and how they wish to contribute to society. However, as with implementing ISO 14001 it is necessary to have a plan in place before beginning to work towards ISO 14001 certification, during implementation and when monitoring its effectiveness (Latan et al., 2018). The same will apply to delivering on SDG-12. However, to do any of this work requires staff who are aware and knowledgeable, otherwise there is a danger that it will be the work of one person within the organisation and there will be no support or buy in from the staff in general and very little progress will be made. Relying on one member of staff does not create a viable effective management system or opportunities to deliver on reducing consumption of resources. Therefore, as Heras-Saizarbitoria and Boiral (2013) and Jabbour (2015) noted there is a need to implement environmentally responsible behaviour amongst the staff, to have staff that are interested and care and, therefore, training needs to be delivered to engage the staff with the cultural shift and motivate them to engage with the system. Some researchers have suggested that this engagement requires an incentive (Darnall, 2006; Potoski and Prakash, 2005; Russo, 2009; Testa et al., 2014); however, it is contested here that without the proper training there will be a lack of understanding as to the changes, so any incentive used is unlikely to bring about the desired cultural shift – it is about hearts and minds. The need is for staff to understand the issues, have an awareness of the actions that are achievable and have them buy-in to delivering these actions. This requires training. There is an expectation within organisations that employees need to work effectively and be competent in their roles within the organisation. This comes, therefore, with an implied expectation that for some new tasks, staff will need to be provided with appropriate training to ensure that they are competent; and environmental management is no different. Looking back to ISO 14001:1996 (the earliest ISO system), many companies who began the accreditation process were aware of the gaps in knowledge and of the need to persuade staff of the importance of protecting the environment (Horry et al., 2023). It is hoped that in the intervening years that society has gained more of an understanding of the need to ensure the “natural environment” is recognised as a stakeholder that requires protection (Hammond and Booth, 2010). However, this cannot be assumed. There are people who do not believe in climate change and others who may believe but are not sufficiently interested to make changes. However, in the business world if an organisation wishes to improve its environmental performance it will need to ensure that its staff are informed of the reason for the actions that are being taken and their part in the delivery of these actions. This is about supporting the need for the delivery of the objectives of an EMS, which will necessitate some training of the staff in what is required, what is no longer acceptable and what the expectations of the organisation are in respect of their objectives and targets. This would be the same if the EMS focused on purely environmental objectives or was more focused on sustainability goals such as SDG-12.

DISCUSSION The AEC sector is no different from any other sector in the need for training of staff, but it can potentially have huge impacts on sustainability due to the nature of the work and, therefore,

Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001)   259 there are major opportunities in terms of the potential contribution to the SDGs. Horry et al. (2022) noted that while Goubran et al. (2019) found the AEC sector to be related to all the goals, that potentially the greatest contribution could be made in SDGs 6, 7 and 11, they also found reason to suggest that SDGs 4, 8, 12, and 13 were significant. Horry et al. (2022) went on to support this proposition through a PRISMA based literature review, a review of the findings, approval by professionals, and the creation of a roadmap, which again was reviewed. This resulted in a roadmap detailing how the SDGs could be delivered using ISO 14001 and when considering SDG-12 that this goal could be prioritised in at least 50 percent of the sub-benefits (Horry et al., 2022). These sub-benefits were relating to customer satisfaction, commitment to environmental responsibility, green image, improved community relations and improved industry/government relations, which also link to many of the other SDGs. Suchman (1995) acknowledged that SDGs are a global challenge and although they provide an opportunity for organisations to focus on economic, environmental, and societal needs while increasing the organisation’s legitimacy in all these areas, a huge challenge in itself, it will in turn reduce costs to the organisation. Training will, however, be required. The whole premise is that organisations must behave in a different manner from what has been custom and practise. To enable this to happen the workforce will need to be trained to understand not only what responsible consumption looks like but also how that can impact in a positive manner not only on the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997). However, it must be remembered that as Hahn and Kuhnen (2013) noted, many organisations may not have the financial ability or staff availability to do this work. Of course, even the smallest actions could make a difference and the SDGs provide a focus for action (Georgeson et al., 2017), a means to improve all operations in terms of consumption of raw materials for example. If the targets and indicators of SDG-12 are considered it can be seen from this that most of the targets can be delivered through a well thought out EMS and certainly all those where organisations other than the government can bring about change. As noted by a participant in a recent study “by demonstrating that an obligation is as strong as a legal commitment and entwining the objectives of the system to the strategic measures, then it becomes one of the same thing. It doesn’t need to be an additional burden to any business. You know, the sustainability metrics have got to be core business indicators. So as long as they’re well integrated and the corporate systems are integrated and, you know, people are doing things to the best of our ability, they’re doing it once and then that information has been used multiple times” (unpublished data). However, for those EMSs to be successful there needs to be an understanding throughout the workforce of what their part is in the work and how they can help make a difference. In respect of the training for the successful delivery of this, there needs to be buy-in from those being trained, which will encourage them to engage actively with the training, opportunities to make a difference, that their opinions are heard and that they can be enabled to implement the required actions following their period of instruction. However, there are companies that experience high turnovers of staff and as the following statement suggests “presenting someone with 300 or so documents for the Health, Safety, Quality and Environmental management system is a challenge. Leading to people only using the documents they needed when told by someone that they needed to fill them in” (unpublished data). This is an economically focused world and the concept of responsible consumption is an interested goal, as economic development requires there to be a demand and, therefore, consumption. However, if we assume that as a concept SDG-12 is the way the world should be moving then we accept that there is a need to limit our consumption and production to ensure

260  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals a sustainable future and so we have another challenge. That of who within society are qualified or sufficiently knowledgeable to enable the organisations to take this alternative path to the future. Green jobs are becoming a hot topic in sustainability and government circles with the need being seen to train people in sustainability skills to enable the net zero agenda to be managed. It is these skills that are often cited as one of the barriers to the implementation of ISO 14001. This is evidenced by a participant in a recent study who said “14001 is still the main bedrock for the environment, part of sustainability” (unpublished data). So, we have a situation where we need to be responsible in terms of consumption and production but those who produce the goods may not understand the concept or wish to abide by its philosophy. In relation to the current state of play there are a variety of positions with some organisations leading the way and others being laggards. Looking at what would be considered good practice today in respect of SDG-12, the following would be a good starting point: ● Sustainability reporting – many companies report on their sustainability, but these are often viewed as being superficial and a marketing device (Squier and Booth, 2023). ● Closed loop operations (circular economy) – again a push for companies to operate closed loop exists but there is a challenge in terms of understanding and the opportunities to discover how you can produce a closed loop system either within your production processes or by linking with other organisations who may be able to use resources, which are no longer of use within your organisation. Further reading – Liu and Ramakrishna (2021). ● Efficient waste management – this is about reducing as much of the waste as possible so following the waste hierarchy, to ensure that the first option is prevention. The most effective way to prevent waste is to ensure that waste is considered in the design process. Reducing the waste is all about thinking of the options for closed loop systems. Further reading – Letcher and Vallero (2019). ● Renewable energy production – here the idea is not so much about the materials in relation to construction but how you could make the building more sustainable in relation to energy. Further reading – Nelson and Starcher (2015). ● Reduced material footprints – thinking about the carbon footprint of the materials both through the extraction, transport, use and ability to be reused is important in ensuring that it is responsibly consumed. Ideally the materials should be produced or sourced as close to the site of their use as possible. Further reading – Klemes (2015). ● Net zero carbon opportunities – all companies now should be thinking about the options for zero carbon. This is not just in terms of their resource use in the production processes but also in relation to energy used in their offices, transport options, waste production and disposal. So not limiting themselves to scope 1 and 2 being “fairly easy to manage” (unpublished data), but also considering scope 3 where confusion exists in relation to how to measure and who should measure it as “some of that scope three stuff has been measured three or four times by four different people” (unpublished data). Looking forward, it would certainly be useful to understand how companies are approaching these challenges and where the blockages exist in relation to becoming more sustainable. Issues may be that staff are reluctant to do what they see as extra work, that training is not always welcomed by staff or training issues still exist in relation to managing resource use and the associated emissions particularly in relation to scope 3 and how this will be monitored and by whom in the supply chain.

Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001)   261

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has explored the benefits and barriers of implementing environmental management systems in the construction sector and demonstrated how skills and training, gathered through the uptake of ISO 14001, are key in facilitating the delivery of SDG-12. The use of ISO 14001 has traditionally been focused on the delivery of legal compliance and today is more focused on fulfilling the requirements of stakeholders. However, it must be remembered that ISO 14001 is a system where the control of the deliverables is very much in the hands of the company who are using it. If you set your objectives as being to achieve SDG-12 then that is what the system will be set up to deliver. In relation to the delivery of this, engagement of staff is vital and as this chapter has highlighted the engagement of staff is influenced by how valued they feel as employees. By training staff on the topic of sustainability, an organisation can not only reduce costs and comply with legislation it can also enable the reduction of resources that are used. Within the AEC sector it must be noted that resources and their consumption is not governed by one sector, but it is controlled firstly by architects and civil engineers who decide on the materials used and their suitability for the projects. From this point the sourcing of these is under the control of procurement for the construction firms and the waste produced sits with the project manager and their team. These people all have their professional competencies, but it cannot be assumed that one of these competencies is sustainability. Materials are changing with new options such as hemp concrete becoming a possibility. It is becoming more vital that these professionals understand new developments and the art of the possible in relation to sustainable materials. However, it must also be remembered that at the other end of this process is the management of waste, which includes the need to be as sustainable as possible and if it is attainable to use a closed loop system where no waste is produced.

REFERENCES Alawneh, R., Mohamed Ghazali, F.E., Ali, H. and Asif, M. (2018). Assessing the contribution of water and energy efficiency in green buildings to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Jordan. Building and Environment, 146, 119–132. Allen, C., Metternicht, G. and Wiedmann, T. (2019). Prioritising SDG targets: Assessing baselines, gaps and interlinkages. Sustainability Science, 14(2), 421–438. Andrew, R.M. (2018). Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 195–217, https://​doi​.org/​10​.5194/​essd​-10​-195​-2018 Babakri, K.A., Bennett, R.A. and Franchetti, M. (2003). Critical factors for implementing ISO 14001 standard in United States industrial companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 749–752. Bailey, M., Booth, C.A., Horry, R., Vidalakis, C., Mahamadu, A.M. and Baffour Awuah, K.G. (2021). Opinions of small and medium UK construction companies on environmental management systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Management Procurement and Law, 174, 23–34. Ball, S., Booth, C.A., Mahamadu, A.M. and Manu, P. (2022). A roadmap for sustainable development goals through responsible sourcing in construction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability, 175(6), 267–282. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1680/​jensu​.21​.00043. BIS (2010). Estimating the amount of CO2 emissions that the construction industry can influence: Supporting material for the Low Carbon Construction IGT Report. Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Autumn 2010. Bon, R. and Hutchinson, K. (2010). Sustainable construction: Some economic challenges. Build Res Inf., 28(5–6), 310–314.

262  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Booth, C.A., Oosting, A., Ankrah, N., Hammond, F.N., Tannahill, K., Williams, C., Smolders, H., Braas, J., Scheepers, L., Kathrani, A., Virdee, L., Kadlecova, T., Lewald, O., Mess, M., Merckx, B., Renson, M., Cousin, A., Cadoret, T., Vercoulen, R., Starmans, E., Bertrand, A., Beloussova, A., Mathieu, L., Meulemans, J.M. and Schroeder, J. (2012). Beyond sustainability: Cradle–to–cradle business innovation and improvement zones in NW Europe. In: Pacetti, M., Passerini, G., Brebbia, C.A. and Latini, G. (Eds), The Sustainable City VII – Urban Regeneration and Sustainability (pp. 515–526), WIT Press, Southampton. Brown, M. (2016). Futurestorative: Working Towards a New Sustainability. RIBA Publishing. Brundtland, G. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations General Assembly Document A/42/427. BSi (2015). ISO 14001 Environmental Management Standard. British Standards Institute. Champathes, R.M. (2006). Coaching for performance improvement: The “COACH” model. Development and Learning in Organizations, 20(2), 17–18. Chen, Z., Li, H. and Hong, J. (2004). An integrative methodology for environmental management in construction. Automation in Construction, 13(5), 621–628. Darnall, N. (2006). Why firms mandate ISO 14001 certification. Business and Society, 45(3), 354-381. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0007650306289387 David (2006). cited in Elnaga, A., and Imran, A. (2013). The effect of training on employee performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 137–147. Drucker, P.F. (1954). The Practice of Management. London, Heron Books. Edenhofer, O. (Ed.) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate; Change Contribution of Working Group III; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. Available online: http://​danida​.vnu​.edu​.vn/​cpis/​files/​IPCC/​wg3/​pdf/​ipcc​ _wg3​_ar5​_frontmatter​.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2019). Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. John Wiley and Sons, London. Fletcher, W.D. and Smith, C.B. (2020). Reaching net zero: What it takes to solve the global climate crisis. Elsevier, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​C2020​-0​-00134​-9 Fonseca, L.M. and Domingues, J.P. (2018). Exploratory research of ISO 14001:2015 transition among Portuguese organizations. Sustainability, 10, 781, http://​doi:​10​.3390/​su10030781 Fonseca, L.M., Domingues, J.P., Machado, P.B. and Calderon, M. (2017). Management system certification benefits: Where do we stand? J. Ind. Eng. Manag., 10, 476-494, doi:10.3926/jiem.2350 Georgeson, L., Maslin, M., and Poessinouw, M. (2017). The global green economy. A review of concepts definitions measurement methodologies and their interactions. Geo Geography and Environment, 4(1), e00036. Gibberd, J. (2015). Measuring capability for sustainability: The built environment sustainability tool (BEST). Build Res Inf., 43(1), 49–61. Goubran, S., Masson, T. and Caycedo, M. (2019). Evolutions in sustainability and sustainable real estate. In: T. Walker, C. Krosinsky, L.N. Hasan and S.D. Kibsey (Eds), Sustainable Real Estate (pp. 11–31). Palgrave Macmillan. Springer Nature, Switzerland. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R. and Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345–354. Hahn, R. and Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2013​.07​.005 Hammond, F.N. and Booth, C.A. (2010). Environmental stakeholder management. In: Chinyio, E. and Olomolaiye, P. (Eds), Construction Stakeholder Management (pp. 317–337), Wiley–Blackwell, Oxford. Heras‐Saizarbitoria, I. and Boiral, O. (2013). ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a research agenda on management system standards. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 47–65. Horry, R., Booth, C.A., Mahamadu, A-M., Manu. P. and Georgakis, P. (2022) Environmental management systems in the architectural, engineering and construction sectors: A roadmap to aid the delivery of the sustainable development goals. Environ Dev Sustain.,  24, 10585–10615. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​s10668​-021​-01874​-3

Contributions of environmental management systems (ISO 14001)   263 Horry, R.E., Booth, C.A. and Mahamadu, A.M. (2023) Environmental management systems in the architecture, engineering and construction sector: A phenomenological study. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability, (accepted). Jabbour, C.J.C. (2015). Environmental training and environmental management maturity of Brazilian companies with ISO14001: Empirical evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 331–338. Jia-Fang (2010) Cited in Elnaga, A., and Imran, A. (2013). The effect of training on employee performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 137–147. Johnstone, L. (2020). The construction of environmental performance in ISO 14001–certified SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121559. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2020​.121559 Jones, S.A. and Laquidara–Carr, D. (2018). World Green Building Trends 2018–Smart Market Report. Bedford (US): Dodge Data and Analytics. Kein, A.T.T., Ofori, G. and Briffett, C. (1999). ISO 14000: Its relevance to the construction industry in Singapore and its potential as the next industry milestone. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 449–461. Klemes, J.J. (Ed.) (2015). Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impacts and Sustainability. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Latan, H., Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Wamba, S.F. and Shahbaz, M. (2018). Effects of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management’s commitment on corporate environmental performance: The role of environmental management accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 297–306. Letcher, T.M. and Vallero, D.A. (2019). Waste: A Handbook for Management (2nd Edition) Academic Press, Massachusetts. Liu, L. and Ramakrishna, S. (2021). An Introduction to Circular Economy. Springer Nature, Singapore. Lynch, A.J. and Mosbah, S.M. (2017). Improving local measures of sustainability: A study of built– environment indicators in the United States. Cities, 60, 301–313. Morioka, S.N., Bolis, I., Evans, S. and Carvalho, M.M. (2017). Transforming sustainability challenges into competitive advantage: multiple case studies kaleidoscope converging into sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 723–738. Doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.118 Moyer, J.D. and Bohl, D.K. (2018). Alternative pathways to human development: Assessing trade–offs and synergies in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Futures, 105, 199–210. Nelson, V.C. and Starcher, K.L. (2015) Introduction to Renewable Energy, 2nd Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Owolana, V.O., and Booth, C.A. (2016). Stakeholder perceptions of the benefits and barriers of implementing environmental management systems in the Nigerian construction Industry. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 24(2), 79–89. Potoski, M., and Prakash, A. (2005). Covenants with weak swords: ISO 14001 and facilities’ environmental performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 24(4), 745–769. Robert, K.W., Parris, T.M. and Leiserowitz, A.A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3), 8–21. Rosati, F. And Faria, L.G.D. (2019). Business contribution to the sustainability development agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. January. Russo, M.V. (2009). Explaining the impact of ISO 14001 on emission performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective on process and learning. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(5), 307–319. Sakr, D., Sherif, A. and El–Haggar, S.M. (2010). Environmental management systems awareness: An investigation of top 50 contractors in Egypt. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 210–218. Schmidt, J-S. and Osebold, R. (2017). Environmental management systems as a driver for sustainability: State of implementation, benefits and barriers in German construction companies. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(1), 150–162. Shen, L.Y. and Tam, V.W.Y. (2002). Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 535–544. Spangenberg, J.H., Pfahl, S. and Deller, K. (2002). Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: Lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological Indicators, 2(1–2), 61–77.

264  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Squier, H. and Booth, C.A. (2023). Insights from the analysis of sustainability reporting across UK real estate companies. Journal of Sustainability Research, 5(2), Article e230005. https://doi.org/10. 20900/jsr20230005. Available from https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/10636479 Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., Shrivastava, P., Leach, M. and O’Connell, D. (2017). Integration: the key to implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science,  12, 911–919. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s11625​-016​-0383​-3 Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. Svenja, (2007). Cited in Elnaga, A., and Imran, A. (2013). The effect of training on employee performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 137–147. Tai, W.T. (2006). Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation on trees’ training effectiveness. Emerald Group Publishers, 35(1) 51–65. Tang, W., Zhan, B., Wu, C. and Kou, S-C. (2021). Experimental investigation and mathematical modelling of the carbon dioxide sequestration of cement pastes during pressurized CO2 curing, Construction and Building Materials, 302. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.conbuildmat​.2021​.124383 Tech Recycle (2023) https://​www​.tech​-recycle​.com/​the​-waste​-hierarchy/​ Testa, F., Boiral, O. and Iraldo, F. (2018). Internalization of environmental practices and institutional complexity: Can stakeholders pressures encourage greenwashing? Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 287–307. Testa, F., Rizzi, F., Daddi, T., Gusmerotti, N.M., Frey, M. and Iraldo, F. (2014). EMAS and ISO 14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 68, 165–173. Topple, C., Donovan, J.D., Masli, E.K. and Borgert, T. (2017). Corporate sustainability assessments: MNE engagement with sustainable development and the SDGs. Transnational Corporations, 24(3), 61–71. https://​doi​.org/​10​.18356/​2ae5911c​-en Turk, A. (2009). ISO 14000 environmental management system in construction: An examination of its application in Turkey. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(7), 713–733. Turk, A. (2009). The benefits associated with ISO 14001 certification for construction firms: Turkish case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 559–569. United Nations (1987). Agenda for Development. UN New York. United Nations (2019). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://​su​stainabled​evelopment​.un​.org/​post2015/​transformingourworld (accessed on 13th January 2023). United Nations (2023). United Nations Academic Interest. https://​www​.un​.org/​en/​academic​-impact/​ sustainability (accessed 26th March 2023). Zeng, S.X., Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W.Y. and Deng, Z.M. (2005). Towards implementation of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in selected industries in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 645–656, http://​doi:​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2003​.12​.009

15. Impact of construction and demolition waste on the realisation of the sustainable development goals B R Viswalekshmi, Deepthi Bendi, Alex Opoku and Godwin Kugblenu

INTRODUCTION The fundamental strategic approach embraced by policymakers globally involves fostering a link between sustainable development and a country’s economic growth while reducing environmental impacts (Pezzey, 1992; Tosun et al., 2017). The concept of sustainable development first emerged in the international arena with the 1980 World Conservation Strategy (Brown et al., 1978). This pivotal document, commissioned by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), initiated a worldwide dialogue on the conservation of living resources. The strategy underscored the importance of achieving a balance between economic development, environmental protection, and resource conservation, laying the foundation for the contemporary understanding of sustainable development. Consequently, the World Conservation Strategy served as a driving force behind subsequent environmental policies, frameworks, and international agreements, influencing how nations address the crucial interplay between economic growth and environmental preservation (Brown et al., 1978). One notable example is the 1987 Brundtland Report, which passionately advocated for the concept of sustainable development. This seminal report, officially titled “Our Common Future,” was published by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) and chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland. The report popularized the widely cited definition of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The Brundtland Report’s impact was far-reaching, helping to shape global environmental discourse and contributing to the establishment of key sustainability principles that continue to guide policy and decision-making today (Brundtland, 1987). In light of the evolving understanding of sustainable development, it is crucial to consider the impact of various industries, such as the construction sector, on both the economy and the environment. While the construction industry significantly contributes to the global economy (Lopes, 2012) by offering a vast array of job opportunities for people from diverse financial backgrounds, it is also a major consumer of natural resources. Researchers and governments alike have become increasingly aware that the current consumption levels in the construction sector are unsustainable and could lead to severe damage to the entire ecosystem if not addressed. Furthermore, the built environment and its associated activities play a critical role in affecting ecological sustainability. This is due in part to the high rates of waste generation and the considerable consumption of natural resources attributed to the construction industry (Ajayi et 265

266  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals al., 2015). As a result, there is a growing need to examine the environmental footprint of this sector and implement measures to minimize its impact on the planet, in alignment with the broader goals of sustainable development. For the construction industry to progress in sustainable development, it must actively work towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This requires the sector to broaden its scope and incorporate the SDGs into its strategies, emphasizing the five Ps of the agenda: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships (United Nations, 2015a). The SDGs not only contribute to the measurable well-being of individuals but also play a crucial role in driving the necessary changes to create a sustainable society. One key aspect to consider in achieving various SDGs, both directly and indirectly, is the implementation of integrated solid waste management within the industry. By adopting effective waste management practices, the construction sector can significantly reduce its environmental impact and contribute to the realization of a more sustainable future. Through construction waste management (CWM), the construction industry plays a vital role in promoting sustainable development by positively influencing the social, economic, and environmental aspects of an economy. By recycling and reusing construction waste, CWM helps to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills, alleviating pressure on waste management systems and minimizing the industry’s environmental impact (Lu et al., 2013; Sev, 2009). CWM have the same fundamental driving forces as that of SDG’s impacting on health, living conditions, environmental degradation, depletion of natural resources, climate change and so on. In recent times, due to the emphasis placed on public health by various governments, national guidelines and regulations have been established in many countries to govern the methods employed in CWM practices (Umar, 2017). Recognizing the importance of CWM in promoting public health, governments have introduced national guidelines and regulations to encourage sustainable practices in the construction industry. In this context, the United Nations’ (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development offers much-needed hope for a world facing numerous challenges, where a significant number of people lack basic necessities for survival (United Nations, 2015b). The successful implementation of the SDGs is crucial for transitioning our planet towards a more sustainable and resilient future (Dermatas, 2017). By aligning CWM practices with the SDGs, the construction industry can contribute significantly to the realization of these global goals and help create a better world for all.

SUSTAINABILITY, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Sustainability is a multi-dimensional concept that can be integrated into various industries, including construction, agriculture, and manufacturing. Despite its diverse applications, sustainability’s core principle revolves around the ability to endure and preserve natural resources for future generations (Chapin, 2009). As stated in the 1987 Brundtland Report, sustainable development aims to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Public and private organizations alike have increasingly recognized the value of sustainability and its benefits for human society. As a result, they have embraced the SDGs to a significant extent. The SDGs, which serve as a successor to the moderately successful Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), focus on a broader range of

Impact of construction and demolition waste  267 objectives, including building upon the progress made in areas such as poverty eradication, education, and health (United Nations, 2015b). By integrating sustainability principles and the SDGs into various sectors, organizations can contribute to a more resilient and sustainable future for all (Ogunmakinde et al., 2022). Therefore, it is essential to explore the diverse aspects of the built environment that can collectively contribute to the successful realization of the SDGs. The built environment consumes 60 percent of the natural resources extracted and 25 percent of available fresh water. To an extent, the construction industry can be considered the largest consumer of non-renewable and non-sustainable resources with huge levels of embodied energy and being responsible for approximately half of the carbon dioxide emissions (Sun et al., 2015; Zabalza Bribián et al., 2011). For instance, materials like steel, concrete and glass form only a small amount of project cost, but the energy required for these materials from manufacturing to installation is significantly high. Several researchers (Dodman, 2009; Hossain et al., 2017; Omer, 2008) have determined that building construction impacts the environment negatively through waste generation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and different forms of pollution. In summary, the construction industry utilizes substantial amounts of energy, raw materials, and natural resources, such as water and aggregates. At the same time, it significantly contributes to environmental pollution, which in turn impacts climate and negatively affects the health and well-being of individuals (Omer and Noguchi, 2020). In recent years, scholars have demonstrated growing enthusiasm for exploring strategies and techniques to achieve the SDGs within the construction industry, while also minimizing its detrimental effects on the environment. This has led to increased discussions around CWM in the built environment. By focusing on waste reduction and effective management practices in the built environment, this sector can potentially contribute to the accomplishment of the SDGs, as outlined in this chapter. Construction waste refers to the relatively uncontaminated, diverse building materials produced during various construction processes (El-Haggar, 2007). The origins of construction waste can be grouped into six primary categories: design, procurement, material handling, operations, residuals, and miscellaneous sources. Nevertheless, the volume and composition of construction waste generated by a specific project may differ based on the project’s unique conditions and the types of materials utilized (El-Haggar, 2007). Globally, the annual generation of construction and demolition (C&D) waste was estimated to be approximately 3 billion tons in 2007 (El-Haggar, 2007). However, in the United States (US) alone, the annual construction waste is projected to reach 2.2 billion tons by 2025 (Transparency Market Research, 2017). According to the 2018 Fact Sheet published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2018), around 600 million tons of C&D debris were generated in the US in 2018. This figure is more than double the amount of generated municipal solid waste. Demolition accounted for over 90 percent of the total C&D debris generation, while construction contributed to less than 10 percent. Approximately 455 million tons of C&D debris were directed towards next-use applications, while nearly 145 million tons were sent to landfills. The primary next-use application for these materials in the C&D debris was aggregate. The global construction and demolition waste (CDW) market is projected to reach USD 55.54 billion by 2030, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.1 percent between 2022 and 2030 (see Figure 15.1). In recent years, the demand for CDW has rapidly increased and is anticipated to continue its growth during the forecast period (Brainy Insights, 2021).

268  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals This expansion in the CDW market can be attributed to the rise in construction activities and the growing emphasis on environmentalism by governments around the world (Brainy Insights, 2021).

Source: Brainy Insights (2021).

Figure 15.1

Graphical depiction of the global construction and demolition waste market size (in USD Billion)

ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES OF CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND ACTIVITIES A significant challenge within sustainable construction is the resistance to change. This can be attributed to factors such as client concerns regarding the cost of sustainable construction materials, limited understanding of sustainability concepts, insufficient technology and technological processes, restricted access to relevant data, and the absence of a comprehensive government framework to support and promote sustainable practices in the industry (Ayarkwa, 2022). The construction sector often demonstrates reluctance to accept innovations in construction or recycling industries (Pinkse, 2009), and clients may be hesitant to embrace sustainable materials due to doubts about their efficacy. To address these challenges, a paradigm shift in the approach and mindset of stakeholders towards sustainability is essential for achieving sustainable construction (Aghimien et al., 2019). Communication strategies, such as education campaigns, can be effective for a short period in implementing changes; however, altering the behavioural patterns of construction stakeholders can prove to be more difficult, as they often rely on traditional and conventional methods. To ensure the effective implementation of sustainable strategies, it is crucial to adopt institutional approaches, such as government policies, regulations, and guidelines (Wan et al., 2019). Alam and Ahmade (2013) have identified that small levels of environmental chemical exposure is contributing to several deadly diseases, particularly in developing or under developed countries, owing to improper waste management practices. In 2012 the World

Impact of construction and demolition waste  269 Table 15.1 Sl No

Environmental impact/LCA results by the major construction materials

Construction Material

Primary Energy Demand

Global Warming

(MJ-Eq/Kg)

Potential (Kg Co2-Eq/

Water Demand (l/Kg)

kg) 1

Cement

4.24

0.82

3.94

2

Cement Mortar

2.17

0.24

3.23

3

Concrete

1.11

0.14

2.05

4

Reinforced Concrete

1.8

0.179

2.768

5

Steel

24.34

1.53

26.15

6

Timber

20.99

0.3

5.12

7

Brick

3.56

0.271

1.89

8

Ceramic Tile

15.65

0.86

14.45

9

Aluminium

136.8

8.57

214.34

10

PVC

73.21

4.27

511.9

11

Glass

15.511

1.136

16.53

Source:  Zabalzaet al. (2011).

Health Organisation (WHO) with the aid of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), and the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAHP), determined that there were 8.9 million deaths due to soil, air and water pollution globally, of which 94 percent of deaths happened in non-developed countries (Dermatas, 2017). The construction industry worldwide consumes 60 percent of natural resources extracted from the Earth’s surface (Sun et al., 2015; Zabalza Bribián et al., 2011). In the context of rapid urbanization, it is crucial to promote dematerialization in the building sector, as mineral extraction rates are high in the industry. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK), the construction industry accounts for about 4.8 tons of mineral extraction per capita annually (Zabalza et al., 2011). Furthermore, extracting materials for primary construction elements like concrete, steel, and glass significantly depletes our planet’s natural energy reserves (Zabalza et al., 2011). The proportion of embodied energy to total energy ranges from 2–38 percent in conventional buildings, and the energy needed to produce one square metre of building materials is equivalent to burning 150 liters of petrol. On average, the built environment consumes 5,754 MJ of energy and emits 0.5 tons of carbon dioxide per square metre. According to Table 15.1, most construction materials, such as steel, cement, concrete, tiles, aluminium, PVC, and glass, have a substantial environmental impact due to their high energy and water consumption and significant carbon dioxide emissions. Additionally, transporting materials throughout their lifecycle stages contributes to the environmental impact (Zabalza et al., 2011). Therefore, contract agreements should be designed to regulate mineral extraction and provide incentives for using recycled products. This approach would promote CWM and conservation of the planet’s natural resources. For example, using recycled steel could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 74 percent compared to primary steel, and secondary aluminum could reduce emissions by 92 percent compared to new aluminum (Zabalza et al., 2011).

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES During the current modernization era that started in the 1970’s, waste management practices were defined in technical terms. Over time, researchers and authorities have recognized that

270  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 15.2  

Gives an overview of the waste management hierarchy Principles of Waste Management Hierarchy Waste Minimization

Reducing Waste

Reuse

Extension of Useful Life

Materials Recycling

Materials Recovery

Energy Recovery

Energy Reclamation

Waste Disposal

Final Discharge of Materials With No Further Economic Value

Source:  Price and Joseph (2000).

waste management is a vital component of a country’s social, environmental, and economic development, and it cannot be addressed solely through technological solutions (Rodić and Wilson, 2017). Consequently, this realization underscores the importance of adopting a comprehensive approach to waste management, encompassing policy development, community involvement, and educational initiatives, in addition to employing advanced technologies. By embracing a holistic strategy, countries can more effectively minimize waste generation, promote recycling and reuse, and ultimately contribute to a more sustainable future for all. Concurrently, the sector also generates large quantities of waste worldwide, of which the majority is landfilled without any proper treatment, particularly in developing countries (Hossain et al., 2017). Due to the bulky nature of construction waste, it represents one third of the volume of total waste of any economy (Gottsche and Kelly, 2018). In developing or underdeveloped countries construction waste is usually dumped in water bodies or on uninhabited lands or incinerated near public places. Such practices lead to health problems to humans, with children being particularly vulnerable. Additionally, dumping waste clogs the drains which can cause flash floods damaging public property and affects health conditions. Also, the illegal dumping of waste causes terrible pollution of water sources. Therefore, combatting this global issue, by proper CWM practices could significantly contribute to sustainable development in the construction industry, thereby achieving the SDG’s (Rodić and Wilson, 2017). Construction activities cause depletion of natural resources and environmental degradation, and the conventional methods adopted in waste management practices include landfill disposal or incineration, that are not sustainable. To have a paradigm shift to achieve sustainable CWM, it is necessary to follow the waste management hierarchical levels. According to the waste management hierarchy, the different levels include prevention, reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal, with prevention of waste being the most preferred and disposal being the least preferred. Guiding actions towards higher tiers of the hierarchy serves as the foundation for decision-makers in formulating waste management plans as shown in Table 15.2. This advancement is considered the benchmark for realizing sustainable waste management (Price and Joseph, 2000).

Impact of construction and demolition waste  271 Many governments have prioritized recycling over other higher-order waste management strategies. While recycling helps divert waste from landfills, it also necessitates a considerable amount of energy for the recycling process itself, resulting in GHG emissions, which are counterproductive to SDGs. In essence, although recycling is an essential component of waste management, it is crucial to recognize and address its potential negative environmental impacts (Price and Joseph, 2000). Therefore, it is highly imperative to have multiple waste management strategies with a focus on waste prevention. Also, strategies concentrated on waste reduction at source should also be included to genuinely achieve SDG’s through CWM practices (Brundtland, 1987).

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT – AN ENABLER TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS The SDG’s are not a novel approach, but the essence of the previous sustainable agenda. It gives a clear picture of the long term priorities, and helps to develop a synergy between policy makers and other sections of society (Pedersen, 2018). Nonetheless, the construction industry is still in the early stages of attaining the SDGs for various reasons. These include the additional expenses it would impose on organizations, and the possibility that products or processes based on the SDGs may not be compatible or appropriate for the current market. CWM is directly related to 8 out of the 17 SDG’s and their appropriate targets (these goals will be considered further under this section). Construction waste generation is a global issue that causes severe environmental degradation. In order to acknowledge this global scenario, target 11.6 states that “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally” (United Nations, 2015). Likewise, target 12.4 expressly addresses the need to eliminate open dumping as a vital first step towards attaining proper waste disposal through the statement – “By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment” (United Nations, 2016). To attain sustainability in the built environment, it is essential to embrace innovative methods and encourage the use of secondary materials as substitutes for finite natural resources. This can be accomplished by utilizing products made from recycled waste, thus closing the loop of the material lifecycle. In essence, this involves optimizing material usage to achieve sustainability (Xavier, 2021). When CDW is generated, proper preplanning allows for sorting and reusing it on-site. Waste sorting can be performed in two ways: on-site sorting and off-site sorting. If off-site sorting is employed, the sorted waste can be used to create secondary materials. The reduction, reuse, and recycling of CDW materials provide dual benefits: minimizing landfill disposal and conserving non-renewable natural resources. Consequently, CDW minimization must be prioritized for sustainable waste management (Zabalza et al., 2011). This approach necessitates a strong commitment to waste management and promotes the use of locally available materials. This not only reduces the environmental impact of transpor-

272  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals tation but also stimulates local economic growth, ultimately contributing to the achievement of SDGs. Governments should encourage material manufacturers to develop eco-friendlier products, which play a vital role in fostering sustainable construction (Zabalza et al., 2011). In the past decade, governments and organizations across various countries have adopted CWM practices. For example, countries such as Thailand, the UK, Hong Kong, and India have introduced legislation that amends CWM principles and practices (Hirabayashi et al., 2004; Kolaventi et al., 2019). These initiatives highlight the global efforts to address waste management challenges and promote more sustainable construction practices. Integrated solid waste management in an environmentally friendly way has the capability to achieve a good number of indicators of SDG’s (Elsheekh et al., 2021). The next section deals with the methods by which the construction sector achieves SDG’s through the practice of environmentally sound CWM practices. CDW management practices contribute significantly to achieving SDGs in both direct and indirect ways. The SDG targets can be categorized into two types: Type 1) where CWM practices play a vital role in reaching the target; and Type 2) where these practices are only partially relevant for achieving the targets (Goubran, 2019). In brief, Type 1 can be called direct factors and Type 2 can be called indirect factors. Of all the SDG’s, SDG-11 and SDG-12 are the major goals that directly deal with waste, particularly municipal solid waste, food waste and other types of waste, even though CDW is not specifically mentioned in any of the SDG’s. Also, another major SDG dealing with waste water is SDG-6. SDG-1 which aims at ending poverty globally comprises of seven targets and twelve indicators, and is indirectly related to CWM. Target 1.5 is connected to CWM as it requires constructing new buildings to protect the people from adverse climatic conditions (Maes et al., 2019). This target is said to be related to CWM; to achieve the goal it requires new infrastructure which in turn generates waste that requires proper management practices. Also, implementing CWM practices could generate many jobs in sorting of waste as well as in the recycling and disposal sector. This large number of jobs could help in reducing poverty to a larger extent. Also, the government should formulate policies regarding wages particularly for unskilled workers. SDG-2 is mainly to end hunger, to achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, and it comprises eight targets and fourteen indicators. To end hunger, there should be proper food processing plants; for that, infrastructure facility including buildings, transportation and energy (Target 2.1, 2.3) is needed. Target 2.4 calls for an up gradation or construction of a food production system to make the whole system sustainable. According to SDG target 2a, to enhance productivity, technology and to start new gene banks in agriculture thereby promoting agricultural research requires infrastructure to be constructed in rural areas which in turn is connected to proper CWM practices. This SDG also supports SDG-1 by using agricultural waste as a secondary construction material, thereby providing jobs for people, and eliminating poverty. The green construction materials developed using agricultural waste promotes SDG-3 by improving health and well-being of the people. SDG-3 is about ensuring a healthy life and promoting the well-being of people of all age groups, and it comprises 13 targets and 26 indicators. CWM practices have a direct influence on SDG-3, as proper management of construction waste could reduce different forms of environmental pollution viz. soil, air and water pollution (Target 3.9) and could also mitigate climate change to an extent. To achieve the targets in SDG-3 requires building new health

Impact of construction and demolition waste  273 infrastructures or upgrading the existing ones. Target 3.6 requires a proper road infrastructure to prevent accidents along with hospital construction. SDG-4 helps to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong opportunities for all with ten targets and eleven indicators. Targets 4.1 to 4.7 are specifically based on quality education for all which requires more educational institutions to be constructed to provide education. Target 4.a notes to expand or construct safe and quality education facilities where proper CWM practices need to be implemented. SDG-5 is about achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls by 2030 with nine targets and fourteen indicators, which are indirectly related to CWM practices. The construction industry is a male dominated industry where women have to face ill treatment, discrimination, even in career advancement, remuneration and disrespect. For instance, the Indian construction industry female population is only 11 percent compared to 89 percent of men (Shah et al., 2020). Therefore, women should be given equal opportunities in CWM practices in the construction industry (Target 5.1. 5.5, 5a,5b). Target 5.2 is specifically about safety and eradication of violence against women in all sectors. SDG-6 is to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030 with eight targets and eleven indicators. According to UNICEEF, around two thirds of the world’s population face severe water scarcity, and more than half of the global population does not have access to safe sanitation, leading to several diseases. The construction industry consumes a large quantity of fresh water, therefore, enhancing the water efficiency in a project and to limit the water consumption rate is very significant to achieve SDG’s (Bardhan, 2011). All the top seven targets can be directly related to CWM practices in achieving SDG’s. Also, in developing countries, construction waste is being dumped in water bodies, causing the pollutants to get mixed with water. The storm water runoff can carry the dust, pollutants, and other sediments from the dump yards to the nearby water sources causing water pollution. A study conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) on the groundwater samples of CDW landfill locations identified the presence of inorganic pollutants like manganese, lead, iron, and total dissolved solids above the permissible limits (Duan et al., 2015). Rainwater leaching and scouring of accumulated construction waste causes surface water and groundwater pollution (Liu et al., 2020). Also, during construction, the organization should be cautious enough to select those materials that do not cause pollution during any stage of its lifecycle (Mossin et al., 2018). So, by properly managing construction waste we can reduce water pollution, thereby achieving SDG’s. To achieve those targets, there should be a proper drinking and sanitation infrastructure (Target 6.1 to 6.6). Target 6a is about manufacturing or increasing the capacity of sewage treatment plants, desalination plants, to implement reuse and recycling technologies. SDG-7 is to provide affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all with five targets and six indicators. All five targets are indirectly related to CWM practices through construction, whereas target 7b specifically calls for up gradation or expansion of energy infrastructure. SDG-8 aims to foster sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, alongside full and productive employment and decent work for all. This goal encompasses 12 targets and 17 indicators. Although not all targets are directly linked to CWM practices, three targets can be indirectly influenced by them. Target 8.4 can be achieved by effectively implementing the 3R principle (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) in CWM, which optimizes resource efficiency and minimizes the impact of environ-

274  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals mental degradation. This approach contributes to sustainable economic growth by promoting the efficient use of resources and minimizing waste generation. Targets 8.2, 8.9, and 8.10 involve the construction or upgrading of buildings, with an emphasis on financial institutions and tourism-related facilities. These targets indirectly influence CWM practices, as construction projects generate significant waste. Additionally, CWM is often carried out by small enterprises in developing countries. By implementing technological or financial measures to support these small firms, it is possible to directly contribute to SDG-1 (ending poverty) and SDG-8 (economic growth and decent work). By promoting sustainable practices in the construction industry and supporting small businesses, the integration of CWM can help achieve SDG-8 (Rodić and Wilson, 2017). SDG-9 is to build a resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and innovation and it is developed with eight targets and 12 indicators. This goal is directly related to CWM as it needs to establish sustainable construction in all levels of construction for any type of project (Target 9.1, 9.4,9.5, 9.a). SDG-10 is to reduce inequality within and among countries and is created with ten targets and eleven indicators. This goal is indirectly related to CWM through the construction industry. The CWM industry must give equal representation to under privileged people so that their income rate and the economy of the country will also progress (Target 10.1,10.2 and 10.3). SDG-11 is to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable and consists of ten targets and fifteen indicators. This SDG entails developing or upgrading the current urban spaces and different forms of infrastructure in a sustainable way. Target 11.6 is directly related to waste management, as CDW is one of the major contributors to Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). SDG-12 is on sustainable consumption and production patterns supported by 11 targets and 13 indicators. This goal has a direct impact on CWM practices. The construction industry consumes more than 60 percent of natural resources extracted from the earth’s surface. So, CWM plays an important role in resource optimization and sustainable consumption and thereby achieving the goal (Target 12.2). Also, CDW emits hazardous chemicals to the soil from paint, adhesives and so on, causing significant health issues (Target 12.4, 12.5 and 12.7). Therefore, it is important to practice the 3R’s of the waste management hierarchy to achieve sustainable consumption and production. Waste prevention is the top level of the waste management hierarchy followed by reusing the materials at the same site for a different function and then recycling the materials into a new material. SDG-13 is to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts, underpinned by five targets and seven indicators. This goal is linked with CWM practices in a direct manner. To achieve the goal requires new and efficient design solutions for infrastructure that are adaptable to the changing climatic conditions (Goubran, 2019). It also requires new construction or upgrading of the existing facilities in areas that are vulnerable to the prevailing climatic changes. Waste management plays a key role in mitigating climate change by controlling the GHG emissions (Target 13.1 and 13.b) (Global Trends and Strategy Framework, 2010). SDG-14 aims at conserving oceans, seas and marine resources in a sustainable way created by ten targets and ten indicators. CWM practices are directly related to marine conservation. Tourism infrastructure is mostly constructed near the shorelines without any CWM practices, causing the illegal dumping of waste to the oceans, leading to the contamination of coastal zones. Therefore, to sustain the coastal ecosystem, a sustainable CWM is of utmost importance (Tsai et al., 2021).

Impact of construction and demolition waste  275 Table 15.3

How sustainable CDW management practices can help achieve the SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

How Sustainable CDW Management Practices Can Help Achieve the SDGs

Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

 

Target 6.3: Improve water quality Target 6.6: Protect water-related ecosystems

Reduces water pollution by preventing hazardous waste dumping and ensuring proper waste treatment. Protects water-related ecosystems by minimizing waste generation and promoting responsible disposal.

Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

 

Target 8.4: Improve resource efficiency in

Enhances resource efficiency by reducing, reusing, and recycling CDW,

consumption

minimizing the need for new raw materials.

Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

 

Target 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit

Encourages the adoption of environmentally sound technologies and

industries

processes for construction waste management.

Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

 

Target 11.6: Reduce adverse environmental impact

Improves urban environmental quality by effectively managing and reducing

of cities

CDW.

Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

 

Target 12.2: Achieve sustainable management of

Promotes sustainable resource management through efficient waste

resources

prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse.

Target 12.4: Achieve sound management of

Ensures proper handling and disposal of hazardous construction waste,

chemicals and waste

reducing environmental risks.

Target 12.5: Reduce waste generation Goal 13: Climate Action Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures Goal 15: Life on Land Target 15.1: Conserve and restore ecosystems

Reduces waste generation by implementing the waste hierarchy: prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse.   Integrates climate-friendly waste management practices into construction policies and planning.   Preserves ecosystems by reducing land usage for landfills and promoting sustainable waste management practices.

Target 15.5: Reduce habitat degradation and

Mitigates habitat degradation and biodiversity loss by minimizing waste

biodiversity loss

generation and promoting responsible disposal.

Source:  Author’s own construct.

SDG-15 is about preserving and conserving nature and preventing biodiversity loss with 12 targets and 14 indicators. CWM practices play a direct role in achieving SDG-15. The construction industry can significantly impact the terrestrial ecosystem through extraction of resources and also by dumping waste illegally in water bodies and other places causing pollution. So, a proper management of construction waste could conserve and preserve the ecosystem for a sustainable development (Targets 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 15a and 15b) (Pippa Howard, 2021). SDG-16 is to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels with 12 targets and 23 indicators. Though the goal is not directly related to CWM, by reducing conflicts and corruption in the construction industry this can reduce/prevent material wastage to a larger extent. SDG-17 is about the global partnership for sustainable development with 19 targets and 25 indicators, that is indirectly related to CWM practices. Due to the increasing rate of construction waste generation, this goal can be achieved through CWM by having a global collabo-

276  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ration at all levels of waste management in the form of techniques, technologies, equipment exchange and so on. By collaborating through government sectors, NGO’s and private sectors, this will enhance the efficiency of CWM practices (Mahajan, 2019). In summary, Table 15.3 highlights the various SDG’s and specific targets that could be achieved through the sustainable CDW management system.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The SDGs present a new pathway for the modern world, emphasizing social, economic, and environmental sustainability practices at all levels of strategy and policy, ultimately aiming to create a better world for future generations. Although the construction industry significantly contributes to a country’s economic prosperity, it also poses a major threat to sustainable development due to the large volume of CDW generated. By making efforts to achieve sustainability in construction through sustainable waste management practices, this industry can become a major driver in accomplishing the 17 SDGs. This chapter explores the potential of achieving the SDGs through CWM practices, as they support a wide range of specific targets either directly or indirectly. The chapter identifies eight out of seventeen goals that have the most direct impact on the 2030 Agenda through CWM practices. These include good health and well-being (SDG-3), clean water and sanitation (SDG-6), industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG-9), sustainable cities and communities (SDG-11), responsible consumption and production (SDG-12), climate action (SDG-13), life below water (SDG-14), and life on land (SDG-15). Furthermore, 33 percent (55) of the 169 targets of the SDGs can be achieved through implementing sustainable CWM practices. CWM is still not widely practiced in many economies. Proper implementation of waste management could provide employment opportunities for a significant number of unemployed individuals, thus reducing poverty and raising the living standards of society. Waste management also plays a critical role in minimizing various forms of pollution, thereby promoting health and well-being within communities. Governments should collaborate with NGOs and construction organizations to identify methods for incorporating the SDGs into CWM practices, innovating long-term business plans, and ensuring future generations inherit a sustainable world. By expanding the focus on sustainable CWM, we can address numerous challenges related to resource scarcity, environmental degradation, and urbanization. Moreover, it offers opportunities to develop innovative technologies and business models to foster a circular economy in the construction sector. This comprehensive approach, in collaboration with various stakeholders, will contribute to the attainment of the SDGs and pave the way for a more sustainable future.

REFERENCES Adshead, D., Thacker, S., Fuldauer, L.I. and Hall, J.W. (2019). Delivering on the sustainable development goals through long-term infrastructure planning. Global Environmental Change, 59, 101975. Aghimien, D.O., Aigbavboa, C.O. and Thwala, W.D. (2019). Microscoping the challenges of sustainable construction in developing countries. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), 1110–1128. doi: 10.1108/JEDT-01-2019-0002.

Impact of construction and demolition waste  277 Ajayi, S.O., Oyedele, L.O., Bilal, M., Akinade, O.O., Alaka, H.A., Owolabi, H.A. and Kadiri, K.O. (2015). Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: Understanding the impediments and requisites for improvements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102, 101–112. Ayarkwa, J., Opoku, D.G.J., Antwi-Afari, P. and Li, R.Y.M. (2022). Sustainable building processes’ challenges and strategies: The relative important index approach. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 7, 100455. Bardhan, S. (2011). Assessment of water resource consumption in building construction in India. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 144, 93–101. doi: 10.2495/ECO110081. Brainy Insights (2021). Construction and Demolition Waste Market, https://​www​.thebrainyinsights​.com/​ report/​construction​-and​-demolition​-waste​-market​-12753 Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission in Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chapin III, F.S., Kofinas, G.P. and Folke, C. (Eds.) (2009). Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World. Springer Science & Business Media. Dermatas, D. (2017). Waste management and research and the sustainable development goals: Focus on soil and groundwater pollution. Waste Management and Research, 35(5), 453–455. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1177/​0734242X17706474 Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 185–201. Duan, H., Wang, J. and Huang, Q. (2015). Encouraging the environmentally sound management of C&D waste in China: An integrative review and research agenda. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 611–620, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.rser​.2014​.11​.069 El-Haggar, S.M. (2007). Sustainability of construction and demolition waste management. Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management Cradle-to-cradle for Sustainable Development, 261–292, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​b978​-012373623​-9/​50010​-1 Elsheekh, K.M., Kamel, R.R., Elsherif, D.M. and Shalaby, A.M. (2021). Achieving sustainable development goals from the perspective of solid waste management plans. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 68(1), 1–15. Environmental Protection Agency (2018). Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials. Available at: https://​www​.epa​.gov/​smm/​sustainable​-management​-construction​-and​ -demolition​-materials [Accessed 10 April 2023]. Evans, A. and Steven, D. (2012) Sustainable Development Goals – A Useful Outcome from Rio + 20? Center on International Cooperation. Gottsche, J. and Kelly, M. (2018). Assessing the impact of construction waste reduction on selected projects in Ireland. Waste and Resource Management, 171, 71–81. Goubran, S. (2019). On the role of construction in achieving the SDGs. Journal of Sustainability Research, 1(2), 1–52. https://​doi​.org/​10​.20900/​jsr20190020. Hirabayashi, A., Nakayama, Y., Ogawa, H. and Kitagawa, K. (2004). Algorithm with optimum noise suppression for surface profiling by white-light interferometry. Optical Manufacturing and Testing V, 5180, 365–376. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1117/​12​.506711 Hossain, M.U., Wu, Z. and Poon, C.S. (2017). Comparative environmental evaluation of construction waste management through different waste sorting systems in Hong Kong. Waste Management, 69, 325–335. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.wasman​.2017​.07​.043 Howard, P. (2021). Managing waste for conservation and livelihoods, Fauna & Flora International, Available at: https://​www​.fauna​-flora​.org/​news/​managing​-waste​-for​-conservation​-and​-livelihoods/​ [Accessed 18 April 2023]. Kolaventi, S.S., Tezeswi, T.P. and Siva Kumar, M.V.N. (2020). An assessment of construction waste management in India: A statistical approach. Waste Management & Research, 38(4), 444–459. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0734242X19867754 Liu, J., Yi, Y. and Wang, X. (2020). Exploring factors influencing construction waste reduction: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123185. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​j​.jclepro​.2020​.123185 Lopes, J. (2012). Construction in the economy and its role in socio-economic development. In New Perspectives on Construction in Developing Countries (pp. 40–71). Routledge.

278  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Lu, W. and Tam, V.W. (2013). Construction waste management policies and their effectiveness in Hong Kong: A longitudinal review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 214–223. Maes, M.J., Jones, K.E., Toledano, M.B. and Milligan, B. (2019). Mapping synergies and trade-offs between urban ecosystems and the sustainable development goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 93, 181–188. Mahajan, R. (2019). Solid waste management: A prerequisite for achieving sustainable development goals in India. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR), 633. www​.ijrar​.org Mahpour, A. (2018). Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 216–227. doi: 10.1016/j. resconrec.2018.01.026. McMichael, A.J. (2000). The urban environment and health in a world of increasing globalization: Issues for developing countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(‎9)‎, 1117–1126. World Health Organization, https://​apps​.who​.int/​iris/​handle/​10665/​268216 Morton, S., Pencheon, D. and Squires, N. (2017). Sustainable development goals (SDGs), and their implementation. British Medical Bulletin, 124(1), 81–90. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldx031. Mossin, N., Stilling, S., Bøjstrup, T.C., Larsen, V.G., Blegvad, A., Lotz, M. and Rose, L. (2018). An Architecture Guide to the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals. KADK. Ogunmakinde, O.E. (2019). Developing a Circular-Economy-Based Construction Waste Minimisation Framework for Nigeria, (Unpublished Thesis) A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy in Building. The University of Newcastle, Australia. Ogunmakinde, O.E., Egbelakin, T. and Sher, W. (2022). Contributions of the circular economy to the UN sustainable development goals through sustainable construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 178, 106023. Omer, A.M. (2008). Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(9), 2265–2300. Omer, M.A.B. and Noguchi, T. (2020). A conceptual framework for understanding the contribution of building materials in the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101869. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101869. Opoku, A. (2019). Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 141, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.011. Pedersen, C.S. (2018). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a Great Gift to Business! In 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference, 60, 21–24. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.procir​ .2018​.01​.003. Pezzey, J. (1992). Sustainable Development Concepts: An Economic Analysis, World Bank Environment Paper Number 2, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Pinkse, J. and Dommisse, M. (2009). Overcoming barriers to sustainability: An explanation of residential builders’ reluctance to adopt clean technologies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(8), 515–527. Prema, E. (2021). Solid waste management in the construction sector: A prerequisite for achieving sustainable development goals. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 850(1). doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/850/1/012007. Price, J.L. and Joseph, J.B. (2000). Demand management - A basis for waste policy: A critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management. Sustainable Development, 8(2), 96–105 Rodić, L. and Wilson, D.C. (2017). Resolving governance issues to achieve priority sustainable development goals related to solid waste management in developing countries. Sustainability, 9(3), 404. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su9030404 Sev, A. (2009). How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development, 17(3),161–173. Shah, P., Pitroda, J. and Shah, M. (2020). Gender inequality in construction industry: A review. Studies in Indian Place Names, 40(60). Sun, X., Liu, X., Li, F., Tao, Y. and Song, Y. (2017). Comprehensive evaluation of different scale cities’ sustainable development for economy, society, and ecological infrastructure in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, S329–S337. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.002.

Impact of construction and demolition waste  279 Tosun, J. and Leininger, J. (2017). Governing the interlinkages between the sustainable development goals: Approaches to attain policy integration. Global Challenges, 1(9), 1700036. Transparency Market Research (2017). Construction Waste Market – Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast 2017–2025, https://​ www​ .transp​ arencymark​ etresearch​ .com/​ construction​-waste​-market​.html. Tsai, F.M., Bui, T.D., Tseng, M.L., Lim, M.K. and Tan, R.R. (2021). Sustainable solid-waste management in coastal and marine tourism cities in Vietnam: A hierarchical-level approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168, 105266. Umar, U.A., Shafiq, N., Malakahmad, A., Nuruddin, M.F. and Khamidi, M.F. (2017). A review on adoption of novel techniques in construction waste management and policy. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 19, 1361–1373. United Nations (2015a). The Millennium Development Goals Report, United Nations, p. 72. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​978​-92​-1​-101320​-7. United Nations (2015b). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Seventieth session on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1. United Nations (2016). Final List of Proposed SDG, Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. United Nations Environmental Programme (2010). Waste and Climate Change: Global Trends and Strategy framework Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, International Environmental Technology Centre Osaka/Shiga. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1145/​2492517​.2492522. Wan, C., Shen, G.Q. and Choi, S. (2019). Waste management strategies for sustainable development. In Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education (pp. 2020–2028). Cham: Springer International Publishing. World Conservation Strategy (UK). (1980) International Union for Conservation and Natural Resources. Xavier, L.H., Giese, E.C., Ribeiro-Duthie, A.C. and Lins, F.A.F. (2021). Sustainability and the circular economy: A theoretical approach focused on e-waste urban mining. Resources Policy, 74, 101467. Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A. and Aranda Usón, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133–1140. doi: 10.1016/j. buildenv.2010.12.002

16. Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) Brandsford Kwame Gidigah, Kofi Agyekum, Bernard Kofi Baiden and Edward Ayebeng Botchway

INTRODUCTION According to Lloyd and McCue (2004), when individuals or corporations buy things, it may be called purchasing or buying. Lloyd and McCue (2004) stated that government organizations use different terms to refer to the activity of buying, from “public procurement” to “purchasing,” “contracting,” or “acquisition,” among others. They contend that the variety of terms presents definitional ambiguities, in practice. The Arizona Procurement Code (2004) defined “Procurement” as buying, purchasing, renting, leasing, or acquiring any materials, services, construction, or construction services. The Arizona Procurement Code (2004) stated that procurement includes all functions that pertain to obtaining any material, services, construction, or construction services, in addition to the description of requirements, selection and solicitation of sources, preparation and award of contract, and all phases of contract administration. Public procurement has been defined as the overall process of acquiring goods, civil works, and services, which includes all functions from the identification of needs, selection, and solicitation of sources, preparation, and award of contract, and all phases of contract administration through the end of a services’ contract or the useful life of an asset (UNDP, 2007). Additionally, Basheka (2020) defines public procurement as the processes associated with acquiring goods, supplies, services, and public works by public agencies at all levels of government. It is a significant portion of governments’ annual expenditure in all countries and an essential instrument for promoting socio-economic objectives (Arrowsmith, 2010; Thai and Grimm, 2000). Public procurement has been recognized as an essential vehicle for attaining the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Faremo (2016) opines that procurement is central to achieving the SDGs, while Preuss (2009) expresses the opinion that the potential provided by public sector procurement to the sustainability agenda is apparent due to its size of expenditure. Preuss (2009) indicates that because the public sector is responsible for providing varied services and its financial enormity, it directly impacts sustainability and economic development. UNGA (2015) reveals that the SDGs and agenda 2030 are channels to see governments as mega-consumers with immense purchasing power that can shift the market toward sustainable consumption. In this regard, the UK government’s sustainable development strategy (DEFRA, 2005) called for “embedding sustainable development consideration into spending and investment decisions” (p.53). The inception of the SDGs has provided a new opportunity for global leaders and the construction industry to expand their horizons for transformation and development. At the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Summit organized in New York on September 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was birthed. The agenda outlined 17 goals, 169 targets, and 231 indicators toward the attainment of global socio-economic development. 280

Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)  281 According to Martin-Ortega and O’Brien (2019), the SDGs cover poverty, health, education, global warming, gender equality, water, sanitation, urbanization, environment, and decent work. In the view of the UN (2015), the inception of the SDGs represents a global call for action to end poverty, protect the planet, and initiate policies and strategies to ensure enjoyment and prosperity. According to Opoku (2016), the UN agenda represents a new phase in the global community to infuse social, economic, and environmental policies and strategies focused on sustainability purposely on eliminating poverty and inequality and preserving the environment for economic and social well-being. The birth of the SDGs has witnessed much academic research and papers. Studies like Iyer-Raniga and Huovila (2021) investigated sustainable buildings and construction as a vehicle for responding to the SDGs, while Opoku (2019) called for action through construction solutions. Opoku (2016) further examined the role of the built environment in the achievement of the post-2015 UN SDGs, while the role of the construction industry specific to the attainment of the SDGs has been assessed by Goubron (2019) and Fei et al. (2021). Further, studies have been conducted from the perspective of supply chain and procurement. Among them is Russel et al. (2018), who questioned whether the SDGs could provide a basis for supply chain decisions in the construction sector. Preuss’s (2009) study addressed the SDGs through public procurement by examining the case of local government in the United Kingdom (UK). Although these studies have made significant contributions to the discourse on the SDGs, the role of construction procurement in attaining the SDGs has yet to be adequately explored. Earlier studies have acknowledged the vital role of the construction industry generally. For example, Evans and Jones (2008), as well as the UN (2015), agreed that the construction industry is vital in the attainment of SDG 11 (making cities and communities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable). Again, Opoku (2016) and Dixon et al. (2016) consent that the construction industry is an essential partner in the global effort to accomplish the SDGs. Opoku (2016) strongly argued that the built environment has the potential to drive the attainment of the SDGs and called for the right policies and strategies toward the SDGs. Opoku (2016) further opines that the construction industry is pivotal in the delivery of government policies toward sustainable development via buildings and infrastructure projects. In addition, Opoku (2016) advances the view that the construction sector provides a valuable opportunity to stimulate the attainment of the SDGs through policies and regulatory frameworks. This chapter aims to explore construction procurement as a vehicle for the achievement of SDGs, precisely Goal 1 (end poverty in all its forms everywhere) and Goal 8 (promote sustained, inclusive, and proper economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all), and how the attainment of these goals could have an impact on Goal 3 (ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages). To achieve this aim, this chapter is organized into six sections. Section one provides the introduction and background that make a case for exploring construction procurement as a vehicle for the SDGs. Section two discusses public procurement of construction works, with section three exploring the relationship between the SDGs and construction procurement. Section four examines responsible public procurement/social procurement and construction procurement, leading to responsible public procurement and the SDGs, specifically Goals 1 and 8, and how they impact the attainment of Goal 3. Finally, the policy implications of construction procurement toward attaining the SDGs are assessed in section five, and the conclusion is drawn.

282  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WORKS According to Behm (2008, p.31), “Construction work can involve the building of new structures, which may include activities involved with subdividing land for sale as building sites or preparation of sites for new construction”. Construction work also includes renovations involving additions, alterations, maintenance, and repair of buildings or engineering projects such as highways or utility systems. Goubran (2019) indicates that the activities of construction relate to constructing, maintaining, or adapting structures (including residential, institutional, or industrial facilities) and infrastructure (including transportation, water/sanitation, energy, and telecommunication infrastructures). Construction activities represent an essential part of the developmental trajectory of a nation. According to Staples and Dalrymple (2015), the provision of infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and courthouses, among others, provides the channel for governments to deliver services in terms of health, education, and justice to citizens. Hansford (2013) notes that the presence of adequate social infrastructure, such as libraries, schools, and hospitals, as well as economic infrastructure, like bridges and roads represent the lifeblood of prosperity of nations and it serves as the catalyst for growth through the creation of jobs and an enabling transport system for goods and services. The provision of such infrastructure entails massive expenditure by the government that can be harnessed to implement social policies for the attainment of the SDGs. Rowlinson and McDermott (1999) point out that construction procurement can be regarded as a multi-dimensional activity that is made up of contract strategy, conditions of contract, performance, culture, suitability, economics, learning, political environment, leadership, which provides a range of services to ensure satisfaction, self-esteem, and motivation of clients and members of the community where constructions works are undertaken. Bratt et al. (2013) add that, generally, public procurement represents a significant drive for the global sustainability agenda due to its size. Therefore, construction procurement can equally be an essential catalyst for promoting the sustainability agenda nationally. According to Ruparathna and Hewage (2015), public procurement is central to construction projects. It involves activities such as providing goods, services, and consultancy necessary to accomplish the objectives of the projects. McCrudden (2004) argues that governments can harness this enormous purchasing power to attain socio-economic development goals. Akenroye (2013) contends that public procurement spending power has enormous potential available to the public sector to promote social justice and policies that will improve people’s livelihoods. Considering the volume of public procurement expenditure, Kasper and Puddephatt (2012) note that the effectiveness of public procurement policies has a significant developmental impact on both developed and developing nations. Bolton (2006) further postulates that public procurement is and has, often been used for the promotion of aims that are secondary to the primary aim of delivering goods, works, and services. The study explores that public procurement has also been used for the achievement of specific direct social policy objectives such as enhancing job creation, promoting fair labour conditions, preventing discrimination against minority groups, protecting the environment, encouraging equal opportunity between men and women as well as a vehicle for the employment of the disabled. In the views of Bernal et al. (2019), public contracts have vast potential as an essential tool for social development and integration of socio-economic policies. For Kanapinskas et al. (2014), public procurement is vital to secure sustainable development,

Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)  283 reduce unemployment, integrate vulnerable groups into society, and obtain other social objectives. According to Sarter et al. (2014), considering the high volume of expenditure, public procurement can be a critical vehicle to influence economic and social regeneration, through purposeful and strategic choices to enhance employment opportunities for certain distinct groups in society and businesses, for example, small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) and minority-owned businesses. Globally, the volume of public expenditure on procurement continues to rise (Gidigah et al., 2021). For example, the Organization for Economic Development (OECD, 2020) reports that public procurement represents about 20 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in Asia, 15 percent of the GDP in Africa, 14 percent of the GDP in the European Union (EU), 12 percent of the GDP in OECD member countries, and 6 percent of GDP in Latin America and the Caribbean. This increasing global expenditure on public procurement constitutes an important avenue by which the socio-economic regeneration of countries can be attained, leading to the attainment of the SDGs. Considering the magnitude and importance of public procurement, governments globally have initiated policies that are intended to enhance the socio-economic regeneration within their economies and public procurement has been identified as the vehicle to drive the implementation of these policy initiatives as a tool for industrial policy, reduction of unemployment, improvement in conditions of employment, local development, and employment of disadvantaged groups, in addition to supporting local businesses (Arrowsmith, 2010; Grandia and Meehan, 2017; McCrudden, 2004). Furthermore, Fuentes-Bargues et al. (2021) affirm that the construction sector is one of the significant sectors in every economy due to its volume and therefore has the potential to impact socio-economic development. Therefore, public procurement of works constitutes an untapped opportunity in the global efforts toward attaining the SDGs.

THE SDGs AND PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WORKS The UN SDGs were adopted in September 2015 to tackle global developmental challenges, halt poverty, preserve the planet, and engender prosperity for all (UN, 2015). UKSSD (2018) states that the SDGs require nations to focus on protecting the environment, extirpating poverty, fighting against climate change, minimizing societal inequality, and enhancing human well-being. Opoku (2016) asserted that the coming into force of the SDGs represents a new phase for the global community to integrate social, economic, and environmental sustainability principles into policies and strategies principally focused on dealing with poverty and inequality toward the attainment of a more prosperous society. According to Opoku (2019), the SDGs seek to deliver prosperity to society generally by ensuring justice and dignity while preserving the planet. Many studies have acknowledged the interconnectivity and dependence in attaining one SDG to others. For example, the UNDP (2016) shows that SDG 15 (protect, restore and promote use of terrestrial ecosystem, sustainably manage forests, combat dissertation, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss) is interwoven and interconnected with other SDGs, such as target 15.9, which is related to the attainment of SDG 1 (end poverty in all its forms everywhere), while Fei et al. (2021) demonstrate that there is a strong rela-

284  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals tionship between SDG 8 (to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work) and SDG 1 (end poverty in all its forms everywhere). This chapter argues that construction procurement offers great potential in the realization of SDG 1, particularly target 1.1 (by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere) and target 1.2 (by 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions). The chapter, therefore, contends that construction procurement can offer valuable employment when appropriate strategies and policies are formulated to integrate clauses in construction procurement that require contractors to employ or train the unemployed in communities where construction works are undertaken. Such clauses will foster employment generation thereby leading to the attainment of target 8.3 (promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, including access to financial services) of SDG 8. The employment created guarantees regular income to employees to cater for their needs and families, thereby improving the welfare and well-being of such employees. In addition, the provision of employment to community members where construction works are undertaken ensures the reduction of poverty, leading to the attainment of SDG 1. For example, Owoo and Lambon-Quayefio (2018) demonstrate that construction activities generally have the potential to improve the welfare of people because such activities can increase employment and income levels. Loosemore et al. (2019), who discuss the Australian case of using construction procurement to integrate ex-offenders into society, are emphatic that construction jobs are significantly paid higher than other jobs such as retail and food service. According to Opoku (2019), the construction industry is an essential partner in attaining the SDGs and further points out that the built environment generally can be an effective catalyst for the SDGs through the development of the right policies and strategies by governments. Petersen and Kadefors (2016) see construction projects as essential vehicles for secondary policies to bring changes to society generally. Loosemore et al. (2020) indicate that construction and infrastructure procurement expenditure allows government and socially conscious private organizations to leverage such costs to meet social and corporate social responsibilities (CSR) needs. On the part of Staples and Dalrymple (2015), construction procurement has been identified as a strategic opportunity due to its size of expenditure. Burke and King (2015) are specific that the construction industry has the potential to contribute to broader government goals towards sustainability. The government’s expenditure on infrastructure procurement has the potential to enhance economic growth and deliver essential services to the people (Nguyen and Culbard, 2014). Burke and King (2015) state that the construction industry represents a crucial sector of every economy due to its potential for economic development. Hall and Purchase (2006) observe that the construction industry can maintain economic growth, boost employment and spur social progress. Troje and Gluch (2020) intimated that history has shown that, the construction industry is suitable for social policies in public procurement due to its close affinity to communities. For example, Lind and Mjornell (2012) stated that it is the perfect target for employment requirements. Petersen and Kadefors (2016) strongly asserted construction projects as the favourite candidate for attaining secondary goals and bringing changes in communities.

Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)  285 Loosemeore and Reid (2019) pointed out that the construction industry is suitable for the implementation of Social Value (SV) policies due to “its size, labour intensity, social and environmental impact, and multiplier effect into the wider community” (p.184). The multiplier effect of the construction industry has been acknowledged by other studies (Loosemore, 2016; Loosemore and Higgon, 2015; Loosemore et al., 2020). Loosemore (2016) aligns with this view and shows that expenditure on construction projects represents an opportunity to regenerate poverty-stricken communities where construction projects are undertaken. The construction industry is critical to every economy (Ruparathna and Hewage, 2015), and it is central to the achievement of many of the government’s policies for sustainable development through the provision of infrastructure (Opoku, 2019). Many reasons have been assigned for this assertion. Firstly, Hillebrandt (2000) describes the industry as an economic regulator because government spending to provide essential social goods such as schools, hospitals, airports, and ports, roads, bridges, and irrigation systems, among others, have the potential to introduce desired changes into the economy. Secondly, Lopes (2012) showed that the construction industry represents between 5 percent to 10 percent of the GDP in countries of the world. Ofori (2012) stated that, given its large size, the industry could contribute significantly to the economy’s growth. According to Loosemore and Higgon (2015), the construction industry can be taken as the primary channel for implementing social policies due to its size, labour intensity, and social and environmental impact, as well as its multiplier effect. The ability of the construction industry to affect other sectors of an economy was further demonstrated by Owoo and Lambon-Quayefio (2018), who express the view that the industry can create a significant multiplier effect through the process of connecting other sectors of the economy in backward and forward relationships. They further note that activities in the construction industry have the potential to improve citizens’ welfare due to their ability to increase employment and income levels. Studies show that the construction industry in Ghana has contributed significantly to GDP and employment. For example, the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS, 2017) reports that the industry, apart from crops, is the most significant contributor to GDP, contributing 13.7 percent, increasing to 14.34 percent of GDP from 2009 to 2013 (GSS, 2018). In furtherance, the labour report by GSS (2015) reveals that the construction industry employs over 600,000 workers, representing about 7 percent of the working population in Ghana. Studies by Anaman and Osei-Amponsah (2007) also show that there is a significant relationship between the growth of the construction industry and the rate of macro-economic growth in developing countries, while Boadu et al. (2020) demonstrate that the construction industry substantially contributes to the general economic growth and social development of nations. Considering the vast potential of construction procurement as outlined above, Loosemore and Higgon (2015) call on the construction industry to focus on making profits and improving productivity for stakeholders and also to improve the communities in which they build. Daniel and Paquire (2019) add that it is essential for every construction project to be designed and organized to contribute to and improve the economy and community, as well as the environment where it operates. Therefore, construction procurement can effectively attain SDGs 1 and 8, specifically targets 1.1, 1.2, and 8.3, respectively, with a corresponding impact on SDG 3 (good health and well-being: ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all ages). The use of construction procurement to attend to the social needs of individuals, communities, and society has been termed Socially Responsible Public Procurement (henceforth SRPP) (Murphy and Eadie, 2019; Semple, 2017) or social procurement (Loosemore and Reid, 2017; Loosemore et al., 2019; Reid and Loosemore, 2017; Troje and Kadefors, 2018).

286  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals SRPP, or social procurement, therefore, has a significant relationship with the attainment of the SDGs. Socially Responsible Procurement or Social Procurement and the SDGs Semple (2017) defines SRPP “as an approach to the award and delivery of public contracts which aims to generate social benefits and to prevent social harms” (p.293). Thus, social benefits are made up of various outcomes in which the public sector generally has heightened interest, such as decent living and working standards, social inclusion, and equality. Social harms, on the other hand, denote the inverse of social benefits (i.e., poor living and working standards, social exclusion, and inequality). It includes corruption, fraud, or other crimes or misconduct committed by companies or individuals seeking or delivering public contracts. Lloyd-walker et al. (2014) also explain SRPP as innovation in an organization that relates to changes in standard practices in construction and the process of innovation, which delivers social benefits through employment in the construction procurement process. Murphy and Eadie (2019) call it service innovation focused on delivering employment to the long-term unemployed, representing a significant shift in the practices of contractors. The study of Reid and Loosemore (2017) demonstrates that globally, there are policies, legislations, and regulations intended to promote SRPP that require those participating in public tenders for construction contracts to show that they are creating social value in communities by providing employment and training opportunities. This, in turn, creates business opportunities in the construction supply chain for local benefits. For example, Murphy and Eadie (2018) report that in Northern Ireland, SRPP legislation was promulgated in April 2016 for public building contracts exceeding £2 million, which required the inclusion of provisions to promote employment opportunities to people considered long-term unemployed, improve working conditions, promote ethical trade as well as social inclusion. Hence, SRPP is a result of increasing transformation in the construction industry, and it has been used increasingly to attain socio-economic goals (Thai and Piga, 2007). Other studies point out that SRPP allows public organizations to use spending power to spur equality, fairness, and social change (EFTA, 2007; Lobel, 2006). For Barraket and Weissman (2009), when properly used, SRPP can maximize the significant purchasing power of construction for social advantage to improve people’s lives. Social procurement has been described variously in the extant literature. Mont and Leire (2008) explained that it is the utilization of the procurement process and purchasing power to effect community impact, while Barraket and Weissman (2009) note “the use of purchasing power to create social value” (p.3). Furneaux and Barraket (2014) defined it as “the acquisition of a range of assets and services to create social outcomes (both directly and indirectly) intentionally” (p.269). Burkett (2010) describes it simply as social benefit purchasing. Specifically relating to the construction industry, Loosemore et al. (2019) state that it is related to leveraging construction and infrastructure spending to encourage the construction supply chain. Troje and Kadefors (2018) explain that the concept has received profound attention globally. In the views of Reid and Loosemore (2017), the increasing attention to social procurement in the construction industry can be attributed to the fundamental shift in social policy globally. Ruparathna and Hewage (2015) state that global attention means public procurement is no longer focused on the delivery of traditional goals of products based on quality and price but increasingly on delivering secondary environmental and social objectives.

Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)  287 Although McCrudden’s (2004) study amply demonstrates that social procurement policies existed in the nineteenth century, especially in the building industry where the policy was applied to the employment of disadvantaged groups, recent studies revealed various dimensions which include buying from local SMEs or minority-owned enterprises, and employment generation for people considered disadvantaged, the disabled and long-term unemployed (Loosemore, 2016; Loosemore et al., 2019; Troje and Kadefors, 2018; Walker and Brammer, 2012; Zuo et al., 2012). Almahmoud and Doloi (2015) and Sutherland et al. (2015) agree that the construction industry is considered suitable for social procurement through employment requirements. The concept of social procurement has become vital in the delivery of construction projects for governments globally because it places a new requirement for construction organizations to show that their projects positively impact the community in which they build (Barraket and Loosemore, 2017; Burke and King, 2015; Farag et al., 2016; Petersen and Kadefors, 2016). Furthermore, Troje and Gluch (2019) aver that the requirement for employment in construction contracts is the new paradigm in the construction supply chain because they are focused on other deliverables rather than physical buildings. Previous studies have demonstrated the use of social procurement policies, legislations, and regulations in various jurisdictions globally to tackle social problems. Notable examples include UK’s Social Value (Public Service) Act, the European Union’s procurement directive, South Africa’s Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 2000, Australia’s Commonwealth Indigenous Procurement Policy, and the Canadian Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Businesses (Loosemore and Reid, 2019; Reid and Loosemore, 2017; Troje and Kadefors, 2018). In all these studies, it is evident that the objective of the social procurement policy is to meet the welfare needs of communities in areas where construction works are undertaken. An interesting empirical study of social procurement worth citing in this chapter is Loosemore et al.’s. (2019) study in Australia on integrating ex-offenders into the Australian construction industry. The study contributes to the discourse on employment requirement as an emerging theme in social procurement; it addresses the need for more empirical evidence in social procurement research relating to ex-offenders’ employment. The study claims that in comparison to other industries, the construction industry is more receptive to offenses such as robbery and theft. The results of the study note that the construction industry provides the opportunity for policymakers to provide employment and training opportunities for ex-offenders to reduce recidivism rates. In their conclusion, the study indicates that the attitude toward employing ex-offenders in the construction industry is more favourable when compared to other industries where such studies have been conducted. The study further concludes that there is potential for untapped social procurement policies in construction expenditure to tackle social problems such as recidivism. The study further noted that many of the construction supply chains were focused on compliance and had to be encouraged to employ ex-offenders by the use of mandatory social procurements through contracts. According to Weiss and Thurbon (2006), adopting social policies in public procurement is intended to achieve sustainable development objectives. From the forgone, it is evident that practices and forms of SRPP and social procurement from the literature are intended to improve the lives of individuals, communities, and societies in general and, eventually, socio-economic development. This assertion is based on the range of SRPP, and social procurement policies and practices demonstrated in the literature. For example, the literature shows practices in the form of creating employment (Akenroye, 2013; Boeger, 2017; Cartigny and Lord, 2019;

288  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 16.1

Forms of SRPP or social procurement practices

# Practices

Source(s)

1 Employment

Akenroye, 2013; Bolton, 2006; Boeger, 2017; Cartigny and Lord, 2019; Erridge, 2005; Loosemore, 2016; Loosemore and Reid, 2018; Loosemore et al., 2019

2 Training Skills Development

Akenroye, 2013; Boeger, 2017; Cartigny and Lord, 2019; Loosemore and Reid, 2018; Loosemore et al., 2019

3 Environmental Protection

Erridge, 2005

4 Social Inclusion/Integration

Borger, 2017; Erridge, 2005; Loosemore and Reid, 218; Loosemore et al., 2019

5 Creation of Equal Opportunity for Men and Women

Bolton, 2006

6 Local/Community Development

Erridge, 2005; McCrudden, 2004

7 Prevent Discrimination/Protection of Minority Groups

Erridge, 2005; Petersen and Kadefors, 2016

8 SMEs Growth

Erridge, 2005; Loosaemore, 2016; Petersen and Kadefors, 2016

9 Employee’s Welfare

Akenroye, 2013; McCrudden, 2004

10 Industrial Policy

McCrudden, 2004

11 Improve Conditions of Employment

Bolton, 2006; McCrudden, 2004

Source:  Author’s own.

Erridge, 2005; Loosemore, 2016; Loosemore and Reid, 2018; Loosemore et al., 2019), protection of minority groups (Erridge, 2005; Petersen and Kadefors, 2016), SMEs growth (Erridge, 2005; Loosaemore, 2016; Petersen and Kadefors, 2016), economic development (Erridge, 2005; McCrudden, 2004) environmental protection (Erridge, 2005), skills development/ training (Akenroye, 2013; Boeger, 2017; Cartigny and Lord, 2019; Loosemore and Reid, 2018; Loosemore et al., 2019;), community development (Akenroye, 2013), employee welfare (Akenroye, 2013) anti-corruption and civic responsibility (Akenroye, 2013), social inclusion or cohesion/integration (Borger, 2017; Erridge, 2005; Loosemore and Reid, 218; Loosemore et al., 2019), the use of local resources provided by construction projects (Cartigny and Lord, 2019). Table 16.1 below summarizes the extant literature’s various SRPP and social value policies. Evidence suggests that the above policies have profoundly impacted individuals, their families, communities, and society, leading to economic development. For example, Cartigny and Lord (2017) point out that providing jobs and training opportunities to the local community has the potential to improve the individual’s social capital and enable him/her to network with others, thereby enabling empowerment. Boeger (2017) observes that such policies result in local accountability, potentially safer communities, and greater community cohesion and engagement. Loosemore and Reid (2019) intimate that these policies can translate into several immediate, intermediate, and long-term positive impacts on families, local communities, and society generally in the form of improved income, health, and well-being, reduced crime rate, abuse of substance, and imprisonment. It is evident, therefore, that construction procurement significantly impacts the attainment of the SDGs, particularly Goal 1, targets 1.1, and 1.2, as well as Goal 8, target 8.3, with a corresponding effect on Goal 3 through the provision of employment and training opportunities particularly.

Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)  289

THE POLICY IMPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT TO THE SDGs Considering the enormous power of construction procurement outlined above, adequate policy measures must be used to harness its purchasing power to meet stated social objectives and attain the SDGs. Fei et al. (2021), therefore, advise that the construction industry is an important stakeholder and must therefore design strategies that align with the objectives of the SDGs. For them, the SDGs represent a new mechanism by which answers to the needs and desires of the world can be met. Opoku (2016) also strongly argues that the construction industry has a higher propensity to influence many of the SDGs. In assessing the Australian case, Loosemore et al. (2019) strongly assert there is a need for new policy solutions to address intransigent growing social problems. Finally, while Errdige (2005) recommended that opportunities be created to vigorously pursue social policies through public procurement, Murphy and Eadie (2019) strongly advocate for policymakers to adopt a person-centric approach to designing and implementing social policies in public procurement. Accordingly, adequate policies and strategies must be formulated to harness the enormous power of construction procurement to meet the objectives of the SDGs of reducing extreme poverty and providing productive employment to enhance the well-being of individuals and communities where construction works are undertaken. There is a need to shift attention from the desire to deliver physical output at a lower cost to additional benefits provided by construction procurement in terms of employment and skill development which has great potential to improve the well-being of individuals, community, and society, thereby attaining the SDGs, particularly, SDGs 1 and 8.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This chapter made a case for construction procurement as an essential mechanism for attaining the SDGs, particularly SDGs 1 and 8. Although a strong case has been made in the body of literature for sustainable construction to achieve SDGs, construction procurement still needs to be adequately explored. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that, due to its size and multiplier effect on other sectors of an economy, construction procurement is a vital candidate to effect socio-economic changes in the lives of individuals, communities, and economic development for nations. Murphy and Eadie (2019) strongly assert that construction projects should only be executed by considering the social context of the community, employment, and the wider supply chain. Therefore, reducing the overemphasis on regulatory and commercial goals is essential to focus on construction procurement as a potent force and vehicle for attaining the SDGs. Research sufficiently demonstrates that the primary objectives of construction procurement can be attained in addition to social objectives. It is no understatement to assert that procurement of “construction projects can impact the surrounding area for the better through the physical environment they build (playground, schools, open areas); the people they educate and employ (training quotas, local apprenticeship schemes, networking events); and the communities they support and bring together (consultations, local supply chains).” It is time for the construction industry to rise from its focus on traditional and technical connotations of value to embrace consideration of the impact of construction procurement on mental health and how it can

290  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals positively impact social relationships, reduce crime and enhance the overall well-being of individuals, communities, and society in general towards the achievement of SDGs 1 and 8. Adequate policy measures must therefore be designed and implemented to harness the enormous purchasing power of construction procurement to achieve SDGs 1 and 8, additionally having a significant impact on SDG 3.

REFERENCES Akenroye, T.O. (2013). An appraisal of the use of social criteria in public procurement in Nigeria. Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.364–397. Almahmoud, E. and Doloi, H.K. (2015). Assessment of social sustainability in construction projects using social network analysis. Facilities, Vol. 33, issue ¾, pp.152–176. Anaman, K.A. and Osei‐Amponsah, C. (2007). Analysis of the causality links between the growth of the construction industry and the growth of the macro‐economy in Ghana. Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25, No.9, pp.951–961. Arizona Procurement Code. (2004). Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 23, Section 41-2503, (Online). Available at http://​www​.azleg​.state​.az​.us/​FormatDocument​.asp​?inDoc​=/​ars/​41/​02503​.htm​&​Title​=​41​ &​DocType​=​ARS. (Accessed on 15th March 2022) Arrowsmith, S. (2010). Horizontal policies in public procurement: A taxonomy. Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.149–186. Barraket, J. and Loosemore, M. (2017). Co-creating social value through cross-sector collaboration between social enterprise and the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 36, pp.394–408. Barraket, J. and Weissman, J. (2009). Social Procurement and Its Implications for Social Enterprise: A Literature Review. Working Paper No. CPNS 48. The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Non-profit Studies. Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology. Basheka, B.C. (2020). Barriers to women’s participation in public procurement in Africa: Empirical evidence from Uganda. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.222–237. Behm, M. (2008). Construction sector. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 39, No.2, pp.175–178. Bernal, R., San-Jose, L. and Retolaza, J.L. (2019). Improvement actions for a more social and sustainable public procurement: A delphi analysis. Sustainability, Vol. 11, No.15, Doi:10.3390/su11154069. Boadu, E.F., Wang, C.C. and Sunindijo, R.Y. (2020). Characteristics of the construction industry in developing countries and its implications for health and safety: An exploratory study in Ghana.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol.17, No. 11, doi:10.3390/ijerph17114110. Boeger, N. (2017). Reappraising the UK social value legislation. Public Money and Management, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.113–120. Bratt, C., Hallstedt, S., Robert, K.H., Broman, G. and Oldmark, J. (2013). Assessment of criteria development for public procurement from a strategic sustainability perspective. Journal of Clean Production, Vol. 52, pp.309–316. Burke, C. and King, A. (2015). Generating social value through public sector construction procurement: A study of local authorities and SMEs. In: Raiden, A.B and Aboagye-Nimo, E. (Eds). Proceedings of the 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7–9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.387–396. Burkett, I. (2010). Social procurement in Australia (including a compendium of case studies). Foresters community finance. Sydney, Australia: The Center for Social Impact, University of NSW. Cartigny, T. and Lord, W.E. (2007). Defining social value in the UK construction Industry. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers – Management, Procurement and Law, Vol. 170, No. 3, pp.107–114. Cartigny, T. and Lord, W.E. (2019). Evaluating social value in the UK construction industry. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers – Management, Procurement and Law, Vol. 172, No. 1, pp.8–16.

Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)  291 Daniel, E.I. and Pasquire, C. (2019). Creating social value within the delivery of construction projects: The role of lean approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.1105–1128. DEFRA. (2005). Securing the Future: The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy. DEFRA; pp.1–186. Dixon, T., Connaughton., J. and Green, S. (2018). Sustainable Futures in the Built Environment to 2050: A Foresight Approach to Construction and Development. London: John Wiley and Sons. EFTA (2007). Fair Trade in Public Procurement. [Online]. Available at www​.efta​.org. (Accessed on 15th March 2022) Evans, J. and Jones, P. (2008). Rethinking sustainable urban regeneration: Ambiguity, creativity, and the shared territory. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp.1416–1434. Doi​.org/​10​.1068​%2Fa39293 Farag, F., McDermott, P. and Huelin, C. (2016). The development of an activity zone conceptual framework to improve social value implementation in construction project using human activity systems. In: P.W. Chan and C.J Neilson, (Eds). Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5–7 September 2015, Manchester, UK. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.975–984. Faremo, G. (2016). “Foreword” to UNOPS, High Impact Procurement – Thematic Supplement to the 2016 Annual Statistical Report on United Nations Procurement (2017). [Online]. available at https://​ content​.unops​.org/​publications/​ASR/​ASR​-supplement​-2016​_EN​.pdf​?mtime​=​20171214185155​&​ focal​=​none (Accessed on 25th April 2022). Fei, W., Opoku, A., Agyekum, K., Oppon, J.A., Ahmed, V., Chen, C. and Lok, K.L. (2021). The critical role of the construction industry in achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs): Delivering projects for the common good. Sustainability, Vol. 13, 9112. doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su13169112 Fuentes-Bargues, J.L., Bastante-Ceca, M.J., Ferrer-Gisbert, P.S. and González-Cruz, M.C. (2021) Analysis of the situation of social public procurement of works at the Valencian region (Spain). Sustainability, Vol. 13, 175. Doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su13010175 Furneaux, C. and Barraket, J (2014). Purchasing social good(s): A definition and typology of social procurement. Public Money and Management, Vol. 34, Issue 4, pp.265–272. Ghana Statistical Service (2014). Ghana Living Standard Survey Round 6 (GLSS 6). Labour Force Report. Accra: GSS. Ghana Statistical Service (2018). National Accounts. [Online]. Available at http://​www​.statsghana​.gov​ .gh/​. (Accessed on 15th March 2022). Gidigah, B.K., Agyekum, K. and Baiden, B.K. (2021). Defining social value in the public procurement process for works. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp.2245–2267. Grandia, J. and Meehan, J. (2017). Public procurement as a policy tool: Using procurement to reach desired outcomes in society. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp.302–309. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockstrom, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G.G., Kanie, N. and Noble, I. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, Vol. 495, pp.305–307. Goubran, S. (2019). On the role of construction in achieving the SDGs. Journal of Sustainability Research. Vol. 1, No. 2. e190020, https://​doi​.org/​10​.20900/​jsr20190020. Hall, M. and Purchase, D. (2006). Building or bodging? Attitudes to sustainability in UK public sector housing construction development. Sustainable Development, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.205–218. Hansford, P. (2013). A vision for 2025, Keynote address. In: Smith, S.D. and Ahiga-Dagbui, D.D. (Eds). Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2–4 September 2013, Reading, UK. Association of Researchers in Construction Management. Hillebrandt, P.M. (2000). Economic Theory and the Construction Industry. Springer. Iyer-Raniga, U., Huovila, P. and Erasmus, P. (2021). Sustainable buildings and construction: Responding to the SDGs. Sustainable Cities and Communities. Doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​-319​-71061​-7​_61​-1 Kanapinskas, V., Plytnikas, Ž. and Tvaronavičienė, A. (2014). Sustainable public procurement: Realization of the social aspect in Republic of Lithuania. Business: Theory and Practice, Vol. 15, No.4, pp.302–315.

292  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Kasper, L. and Puddephatt, A. (2012). Benefits of transparency in public procurement for SMEs: General lessons for Egypt. [Online]. Available at www​.gp​-digital​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2013/​10/​Benefits​ -of​-transparency​-in​-PP​-for​-SMEs​.pdf (Accessed on 18th March 2022). Lloyd, R.E. and McCue, C.P. (2004). What is public procurement? Definitional problems and implications. International Public Procurement Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3, pp.2–18. Lloyd-Walker, B.M., Mills, A.J. and Walker, D.H. (2014). Enabling construction innovations: The role of a no-blame culture as a collaboration behavioural drive in project alliance. Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.229–245. Lobel, O. (2006). Sustainable capitalism of ethical transnationalism: Offshore production and economic development. Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 56–62. Loosemore, M. (2016). Social procurement in UK construction project. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. Vol. 34, Issue 2, pp.134–144. Loosemore, M. and Higgon, D. (2015). Social Enterprise in the Construction Industry: Building Better Communities. London: Routledge. Loosemore, M. and Reid, S. (2019). The social procurement practices of tier-one construction contractors in Australia. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.183–200. Loosemore, M., Daniele, F. and Lim, T.H.B. (2019). Integrating ex-offenders into the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2019.167444 9. Loosemore, M., Higgon, D. and Osborne, J. (2020). Managing new social procurement imperatives in the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Doi: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2019-0643. Lopes, J. (2012). Construction in the economy and its role in socio-economic development: Role of construction in economic development. New Perspectives on Construction in Developed Countries, (1st edition), pp.41–71. Martin-Ortega, O. and O’Brien, C.M. (Eds.) (2019). Public Procurement and Human Rights: Risks and Dilemmas for the State as Buyer. Edward Elgar Publishing: UK. McCrudden, C. (2004). Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes. Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.257–267. Mont, O. and Leire, C. (2008). Socially Responsible Purchasing in the Supply Chain: The Present State in Sweden and Lessons for the Future. [Online]. Available at www​.msr​.se/​Documents/​rapporter/​MSR​ _2008​_E8​.pdf (Accessed on 18th February 2022). Murphy, M. and Eadie, R. (2019). Socially responsible procurement: A service innovation for generating employment in construction. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Doi:.org/10.1108/ BEPAM-02-2018-0049. Nguyen, T. and Culbard, L. (2014). Bechtel-U.S Council for International Business Submission to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. London: Bechtel Corporation. Ofori, G. (2012). Developing the construction industry in Ghana: The case for a central agency.  A concept paper prepared for improving the construction industry in Ghana. National University of Singapore, Vol. 13, No.1, pp.3–18. Opoku, A. (2016). SDG2030: A sustainable built environment’s role in achieving the post-2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In: Chan, P.W., Neilson, C.J., (Eds.). Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference 5–7 September 2016, Manchester, UK; Vol. 2, pp.1149–115 Association of Researchers in Construction Management. Opoku, A. (2019). Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 141, pp.1–7. Opoku, A. and Guthrie, P. (2018). Education for sustainable development in the built environment. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, Vol.14, No.1, pp.1–3. Owoo, N.S. and Lambon-Quayefio, M.P (2019). The role of the construction sector in Ghana, WIDER Working Paper, No. 2018/11/, ISBN 978-92-9256-561-9, The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), Helsinki. Petersen, D. and Kadefors, A. (2016). Social procurement and employment requirements in construction. In: Chan, P.W and Neilson, C.J (Eds), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5–7 September 2016, Manchester, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 2, pp.997–1006.

Construction procurement and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)  293 Pruess, L. (2009). Addressing sustainable development through public procurement: The case of local government. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.213–223. Reid, S. and Loosemore, M. (2017). Motivations and barriers to social procurement in the Australian construction industry. In: Chan, P.W and Neilson, C.J (Eds). Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4–6 September 2017, Cambridge, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.643–651. Rowlison, S. and McDermott, P. (1999). Procurement Systems: A Guide to Best Practice in Construction. Routledge, New York. Ruparathna, R. and Hewage, K. (2015). Review of contemporary construction procurement practices. Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31, No.3. Sarter, E.K., Sack, D. and Fuchs, S. (2014). Public procurement as social policy? An introduction to social criteria in public procurement in Germany. Working Paper Series Comparative Governance, No. 1, August 2014. [Online]. Available online: www​.unibielefeld​.de/​soz/​powi (Accessed on 18th March 2022). Semple, A. (2017). Socially Responsible Public Procurement (SRPP) under EU Law and International Agreements.  European Procurement and Public Private Partnership Law Review, Vol.12, No.3, pp.293–309. Staples, W. and Dalrymple, J. (2015). Construction procurement and state government strategy: Aligned or disconnected? Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp.222–235. Sutherland, V., McTier, A., Glass, A. and McGregor, A. (2015). Analysis of The Impact and Value of Community Benefit Clauses in Procurement, Training and Employment Research Unit (TERU), University of Glasgow, Glasgow. Thai, K.V. and Grimm, R. (2000). Government procurement: Past and current developments. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, Vol.12, No.2, pp.231–247. Thai, K.V. and Piga, G. (2007). Advancing Public Procurement: Practices, Innovation, and Knowledge Sharing, PrAcademics Press, Boca Raton, FL. Troje, D. and Gluch, P. (2019). Populating the social realm: New roles arising from social procurement. Construction Management and Economics. Doi: 10.1080/01446193.2019.1597273. Troje, D. and Gluch, P. (2020). Beyond policies and social washing: How social procurement unfolds in practice. Sustainability, Vol. 12, No.12, Doi:10.3390/su12124956 Troje, D. and Kadefors, A. (2018). Employment requirements in Swedish construction procurement – institutional perspectives. Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.284–298. UKSSD (2018). Measuring Up: How the U.K. Is Performing on the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals; U.K. Stakeholders for Sustainable Development (UKSSD): London, UK. United Development Programme (UNDP) (2007). Contract, Asset and Procurement Management User Guide. Retrieved from http://​www​.content​.undp​.org/​go/​userguide/​cap/​procurement (Accessed on 18th February 2022). United Nations (2015) Transforming our World by 2030: A New Agenda for Global Action Zero. Draft of the outcome document for the UN Summit to adopt the post-2015 Development Agenda. New York: United Nations. UNGA (2015), Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1. UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), New York, NY. Walker, K and Brammer, S (2012). The relationship between sustainable procurement and e-procurement in the public sector. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140, Issue1, pp.256–268. Weiss, L. and Thurbon, E. (2006). The business of buying American: Public procurement as trade strategy in the USA. Review of International Political Economy, Vol.13, No 5, pp.701–724. Zuo, J., Jin, X-H. and Flynn, L (2012). Social sustainability in construction: An explorative study. International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 12, Issue 2, pp.51–63.

17. Lean construction and SDGs: Delivering value and performance in the built environment Alex Opoku, Ayomikun Solomon Adewumi, Ka Leung Lok (Lawrence) and Ellen Amoh

INTRODUCTION Lean construction (LC) has been a novel idea since the middle of the 1990s, both in the field of construction management and in the actual practice of building. The LC philosophy places a high emphasis on the generation of value in building and construction projects. Lean manufacturing involves designing production processes to produce goods with the least amount of material, labour, and time loss (Koskela et al., 2002). Also known as lean production (Teixeira et al., 2021), it aims to reduce costs and eliminate activities that do not deliver value (Rodrigues et al., 2019; Varela et al., 2019). By removing waste, LC excels in overseeing the building process and achieving the project’s objectives (Marhani et al., 2013). The construction sector is currently faced with a significant challenge associated with increasing productivity. Nevertheless, the overall value of the construction market was estimated to be USD 7.28 trillion. It is projected to grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7.3 percent from 2022 to 2030, and reach a value of USD 14.41 trillion by 2030 (Deloitte, 2018). It is unacceptable for any country’s economy to be experiencing productivity growth that is substantially lower than that of manufacturing in many of those countries (Bertelsen, 2004). To prevent the production of defective goods, Sakichi Toyota, the creator of Toyota Industries Corporation, created the first automatic loom, which introduced the idea of lean production. This loom automatically detects faults and halts production when they occur. Following research in the United States (US), his son Kiichiro Toyota, the creator of Toyota Motor Corporation, developed the Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing strategy. Later in the 1950s, Toyota Engineer Taiichi Ohno and his associates gradually implemented the lean production system to decrease waste on the production lines of automakers and adopted a customer-centred approach to performance (Bayhan et al., 2022). Global difficulties facing the built environment today include resource scarcity, population increase, anthropogenic climate change, decarbonizing heating and cooling as well as the building process. These difficulties have been made much more difficult by the Covid-19 issue, which has put the industry under hitherto unheard-of societal and economic pressure. This means that sustainability must be integrated into our daily practices rather than treated as an afterthought. Throughout the lifespan of our built environment, development, design, and construction experts must take whole-life costs into account. There is strong evidence that integrating lean and sustainable building methods can have a positive impact on the industry, and that the synergy that results from fusing the two methods can achieve the individual goals of each (Sarhan and Pretlove, 2021).

294

Lean construction and SDGs  295

THE CONCEPT OF LEAN PHILOSOPHY According to Pinch (2005), it is understandable that “lean” has become the newest buzzword to define anything from cuisine to corporate strategies in today’s fast-paced society. This suggests a case for its possible potentials for the construction industry. The lean approach has been used to meet strict project goals, including those relating to timelines, quality, and budgets (Fang et al., 2021). Most executives in the construction industry are aware that wasted spending, delays, and project inefficiency can occur in the sector. To increase performance, a variety of project management strategies have been developed, including value engineering, partnership, and design-build. According to the non-profit Lean Construction Institute (LCI), LC is a project delivery method based on production management that places a strong emphasis on the prompt and dependable delivery of value. Teixeira et al. (2021) defined LC as the result of applying a new type of production management to the construction industry resulting in lower production expenses. For the benefit of all project stakeholders, the project must be built while maximizing value (Rodrigues et al., 2019), reducing waste (Brito et al., 2019), and pursuing excellence (Rosa et al., 2019). Any business, whether manufacturing- or service-focused, may ultimately rely on its capacity to consistently and methodically react to changes to increase the value of the output to survive. To attain this perfection, value-adding processes are therefore required. To this end, building a lean manufacturing system is now a key capability for any type of firm to thrive (Sundar et al., 2014). In fact, there appear to be three conflicting perspectives on how lean management and the three pillars of sustainable company performance relate to each other. On the one hand, some studies concluded that lean management techniques might reduce waste, consume less energy, prevent pollution, and use fewer natural resources, all of which would considerably contribute to environmental sustainability. The implementation of lean methods, however, does not always lead to an improvement in environmental performance, according to other studies. In certain cases, a negative link is revealed in the literature (Mohaghegh et al., 2021). Lastly, the impact of lean practices and tools on achieving environmental and social sustainability has not yet been clarified (Teixeira et al., 2021). The Finnish academic, Koskela, was the first to put up the idea of LC. Different definitions of LC have been offered by academics (Tommelein, 2015). This idea can be explained in two ways: one perspective claims that LC is the implementation of lean production techniques in the construction industry. Whereas the opposing perspective asserts that lean production was first introduced as a theory to create a new model for the construction industry (Li et al., 2020). LC is a useful method that tries to reduce different kinds of waste in the industry, seven of which are directly related to the production process (Brito et al., 2019). LC seeks to satisfy customers while consuming less of everything, including time, money, and resources (Radhika and Sukumar, 2017). Initiatives in lean and sustainable construction both seek to use less energy. LC focuses on reducing energy consumption during the production stage, as per Verrier et al. (2014). On the other hand, Sustainable Construction (SC) aims to optimize energy performance throughout the maintenance and operational stages, with the ultimate goal of mitigating the effects of climate change and global warming. Both practices support the argument that the design phase is crucial to attaining their goals. Both activities could be combined and integrated to use energy more effectively during a construction project (Garza-Reyes et al., 2017; Sarhan and Pretlove, 2021).

296  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Implementing lean concepts means applying tools and procedures at various stages of a project. The transformation-flow-value viewpoint and additional components of complexity theory and management theory serve as a theoretical framework (Habibi et al., 2022). However, it appears that implementing lean concepts necessitates a fundamental alteration of conventional systems in terms of both organization and behaviour (Johansen and Walter, 2007). LC primarily tries to reduce waste associated with faults and defects, delays brought on by having to wait for earlier tasks to be completed before moving on to the next one, inappropriate processing, overproduction, keeping extra inventory, transport, and unnecessary human movement (Pinch, 2005; Verrier et al., 2014). Lean project delivery system (LPDS) creation led to the development of LC. According to Howell and Ballard (1997), LPDS is composed of four primary domains: project definition, lean design, lean supply, and lean assembly. The similar goals of providing a competitive product in the shortest amount of time, with the most value and quality, and at a lower/reasonable cost are the essential characteristics or attributes when applying the lean manufacturing philosophy to construction practices (Madanayake, 2015). By maximizing resource usage, enhancing worker safety, reducing waste through standardized processes, and other factors, the application of LC offers the construction sector a strategy to enhance sustainability. This is because, there would be a decrease in the volume of solid waste generated by construction dumped in landfills delivering environmental sustainability; a standardized work that can result in lower production expenses promoting economic sustainability; and an improvement in the safety and well-being of workers as a result of fewer hazardous activities, achieving social sustainability (Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Solaimani and Sedighi, 2020). Lean Business Models Utilizing material and energy resources heavily exacerbates socioeconomic issues and hinders the pursuit of sustainable development. Particularly as the planet’s resource capacity is being depleted and the ecosystem integrity is being affected, which has a negative impact on humanity’s socioeconomic position and poses a threat to the existence of future generations. To address global challenges attributed to civilization, modern economic trends are looking for ways to reduce the waste from production and consumption, which has been on the increase (Dmitriev and Zaytsev, 2021). Lean as a comprehensive management philosophy, must be applied throughout the entire organization to deliver its full benefits, in contrast to LC, which is by definition a methodology to enhance project delivery practices to achieve better project outcomes (Howell et al., 2017). Lean implementation typically begins with a small group of people in construction firms who may be able to put some lean tools and practices, and occasionally even lean mindsets, into practice, and the outcomes can be good. However, these improvement efforts seem isolated inside the larger picture. This is because, the difficulty with implementing lean within the constraints of current business models is in not understanding it as a system, but rather in implementing it as a system. One of the primary reasons businesses wish to become leaner is that neither of the industry’s two dominant business models is customer focused (Pekuri et al., 2014). Scholars and business strategists interested in describing how businesses create value, operate, and gain a competitive edge are now beginning to pay more attention to the idea of a business model (Zott et al., 2011).

Lean construction and SDGs  297 Lean: The Culture of Continuous Improvement and Performance Over the last 40 years, the global construction industry’s productivity has been declining, and LC has been regarded as one method to address this from the sustainability perspective (Dues et al., 2013; Galeazzo et al., 2014). A clear set of delivery objectives aimed at maximizing performance for the customer at the project level, concurrent design, construction, and the application of project control throughout the project’s life cycle from design to delivery are essential features of LC (Aziz and Hafez, 2013). The approach of LC brings about changes in the socio-technical system utilized to create processes that aim to minimize all forms of resource and process waste by enhancing relationships and practices within the design and delivery process. This approach focuses on improving the efficiency of the construction process by reducing waste and optimizing the use of resources through a combination of improved processes and better collaboration among stakeholders (Ghosh and Robson, 2015; Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011). This is significantly different from the sustainability agenda in construction which to some extent prioritizes environmental issues through reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions, reduced waste of building materials, reduced use of non-sustainable materials, and so on. In this instance, savings are primarily attained by applying metrics to evaluate performance and score work, which results in the credit points required to earn certain certifications and credentials (Sarhan and Pretlove, 2021). The construction industry has also adopted LC as a means of improving supply chains (Banawi and Bilec, 2014; Ladhad and Parrish, 2013; Ng et al., 2013). Adopting innovative management practices, such as supply chain management and lean thinking, from the manufacturing context to the construction industry is not without difficulties (Ogunbiyi and Goulding, 2014). In addition, LC is a new approach to capital facility design and construction. It promotes the use of simultaneous engineering concepts to consider product and process development at the same time. This philosophy has challenged the notion that there is always a cost, time and quality trade-off (Mohammed and Tanamas, 2001). Lean tools have emerged and been successfully applied to both simple and complex construction projects which are generally easier to manage, safer, completed faster, cost less, and are of higher quality (Aziz and Hafez, 2013). Lean production, as described in research (Ahuja et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2014), is characterized by a distinct objective and technique that sets it apart from both mass and craft forms of production. This approach utilizes Building Information Modeling (BIM) in conjunction with simulation techniques to achieve its goals. By adopting this approach, production efficiency is enhanced through the optimization of resources and the minimization of waste. In addition to enhancing production efficiency, lean production aims to optimize production system performance against a standard of perfection to meet unique customer requirements, as noted in studies by Andujar-Montoya et al. (2015) and Aziz and Hafez (2013). This optimization involves a focus on achieving maximum efficiency and eliminating waste while maintaining the highest quality standards. By optimizing production systems in this way, lean production aims to meet the specific requirements of each customer while maintaining a high level of efficiency and minimizing costs. LC management differs from typical contemporary practices in that it has a clear set of objectives for the delivery process such as the incorporation of modular design (Ghosh and Robson, 2015), whilst also maximizing performance for the customer at the project level

298  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals through designs of products and processes concurrently. In addition, it employs production control throughout the lifecycle of the project. To this end, lean implementation begins with commitment from leaders and is sustained by a culture of continuous improvement anchored on collaborative learning and experimentation (Ko and Chung, 2014). When the principles are properly applied, significant improvements in safety, quality, and efficiency can be obtained at the project level. Improvements at the process and enterprise levels are enablers that allow project-level improvements to be more successful and sustainable (Aziz and Hafez, 2013). The Principles of Lean Construction LC is to a large extent, an adaptation and implementation of Japanese manufacturing principles within the construction process. This it does by assuming that construction is a type of production, albeit a unique one (Bertelsen, 2016). Koskela (1992) presented the “TFV” theory of production, which conceptualized production in three complementary ways: as a Transformation (T) of raw materials into standing structures, as a Flow (F) of raw materials and information through various production processes, and as Value (V) generation and creation for owners through the elimination of value loss (realized outcome versus best possible). LC has directed attention and focus to some critical methods. The challenge is not to improve productivity in undertaking transformations, which takes only 30 percent of working time and thus accounts for only 10 percent of total construction costs, but to improve flow and focus on value generation. According to data presented by the Lean Construction Institute, 70 percent of projects are currently over budget and delivered late. The situation in the construction industry is deteriorating yearly. In fact, the results obtained in the construction sector are far less efficient than those obtained in other sectors such as education, health and social care, transportation, and information (Cwik and Rosłon, 2017). Improving flow may reduce not only the time spent waiting and on transportation, but it may also reduce the cost of the building materials themselves. According to studies, one-third of the cost of building materials is associated with packaging, storing, handling, transporting, and disposing of package and waste materials (Bertelsen, 2016). Lean thinking specifically places a lot of emphasis on the waste produced in a construction process in addition to the physical waste (Nikakhtar et al., 2015). Managers of projects might define waste as only tangible construction waste, which frequently includes material losses. Other forms of waste in a process, on the other hand, relate to the use of resources for pointless tasks that raise costs but do not improve the quality of the final product (Koskela, 1992), or result in any value (Rodrigues et al., 2019; Santos et al., 2019; Verrier et al., 2014). The LC theory holds that there are significant opportunities for improvement in construction processes by eliminating or at least reducing all types of waste, particularly non-physical waste (Nikakhtar et al., 2015). In addition to the seven categories of waste identified by Verrier et al. (2014), Koskela (1992) enumerated defect, rework, design error, omission, change order, safety cost, and excess consumption of materials as other waste groups that occurred in construction processes. Figure 17.1 presents the two categories of construction wastes based on their frequency of being mentioned. Although the term “construction and demolition waste” has been defined as any type of solid waste produced during construction processes, LC suggests a broader definition of waste that encompasses not only physical waste but also waste related to any inefficiency of equipment or worker performance generated in a construction process (such as waiting time

Lean construction and SDGs  299

Source: Adapted from Nikakhtar et al. (2015).

Figure 17.1

Categories of construction wastes

and transportation time). These waste types according to Nikakhtar et al. (2015) are referred to as construction process waste. By eliminating waste from the value stream, the principles of lean manufacturing have the potential to enable businesses to produce goods at a lower cost (Rodrigues et al., 2019). As a result, many sectors of the economy, including the construction sector, have adopted lean manufacturing production philosophies (process improvement) to address business challenges, leading to LC. The effectiveness of the construction industry may be impacted by the lean manufacturing philosophy, which has been well documented by Ansah et al. (2016) and Solaimani and Sedighi (2020). It is noteworthy to refer to the five-step thought process of lean thinking and practice by Womack and Jones (1996) as presented in Figure 17.2. According to the Lean Enterprise Institute (2023), first is to specify the value from the standpoint of the end customer; followed by this is the mapping of the value stream which involves also eliminating steps that do not create value; the third stage is to create flow whilst ensuring that value-creating steps occur in tight sequence. The fourth stage is that as this flow is introduced, customers should pull value from the next upstream activity. This fifth stage is that of perfection after stages one to four are repeated until they become a culture. This is applicable to the construction industry in the following ways. Construction must adopt a product-focused approach that allows a long-term dialogue to begin about the nature of value and how the product delivers it. The client requires a building that meets their needs while also being cost effective. Mapping raises the possibility of maximizing performance during construction by bringing options to the surface. Maps are typically created at the project level and then decomposed to better understand how the design of planning, logistics, and operation systems interact to support customer value. LC which strives to eliminate points where value-added work on material or information is disrupted, may imply repackaging

300  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Adapted after Womack and Jones (1996).

Figure 17.2

The five-step thought process

work so that parts of the project can proceed without completing others and/or ensuring that resources are delivered in the order required and transported directly to the installation location to avoid double handling (Dulaimi and Tanamas, 2001). The perfection stage is a crucial strategic level because it outlines the requirement for this method of organizing construction products and working to become a way of life with a built-in culture. Perfection requires constant reflection on what is being done, how it is being done, and leveraging the skills and knowledge of everyone involved in the processes to change and improve them. Lean Construction Tools The past decade has witnessed a growing number of effective lean production methods and tools that have been created to manage construction projects (Ansah et al., 2016). These tools come in a variety of forms, including conceptual, procedural, and programming-embedded. Additionally, while some of these tools are straightforward, others are complicated. When used by managers who are motivated by the conceptualization and management of lean projects, this unique set of tools is very effective. Literature reviewed identified some appropriate lean tools for additional empirical research on the development of construction projects as presented in Table 17.1. Overview of the Top Three Effective Lean Tools Last Planner System (LPS) Last Planner System of Production Control as a tool was developed by Hermann Glenn Ballard in 1992 (Cwik and Rosłon, 2017). At the start, specific attention has been paid to attaining

Lean construction and SDGs  301 Table 17.1 # 1

2

3

4

5

6

A list of some lean construction tools and description

Reference

Tools

Alireza and Sorooshian

5S (Sort, Straighten, Shine,

(2014), Abdul et al. (2012)

Standardize, and Sustain)

Aziz and Hafez (2013), Abdul et al. (2012) Alireza and Sorooshian (2014), Abdul et al. (2012)

Six Sigma

(2014), Abdul et al. (2012)

Points Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

11

12

13

positions Through a step-by-step approach and ranking, it identifies potential failures in product or service, design, and manufacturing, and so on

A person or group of people with the task to control the

Muhammad et al. (2013), Aziz The Last Planner

production unit responsible for necessitating control of workflow, verify supply stream, design, and installation in all the production units

Alireza and

Total Productive

Holistic maintenance approach for equipment to maximize

Sorooshian (2014)

Maintenance (TPM)

the operational time of the equipment

Muhammad et al. (2013),

An information communication technique employed to Visual Management

Alireza and Sorooshian (2014) Salem et al. (2005), Muhammad et al. (2013)

Alireza and Sorooshian (2014) Muhammad et al. (2013), Alireza and Sorooshian (2014) Muhammad et al. (2013), Aziz and Hafez (2013), Alireza and Sorooshian (2014)

increase efficiency and clarity in processes through the use of visual signals

Multi-Process

Involves assigning operators’ tasks in multiple processes in

Handling

an oriented layout of a product flow A technique used for communicating and for the everyday

Daily Huddle Meetings

meeting process of the project team to accomplish workers’ involvement

Quality Function Development (QFD) Work Standardization

Abdul et al. (2012), 14

the activities of managers occupying different levels of

from first to the last

Alireza and Sorooshian (2014) 10

Regulates and determines the levels of improvement in

An approach for handling work requests in order of flow

Abdul et al. (2012), 9

defects and reduction of variability in processes

Out)

and Hafez (2013) 8

Improves quality through identification and removal of

FIFO Line (First in, First

Abdul et al. (2012), 7

multi-disciplinary teams to optimize engineering cycles of products for efficiency, quality, and functionality

Check Points and Control

Alireza and Sorooshian (2014)

It removes waste from the workplace using visual controls Involves the various tasks parallelly executed in

Concurrent Engineering

Alireza and Sorooshian

Abdul et al. (2012)

Description

This refers to the use of customer’s voice and different organization functions and units for final engineering specification of a product Manufacturing documented procedures that capture best practices A technique aimed primarily at minimizing flow times

Just-in-Time (JIT)

within a production as well as response times from suppliers and to end users

Source:  Author’s own.

better results in weekly work plans. After a while, the look ahead process has been added to control the workflow better. Eventually, the scope of the Last Planner System (LPS) has been extended from construction to design suggesting the shift from improving productivity to enhancing the reliability of workflow. The LPS methodology is illustrated below in Figure 17.3.

302  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Adapted after DPS Group (2023).

Figure 17.3

The Last Planner System

This LPS as a tool allows for the abandoning of the traditional approach to building project realization by introducing a new way of thinking. However, to achieve a satisfactory result, the LPS measures must be implemented correctly (Abdul et al., 2012). Concurrent engineering According to Aziz and Hafez (2013), concurrent engineering is defined as the parallel execution of various tasks by multidisciplinary teams with the goal of producing the best products in terms of functionality, quality, and productivity. It allows for design and development of products in which different stages run at the same time rather than consecutively. Many enhancements can be accomplished by using concurrent engineering, allowing other opportunities to be realized by overlapping activities, splitting activities, and shortening the transition time between activities. Lead time, quantity, and risk under ambiguity are important planning parameters for scheduling concurrent activities. This method lays emphasis on teamwork; communication; and information sharing as the essentials for discovering new ideas (Abdul et al., 2012). While collaborating with subcontractors and suppliers can be beneficial in terms of concurrent engineering, the success of lean production is dependent on the early involvement of all participants (Abdul et al., 2012; Aziz and Hafez, 2013). The concurrent engineering methodology is presented in Figure 17.4.

Lean construction and SDGs  303

Source: Christoph Roser (2020) at AllAboutLean.com under the free CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.

Figure 17.4

Illustration of the concurrent engineering

Daily huddle meetings Daily huddle meetings provide a forum for team members to share their perspectives and accomplishments while also discussing problems encountered during the production process (Aziz and Hafez, 2013). Increasing participant involvement and enhancing interactions is one way to improve project performance. One such tool that increases participant interaction is the Formal Daily Huddle Meeting (FDHM). Workers are also given the opportunity to express their thoughts and concerns about the day’s work (Ghosh, 2014). The huddle is not a meeting. Rather, it is a continuous process. A group agrees to huddle at set times, which in the case of construction projects is daily for about 15 to 20 minutes per session. The number of daily huddles can be increased to more than one. The main distinction between a huddle and a meeting is the absence of a formal agenda in the former. As a result, the minutes of the daily huddle are not recorded. The superintendent (of the general contractor) introduces the scope of work for that day to all workers (assigned to work on site that day), discusses related safety issues and imminent hazards, and shares information related to scheduling and deliverables that all the project participants need to know (Salem et al., 2005). Workers are also given the opportunity to express their thoughts and concerns about the day’s work. If there is more than one scheduled huddle per day, the subsequent huddle reinforces the previous huddle’s discussions and inquiries about updates from the participants or provides information to the participants about any changed conditions or upcoming tasks. This collaborative process’s success is dependent on two-way open communication, respect, trust, and accountability (Ghosh, 2014). Figure 17.5 presents an example of a daily huddle meeting.

304  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: SketchBubble (2023).

Figure 17.5

A typical structure of a daily huddle meeting

DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO LEAN CONSTRUCTION The implementation of LC has become increasingly important in the construction industry, as it is seen as a way to improve project management and prepare for future challenges. However, there are several barriers to the successful adoption of LC, such as the high cost of implementation, inadequate knowledge of the lean philosophy, resistance to change from employees, and lack of collaborative work between academia and the construction industry as outlined in the following paragraphs. Understanding these barriers is crucial for developing strategies to overcome them and promote the implementation of LC. Additionally, identifying the drivers of LC, such as the desire for continuous improvement and the need to increase market share, can help in creating a supportive environment for its adoption. By addressing these barriers and promoting the drivers of LC, the construction industry can improve its efficiency, reduce waste, and enhance its competitiveness. Therefore, looking at the barriers and drivers in LC is essential for achieving a more efficient construction process and ensuring the future success and development of LC (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014). Barriers facing the implementation of LC are identified as a very important focus area, and extremely relevant for future success and further development of LC in pursuance of an efficient construction process. According to Huaman-Orosco et al. (2022), the competition in the construction industry is driving companies to implement the lean philosophy to improve project management and prepare for the adoption of LC. However, further identified lack of collaborative work between academia and the construction industry, high cost of implemen-

Lean construction and SDGs  305 tation, and contracts not requiring the use of Lean Principles are major issues that have direct impact on the implementation of lean strategies and approaches. Salontis and Tsinopoulos (2016) categorized the barriers to the uptake of the LC under four strands. One has to do with the financial aspect because of necessity of high investments and costs. Two is top management barrier because of inadequate knowledge of the LC concept and inconsistent commitment. Three is the workforce related barrier associated with undesirable commitment from employees due to fear of job loss, inadequate communication with the top management. The fourth covers other barriers such as distraction, multiple production sites, and difficulty in quantifying the upfront benefits. These could also include a company’s willingness to increase market shares, organizations striving for continuous improvements, the desire to employ world best practice. Wandahl (2014) identified that although the success of LC is obvious, implementation challenges remain. These include; culture, training, and the right leadership. According to some reports, the major implementation challenges are related to misconception of LC tools, and case studies have revealed that LC is frequently applied partially or incorrectly. Table 17.2 presents some of the barriers for the implementation of LC as reported by several scholars.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEAN AND SUSTAINABILITY Academics and professionals in the fields of architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) are becoming more and more interested in sustainability and how it can be applied in construction projects (Koranda et al., 2012; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Rosenbaum et al., 2013). This is in line with modern society’s growing awareness of the gradual degradation of the natural environment brought on by human activity as well as the effects that this degradation has on the environment, economy, and society from the perspective of the construction industry (United Nations Environment, 2018). LC and SC are thought to be two separate ideologies with different objectives suggesting a need for clarity of the relationships between the two concepts (Dey et al., 2020). LC is focused on the process-related aspects of building that improve flow, boost production, get rid of waste, and shorten delays (Santos et al., 2019). While doing so, SC pays careful attention to the project’s economic and social implications as well as its negative effects on the environment. However, it has been discovered that both paradigms share the same goals of encouraging resource efficiency and reducing waste (Francis and Thomas, 2019). Many sustainability strategies are implemented in the early stages of conceptualization and design and are focused on reducing resource consumption as well as increasing the efficiency of the product or infrastructure during the phase of use and occupation because most impacts associated with the construction industry occur during the phases of use and occupation (Carvajal-Arango et al., 2019). SC is defined as the application of sustainable practices and sustainable development principles to the activities of the construction industry. A new production philosophy called LC has the potential to bring about revolutionary innovations in the building sector. LC practices emphasize reducing material and process waste, which helps to enhance health and safety, reduce energy use and other aspects of SC (Ogunbiyi and Goulding, 2014). The construction sector plays an important role in the progress of a society. It has a significant impact on economic activity, employment, and growth rates, as well as the natural

306  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 17.2

Barriers for the implementation of lean construction methodology

#

Author Source

1

Friblick et al. (2009)

Implementation Challenges ● Change in production and planning methodologies ● Requires more knowledge than available ● Minimum involvement of construction workers ● Inadequate preparations and training

2

Brady et al. (2009)

● Inadequate information ● Time constraints due to deadlines ● Non-integrated production supply chain ● Culture

3

Viana et al. (2010)

● Personal qualifications ● Lack of communication ● Inadequate training

4

Porwal et al. (2010)

● Resistance to change ● Lack of leadership and management support ● Requires additional resources. Partial implementation

5

Nesensohn et al. (2012)

● Requires change in organizational culture and structure ● Requires a rigorous analysis of the organization’s capability to adopt lean construction ● Lack of commitment to change and innovation

6

Ahiakwo et al. (2013)

● Late introduction of the concept to the project, e.g., starting off the implementation half way into the start of the project

7

Barbosa et al. (2013)

● Inadequate understanding of the new philosophy of planning and production of field employees, such as foremen and crew leaders ● Language and culture

8

Cerveró-Romero et al.

● Resistance towards change of senior craftsmen

(2013)

● Incorrect interpretation of the concept ● Lack of training for contractors and subcontractors ● Lack of adequate awareness and understanding ● Culture and human attitude issues

9

Sarhan and Fox (2013)

● Lack of top management commitment ● Resistance to change ● Financial issues

Source:  Author’s own.

environment and human health. As a result of the foregoing, sustainable development is an important factor to consider in improving living conditions worldwide (Mavridou and Tsigkas, 2018). Sustainability is gaining popularity in the construction industry because of the industry’s growing concern about the serious negative environmental impacts of construction activities. Construction waste management is critical to achieving sustainable development through environmentally friendly practices such as green building. LC, on the other hand, can be used to overcome the environmental challenges of sustainable development (Wijerathne et al., 2019). Lean thinking benefits the environment, the economy, and society (Murmura et al., 2021). The goal of sustainability in construction is to use resources efficiently in the design, construction, and use of buildings, with a focus on resources related to the environment and user health. As a result, the focus of sustainability in the construction industry is on energy use, natural waste, environmental impacts, and the creation of a healthy and productive work environment. As a result, according to Mavridou and Tsigkas (2018), it is critical that a framework

Lean construction and SDGs  307 be put in place that will fully adopt the production line requirements, adhere to sustainability aspects, respect the environment, and allow for flexible usage. Jum’a et al. (2022) conclude that in manufacturing firms, lean practices significantly improve environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Furthermore, sustainability-oriented innovation has a partial mediation between lean practices and sustainability dimensions. In other words, the presence of sustainability-oriented innovation enhances the significant contribution of lean practices to sustainability. Overall, the adoption of LC methodology could help address the various dimensions of SC as documented in Solaimani and Sedighi (2020), addressing the needs of the supplier, developer, and the end-user. For the supplier, LC principles could deliver economic, environmental, and social sustainability targets in areas relating to extraction and processing, and logistics and distribution (Barathwaj et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017); whilst achieving similar targets for the developer in the areas of design and planning, and project delivery (Ghosh and Robson, 2015; Zaeri et al., 2017). The sustainability aspirations of the end users could also be delivered through co-creation such as participatory design which the concept advocates for (Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011). Lean Construction as Catalyst for the SDGs A mutual co-existence is required to generate and sustain the environmental, social, and economic conditions that allow people to live with nature today and in the future. Sustainable goals are considered in the construction industry at every stage of the building’s life cycle (Rosenbaum et al., 2013). Whilst Wijerathne et al. (2019) attempted to map LC principles that could address economic, environmental, and social sustainability challenges. This paper attempts to further identify the sustainable development goals (SDGs) that each of these principles could help to achieve as presented in Table 17.3a, Table 17.3b and Table 17.3c respectively. Table 17.3a

Economic sustainability challenges, associated lean principles and targeted SDGs

Challenges for Economic # 1

2

Sustainability Poor knowledge of sustainable design Fear of increase in cost/ price fluctuations

Lean Principles Identifying the value stream Specifying value Perfection Pull driven system Identifying the value stream Continuous flow

Associated SDGs SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities) SDG4 (Quality education) SDG8 (Decent work and economic growth) SDG12 (Responsible consumption and production)

Continuous flow 3

Poor workmanship during Perfection construction

Pull driven system

SDG8 (Decent work and economic growth) SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities)

Specifying value Mode of funding the 4

project/financing the project

Identifying the value stream Perfection

SDG9 (Industry, innovation, and infrastructure)

Specifying value

SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities

Pull driven system

308  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Challenges for Economic

Lean Principles

Associated SDGs

Continuous flow

SDG9 (Industry, innovation, and infrastructure)

#

Sustainability

5

Unrealistic project duration Pull driven system Identifying the value stream Specifying value

6

Budget constraints

Identifying the value stream Continuous flow

7

9

Lack of technical expertise in sustainable construction

Lack of skilled workers

SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities) SDG1 (No poverty) SDG1 (No poverty) SDG8 (Decent work and economic growth)

Identifying the value stream

SDG4 (Quality education)

Perfection

SDG9 (Industry, innovation Infrastructure)

Continuous flow

SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities)

Specifying value

SDG1 (Quality education)

Identifying the value stream

SDG9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure)

Pull driven system

SDG10 (Reduce inequalities)

Source:  Author’s own.

Table 17.3b

#

Environmental sustainability challenges, associated lean principles and targeted SDGs

Challenges of Environmental Sustainability Lack of knowledge

1

and non-availability of alternative sustainable materials

2

Poor working conditions in relation to safety

Lean Principles Identifying the value stream Specifying value Continuous flow

Poor construction methods

SDG4 (Quality education) SDG9 (Industry innovation and infrastructure)

Pull driven system

SDG8 (Decent work and economic growth)

Identifying the value stream

SDG12 (Responsible consumption and production)

Continuous flow Identifying the value stream

3

Associated SDGs

Pull driven system Continuous flow

SDG16 (Peace justice and strong institution) SDG4 (Quality education) SDG9 (Industry innovation and infrastructure) SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities, climate change SDG13 (Climate action)

Lack of demand for 4

Specifying value

sustainability in construction Perfection from the clients

Identifying the value stream

SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities) SDG4 (Quality education) SDG15 (Life on land) SDG1 (No poverty) SDG13 (Climate action)

5

Contaminated sites

Specifying value

SDG1 (Zero hunger)

Identifying the value stream

SDG15 (Life on land)

Perfection

SDG3 (Good health and well-being)

Identifying the value stream

SDG13 (Climate action)

Perfection

SDG14 (Life below water)

Specifying value

SDG2 (Zero hunger)

SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities) 6

Contaminated water at the site

Lean construction and SDGs  309 #

Challenges of Environmental Sustainability

Lean Principles

Associated SDGs SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities)

7

Ecosystem destruction caused by development

Pull driven system

SDG13 (Climate action)

Perfection

SDG4 (Quality education)

Specifying value

SDG15 (Life on land) SDG14 (Life below water)

8

Insufficient reuse and recycling of resources

Specifying value Identifying the value stream Perfection

SDG13 (Climate action) SDG12 (Responsible consumption and production)

Source:  Author’s own.

Table 17.3c # 1

2

3

4

Social sustainability challenges, associated lean principles and targeted SDGs

Challenges of Social Sustainability

Lean Principles

Inadequate awareness and knowledge

Specifying value

of the concept of sustainability and its

Perfection

benefits

Continuous flow

Poor understanding of project objectives and requirements Lack of related legislation and government support Incompetence of contractors/ subcontractors

5

methods

7

SDG4 (Quality education) SDG9 (Industry, innovation infrastructure)

Pull driven system

SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities

Specifying value Continuous flow

8

Pull driven system

SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities)

Continuous flow

SDG16 (Peace justice and strong institution)

Specifying value

SDG4 (Quality education)

Identifying the value stream Continuous flow Pull driven system

Pull driven system

environment of the educational building

Perfection

project

Specifying value

Urban and minority unemployment

Source:  Author’s own.

SDG16 (Peace justice and strong institution)

Pull driven system

Economic, physical and social

Absence of sanitation

SDG4 (Quality education)

Continuous flow

Perfection

6

SDG13 (Climate action)

Specifying value

Specifying value Unwillingness to adopt new construction

Associated SDGs

SDG13 (Climate action) SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities) SDG16 (Peace justice and strong institution) SDG4 (Quality education) SDG4 (Quality education) SDG9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure) SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities) SDG3 (Good health and well-being)

Continuous flow

SDG13 (Climate action)

Pull driven system

SDG3 (Good health and well-being)

Perfection

SDG11 (Sustainable cities and communities)

Pull driven system

SDG1 (No poverty)

Specifying value

SDG8 (Decent work and economic growth)

Identifying the value stream

SDG10 (Reduce inequalities)

310  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION LC is a concept that originated from the lean manufacturing principles established by Toyota in the 1940s. Its aim is to enhance value and minimize waste in the construction process. With the construction industry becoming more aware of the importance of waste reduction, efficiency improvement, and sustainability promotion, LC has become increasingly popular since the 1990s. One significant advantage of LC is its potential to support sustainable development in the construction industry. This is achievable by minimizing waste and improving efficiency, which can lead to a reduction in the negative environmental impacts of construction activities. Additionally, LC can offer construction companies the opportunity to make cost savings and improve profitability. Another observation is that LC requires a cultural shift within the construction industry. It involves a change in mindset and a commitment to continuous improvement throughout the construction process. This requires collaboration and communication among all stakeholders, including owners, designers, contractors, and subcontractors. In terms of the SDGs, LC can support several of the SDGs, including: 1. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure - LC can help to improve the efficiency and sustainability of construction activities, leading to better infrastructure. 2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities - LC can help to promote sustainable building practices, leading to more sustainable cities and communities. 3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production - LC can help to minimize waste and promote responsible consumption and production in the construction industry. 4. SDG 13: Climate Action - LC can help to reduce the negative environmental impacts of construction activities, contributing to climate action. In conclusion, LC has evolved as a key strategy for the construction industry to promote sustainability, improve efficiency, and reduce waste. Its principles and practices can be aligned with the SDGs, making it a valuable tool for achieving sustainable development in the construction industry.

REFERENCES Abdul, R. H., Wang, C. and Yen, W. L. I. (2012). Waste processing framework for non-value: Adding activities using lean construction. Journal of Frontiers in Construction Engineering, 1(1), pp. 8–13. Ahiakwo, O., Oloke, D., Suresh, S. and Khatib, J. (2013). A case study of last planner system implementation in Nigeria. Fortaleza, pp. 699–707. Ahuja, R., Sawhey, A. and Arif, M. (2017). Driving lean and green projects outcomes using BIM: A qualitative comparative analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, pp. 69–80. Alireza, A. and Sorooshian, S. (2014). Lean Manufacturing Tools. Kuantan, Malaysia: UMP. Andújar-Montoya, M. D., Gilart-Iglesias, V., Montoyo, A. and Marcos-Jorquera, D. (2017). A construction management framework for mass customisation in traditional construction. Sustainability, 7(5), pp. 5182–5210. Ansah, R. H., Sorooshian, S. and Mustafa, S. B. (2016). Lean construction: An effective approach for project management. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(3), pp. 1607–1612. Azevedo, S. G., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Influence of green and lean upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), pp. 753–765.

Lean construction and SDGs  311 Aziz, R. F. and Hafez, S. M. (2013). Applying lean thinking in construction and performance improvement. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 52(4), pp. 679–695. Banawi, A. and Bilec, M. M. (2014). A framework to improve construction processes: Integrating lean, green and six sigma. International Journal of Construction Management, 14(1), pp. 45–55. Barathwaj, R., Singh, R. V. and Gunarani, G. I. (2017). Lean construction: Value stream mapping for residentials construction. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(5), pp. 1072–1086. Barbosa, G., Andrade, F., Biotto, C. and Mota, B. (2013). Implementing Lean Construction Effectively in a Year in a Construction Project, 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, July 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil, pp. 1017–1026. Bayhan, H. G., Demiirkesen, S., Zhang, C. and Tezel, A. (2022). A lean construction and BIM interaction model for the construction industry. Production Planning & Control, 34(15), pp. 1447–1474. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​09537287​.2021​.2019342. Bertelsen, S. (2016). Lean construction: Where are we and how to proceed? Lean Construction Journal, 1(1), pp. 46–69. Brady, D., Tzortzopoulos, P. and Rooke, J. (2009). An Examination of the Barriers to Last Planner Implementation, 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Lima, Peru, 2011. Brito, M., Ramos, A. L., Carneiro, P. and Gonclaves, M. (2019). The eight wastes: Non-utilized talent. In: Lean Manufacturing: Implementation, Opportunities and Challenges (pp. 151–164). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Carvajal-Arango, D., Bahamón-Jaramillo, S., Aristizábal-Monsalve, P., Vásquez-Hernández, A. and Botero, L.F. (2019). Relationships between lean and sustainable construction: Positive impacts of lean practices over sustainability during construction phase. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, pp.  1322–1337, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2019​.05​.216 Cerveró-Romero, F., Napolitano, P., Reyes, E. and Teran, L. (2013). Last Planner System and lean approach process: Experiences from implementation in Mexico, 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, July 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil. pp. 709–718. Cwik, K. and Rosłon, J. (2017). Last planner system in construction. Paper presented at MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 117, 00032. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1051/​matecconf/​201711700032. David, S. and Robert, M., (2003). Lean and green: ‘Doing more with less’. International Commerce Review: ECR Journal, 3(1), pp. 84–91. Dey, P.K., Malesios, C., De, D., Chowdhury, S. and Abdelaziz, F, B. (2019). The impact of lean management practices and sustainably-oriented innovation on sustainability performance of small and medium-sized enterprises: Empirical evidence from the UK. British Journal of Management, 31(1), pp. 141–161. Dmitriev, N. and Zaytsev, A. (2021). Effectiveness of Lean Business Model in Circular Manufacturing. In: European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies 2021 Jun 1 (pp. 322–XII). Academic Conferences International Limited. Dues, C. M., Tan, K. H. and Lim, M. (2013). Green as the new Lean: how to use Lean practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, pp. 93–100. Dulaimi, M. F. and Tanamas, C. (2001). The Principles and Applications of Lean Construction in Singapore. 9th International Group for Lean Construction. 2001 Aug 6. pp. 1–4. Fang, Y., Daniel, E. I. and Lia, S. (2021). Conceptual framework for lean construction ambidexterity in project-based organizations. Construction Management and Economics, pp. 824–838. Friblick, F., Olsson, V. and Reslow, J. (2009). Prospects of Implementing Last Planner in the Construction Industry. In Proceedings of 17th Annual Conference of the International Group of Lean Construction (pp. 197–206). Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A. and Vinelli, A. (2014). Lean and green in action: Interdependencies and performance of pollution prevention projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, pp. 191–200. Garza-Reyes, J. A., Kumar, V., Chen, F. and Wang, Y.-C. (2017). Editorial. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 8(1), pp. 2–6. Ghosh, S. (2014). Does formal daily huddle meetings improve safety awareness? International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 10(4), pp. 285–299.

312  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Ghosh, S. and Robson, K.F. (2015). Analyzing the Empire State Building Project from the Perspective of Lean Delivery System—A Descriptive Case Study. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 11(4), pp. 257–267. Habibi Rad, M., Mojtahedi, M., Ostwald, M.J. and Wilkinson, S. (2022). A conceptual framework for implementing lean construction in infrastructure recovery projects. Buildings, 12(3), p.272. Howell, G. and Ballard, G. (1997). Lean production theory: Moving beyond “Can-Do”. Lean construction. Presented at the 2nd Annual Conference on Lean Construction at Catolica Universidad de Chile Santiago, Chile September 1994. pp.17–23. Howell, G. A., Ballard, G. and Demirkesen, S. (2017). Why lean projects are safer. 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Heraklion, Greece-2017, pp. 895–901. https://​doi​.org/​10​.24928/​2017/​0116. Huaman-Orosco, C., Erazo-Rondinel, A.A. and Herrera, R.F. (2022). Barriers to adopting lean construction in small and medium-sized enterprises—The case of Peru. Buildings, 12(10). Johansen, E. and Walter, L. (2007). Lean construction: Prospects for the German industry. Lean Construction Journal, 3(1), pp. 9–32. Jum’a, L., Zimon, D., Ikram, M. and Madzík, P. (2022). Towards a sustainability paradigm; the nexus between lean green practices, sustainability-oriented innovation and triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 245, 108393. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.ijpe​.2021​.108393 King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2009). Lean and green: An empirical examination of the relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Production and Operations Management, 10(3), pp. 244–256. Ko, C.-H. and Chung, N.-F. (2014). Lean design process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(6), pp. 1–11. Koranda, C., Chong, W. K., Kim, C., Chou, J.-S. and Kim, C. (2012). An investigation of the applicability of sustainability and lean concepts to small construction projects. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 16, pp. 699–707. Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction, Standford: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering. Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2002). The foundations of lean construction. In: Best, R., & de Valence, G. (Eds.). Design and Construction: Building in Value. (pp. 211–226). Routledge. https://​doi​.org/​10​.4324/​9780080491080. Kuriger, G. W. and Chen, F. F. (2010). Lean and Green: A Current State View. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Industrial Engineering Research Conference. Norcross: s.n., pp. 1–6. Ladhad, A. and Parrish, K. (2013). Phoenix’s first net-zero energy office retrofit: A green and lean case study. Journal of Green Building, 8(4), pp. 3–16. Larson, T. and Greenwood, R. (2004). Perfect complements: Synergies between lean production and eco-sustainability initiatives. Environmental Quality Management, 13(4), pp. 27–36. Lean Enterprise Institute (2023). Lean Thinking and Practice. [Online], Available at: https://​www​.lean​ .org/​lexicon​-terms/​lean​-thinking​-and​-practice, [Accessed 17 February 2023]. Li, S., Fang, Y. and Wu, X. (2020). A systematic review of lean construction in Mainland China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 257. Madanayake, U. H. (2015). Application of lean construction principles and practices to enhance the construction performance and flow. Colombo, Ceylon Institute of Builders, pp. 109–126. Marhani, M. A., Jaapar, A., Nor, A. A. and Zawawi, M. (2013). Sustainability through lean construction approach: A literature review. Procedia- Social and Behavioural Science, 101, pp. 90–99. Mavridou, T. and Tsigkas, A. (2018). Design of industrial buildings: When lean meets sustainability. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 7(4), pp. 1462–1473. Mohaghegh, M., Blasi, S. and Grobler, A. (2021). Dynamic capabilities linking lean practices and sustainable business performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 322(1). Muhammad, W. M. N., Ismail, Z. and Hashim, A. E. (2013). Exploring lean construction components for Malaysian construction. 2013 IEEE Business Engineering and Industrial Applications Colloquium (BEIAC), Langkawi, Malaysia, 2013, pp. 1–6. https://​doi​.org /10.1109/BEIAC.2013.6560091. Murmura, F., Bravi, L. and Santos, G. (2021). Sustainable process and product innovation in the eyewear sector: The role of industry 4.0 enabling technologies. Sustainability, 13(1), pp. 1–17.

Lean construction and SDGs  313 Nahmens, I. and Ikuma, L. H. (2009). An empirical examination of the relationship between lean construction and safety in the industrialized housing industry. Lean Construction Journal, pp. 1–12. Nahmens, I. and Ikuma, L. H. (2012). Effects of lean construction on sustainability of modular homebuilding. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 18, pp. 155–163. Nesensohn, C., Demir, T. and Bryde, D.J. (2012). Developing a “True North” Best Practice Lean Company with Navigational Compass. 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, California, USA – 2012. Ng, R., Low, J. S. C. and Song, B. (2015). Integrating and implementing lean and green practices based on proposition of carbon-value efficiency metric. Journal of Cleaner Production, 95, pp. 242–255. Ng, S. T., Zheng, D. X. and Xie, J. Z. (2013). Allocation of construction resources through a pull-driven approach. Construction Innovation, 13(1), pp. 77–97. Nikakhtar, A., Hosseini, A. A., Wong, K. Y. and Zavichi, A. (2015). Application of lean construction principles to reduce construction process waste using computer simulation: A case study. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 20(4), pp. 461–480. Ogunbiyi, O. and Goulding, J. (2014). An empirical study of the impact of lean construction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK. Construction Innovation, 14(1), pp. 88–107. Pekuri, A., Pekuri, L. and Haapasalo, H. (2014). Lean as a business model. 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Oslo, Norway-2014. pp. 51–60.Pinch, L. (2005). Lean construction: Eliminating Waste. Construction Executive. Poleise, P., Frodell, M. and Josephson, P., (2009). Implementing Standardisation in Medium-Sized Construction Firms: Facilitating Site Managers’ Feeling of Freedom Through a Bottom-Up Approach. Proceedings of IGLC17: 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Taipei-Taiwan, 13–19 July 2009. Porwal, V., Ferandez-Solis, J., Lavy, S. and Rybkowski, Z. K. (2010). Last Planner System Implementation Challenges. 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Haifa - Israel, 2010. pp. 548–556. Radhika, R. and Sukumar, L. (2017). An overview of the concept of lean construction and the barriers in its implementation. International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research, 4(3), pp. 13–26. Rodrigues, J., de Sá, J. C., Ferreira, L. P., Silva, F. J. and Santos, G. (2019). Lean management ‘quick-wins’: Results of implementation. A case study. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 23(3), pp.  3–21, https://​doi​.org/​10​.12776/​qip​.v23i3​.1291 Rosa, C., Silva, F. J. G., Ferreira, L. P. and Sa, J. C. (2019). Lean manufacturing applied to the production and assembly lines of complex automotive parts. In: Lean Manufacturing: Implementation, Opportunities and Challenges (pp. 189–224). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Rosenbaum, S., Toledo, M. and Gonzalez, V. (2013). Improving environmental and production performance in construction projects using value-stream mapping: Case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(2). Roser, C. (2020). [Online], Available at: https://​www​.allaboutlean​.com/​lead​-time​-development/​ concurrent​-engineering, [Accessed 12 February 2023]. Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Luegring, M. (2005). Site implementation and assessment of lean construction techniques. Lean Construction Journal, 2(2), pp. 1–21. Salontis, K. and Tsinopoulos, C. (2016). Drivers and barriers of lean implementation in the Greek manufacturing sector. Proceedia CIRP, pp. 189–194. Sandberg, E. and Bildsten, L. (2011). Coordination and waste in industrialised housing. Construction Innovation, pp. 77–91. Santos, G., Gomes, S., Braga, V., Braga, A., Lima, V., Teixeira, P. and Sá, J. C. (2019). Value creation through quality and innovation – A case study on Portugal. The TQM Journal, 31(6), pp. 928–947. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​TQM​-12​-2018​-0223 Sarhan, S. and Fox, A. (2013). Barriers to implementing lean construction in the UK construction industry. The Built & Human Environment Review, 6(1). Sarhan, S. and Pretlove, S. (2021). Lean and sustainable construction: State of the art and future directions. Construction Economics and Building, 21(3). Simpson, D. F. and Power, D. J. (2005). Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Supply Chain Management, 10(1), pp. 60–68.

314  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals SketchBubble (2023). [Online], Available at: https://​www​.sketchbubble​.com/​en/​presentation​-daily​ -huddle​.html, [Accessed February 2023]. Solaimani, S. and Sedighi, M. (2020). Towards a holistic view on lean sustainable construction: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248. Sundar, R., Balaji, A. N. and Kumar, R. M. S. (2014). A review on lean manufacturing implementation techniques. Procedia Engineering, pp. 1875–1885. Teixeira, P., Sa, J. C., Silva, F. J. G., Ferreira, L. P., Santos, G. and Fontoura, P. (2021). Connecting lean and green with sustainability towards a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 322, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2021​.129047 Tommelein, I. D. (2015). Journey toward lean construction: Pursuing a paradigm shift in the AEC industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(6). Varela, L., Araújo, A., Ávila, P., Castro, H., and Putnik, G. (2019). Evaluation of the relation between lean manufacturing, industry 4.0, and sustainability. Sustainability, 11(5), p. 1439. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .3390/​su11051439 Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E. and Remita, H. (2014). Combining organizational performance with sustainable development issues: The lean and green project benchmarking repository. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, pp. 83–93. Viana, D. D.., Mota, B., Formoso, C. T., Echeveste, M., Peixoto, M. and Rodrigues, C. L. (2010). A Survey on the Last Planner System: Impacts and Difficulties for Implementation in Brazilian Companies. 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Haifa-Israel, 2010. pp.497–507. Wandahl, S. (2014). Lean construction with or without lean- challenges of implementing lean construction. Oslo, s.n., pp. 97–108. Wijerathne, M. D. I. R., Gunasekara, K. A. and Perera, B. A. K. S. (2019). Overcoming the challenges of sustainable development in Sri Lanka using lean construction principles. In: Sandanayake, Y.G., Gunatilake, S. and Waidyasekara, A. (eds). Proceedings of the 8th World Construction Symposium, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 8–10 November 2019, pp. 473–483. https://​doi​.org/​10​.31705/​WCS​.2019​.47. Available at: https://​2019​.ciobwcs​.com/​papers. Womack, J. P. and Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. London: Simon and Schuster. Yin, S. Y-L., Tserng, H. P., Toong, S. N. and Ngo, T. L. (2014). An improved approach to the subcontracting procurement process in a lean construction setting. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(3), pp. 389–403. Zaeri, F., Rotimi, J. O. B., Hosseini, M. R. and Cox, J. (2017). Implementation of the LPS using an excel spreadsheet: A case study from the New Zealand construction industry. Construction Innovation, 17(3), pp. 324–339. Zhang, X., Azhar, S., Nadeem, A. & Khalfan, M. (2017). Using building information modelling to achieve lean principles by improving efficiency of work teams. International Journal of Construction Management, 18(4), pp. 293–300. Zott, C., Amit, R. and Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), pp. 1019–1042.

18. Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals Yaning Qiao

INTRODUCTION Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are deemed to have attributed to global climate changes in the past two centuries. Human activities are believed to cause a 1.0°C (likely ranging between 0.8–1.2°C) increase above pre-industrial temperatures (IPCC, 2022). Climate change is revealed not only in the form of changes in global temperature (i.e., global warming) but also in changes in rainfall patterns, the occurrence of extreme weather, sea level rise, melting of ice covers, and so on. Such climate changes can lead to a significant impact on the civil infrastructure, their built environment, and economic consequences. Therefore, we need to better understand how infrastructure systems respond to and recover from climate change and to better act on how to prepare for and prevent the risk of climate change. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 (Climate Action) calls for global efforts to combat the impacts of climate change (UNDP, 2015). For the construction industry specifically, this means: ● First, it is urgent to enhance the resilience of infrastructure to adapt to the long-term impacts of climate change and various related natural disasters. Disaster risk reduction strategies should be developed on both national and regional scales. Significant efforts must focus on avoiding or reducing the loss of lives and properties due to climate related disasters. ● Second, measures to adapt infrastructure to future climate change and to cut carbon emissions must be integrated into short-term and long-term decision-making of national policies, strategies, and planning. ● Third, resilience and sustainability of infrastructure should be integrated into civil engineering education. Citizens need to be aware of climate change mitigation and adaptation and know how to prepare for natural disasters to reduce risks to life and properties. Global efforts are needed to collect climate adaptation and mitigation funding for developing countries to enhance equality in achieving infrastructure climate resilience and sustainability. Solutions for climate change adaptation and mitigation are complex as changes in climate change patterns differ with geographic boundaries. Hence, it requires detailed analysis of a specific type of infrastructure at a specific location. This chapter provides general knowledge background regarding 1) How climate will become in the future and how to obtain the information 2) How climate change can affect the built environment and infrastructure durability 3) How the construction industry reduces carbon emissions 4) How climate finance can help address climate change 5) How climate adaptation and mitigation interact with each other.

315

316  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS TREND It is known that the global climate has been changing over many millennia as a natural process and the global average surface temperature fluctuates between extremely cold (i.e., ice age) and extremely hot. Antarctica’s ice core proved that this process has been repeated four times over the last 400,000 years (Petit et al., 1999). Although it is not fully understood, this variation may be related to the orbit of the Earth (sometimes referred to as Milankovitch cycles) and natural drivers such as vegetation coverage (Croll, 1875; IPCC, 2013). The natural drivers can change atmospheric adsorption and reflection of solar energy. The net change in solar energy input into the Earth can be related to radiative forcing, which is significantly influenced by the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere (Charlson et al., 1992; Myhre et al., 1998). It has been observed that the global average surface temperature and the global average sea level have been increasing over the past 150 years and it is almost certain that these increases are due to the anthropogenic emissions of GHG, of which industrial GHG emissions are a major contributor (IPCC, 2013). Furthermore, it is evidenced that the climate has been changing rapidly in recent years and the rate of change is increasing. The term “climate change” can refer to the natural variation of climate as discussed (approximately one cycle per 100,000 years). It can also be particularly used to describe the post-industrial warming phenomenon and its consequences due to man-made emissions. Considering an infrastructure life span which is typically 20–100 years, “climate change” by the first definition is not practical. Therefore, when discussing the impact of “climate change” on infrastructure, climate change refers in particular to anthropogenic climate change. Although it is also restrained by the orbit of the Earth and natural drivers, anthropogenic emissions remain the most significant factor to predict future climate. Whilst past climate change can be somewhat accurately described, at least since human record keeping commenced, predicting future climate is problematic. Firstly, the climatic outputs cannot be definitively related to climatic inputs. There are many global climate prediction models available and many climate localization modes, but their predictions do not fully agree. This is partly due to the difficulties of modelling the complexity of the atmospheric processes and their relationship to the earth’s surface condition and partly due to an incomplete understanding of these processes and interactions. Secondly, the anthropogenic impacts of the future, especially GHG emissions, are not known. Their prediction would require the ability to foresee economic, sociological, and political futures across the world. Therefore, practical prediction of climate change must, necessarily, embrace a range of possibilities. The United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed various Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to quantify global GHG emissions and account for uncertainties including stringent (low), intermediate, and very high RCPs (IPCC, 2014). It is certain that the whole world is attempting to limit global warming to 1.5°C compared to the pre-industrial temperature (IPCC, 2018). This requires a reduction of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 45 percent by 2030 (compared to 2010) and reaching net zero globally by 2050. The current warming rate is likely to lead to a 1.5°C increase between 2030–2052. For obtaining climate change projections on a global scale, readers can refer to IPCC (2022). Based on the global climate change projection, researchers have used the IPCC RCPs and related general circulation models (GCM) for predicting the future climate of a specific region

Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  317 (e.g., American GFDL-CM2.0, French IPSL-CM4, Japanese MIROC3.2, German ECHAM5/ MPI-OM, Chinese FGOALS-g1.0 and British HadCM3 (Wigley, 2008)). These models are used by different institutes in different countries, and each may have its advantages and disadvantages. A tool named MAGICC/SCENGEN is widely adopted to provide a global and local prediction of climate change based on different ocean general circulation models (Wigley, 2008). The MAGICC/SCENGEN includes two separate tools: a MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) model and a SCENGEN (SCENario GENerator) model. MAGICC is applied to provide a projection for an increase/decrease in global average temperature and sea level. Moreover, emissions of GHG, atmospheric GHG concentration, and radiative forcing can be supplied as other outputs of MAGICC. Based on MAGICC outputs, SCENGEN is applied to localize climate change projections on a 5° and 5° grid (in latitude and longitude directions). The localized climate change projections may not be as highly reliable as the global projections, since micro-climate within each of the grids can still be affected by various factors such as topography, vegetation, and orientation to the sun. Figure 18.1 is an example of projections for future global temperature and precipitation, adopted from the IPCC report (IPCC, 2022).

Source: IPCC (2022).

Figure 18.1

Projection of global temperature and precipitation

318  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals For regional studies, GCM model output spatial scales (50 to 300 km) may be adequate. However, higher spatial resolution temperature and precipitation data are frequently desirable to better align with many infrastructure design and operation and maintenance activities. This is particularly important when climate extremes are needed or when GCM results do not resolve land-surface features needed to capture important local weather features. In these cases, dynamical or statistical methods may be used to translate global climate model output to highly spatial scales. Kotamarthi et al. (2016) provide a review of downscaling for decision-making. In brief, dynamical downscaling is accomplished using regional climate models (RCM). RCM are physically based computer models that run at higher spatial scales than global models but over limited regions. Statistical downscaling uses one of many empirical-statistical downscaling models (ESDM). ESDM adopts past local climate observations to eliminate the bias in global climate model output for a specific location. While ESDM methods are used to generate site-specific datasets, there are also existing sets of ESDM outputs for the United States (U.S.) that are supported by federal agencies and widely used: the Downscaled CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6 Climate and Hydrology Projections archive (CHPA, 2023) and the USGS GeoData Portal (USGS, 2023). These data contain a much finer resolution for the prediction of future climate change for specific locations. Predicting global/regional climate change has been made easier. Many interactive climate change predicting tools are developed and available to the public. Such web-based tools are user friendly and can be utilized to make climate (change) projections without understanding the comprehensive science behind them. Examples of such tools include the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit (USCRT, 2023), and the Climate Prediction Center Model of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAACPC, 2023). The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit includes comprehensive web-based applications for assessing exposure, vulnerability, and risks, and for investigating options, prioritizing actions, and planning for adaptation. The “Climate Explorer” tool is used to investigate historical temperatures, future temperatures, flooding, and so on, for a specific state in the U.S.. These tools provide key climate information for conducting climate change risk assessment and planning for climate adaptation and mitigation. Besides, various tools have been developed based on the system dynamics between GHG and global temperature changes. Many tools adopt interactive interfaces to test the impact of critical scenarios (e.g., energy source, transport, household energy use, industry, etc.) on global warming. For example, the En-ROADS and C-ROADS applications of the Climate Interactive can be used to achieve such purposes (C-ROADS, 2023; En-ROADS, 2023). These applications are also used in education to better understand the mechanisms of anthropogenic climate change and how major GHG contributors can cooperate to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON INFRASTRUCTURE In recent decades, the impacts of climate change on civil infrastructure have become an important research area. Climate change can adversely affect civil infrastructure, causing accelerated physical damage to infrastructure and disrupting its normal operations. The infrastructure can be affected by climate change and natural disasters because the functionality and serviceability are closely related to the built environment. In particular, conventional design methods for

Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  319 infrastructure lack consideration for future climate. Climate change can impact different civil infrastructures in different life cycle phases including design, construction, transportation, operation, and recycling. In general, the impacts of climate change on civil infrastructure can be classified as short-term or long-term, and direct or indirect. Long-term impacts include gradual changes in temperature, sea level rise, and so on, and short-term impacts are related to natural disasters or extreme weather, for example, impacts of hurricanes or intensive rainfalls. Direct impacts are the effects of climate change on the performance, durability, and energy consumption of the physical infrastructure, while indirect impacts are the effects of climate change on other factors, for example, demographic changes that can lead to indirect impacts on the performance, durability, and energy consumption of infrastructure. Many studies have focused on the long-term climate change impacts on building energy consumption, as reflected in heating and cooling. Mauree et al. (2018) modelled the energy consumption of a university campus in Switzerland, and the simulation results showed a decreasing heating demand and a significant increase in cooling demand in the future as it will become colder in summer and warmer in winter. Chen et al. (2018) reached similar conclusions by quantitatively assessing the future energy consumption for cooling and heating in office buildings in Harbin, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, China. In addition, the increase and decrease in net energy demand is strongly dependent on the climate of the investigated building. For example, Invidata and Ghisi (2016) discovered that the total annual energy consumption for heating and cooling will both increase in the future in three Brazilian cities. In some regions, the increases in energy consumption in summers can be compensated by the energy saving in winters and climate change can lead to saving in energy. For example, Jylhä et al. (2015) assessed the energy demand of a typical detached dwelling in Finland. The increase in cooling demand is expected to be compensated by a significant reduction in heating demand, thus reducing the annual net energy demand. It is still debatable regarding the importance of the impact of climate change on building energy consumption. Fabbri et al. (2020) confirmed through the results of a case study in New York that climate change will significantly affect future building energy performance and indoor thermal comfort, thus considering it a global challenge. However, the opposite conclusion was reached in an Australian study. Daly et al. (2014) modelled the possible impact of climate change on energy consumption in office buildings in five Australian cities and compared it with other possible changes in building energy consumption. The results showed the relative insignificance of climate change in the choice of the optimal retrofit strategy. Therefore, it is important to understand how temporal and geographical boundaries affect the impact of climate change on building energy consumption. Climate change will not only impact building energy consumption but also other aspects of the building, including but not limited to the bearing capacity and durability of building materials. For buildings, climate adaptation encourages passive design, which means taking advantage of the natural environment to heat, cool, and vent a building. Sustainable passive design should consider changes in future climate. Roadway pavements, particularly asphalt pavements, are directly exposed to the environment and thus can be widely affected by climate change. Adverse climate changes, mainly temperature, rainfall, and groundwater level changes, are affecting pavement performance and life cycle costs. The choice of asphalt binder for flexible pavements is dependent on local climatic conditions, for example, the performance grade system in the U.S.. However,

320  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals pavement design has not become climate change adaptive and studies are advancing knowledge in this aspect. Underwood et al. (2017) reported significant budget increases in the U.S. to maintain national pavements for future climate change (in the range of $10-40 billion). Qiao et al. (2020) and Qiao et al. (2022) explored the impact of climate change on pavement performance, maintenance, and cost both qualitatively and quantitatively, and noted that pavement performance is usually affected by temperature more than any other climatic factors, for example, average rainfall. In areas where rainfall and groundwater level increases in the future, pavement moisture can have long-term changes which affect pavement durability. Fladvad et al. (2021) tested three different groundwater levels in their experiments to change pavement moisture content. The results showed that the increase in groundwater levels led to a significant increase in pavement rutting. Other climatic effects such as extended freeze-thaw cycles can significantly affect pavement durability (Daniel et al., 2017). Climate change also has an impact on bridges, mainly due to greater risks of flooding. Such studies usually consider bridge scour aggravated by climate change. Cook et al. (2015) studied bridge failures between 1987 and 2011 using the New York State Department of Transportation database. The results identified scour as the most important cause of bridge failure. Increased runoff due to climate induced increases in precipitation and water levels will create a higher risk of scouring bridges. In addition, Nasr et al. (2019) noted the risks brought by climate change may also include the impact of floating objects and bridge deck uplift by flooding.

CARBON NEUTRALITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Carbon neutrality refers to the offsetting of GHG produced by an assessed system (such as an organization, individual, product, service, etc.) over a certain period in the form of “carbon sink”, including reforestation, energy saving, emission reduction, and so on, to achieve a zero-carbon emission state. Carbon refers to CO2 and the term carbon could mean: 1) CO2 emitted from anthropogenic activities; 2) equivalent global warming effects (CO2-equivalent) considering various GHG, including CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and others. Compared to other GHGs such as methane (CH4), CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a longer period, has a higher proportion, and is easier to account for statistically. Therefore, CO2 is often considered to be a proxy (in CO2-equivalent) for different GHGs. The former definition of carbon enables the convenient and effective calculation of carbon, while the latter definition, strictly speaking, is more scientific as it can more comprehensively account for the global warming impacts of an assessed product or system. Dependent on counting measures, the construction industry accounts for approximately 10 percent-40 percent of the total carbon emission globally (EC, 2020; USEPA, 2022). It is generally understood that a different magnitude of carbon is emitted in different life cycle phases of civil infrastructure. For example, the building operation and materials production stages are the primary phases for carbon emission, while the transportation of materials, construction, and demolition stages lead to a reduced percentage of carbon emission. Carbon reduction can be the most effective when the high carbon intensive stages are prioritized for carbon reduction measures. While there is still a long way to go to achieve carbon neutrality in the construction industry, measures to effectively reduce carbon emissions can include:

Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  321 Reduce Energy Consumption in the Operation Stage Reducing the operation stage means energy consumption can significantly contribute to the carbon reduction of buildings and infrastructure. It is common that operation stage energy consumption contributes to the majority of the total life cycle carbon emission (e.g., 70 percent, Fenner et al., (2020)), for example, utilization of electricity for heating, cooling, and ventilation for buildings and vehicle gasoline consumption for roadways. Ürge-Vorsetz et al. (2020) summarized various definitions of energy-efficient buildings in the literature, stating that passive buildings enhance ventilation to reduce indoor temperature. Fenner et al. (2020) reported that advanced building thermal coating can reduce heating and cooling requirements by up to 40 percent. Ürge-Vorsetz et al. (2020) added that the transformation of conventional buildings to energy-efficient buildings not only brings benefits to climate change mitigation and carbon neutrality goals but also has a synergistic effect on economic and social benefits. Utilizing Sustainable Building Materials It is important to identify carbon intensive construction materials as the first step toward sustainable construction (Zabalza et al., 2009). Materials such as sand, gravel, bricks, and cement are the most widely used construction materials. It is commonly accepted that cement, steel, bricks, lime, and linoleum are less sustainable construction materials as they are more carbon intensive (Chen et al., 2022). Although they have been successfully used in the past centuries, innovative replacement materials for them are urgently needed. Some materials are used in large quantities in construction projects globally, for example, sand and gravel. Recycling is encouraged for these materials. Moreover, more sustainable transportation measures should be promoted for reducing consumption of fossil fuels of transportation vehicles. In addition, the carbon reduction of construction projects needs specific analysis for specific problems (Chen et al., 2022). Different types of construction materials should be utilized and different carbon reduction strategies should be adopted in regions with different levels of development. Some natural materials show significant environmental benefits. Maximizing the use of natural materials (e.g., wood or bamboo) in future urban construction can facilitate carbon neutrality. Stocchero et al. (2017) and Xu et al. (2022) confirmed the role of wood species in carbon reduction and storage. Stocchero et al. (2017) applied the concept of urban equilibrium (UE) in assessing the contribution of wood in balancing urban carbon emissions. Similar to wood, bamboo is also an ideal building material with high tensile and compressive strength, hence making it a more sustainable construction material. One of the greatest benefits of constructing buildings with wood or bamboo is that they can store large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere in buildings, which can help reduce carbon or even achieve carbon-negative buildings by offsetting the carbon emissions generated during construction and operation. Lü et al. (2017) found that wood building materials are an effective response to climate change by assessing the climate suitability of wood and existing wood buildings. Although wood is not used to the same extent in modern buildings as it was in the past, it is still used heavily, especially in the U.S. and Europe. In addition to the aforementioned approaches to promote emissions reductions from building materials, Ürge-Vorsetz et al. (2020) pointed out another important yet little-emphasized strategy which is to improve the durability of building materials. Improving durability, while

322  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals potentially leading to an increase in total whole-life carbon emissions, is meaningful for carbon reduction if the average annual carbon emissions decrease. In the long run, it is also worth exploring how to extend the durability of different building materials. Green Building Green building refers to a building that can maximize the conservation of resources, protect the environment, reduce pollution during its whole life cycle, and provide people with healthy, suitable, and efficient use of space. In the exploration and practice of green building, various certification systems have gradually been established. The guidelines of the existing green building certification system are not perfect and need further development. Amiri et al. (2021) and Fenner et al. (2020) argued that embodied carbon certification is important for green building. Fenner et al. (2020) concluded that building location affects how residents travel to various destinations, thus travel carbon affects total carbon emissions and should be considered. The travel mode of residents is not only related to the location of the building but also related to the income level and living habits of residents, and so on. However, it is criticized that the inclusion of travel carbon into the green building certification system may duplicate the boundary of other carbon emission systems, which requires coordination with other sectors and integrated planning of green building certification assessment guidelines. Liao and Li (2021) argued that the current research on carbon emission reduction effects of green building development (GBD) mainly focuses on the micro level and lacks a macro GBD emission reduction performance analysis and evaluation framework to explore the industrial and regional policy implementation effects of GBD. It is found that GBD and carbon emission efficiency of the construction industry show a positive spatial correlation. The expansion of green building activity locations in one region will attract green production factors such as technology, talent, labour, and capital from other regions, which in turn will promote local carbon emission efficiency. In many countries, green building policies started late and largely relied on government mandates. While this simple and brutal approach can accelerate construction, it does not allow for a market-based commercialization mechanism, and there is no way to form a complete ecosystem that benefits everyone involved, so widespread replication of green building is difficult. Practice Recycling Construction projects can achieve economic and environmental benefits by using recycled materials, for example, reclaimed asphalt concrete, aggregates, and steel. Practicing recycling in the construction industry can facilitate a circular economy, which is an approach that seeks to derive more value from resources by using them for as long as possible while reducing the number of raw materials used. In simple terms, it mimics the circular system in nature, so that the waste materials of one project/company/industry become the raw materials of another. For example, Manu et al. (2022) established comprehensive approaches to evaluate different circular business models, considering “reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover” (the 4Rs) and a series of circular strategies, including “refuse, rethink, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle and recovery”.

Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  323 The application of the circular economy concept in the construction industry is urgently needed to facilitate carbon neutrality. This can contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions in the end-of-life stage in the life cycle of buildings or infrastructure. In addition, a circular economy also means the construction industry can take end-of-life wastes from other industries. For example, recycled tires can be added to reclaimed asphalt concrete to create asphalt concrete with better performance (Lo Presti, 2013). Innovative combinations of construction waste and waste from other industries for more durable buildings or infrastructure call for future research. Building Energy Retrofit Many studies confirm that climate change highly influences the efficiency of building energy over time. Higher temperatures in the future will increase the energy demand for cooling and decrease the energy demand for heating. In general, higher summer and winter temperatures will increase the total energy demand for heating and cooling in warmer climates, while in colder climates, total energy demand will decrease. Predicting the impact of climate change on building energy consumption is strongly influenced by the climate of the study area and therefore requires a case-by-case analysis. Building energy retrofit can save operating costs in the long run but will also add costs related to retrofitting. Therefore, it is important to minimize costs from the life cycle perspective to achieve long-term sustainability. Such a minimization approach usually adopts multi-objective optimization to find optimal energy retrofit solutions and assess their contribution to global warming (Ascione et al., 2017). However, there are several barriers to the development of building energy retrofit. Ürge-Vorsetz et al. (2020) pointed out that financing is difficult because the investment period for deep energy retrofits is usually long and substantial, and many owners and financiers do not have sufficient funds for initiation and may lack the patience to observe its long-term benefits in energy saving. In addition, the building retrofitting process is difficult as it requires permits from a large number of households.

CLIMATE FINANCE As generally recognized, climate finance refers to the financial solution to climate change adaptation and low-carbon development. In a broader term, climate finance should encompass all investment and financing activities to adapt to and mitigate climate change. Such investment and financing activities are important to enhance infrastructure system resilience and reduce carbon emissions. In the construction industry, climate change can cause various financial risks. For example, continuous high temperatures may lead to lower worker attendance, extended project duration, and increased project costs. Sea level rise may lead to a reduction in the asset values. Therefore, construction authorities and construction companies should enhance their climate risk management measures to comprehensively assess how climate change affects climate finance and provide notification to stakeholders in advance (Hansen et al., 2019). Generally, the risks posed to construction businesses by climate change can be broadly classified into two categories, including physical risk and transition risk. Physical risk is the direct

324  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals economic loss caused by long-term climate change or natural disasters. In the construction industry, this is mainly reflected in the reduction in property prices caused by deteriorating climate (e.g., sea level rise, heat waves, drought, hurricanes, storms), which can also increase the risk of property loans, thereby increasing the risk to financial institutions. Transition risk is the stranding of financial assets due to technological upgrades and policy changes during the transition process of the firm (Gianfrate and Peri, 2019; Mohsin et al., 2021). In particular, construction companies will rely on the future development of the upstream industry with high carbon emissions (e.g., petroleum, cement, etc.). It is important that the construction industry improves the transparency of climate risk information and database for reliably assessing climate financial risks. Construction companies should develop climate investments to facilitate green transformation. Stakeholders in the construction industry should participate in insurance against climate risks. Climate finance is expected to have a significant reduction effect on carbon emissions and can contribute to the development of climate finance in recipient countries by providing substantial financial assistance to related businesses. While climate finance can directly reduce carbon emissions, it can also indirectly increase carbon emissions by increasing the output of recipient countries/companies and reducing the efficiency of their emission reduction investments (Le et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020). Global organizations should, therefore, while providing funding, strive to establish effective systems in recipient countries to help develop synergistic emission reduction mechanisms between climate finance and low carbon growth in the economy. This is conducive to the long-term development of climate finance. Browne (2022) and others argue that western donors, as the largest beneficiaries of development at the expense of the environment, should uphold the principle that climate finance should be treated as restitution, not aid. Recipient countries should control the allocation of resources, use aid wisely and devote it to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Another important aspect of climate financing is to put a price on emitting CO2-equivalent, that is, carbon pricing or carbon financing, as it attaches GHG emissions to certain monetary values. There are direct/indirect costs associated with GHG emissions and consequent anthropogenic climate change, for example, increasing electric bills due to more frequent use of air conditioning in the summer or losses of property values due to the sea level rise. Carbon pricing builds a bond between GHG emissions and monetary values to drive carbon reduction by markets. Rather than regulating where and how GHG emissions need to decrease, carbon pricing relies on markets to find inexpensive approaches to cut emissions. Although carbon pricing initiatives are fast spreading globally, it needs to be significantly boosted to meet the ambitious goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 (Klenert et al., 2017). However, this largely depends on different nations’ climate policies, country development, industry, and corporate governance (Bento and Gianfrate, 2020). In addition, citizens’ willingness to pay for climate change mitigation is greatly affected by their political, economic, and cultural worldviews (Klenert and Hepburn, 2018). Doubts about carbon pricing can be raised by citizens, however, appropriate use of revenues raised from carbon pricing can better make carbon pricing work for citizens (Klenert and Hepburn, 2018; Klenert et al., 2018). Contexts are certainly different in different countries, hence unique opportunities and constraints exist in different countries to regulate carbon pricing (Narassimhan et al., 2017). Therefore, countries should share carbon pricing policies and practices and learn from each other.

Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  325

INTERACTION BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE (ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION) Numerous scholars support the point that infrastructure should not only adapt to but also mitigate climate change (Qiao et al., 2020; Rañeses et al., 2021): ● Adaptation refers to the passive design and management of infrastructure to cope with the effects of climate change (e.g., more extreme hot weather and sea level rise). Adaptation is the “resilience” of the infrastructure system to climate change. ● Mitigation means that infrastructure should be more environmentally friendly and emit less carbon during the life cycle so that infrastructure contributes less to climate change. Adaptation and mitigation need to be combined as they are not two separate concepts (see Figure 18.2). Adaptation concerns the impacts of climate change on infrastructure through extra environmental loads, while mitigation deals with the impacts of infrastructure on climate change (i.e., CO2-equivalent).

Figure 18.2

Climate change adaptation and mitigation for infrastructure

Achieving climate adaptation and mitigation together requires optimization of infrastructure life cycle design and management so that extra environmental load due to climate change and carbon emissions are solved at the same time. It means future design and management of infrastructure do not only consider how to deal with the impacts of climate change to maximize infrastructure resilience but also how to minimize environmental impacts (particularly carbon emission).

326  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Anthropogenic climate change will have impacts on the built environment and the economy of construction. The global effort is to limit global warming to within 1.5°C of the pre-industrial temperature, however, it is likely to be exceeded by the end of this century. Therefore, the construction industry should at least be prepared for global warming of 1.5°C. Climate projection and downscaling can provide a more robust projection of climate change in a specific location in support of decision-making in the construction industry. Using a systematic approach and integrating whole life cycle thinking in the built environment can enable decision makers to link the environment to social and economic development. On the one hand, the construction industry must take into account the impact of climate change in order to design and maintain the system resilience of infrastructure to adapt to future climates. On the other hand, the construction industry needs to mitigate climate change and reduce life cycle carbon emissions to facilitate carbon neutrality. Climate adaptation and mitigation considerations must be simultaneously incorporated into the whole life cycle of infrastructure. Future research is needed to understand how to consider adaptation and mitigation in infrastructure design and management. The impact of climate change is comprehensive and can affect infrastructure that is environmentally sensitive. For example, the heating and cooling of buildings are affected by climate change and its impacts are significantly affected by local climate patterns. Asphalt pavements are most affected by temperature raising and intensive rainfalls. Bridges can suffer from more frequent scour due to more intensive rainfalls. It is important to consider climate as an essential factor in the design and management of future infrastructure. The construction industry has a high share of carbon emissions in society. A priority should be given to reducing carbon emission in the operation phase of infrastructure, for example, heating in buildings, vehicle fuel consumption, and so on. Adopting sustainable construction materials is also important as the production phase usually shares a large proportion of the life cycle carbon emission. Approaches such as green building and energy retrofit can also save energy and carbon emissions. The construction industry should encourage recycling, not only from the construction industry itself but also from related upstream/downstream industries. In addition, it is important to find innovative solutions to extend the service life and durability of infrastructure in order to reduce the annual average carbon emissions. Climate finance is important to enhance the resilience of infrastructure and facilitate carbon neutrality of the construction industry. Governments should establish mechanisms and rules such as carbon tax, emission restrictions, and carbon trading to alleviate climate problems. Construction companies should make the sustainable transition early to avoid the negative impact of such policies on their cash flow. When working with financial institutions, construction companies should analyze the sensitivity of financial risk to future climate change. The construction industry should actively develop climate finance tools, such as loans, green funds, stocks, insurance, and so on, to support climate adaptation and mitigation projects.

Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  327

REFERENCES Amiri, A., Emami, N., Ottelin, J., Sorvari, J., Marteinsson, B., Heinonen, J. and Junnila, S. (2021). Embodied emissions of buildings - A forgotten factor in green building certificates. Energy and Buildings, 241, 110962. Ascione, F., Bianco, N., De Masi, R., Mauro, G. and Vanoli, G. (2017). Resilience of robust cost-optimal energy retrofit of buildings to global warming: A multi-stage, multi-objective approach. Energy and Buildings, 153, 150–167. Bento, N. and Gianfrate, G. (2020). Determinants of internal carbon pricing. Energy Policy, 143, 111499. Browne, K.E. (2022). Rethinking governance in international climate finance: Structural change and alternative approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change. In Press. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1002/​wcc​.795 (accessed on 20 Sep 2022). Charlson, R. J., Schwartz, S.E., Hales, J.M., Cess, R.D., Coakley, J.J., Hansen, J.E. and Hofmann, D.J. (1992). Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols. Science, 255(5043), 423–430. Chen, W., Yang, S., Zhang, X., Jordan, N. and Huang, J. (2022). Embodied energy and carbon emissions of building materials in China. Building and Environment, 207, 108434. Chen, Y., Li, M., Xiong, M., Cao, J. and Li, J. (2018). Future climate change on energy consumption of office buildings in different climate zones of China. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 27(1), 45–53. Climate and Hydrology Projections Archive (2023). Available online: http://​ gdo​ -dcp​ .ucllnl​ .org/​ downscaled​_cmip​_projections/​(accessed on 30 Mar 2023). Cook, W., Barr, P. and Halling, M. (2015). Bridge failure rate. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 29(3), 1–8. Croll, J. (1875). Climate and time. Nature, 12(304), 329. C-ROADS (2023). C-ROADS of the Climate Interactive. Available at: https://​c​-roads​.climateinteractive​ .org/​scenario​.html​?v​=​22​.11​.0 (accessed on 24 Mar 2023). Daly, D., Cooper, P. and Ma, Z. (2014). Implications of global warming for commercial building retrofitting in Australian cities. Building and Environment, 74, 86–95. Daniel, J.S., Jacobs, J.M., Millder, H., Stoner, A., Crowley, J. Khalkhali, M. and Thomas, A. (2017). Climate change: Potential impacts on frost–thaw conditions and seasonal load restriction timing for low-volume roadways. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 19(5), 1126–1146. EC (2012). Reducing Emissions from Transport. European Commission (EC). Available online: https://​ ec​.europa​.eu/​(accessed on 29 Jan 2020). Eichholtz, P.M., Kok, N. and Quigley, J.M. (2010). The economics of green building. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 50–63. En-ROADS (2023). En-ROADS of the Climate Interactive. Available at: https://​www​.climateinteractive​ .org/​en​-roads/​(accessed on 23 Mar 2023). Fabbri, K., Gaspari, J. and Felicioni, L. (2020). Climate change effect on building performance: A case study in New York. Energies, 13(12), 3160. Fenner, A.E., Kibert, C.J., Li, J., Razkenari, M.A., Hakim, H., Lu, X., Kouhirostami, M. and Sam, M. (2020). Embodied, operation, and commuting emissions: A case study comparing the carbon hotspots of an educational building. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, 122081. Fladvad, M. and Erlingsson, S. (2021). Modelling the response of large-size subbase materials tested under varying moisture conditions in a heavy vehicle simulator. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 23(5), 1107–1128. Gianfrate, G. and Peri, M. (2019). The green advantage: Exploring the convenience of issuing green bonds. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 127–135. Hansen, J., Hellin, J., Rosenstock, T., Fisher, E., Cairns, J., Stirling, C., LaManna, C., van Etten, J., Rose, A. and Campbell, B. (2019). Climate risk management and rural poverty reduction. Agricultural Systems, 172, 28–46. Invidiata, A. and Ghisi, E. (2016). Impact of climate change on heating and cooling energy demand in houses in Brazil. Energy and Buildings, 130, 20–32. IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental

328  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (Eds.)] (pp. 151). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor and T. Waterfield (Eds.)] (pp. 3–24). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, doi:10.1017/9781009157940.001. IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press. Jylhä, K., Jokisalo, J., Ruosteenoja, K., Pilli-Sihvola, K., Kalamees, T., Seitola, T., Mäkelä, H., Hyvönen, R., Laapas, M. and Drebs, A. (2015). Energy demand for the heating and cooling of residential houses in Finland in a changing climate. Energy and Buildings, 99, 104–116. Klenert, D and Hepburn, C. (2018). Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Available: https://​cepr​.org/​ voxeu/​columns/​making​-carbon​-pricing​-work​-citizens (accessed on 3 Apr 2023). Klenert, D., Mattauch, L., Combet, E., Edenhofer, O., Hepburn, C., Rafaty, R. and Stern, N. (2017). Making Carbon Pricing Work. MPRA Paper No. 80943. Available: https://​mpra​.ub​.uni​-muenchen​.de/​ 80943/​1/​MPRA​_paper​_80943​.pdf (accessed on 3 Apr 2023). Klenert, D., Mattauch, L., Combet, E., Edenhofer, O., Hepburn, C., Rafaty, R. and Stern, N. (2018). Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nature Climate Change, 8(8), 669–677. Kotamarthi, R., C. Castro, K. Hayhoe, L. Mearns and D. Wuebbles. (2016). Use of Climate Information for Decision-Making and Impacts Research: State of our Understanding. U.S. Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. (Available at https://​www​.researchgate​ .net/​profile/​V​_Kotamarthi/​publication/​304204988​_Use​_of​_Climate​_Information​_for​_Decision​ -Making​_and​_Impacts​_Research​_State​_of​_Our​_Understanding/​links/​5769​598608ae7d2478cd8104​ .pdf) Le, T. H., Le, H. C. and Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2020). Does financial inclusion impact CO2 emissions? Evidence from Asia. Finance Research Letters, 34, 101451. Li, L. and Liao, B. (2021). How can green building development promote carbon emission reduction efficiency of the construction industry? Based on the dual perspective of industry and space. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 9852–9866. Lo Presti, D. (2013). Recycled tyre rubber modified Bitumens for road asphalt mixtures: A literature review. Construction and Building Materials, 49, 863–881. Lü, X., Lu, T., Kibert, C., Vahtikari, K., Hughes, M. and Zhao, Y. (2017). A dynamic modelling approach for simulating climate change impact on energy and hygrothermal performances of wood buildings. Building Simulation, 11(3), 497–506. Manu, E., Ankrah, N. and Bentrar, J. (2022). Circular economy; delivering social value throughout the supply chain. In Raiden, A. and King A. Social Value in Practice (pp. 115–134). Abingdon: Routledge. Mauree, D., Coccolo, S., Perera, A., Nik, V., Scartezzini, J. and Naboni, E. (2018). A new framework to evaluate urban design using urban microclimatic modeling in future climatic conditions. Sustainability, 10(4), 1134. Mohsin, M., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Panthamit, N., Anwar, S. and Xuan, V.V. (2020). Developing low carbon finance index: Evidence from developed and developing economies. Finance Research Letters, 43, 101520. Myhre, G., Highwood, E.J., Shine, K.P. and Stordal, F. (1998). New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophysical Research Letters, 25(14), 2715–2718. Narassimhan, E., Gallagher, K.S., Koester, S. and Alejo, J.R. (2017). Carbon pricing in practice: A review of the evidence. Climate Policy Lab: Medford, MA, USA.

Climate change, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  329 Nasr, A., Kjellström, E., Björnsson, I., Honfi, D., Ivanov, O. and Johansson, J. (2019). Bridges in a changing climate: A study of the potential impacts of climate change on bridges and their possible adaptations. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 16(4), 738–749. NOAACPC (2023). Climate Prediction Center of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at: https://​www​.cpc​.ncep​.noaa​.gov/​(accessed on 20 Feb 2023). Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pépin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E. and Stievenard, M. (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399(6735), 7. Nguyen, T.T., Pham, T., & Tram, H. (2020). Role of information and communication technologies and innovation in driving carbon emissions and economic growth in selected G-20 countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 261, 110162.1–110162.10. Qiao, Y., Dawson, A., Parry, T., Flintsch, G. and Wang, W. (2020). Flexible pavements and climate change: A comprehensive review and implications. Sustainability, 12(3), 1057. Qiao, Y., Guo, Y., Stoner, A. and Santos, J. (2022). Impacts of future climate change on flexible road pavement economics: A life cycle costs analysis of 24 case studies across the United States. Sustainable Cities and Society, 80, 103773. Rañeses, M., Chang-Richards, A., Wang, K. and Dirks, K. (2021). Housing for now and the future: A systematic review of climate-adaptive measures. Sustainability, 13(12), 6744. Stocchero, A., Seadon, J., Falshaw, R. and Edwards, M. (2017). Urban equilibrium for sustainable cities and the contribution of timber buildings to balance urban carbon emissions: A New Zealand case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 1001–1010. Underwood, S., Guido, Z., Gudipudi, P. and Feinberg, Y. (2017). Increased costs to US pavement infrastructure from future temperature rise. Nature Climate Change, 7, 704–707. UNDP (2015). UNDP Support to the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 13. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). New York. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2022). Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://​www​.epa​.gov/​greenvehicles/​fast​-facts​-transportation​-greenhouse​ -gas​-emissions (accessed on 20 Sep 2022). United States Geological Survey GeoData (2023). Available online: http://​cida​.usgs​.gov/​gdp/​(accessed on 30 Mar 2023). Ürge-Vorsetz, D., Khosla, R., Bernhardt, R., Chan, Y., Vérez, D., Hu, S. and Cabeza, L. (2020). Advances toward a net-zero global building sector. annual review of environment and resources, 45(1), 227–269. Wigley, T.M. (2008). “MAGICC/SCENGEN 5.3: User manual (version 2)”. Boulder, CO. Xu, X., Xu, P., Zhu, J., Li, H. and Xiong, Z. (2022). Bamboo construction materials: Carbon storage and potential to reduce associated CO2 emissions. Science of the Total Environment, 814, 152697. Zabalza, I., Aranda-Usón, A. and Scarpellini, S. (2009). Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification. Building and Environment, 44(12), 2510–2520.

19. Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals Alex Opoku and Benjamin Baah

INTRODUCTION Given the need for biodiversity and healthy ecosystems to achieve the SDG-2030 Agenda, it is not surprising that many Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include targets that reflect their important role (Corbett and Mellouli, 2017). The interaction between the natural and built environments has a huge effect on the planet. Consequently, a healthy ecosystem is required to maintain life on the planet, and biodiversity is crucial to this process (UK Green Building Council, 2009; Willmott Dixon, 2010). According to Lundholm (2006), the built environment has a significant negative impact on natural ecosystems because of the energy and materials required to maintain the industry. According to the United Nation Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992, p. 3), biodiversity is defined as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.” With this definition, biodiversity can then be deemed as the diversity of living species in the Earth’s biosphere, of which humans also constitute this variety. Humanity depends on the goods and services nature generates, and biodiversity underpins nature’s ability to deliver these goods and services over the long term (Roe et al., 2019). From genes to micro-organisms to top predators and even whole ecosystems depend on biodiversity for everything from clean air and water to medicines and secure food supplies. Despite all these important elements, the only way that biodiversity loss has been addressed is as an environmental issue, allowing human activities to destroy biodiversity around 1,000 times faster than natural “background” rates (Roe et al., 2019). Additionally, while developing infrastructure and housing developments, the built environment rarely takes into account the relationship between biodiversity and human well-being; little emphasis is placed on integrating the pertinent biodiversity strategies for sustainable urban development (Edwards, 2010; Opoku, 2019). SDG 15 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is devoted to ”protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. This is a significant effort to save the environment for both present and future generations (UN, 2015). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and other current international commitments are in line with the 2030 Agenda. For instance, United Nations (UN) declared 2011–2020 as a decade of biodiversity which saw the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. The mission of the strategy was to secure the diversity of life on our planet and contribute to human well-being 330

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  331 and poverty eradication through urgent and effective actions to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020. This requires reducing the pressures on biodiversity, restoring ecosystems, using biological resources in a sustainable manner, and sharing the benefits that arise from the utilisation of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way. It is also essential to provide adequate financial resources, enhance capacities, mainstream biodiversity issues and values, and implement appropriate policies based on sound science and the precautionary approach. The implementation of one of these international commitments helps the other to be achieved because the SDGs and the Strategic Plan are mutually supportive of one another (Johansen and Vestvik, 2020). The targets under this SDG directly refer to terrestrial eco-systems and biodiversity. CBD has been encouraging strategic actions to mainstream biodiversity within and across sectors, where the built environment is no exception.

BOX 19.1 POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK The post-2020 global biodiversity framework, building on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, its achievements, gaps, and lessons learned, and the experience and achievements of other relevant multilateral environmental agreements, sets out an ambitious plan to implement broad-based action to bring about a transformation in our societies’ relationship with biodiversity by 2030, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals, and ensure that, by 2050, the shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled. Biodiversity is fundamental to human well-being and a healthy planet, [and economic prosperity] for people living in harmony with nature [and [for addressing other multiple worldviews]]. [It underpins [virtually] every part of our lives]; we depend on it for food, medicine, energy, clean air and water, security from natural disasters as well as recreation and cultural inspiration, and it supports all systems of life on earth, [among others]. More than half of the global gross domestic product (GDP) relies on biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. The framework is action- and results-oriented and aims to guide and promote at all levels the revision, development, updating, and implementation of policies, goals, targets, national biodiversity strategies and actions plans, and to facilitate [regular] monitoring and review of progress at all levels, [in a more transparent and responsible manner] to increase transparency and accountability [responsibility]. The framework promotes [synergies], coherence, complementarity and cooperation between the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocols, other biodiversity related conventions, other relevant multilateral agreements and international institutions, respecting their mandates, and creates opportunities for cooperation and partnerships among the diverse actors to enhance implementation of the framework [in an effective and efficient manner]. Source: UN Environment Programme (2022).

The ecosystem services necessary for our survival and well-being are in danger as biodiversity is disappearing more quickly than at any other point in human history. Aiming to stop this decrease is the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (see Box 19.1) agreed by 188 nations at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in Montreal in December 2022 (UNEP, 2022).

332  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals The built environment must therefore consider enhancing or at least protecting biodiversity, as it must consider all things and their habitats. A better biodiversity is the cornerstone of a built environment that promotes health and well-being (Nolan et al., 2009). When considering the preservation and enhancement of nature as an inherent aspect of all ideas for new developments or regeneration initiatives, the built environment offers value for biodiversity. By making cities more environmentally friendly, the built environment provides excellent chances to support animals and increased biodiversity (Snep and Clergeau, 2020). The creation of plans for preserving, managing, and promoting biodiversity in the built environment must consequently use a multi-scale approach. When appropriately integrated across the whole project delivery process, this can be accomplished at the lowest possible cost (Opoku, 2019). This chapter identifies construction industry best practices and approaches that support the restoration of biodiversity in the built environment towards the attainment of the SDGs. It presents a mapping of the linkages between biodiversity in the built environment and the SDG-2030.

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND BIODIVERSITY The goal of protecting biodiversity globally was set in motion in June 1992, at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where world leaders agreed on a comprehensive strategy for sustainable development (UN, 1992). The main goal of the Rio “Earth Summit” was to define a comprehensive agenda and a fresh strategy for global action on environmental and development challenges that would help direct international cooperation and development policy in the twenty-first century. At the summit, the CBD was adopted which sought to achieve three goals; the preservation of biological diversity; the sustainable use of its components; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources (Prip, 2018). Fast forward, the 193 UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which lays out an ambitious set of global, indivisible goals and targets to address a variety of social concerns. Given the importance of biodiversity and robust ecosystems, biodiversity figures are strong in several of the SDGs and associated targets. Importance of Biodiversity in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Biodiversity is paramount to sustainable growth and human well-being. It supports the provision of food, fibre, and water; it lessens the effects of climate change and increases resilience to it; it promotes human health; and it creates jobs in the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and other sectors (CBD, 2018). Seventeen SDGs that are focused on addressing ecological and human needs first are included in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, without effective measures to conserve biodiversity and use its components in a sustainable manner, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will not be achievable (Agbedahin, 2019). The information base is becoming increasingly obvious that biodiversity supports human well-being and livelihoods and is essential to the attainment of the majority of SDGs today, even though there are still gaps in knowledge, particularly with regard to the interconnections across nature’s systems (Lucas et al., 2013; Yin et al., 2021). This is the result of a number of

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  333 significant international scientific evaluations of biodiversity, such as the Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); the report on the State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO); and the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). All of these analyses, albeit having various areas of concentration, emphasise that biodiversity is the foundation of sustainable development and emphasise the necessity for coordinated policy responses that address global concerns as a whole, extending much beyond the purview of simply SDGs 14 and 15, which deal with life on land and in the ocean, respectively. The role of biodiversity and healthy ecosystems is not reflected only in SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land), but also in many other goals and targets. For example, SDG 15 has a critical impact on SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 12 (sustainable consumption and production), SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 15 (biodiversity-life on land) (UNDP, 2016). SDG 15 mainly focuses on the preservation and the sustainable use of the ecosystems and species on the planet. The achievement of SDG 15 is crucial because doing so would immediately ameliorate the consequences of climate change and increase resilience in the face of mounting human strain and the increasing number of natural catastrophes on our planet. The interlinked and interwoven nature of SDG 15 and the other SDGs is for example shown in SDG 15 target 15.9, which is relevant to SDG 1 (end poverty in all its forms everywhere) (UNDP, 2016). Biodiversity affects everyone to varying degrees. People that live in poverty depend heavily upon nature to provide them with resources to live. There is no clear way to determine the total influence humans have on biodiversity; nonetheless, it is evident that numerous human activities are causing a decline in biodiversity, including the built environment (Marques et al., 2019). Linkage Between Biodiversity and the SDGs The most direct linkages between the SDGs and biodiversity conservation which is at the heart of the SDGs are presented below. Biodiversity and SDG 1 (No Poverty) The preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, through ecosystem-based sustainable agriculture, as well as the restoration and protection of ecosystems and the priceless services ecosystems provide, can help lift people out of poverty by increasing their income and decreasing their vulnerability to external economic shocks or environmental disasters (CBD, 2016). For instance, both marine and terrestrial ecosystems provide the foundation for many national and global economic sectors, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, tourism, transport, and trade, creating employment opportunities thereby leading to wealth creation (CBD, 2016). Phelan et al. (2020) also found that a variety of economic activities, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and tourism, are directly supported by biodiversity and healthy ecosystems because they supply the necessary resources and ecosystem services.

334  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Biodiversity and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) The accomplishment of food security and better nutrition depends on biodiversity. All food systems are dependent on ecosystem services that maintain agricultural production, soil fertility, water quality, and availability, as well as biodiversity (Du Preez et al., 2020). Genetic diversity in agriculture is one key element of food security. It helps to ensure the evolution of species that can adapt to changing environmental conditions, as well as resistance to particular diseases, pests and parasites (Salem et al., 2010). Furthermore, a large number of people rely on food that is harvested from natural ecosystems including forests, meadows, seas, and rivers. Natural products are a significant source of nutrients and help ensure the safety of the food supply in the home. Wildlife hunting may be the main source of animal nutrition for native societies (Fa et al., 2022). Biodiversity and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) Human health and biodiversity are increasingly recognised as being related. The disruption of the environment is the cause of several illnesses. By sequestering and removing certain forms of air, water, and soil pollutants, healthy ecosystems assist to reduce the spread and effect of pollution (Ansari et al., 2021). There are several indirect connections between biodiversity and human health in addition to these direct ones. For instance, diversified agricultural ecosystems can sustainably boost productivity and decrease the use of pesticides and other chemical inputs, both of which may improve human health. The potential formation of novel pathogens may be avoided or mitigated by minimising needless disruption to natural systems, which can also lower the risk and incidence of infectious diseases, including zoonotic and vector-borne illnesses (Everard et al., 2020). Biodiversity and SDG 4 (Quality Education) The key to attaining SDG 4 and other SDGs is increasing public knowledge of the value of biodiversity for sustainable development via educational systems. A crucial component of sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles is raising awareness of biodiversity and ecosystems (Leal Filho et al., 2019). Traditional and indigenous knowledge systems should be used via culturally appropriate educational activities, such as agricultural extension services, in order to conserve and sustainably exploit biodiversity (Donkor and Mearns, 2022). Biodiversity and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) The loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services has a disproportionately negative impact on women, who are crucial in maintaining biological resources. Increased time spent by women and children on particular jobs, such as gathering vital resources like fuel, food, and water, and decreased time for education and income-generating activities are two ways that biodiversity loss and damaged ecosystems may perpetuate gender inequities (Bechtel, 2010). Equal rights to land, inheritance, and natural resources are a crucial step in empowering women to advance sustainable agricultural and land management techniques, particularly as women assume more responsibility in agriculture as a result of the widespread emigration of males (Fischer et al., 2021).

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  335 Biodiversity and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) Ecosystems help maintain quality water supply, and guard against water-related hazards and disasters. A practical, natural way to ensuring everyone has access to water and sanitation is to invest in biodiversity protection throughout river catchments (MacKinnon et al., 2019). Particularly, natural riparian habitats help provide a steady supply of clean water. They refill groundwater reservoirs, regenerate drinking water, and protect groundwater from adverse effects (UNEP and TNC, 2014). Biodiversity and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) Nearly 2.5 billion people use biological resources like wood, coal, charcoal, or animal waste for heating and cooking worldwide (Dida et al., 2022). Bioenergy made from renewable biomass, such as agricultural and forestry waste, as well as other renewable energy sources like hydropower plants, may provide significant prospects for producing cleaner and more reasonably priced energy. Ecosystem-based methods to food production decrease dependence on fossil fuels and external synthetic inputs by maximising the use of natural, local, and renewable resources (Ramachandra and Saranya, 2022). Biodiversity and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) Biodiversity supports the provision of ecosystem services like agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, tourism, transport and trade which are central to economic activities, especially in developing economies. Additionally, it provides chances for corporate expansion. For instance, according to Lopez and Arreola (2019), tourism creates one in every 11 jobs and contributes around 10 percent of the global GDP. Major tourism attractions are closely linked to biodiversity and natural landscapes such as protected areas, mountains and beaches, wildlife and native cultures, as well as eco- and Agri-tourism (Nekmahmud and Hassan, 2021). Biodiversity and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) According to Lehmann (2021), healthy ecosystems and biodiversity may encourage the creation of affordable, durable natural infrastructures that might support sustainable industrialisation. For instance, mangrove forests and coral reefs shield coastlines from flooding, which is anticipated to become worse with climate change. Urban green belts and vegetation may help cities resist erosion and storm damage by absorbing runoff from surface water. According to O’Farrell et al. (2019), natural infrastructure, which includes vegetation, may help stop soil erosion and limit the amount of soil contaminants that reach water bodies. These green infrastructures have shown to be an advantageous and economical strategy. Biodiversity and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) Larger income inequality within countries is known to have correlation with greater biodiversity loss, although further analyses are necessary to identify the causality (Mikkelson et al., 2007). Investing in biodiversity conservation and promoting sustainable practices among local communities would considerably reduce inequality within and among countries. Sustainable

336  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals practices would enhance employment opportunities in rural areas. An increased association with nature also improves mental and physical health. Biodiversity and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) Ecosystems and biodiversity underpin the day-to-day functioning of human settlements by delivering the basic services and conditions that enable, support and protect human production, consumption and habitation (Ansari et al., 2021). It helps cities operate smoothly, particularly when it comes to enhancing air quality, lowering water runoff, and providing green spaces for enjoyment. Biodiversity concerns in urban development may lead to more liveable, economically viable, and healthy human communities. Biodiversity and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) The transformation of many natural resources is necessary for the use and production of all products and services, which has an effect on biodiversity. Utilising cleaner, more resource-efficient methods may increase economic possibilities, improve the quality of life for both consumers and producers, and promote biodiversity. These methods reduce material footprint, waste, and pollution (Lukman et al., 2016). Therefore, it is essential to keep up sustainable production and consumption practices. Biodiversity and SDG 13 (Climate Action) The major cause of biodiversity loss is climate change. Healthy ecosystems and biodiversity are crucial resources for boosting resilience and minimising the risks and losses brought on by the adverse effects of climate change (Pörtner et al., 2022). They may act as natural barriers against severe climatic and meteorological occurrences, such as alterations in rainfall patterns, droughts, storms, and other catastrophes. Biodiversity and SDG 14 (Life below Water) A crucial component of sustainable development is the preservation and responsible use of biodiversity in marine and coastal habitats. All forms of fishing and aquaculture, as well as other species used to make meals and medicines, are supported by biodiversity (Ansari et al., 2021). Conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity is essential to ensure that the world’s oceans, seas and marine resources remain vital. Additionally, an abundance and variety of species that are healthy serves as a protective barrier against the unfavourable consequences of environmental changes like ocean acidification. Biodiversity and SDG 15 (Life on Land) Sustainable development requires the preservation, repair, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems. The demand to include environmental and biodiversity values into national and local development planning, poverty reduction strategies, and accounting is one of the targets under this aim. Through maintaining ecosystems and ecosystem services like water flows and

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  337 water quality, which are essential for many life stages of aquatic and migratory species in particular, SDG 15 also targets biodiversity in inland waters (CBD, 2016). Biodiversity and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institution) Conflicts over natural resources, environmental degradation and contamination can be one of the factors leading to social insecurity and violence. Environmental crimes that benefit organised crime and non-state armed organisations, such as wildlife trafficking, illegal fishing, and the trade in illegal wood, jeopardise global security and harm sustainable development (Vagliasindi, 2018). Therefore, enhancing the role of law and equity for governance of biodiversity, natural resources and ecosystems can contribute to the fundamental process toward building an inclusive society based on justice and democratic decision-making. Biodiversity and SDG 17 (Partnership for the Goals) The implementation of UNEP’s and FAO’s instruments and global partnerships fostering sustainable management of biodiversity and natural resources contribute to SDG 17. Implementation of all SDGs and regenerating global partnerships for sustainable development will strengthen global biodiversity. Additionally, the implementation of innovative science and technologies could help monitor the progress of the 2030 Agenda.

UNDERSTANDING BIODIVERSITY AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT In order to preserve biodiversity, the built environment in general and the construction industry in particular have a crucial role to play. However, this is often not a priority issue in the construction industry (Opoku, 2019). The built environment is acknowledged as a primary driver of biodiversity change because of its drastically changed landscapes and quick human-caused alterations to local ecosystems (Nielsen et al., 2014). Land-use and land-cover changes are the main anthropogenic factors influencing biodiversity change (Seto et al., 2012). The built environment preserves aesthetic and cultural values while safeguarding human life and health as well as the psychological and social welfare of its residents (Opoku, 2015). But the built environment today employs a take-make-waste paradigm that significantly threatens biodiversity (Council, UK Green Building, 2009). One of the biggest threats to biodiversity, for instance, is the clearing of vegetation. The ecological footprint of human needs and desires for food, water, housing, energy, transportation, recreation, consumer goods, professional services, and many other aspects of modern living have other, subtler effects on biodiversity. These effects have an impact on other people’s landscapes and ecosystems. The built environment sector has to maintain biodiversity because it relies on ecosystem management, the aesthetic and health advantages of the natural environment, as well as the raw materials that the natural environment provides. Green urban spaces must be provided in the built environment in order to sustain biodiversity and to provide people a chance to interact with nature (Lepczyk et al., 2017). While new methods, often motivated by sustainability aims, pursue more comprehensive tactics, more conventional regulatory techniques may concentrate on reducing damage to protected species and sensitive ecosystems. Even in the most

338  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals urban locations, these solutions sustain robust urban ecosystems with a variety of built and natural environment interactions (AECOM, 2011). The UN has designated the years 2011 to 2020 as the “Decade on Biodiversity” (UNs Decade on Biodiversity). The declaration of the Decade was made to aid in the execution of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. The Decade’s objectives included raising public awareness of biodiversity, implementing measures to support the preservation of biological resources, bolstering networks for the Convention on Biological Diversity’s implementation, and mainstreaming biodiversity efforts into larger environmental and development projects (UNEP, 2011). The UK government developed its own biodiversity protection strategy as a result of this global strategy, which is detailed in the “UK Biodiversity 2020” strategy. This strategy aims to stop the global loss of biodiversity to ensure healthy, functional ecosystems that benefit both people and wildlife. The policy aims to safeguard and enhance the environment as key planning system goals in the UK (DEFRA, 2011). In order to assure the attainment of the sustainable development objectives, it is necessary to strategically manage the usage of habitat replication methods throughout the urban development process (Donovan et al., 2005). For sustainable development, it is crucial to provide urban green space for biodiversity preservation owing to the natural environment’s fragmentation brought on by global urbanisation (Goddard et al., 2010). Urban Development and Biodiversity The identification and quantification of effect have long sparked interest in biodiversity and the built environment. In light of the many biodiversity and ancillary advantages that may be obtained from such techniques, the emphasis of this work has more recently switched toward the application of ecosystem ideas and principles to urban projects. Biodiversity may benefit greatly from urban design and planning, especially at the regional level. It was revealed in Barnett’s (2002) study that the implications of land use, development, and management are linked to the main threats to Australia’s biodiversity. The building industry, erosion and sedimentation, eradication of native vegetation, pollution and soil contamination, waste disposal and garbage dumping are the main challenges to the built environment. Before 2050, the distribution of ecosystem services is anticipated to vary significantly as a result of changes in land use, according to a 2011 prediction by Eigenbrod et al. In turn, it is predicted that significant increases in urbanisation (the conversion of land to residential and industrial zones) would be a major driver of these changes in land use in many regions, perhaps the biggest one in Europe (Reginster and Rounsevell, 2006). While only 220 million people (13 percent) of the world’s population lived in urban areas in 1900, that number rose to 3.2 billion (49 percent) by 2005 and is anticipated to reach 4.9 billion (60 percent) by 2030. These increases in urbanisation are a result of both growth in the human population and the percentage of that population living in urban areas (Heilig, 2012). For instance, the problem of urban area densification, the combined impact of rising population and loss of permeable surfaces is expected to lead to many people living closer to rivers. This will affect not just the potential availability and consumption of ecosystem services, but also the quantity, behaviour, and distribution of those services to prospective customers. Furthermore, increasing human populations could lead to shortages in some ecosystem goods and services such as agricultural production (Alcamo et al., 2005). The amount of service accessible per person will decrease even if the total amount of service does not change. In addition, while many ecosystem

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  339 services will be affected by urbanisation, mitigation of the impact of freshwater flood events by the landscape is a vital ecosystem service that can be particularly severely affected by increases in urbanisation. This is because an increase in impervious surfaces brought on by urban expansion might result in floods that are bigger and more frequent. Physically, imperviousness prevents rain from penetrating the earth (Bell et al., 2019). Surface runoff is created by rainfall and snowmelt that cannot saturate the ground. Therefore, it is commonly believed that soil sealing in densely urbanised regions contributes to the danger of flooding (Frenkel, 2004). Floods have the potential to seriously harm infrastructure and structures, impacting the habitat of both people and animals. Imperviousness also adds to the biochemical deterioration of water resources because urban runoff water contains chemical contaminants, such as chemicals from automotive traffic or industrial land uses. In order to improve the quality of life, the biodiversity value of new development and renovation projects should be evaluated. A plan for increasing the biodiversity of the project site should be developed. In all urban developments, it is critical to strike a healthy balance between the natural and human environments. The trade-offs between ecosystem services under various forms of urban expansion may also have some answers depending on where new urbanisation takes place. The planning, procurement, and construction phases of development projects have a significant influence on biodiversity, which is essential for the wellness of the present generation and future generations. The Value of a Biodiversity Integrated Built Environment The built environment sector is undoubtedly one of the most resource- and environment-intensive sectors in the world (Baah et al., 2022). Every construction project has the potential to have an influence on natural habitats, harming animal and plant species, whether they be residential developments, commercial developments, infrastructure projects, or public sector projects. Land use planners, who choose the site and type of development, clients, such as home builders and commercial property developers, who decide what should be built on a site and where, designers, who choose the building’s specific details, and suppliers of materials and components, who extract and/or manufacture materials and components for use by the contractors who actually carry out the building, are all involved in the sector’s operation. In addition to these organisations, there are additional stakeholders who have an impact on the sector and its environmental effects, including surveyors, architects, letting agencies, consultants, financial institutions, and insurance firms. The benefits that come from ecosystems to humans are called ecosystem services. Human health and well-being rely on these elements and services provided by the natural environment, from the availability of sufficient food and water to the control of infections, pests, and disease vectors. Working towards biodiversity protection in the built environment often entails using sound organisational principles. For instance, obtaining operating permits from both the government agencies and the local communities where development is being done would be beneficial since it will allow for a regulatory oversight and enforcement of sound development principles to protect biodiversity. Thinking forward and making plans for biodiversity may result in cost savings since it will prevent future cost expenses in restoring depleting biodiversity and accompanied costs (Kujala et al., 2022). It will also increase the value of some developments, such as housing complexes, to include green spaces and animal habitats. Involving these people in the sector and achieving a balance between the social, eco-

340  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals nomic, and environmental requirements of sustainable development are both made possible by biodiversity. Furthermore, the built environment relies on genes, species, and ecosystem services as critical inputs into production processes and depends on healthy ecosystems to treat and dissipate generated waste. Urban biodiversity preservation benefits society in terms of aesthetics, culture, and economy (Almenar et al., 2021). To lessen the loss of biodiversity and habitat, Puppim de Oliveira et al. (2011) suggest that the built environment should include ecological knowledge into urban planning systems. Urban areas cannot solve all of the main causes of biodiversity loss on their own, but how people construct and live in the built environment contributes to these issues and has the ability to start addressing them. In order to combat biodiversity loss, ecological design that balances the built and natural ecosystems must be used in urban development (Brown and Grant, 2005). Therefore, to counteract the loss of biodiversity, building design experts should work on a number of various sizes. For instance, rather than the finer scale design of individual buildings, which is the responsibility of architects and engineers, urban planners, landscape architects, and city engineers should concentrate on sustainable design of cities and precincts, and their associated infrastructure and development requirements. The solutions to increase biodiversity depend on incorporating biodiversity into the design, management, and legislative processes of our cities and important infrastructure (SIDA, 2016). Again, the built environment sector should encourage building techniques that retain more natural vegetation while being created; this may be done via city planning processes that improve biodiversity preservation (McKinney, 2002). Planning for a built environment that supports biodiversity should try to preserve and improve the habitat’s resources while attempting to provide favourable possibilities for the built environment to interact with nature.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES ON BIODIVERSITY The construction industry consumes a significant amount of resources, many of which are obtained or created via activities that have an influence on biodiversity. The construction industry is strongly dependent on the environment for the supply of raw materials including wood, sand, and stones. Building development uses 25 percent of the world’s virgin timber and 40 percent of its raw stone, gravel, and sand resources per year, according to World Watch Institute (2013). At both the construction and usage phases of the project lifespan, this has a detrimental effect on wildlife and ecological networks. Given that biodiversity has been a key component of all the major worldwide attempts to address environmental problems, the loss of biodiversity is a serious concern for the international community (Bastian et al., 2012). The rapid growth of cities and urban areas often results in the loss of biologically diverse natural areas and, in the worst cases, the extinction of species and the collapse of an ecosystem. This problem is made worse by poor land planning and a lack of biodiversity/environmental impact assessments. As a consequence, the built environment industry is accountable for around 30 percent of the loss of biodiversity worldwide (World Economic Forum, 2020). Endangered species on building sites and nearby regions are adversely impacted by construction operations. These effects happen from the initial work done on the site through the construction and operating phases, as well as during the final demolition when a building reaches the end of its useful life. For instance, as they create a vast network of infrastructure that affects both local and national biodiversity, transportation infrastructure projects have the

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  341 potential to destroy substantial tracts of natural habitat. Every effort should be made to stop the extinction of endangered species caused by biodiversity loss since it cannot be reversed (Zari, 2014). According to a 2017 report, only 13 percent of the UK’s total land area is covered in trees. In comparison, the EU’s coverage is 35 percent, indicating the issues facing the UK and the impact that construction has on biodiversity. According to Ogden (2014), biodiversity is linked to all of the sustainable building criteria (energy, water, health, and well-being), so biodiversity programmes should go beyond protecting natural habitat by also educating the local populace about the built asset and the preserved environment while the project is in use or occupancy. The ecosystem’s capacity to safeguard constructed assets from floods, landslides, and wildfires brought on by the consequences of climate change is also impacted by biodiversity loss brought on by building operations, which goes beyond merely affecting plants and animals (Zari, 2012). It is thought that urbanisation-related light and noise pollution has an impact on many animals’ physiology, behaviour, and reproductive processes (Newport et al., 2014). Most of the time, the demands of wildlife on planned building sites are not properly taken into account during urban development project procedures, resulting in the destruction of precious habitat that might be the home of endangered species. Many animals’ physiology, behaviour, and reproductive processes are thought to be impacted by light and noise pollution brought on by urbanisation (Newport et al., 2014). According to Zari (2014), the built environment contributes to biodiversity loss in at least four main ways; land use, climate change, nitrogen deposition and biotic exchange. Figure 19.1 illustrates how these primary sources of biodiversity loss and the built environment both indirectly and directly affect biodiversity.

Source: Adapted from Zari (2014:2).

Figure 19.1

Built environment drivers of biodiversity loss

The built environment contributes significantly to each of these four key drivers in Figure 19.1 above. For instance, from the mid-1800s and especially after 1950, the widespread alteration

342  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals of land use and land cover has contributed considerably to climate change, soil degradation, loss of ecosystem services, and loss of biodiversity (Ramalho and Hobbs, 2012). In addition, the need for construction materials, notably lumber, which is mostly acquired illegally or in an unsustainable manner, is a driving force for change (Pollock, 2009; Rands et al., 2010). Ecosystems may become fragmented as a consequence of the growth of metropolitan centres and associated satellite settlements, as well as the development of supporting infrastructure (Hanski, 2005; Krauss et al., 2010; Seto et al., 2012). Fragmentation may cause an “extinction debt,” which delays the effects of fragmentation on biodiversity for up to 50 years. The built environment’s impact on climate change has also been studied. Up to 40 percent of all energy and material resources are used to construct and operate buildings and up to 40 percent of total solid waste results from construction and demolition activities (UNEP, 2011). The form and density of urban areas contributes to rates and patterns of per capita energy and vehicle use (Baur et al., 2014). During construction, the manufacture of materials, transport and installation into buildings can contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in a short timeframe. Construction and demolition waste can contribute to climate change either through the emission of GHGs as materials decompose, or due to the release over time of fluorinated gases with a high potential for global warming from certain construction- and demolition-related wastes (Bogner et al., 2008). In addition, the built environment strongly implicates biodiversity through nitrogen deposition and acid rain. Emissions from power plants used by construction and manufacturing firms release the majority of sulphur dioxide and much of the nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere when they burn fossil fuels. This will further have a detrimental effect on trees, freshwaters and soils, and destroy insects and aquatic life-forms. Considering the built environment’s contribution to biodiversity loss and the resulting impact it has on sustainable development and general human well-being, all those who work in the built environment should be made aware of the need of conserving sensitive sites and minimising ecological harm. Additionally, there are chances to improve biodiversity by establishing habitats as part of a building or development project.

PRESERVING BIODIVERSITY THROUGH SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Since all types of building projects, from large infrastructure projects to small home projects, have the potential to result in the loss of natural habitats, the construction sector has a vital role to play in mitigating the loss of biodiversity (Woodall and Crowhurst, 2003). The built environment can reduce biodiversity loss in addition to land-use change by avoiding ecosystem pollution, overharvesting (through unsustainable forestry and firewood collection), careful material selection (e.g., buying building materials with appropriate certification labels like the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) sustainable timber mark), lowering fire risk, and, perhaps most importantly, increasing green housing (Bellard et al., 2012). To prevent the detrimental cascade consequences of several interacting drivers, these interacting sources of change should be prepared for (McKinney, 2002). In addition, if biodiversity loss is to be curbed, a built environment that is created, developed, managed, and controlled by human interactions with biodiversity should be the new strategy. A well planned and developed asset creates habitats where wild animals may thrive.

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  343 According to Donovan et al. (2005), the built environment might be designed so that habitat is integrated into constructed assets. Urban planners should create management plans for new development projects that have an ecological viewpoint and provide chances for biodiversity conservation (Alvey, 2006). Given that more than half of the urban development needed by 2030 is yet to be built, some argue that there is a good chance for biodiversity loss to be addressed globally through urban development. New urban development projects should use sustainable construction methods to produce low-carbon buildings and green infrastructure. A developed environment that incorporates biodiversity offers the chance for physical activities that improve quality of life. In terms of protected plant species and bird species, the creation of green spaces in urban areas, such as green roofs and walls, is beneficial for biodiversity (Aronson et al., 2014; Beninde et al., 2015; Lepczyk et al., 2017). One significant area where the built environment may have a beneficial effect in the battle against biodiversity loss seems to be the efficient and responsible use of resources. For instance, Opoku (2019) claims that encouraging more ethical procurement of wood resources may help to minimise deforestation.

Source: Adapted from Zari (2014:6); Opoku (2019).

Figure 19.2

Reducing biodiversity loss through sustainable built environment

Instead of being a progressive process of improvements, changing from a built environment that is degenerating ecosystems to one that regenerates capacity for ecosystems to flourish would need a fundamental rethinking of architectural and urban design. According to Edwards (2010), architects may play a significant part in the development process by taking biodiversity measures into account throughout the design phase. An asset that has been planned, developed, and built sustainably contributes to the high standard of the built environment needed for good human health and well-being. Consider using biomimicry design, which imitates natural vegetation, to alleviate biodiversity loss. When there is evidence of considerable biodiversity on the planned development site, construction industry personnel should be informed about protecting habitat during construction by creating a management plan that includes biodiversity conservation (Schewenius et al., 2014). For instance, ecologists may educate employees on

344  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals building sites on biodiversity awareness. By scheduling high-noise operations at certain times of the year and avoiding such activities during bird breeding season, noise from construction activities should be decreased as much as is feasible. Seeking specialist advise, surveying land for construction for wildlife inhabitants and providing new or alternative habitats for these animals are all equally important. Zari (2014, p. 6) outlined four critical strategies for designing a sustainable built environment to decrease biodiversity loss. These are: “protection or conservation of remnant ecosystems through covenants or nature reserves; provision of connections between remnant habitats to reduce fragmentation; restoration of degraded ecosystems; and management of urban vegetation and/or structure to increase biodiversity”. This is highlighted in Figure 19.2. Measures and Approach to Tackle the Built Environment’s Effect on Biodiversity After reviewing pertinent literature on how the built environment can preserve biodiversity, the following drastic measures and approaches to be taken by stakeholders in the built environment were identified and summarised to tackle the built environment’s effect on biodiversity. These measures will aid in achieving the SDGs by restoring biodiversity in the built environment. 1. Planning infrastructure networks with biodiversity in mind Professionals in the built environment and other stakeholders should include biodiversity while planning for the larger infrastructure network, such as roads, trains, and pipelines. Such infrastructure may affect biodiversity as much as or more than the primary infrastructure. Even if time and distance may be harmed, it can be essential to safeguard fragile species and stop habitat fragmentation, which has more serious repercussions. In Zari’s opinion (2014), it will need a fundamental rethinking of architectural and urban design to go from a built environment that is degenerating ecosystems to one that regenerates capacity for ecosystems to flourish. Considering biodiversity implications before development 2. Stakeholders should take the local biodiversity into account when deciding where to put a building or infrastructure, from the construction to management stage. When determining whether a location offers habitat for significant or vulnerable species, developers might take biodiversity into account. This facilitates the selection of sustainable locations and the assessment of alternative choices. A baseline should be established for developers to determine the degree of the effect and to minimise and mitigate harm to regions with high biodiversity value. This may be done by conducting a biodiversity or ecosystem impact assessment. Stakeholders may also use nature more creatively when planning, designing, and updating infrastructure and structures. These include creating environments that are advantageous to both people and biodiversity, such as designating green areas that not only provide healing benefits to people but also serve as habitats for endangered animal species. For instance, Singapore’s “The Rainforest,” which has approximately 50 native tree, palm, shrub, and groundcover species, was designed as a nature reserve for plant species that are in danger of extinction (Lim, 2017). This specific example serves as a reminder to employ native species and to take into account the “diversity” in “biodiversity” – these two factors are essential for recreating or rebuilding a healthy local ecosystem.

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  345 3. Slowing down urban sprawl One of the key elements of a sustainable built environment is reducing the amount of urban sprawl and creating more compact environments that take the natural ecosystem into consideration. The built environment could benefit immensely from promoting compact urban environment planning where biodiversity is integrated (Plummer et al., 2020). In order to prevent encroachment on natural regions, city and country planners must keep cities and projects compact. The rapid growth of cities and urban areas often results in the loss of biologically diverse natural areas and, in the worst cases, the extinction of species and the collapse of an ecosystem. This problem is made worse by poor land planning and a lack of biodiversity/ environmental impact assessments. Furthermore, urban sprawl creates a loss of both rural and natural areas, having an adverse effect on biodiversity and ecosystem services, while increasing vulnerability to natural disasters and climate change (Haaland and van Den Bosch, 2015). Compacting urban areas and other construction projects makes room for biodiverse natural regions that would otherwise need to be developed for other land uses. Around the world, only 60 percent of metropolitan areas are densely populated (World Economic Forum, 2020). We might take inspiration from cities like Hong Kong and Singapore that, although having restricted land areas, have effectively planned their crowded urban regions and allotted places for natural areas. Denser regions may bring services and places of employment closer to residences, lowering the cost, time, and pollution of transportation. 4. Reducing the demand for natural construction materials The construction industry is one of the key sectors that is most dependent on natural resources, such as wood, stone, and clay for its materials. However, a reduction in demand for natural resources could have a substantial effect on biodiversity (Weiskopf et al., 2020). As higher levels of biodiversity in and around urban areas provide a range of environmental and social benefits, including improved mental health, increased water quality, and much more, it should be in every project manager’s interest to lead a team that will work to limit the use of natural materials. The reuse of existing buildings and materials can reduce the extraction and processing of raw materials, and improve the impacts brought about by the construction and demolition of buildings (Yeheyis et al., 2013). This can be achieved by implementing circular environment ideas such as space sharing, refurbishing old buildings, and reusing and recycling construction materials. Additionally, where it is necessary that new resources are required, switching to renewable materials like timber or hemp can help create a built environment that preserves biodiversity and safeguards the health of ecosystems. Preventing pollution and offering cleaner energy options 5. It should be mentioned that protecting biodiversity requires both pollution prevention and the provision of clean energy. As urban areas expand, utilities will also need to keep up. In many places of the globe, sanitisation, waste disposal, and renewable energy production must be scaled up to meet rising demand (Elavarasan et al., 2020). More than 80 percent of the world’s wastewater is released into freshwater habitats with high biodiversity and coastal ecosystems without being properly treated (World Economic Forum, 2020). By establishing efficient solid waste and wastewater management systems, the built environment industry may contribute to their prevention. With current water treatment techniques, for instance, onsite wastewater such as graywater and condensate water may be reused. Kerosene, candles, and firewood may all be replaced with clean energy alternatives like solar lights to cut down on deforestation and

346  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals carbon emissions. By doing this, the community’s quality of life is raised while simultaneously protecting biodiversity. Harnessing natural ecosystems as infrastructure 6. According to Brandon et al. (2017), experts in the built environment may make use of nature’s advantages by integrating naturally thriving ecosystems into built environment planning and design. This is increasingly important for climate change and disaster adaptation. Mangrove forests are an often-cited example. Mangroves are significant and varied ecosystems that efficiently store carbon while shielding coastal communities from storms. Additionally, they help sustain the lives of coastal populations, and by positioning natural habitats like mangroves as assets, they encourage a larger interest in safeguarding and preserving them. There is increasing agreement that using natural ecosystems may save costs in the long term, particularly when paired with human-engineered solutions (Guerry et al., 2015). In addition, compared to man-made buildings, the capacity of the natural ecosystem to regenerate results in cheaper maintenance costs. Maintaining or restoring healthy vegetation is another illustration of how to stop soil erosion and/or enhance water drainage. These ecosystem services are becoming increasingly significant as a result of climate change, particularly as storms become more powerful and raise the danger of landslides and flash floods inland. The use of the biodiversity indicators in building projects is advised wherever practical. This is anticipated to promote advancement in the crucial subject of biodiversity conservation and enhancement as well as broaden knowledge of the problems within the building and construction industry. 7. Formulating policies and regulatory frameworks for protecting biodiversity The construction sector as a whole has the chance to affect the realisation of the SDGs by developing policies and regulatory frameworks that encourage the use of sustainable building practices in order to provide a more sustainable built environment (Opoku et al., 2020). Biodiversity policies promote the protection, conservation, and sustainable use of biologically diverse ecosystems and habitats. The adoption of sustainable practises and procedures that support biodiversity conservation in the built environment, however, need governmental laws and regulatory frameworks that may compel the construction industry to act and embrace more sustainable business practices (Opoku, 2019). This will require a need for political leadership in terms of policy direction and new laws addressing the conservation of biodiversity at the international and national levels.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The built environment has a substantial and direct impact on biodiversity and has therefore become a key topic under Sustainable Development. There are also many proven benefits of biodiversity in achieving the SDGs. The capacity of nature to provide the products and services that humanity relies on over the long run is supported by biodiversity. Biodiversity is essential for everything from clean air and water to medicines and reliable food sources, as well as for genes, microorganisms, top predators, and even whole ecosystems. This chapter therefore examined the link between the Sustainable Built Environment and Biodiversity Conservation. The chapter explored and identified sustainable construction practices from the

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  347 inception of the construction project through to its completion that enhance the preservation and promotion of biodiversity as an integral part of the built environment. The findings of the study have, thus, revealed that the built environment has an important role to play in reducing loss of biodiversity through the design, construction and maintenance of built assets. It was discovered that the built environment can mitigate the causes of biodiversity loss aside from land-use change through avoiding the pollution of ecosystems; avoiding overharvesting; careful materials selection; reducing fire risk; and, perhaps most importantly, reducing GHG emissions. A management plan that addresses biodiversity conservation should be created for development projects where there is evidence of significant biodiversity on the proposed development site in order to educate professionals in the construction industry about the protection of habitat during construction. Urban planners should create management plans for new development projects that have an ecological viewpoint and provide chances for biodiversity conservation. The study also suggested seven radical steps that would help achieve the SDGs by supporting biodiversity restoration and preventing biodiversity loss in the built environment. These measures include planning infrastructure networks with biodiversity in mind; considering impacts to biodiversity before development; slowing down urban sprawl; reducing the demand for natural construction materials; preventing pollution and providing clean energy alternatives; harnessing natural ecosystems as infrastructure; and formulating policies and regulatory frameworks for protecting biodiversity. By incorporating biodiversity into the built environment, we can increase our planet’s capacity to adapt to climate change, improve air quality, reduce flood damage, and enhance the general health and well-being of society’s citizens. The measures and approaches presented in this chapter can be adopted by scholars, policy makers and built environment professionals to protect biodiversity in the built environment as this chapter explains the detail linkages between the built environment, biodiversity and the realisation of the SDGs.

REFERENCES AECOM (2011). Biodiversity in the Built Environment and the Index of Biodiversity Potential, London: www​ Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Operations and Management. Available: https://​ .aecom​.com/​What+​We+​Do/​Design+​and+​Planning/​s, accessed on 20/10/22. Agbedahin, A. V. (2019). Sustainable development, education for sustainable development, and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: Emergence, efficacy, eminence, and future. Sustainable Development, 27(4), 669–680. Alcamo, J., van Vuuren, D., Ringler, C., Cramer, W., Masui, T., Alder, J., and Schulze, K. (2005). Changes in nature’s balance sheet: Model-based estimates of future worldwide ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 10(2). Almenar, J. B., Elliot, T., Rugani, B., Philippe, B., Gutierrez, T. N., Sonnemann, G., and Geneletti, D. (2021). Nexus between nature-based solutions, ecosystem services and urban challenges. Land Use Policy, 100, 104898. Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 5(1),195–201. Ansari, N. A., Agus, C., and Nunoo, E. K. (2021). Essentials of ‘SDG15–Life on Land’ for Achieving the Targets: An Integrated Perspective. In SDG15–Life on Land: Towards Effective Biodiversity Management. Emerald Publishing Limited. Aronson, M. F. J., Lepczyk, C. A., Evans, K. L., Goddard, M. A., Lerman, S. B., MacIvor, J. S., Nilon, C. H and Vargo, T. (2017). Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(1), 189–196.

348  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Baah, B., Acheampong, A., Osei-Asibey, D., and Afful, A. E. (2022). Assessing the role of respectable engagement in improving construction employee’s safety perception. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, (ahead-of-print). Barnett, G. (2002). Biodiversity and the built environment. Environment Design Guide, 1–8. Bastian, O., Haase, D., and Grunewald, K. (2012). Ecosystem properties, potentials and services: The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecological Indicators, 21(1)7–16. Baur, A. H., Thess, M., Kleinschmit, B., and Creutzig, F. (2014). Urban climate change mitigation in Europe: Looking at and beyond the role of population density. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 140(1), 04013003. Bebbington, J., and Unerman, J. (2018). Achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals: An enabling role for accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. Bechtel, J. D. (2010). Gender, poverty and the conservation of biodiversity. A review of issues and opportunities. MacArthur Foundation Conservation White Paper Series. Bell, C. D., Tague, C. L., and McMillan, S. K. (2019). Modeling runoff and nitrogen loads from a watershed at different levels of impervious surface coverage and connectivity to storm water control measures. Water Resources Research, 55(4), 2690–2707. Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., and Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15(4), 365–377. Beninde, J., Veith, M., and Hochkirch, A. (2015). Biodiversity in cities needs space: A meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecology Letters, 18(1), 581–592. Bogner, J., Pipatti, R., Hashimoto, S., Diaz, C., Mareckova, K., Diaz, L., … and Gregory, R. (2008). Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: Conclusions and strategies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation). Waste Management and Research, 26(1), 11–32. Brandon, P. S., Lombardi, P., and Shen, G. Q. (2017). Future Challenges in Evaluating and Managing Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. John Wiley and Sons. Brown, C. and Grant, M. (2005), Biodiversity and human health: What role for nature in healthy urban planning? Built Environment, 31(4), 326–338. Brown, D. G., Walker, R., Manson, S., and Seto, K. (2012). Modeling land use and land cover change. In Land Change Science (pp. 395–409). Springer, Dordrecht. Convention on Biological Diversity (2016). Biodiversity and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.  Technical Note, available at https://​www​.cbd​.int/​development/​doc/​biodiversity​-2030​-agenda​ -technical​-note​-en​.pdf, accessed on 19/10/22. Convention on Biological Diversity (2018). Decision 14/1. Updated assessment of progress towards selected Aichi Biodiversity Targets and options to accelerate progress, CBD/COP/DEC/14/1 30 November 2018.  Corbett, J., and Mellouli, S. (2017). Winning the SDG battle in cities: How an integrated information ecosystem can contribute to the achievement of the 2030 sustainable development goals. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 427–461. DEFRA (2011). Biodiversity (2020): A strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services, London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Dida, G. O., Lutta, P. O., Abuom, P. O., Mestrovic, T., and Anyona, D. N. (2022). Factors predisposing women and children to indoor air pollution in rural villages, Western Kenya. Archives of Public Health, 80(1), 1–13. Donkor, F. K., and Mearns, K. (2022). Harnessing Indigenous Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Climate Change Adaptation and Governance: Perspectives from Sub-Saharan Africa. In Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Governance (pp. 181–191). Springer, Cham. Donovan, R. G., Sadler, J. P. and Bryson, J. R. (2005). Urban biodiversity and sustainable development. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Engineering Sustainability, 158(2), 105–114. Du Preez, C. C., Van Huyssteen, C. W., Kotzé, E., and Van Tol, J. J. (2020). Ecosystem services in sustainable food systems: Operational definition, concepts, and applications. In The Role of Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems (pp. 17–42). Academic Press. Edwards, B. (2010). Biodiversity: The New Challenge for Architecture, available at: https://​www​.thenbs​ .com/​knowledge/​biodiversity​-the​-new​-challenge​-for​-architecture, accessed on 8/11/22.

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  349 Eigenbrod, F., Bell, V. A., Davies, H. N., Heinemeyer, A., Armsworth, P. R., and Gaston, K. J. (2011). The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1722), 3201–3208. Elavarasan, R. M., Afridhis, S., Vijayaraghavan, R. R., Subramaniam, U., and Nurunnabi, M. (2020). SWOT analysis: A framework for comprehensive evaluation of drivers and barriers for renewable energy development in significant countries. Energy Reports, 6, 1838–1864. Everard, M., Johnston, P., Santillo, D., and Staddon, C. (2020). The role of ecosystems in mitigation and management of Covid-19 and other zoonoses. Environmental Science and Policy, 111, 7–17. Fa, J. E., Funk, S. M., and Nasi, R. (2022). Hunting Wildlife in the Tropics and Subtropics. Cambridge University Press. Fischer, G., Darkwah, A., Kamoto, J., Kampanje-Phiri, J., Grabowski, P., and Djenontin, I. (2021). Sustainable agricultural intensification and gender-biased land tenure systems: An exploration and conceptualization of interactions. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 19(5–6), 403–422. Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., and Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(2), 90–98. Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., and Vira, B. (2015). Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7348–7355. Haaland, C., and van Den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(4), 760–771. Johansen, D. F., and Vestvik, R. A. (2020). The cost of saving our ocean-estimating the funding gap of sustainable development goal 14. Marine Policy, 112, 103783. Kujala, H., Maron, M., Kennedy, C. M., Evans, M. C., Bull, J. W., Wintle, B. A., … and Gordon, A. (2022). Credible biodiversity offsetting needs public national registers to confirm no net loss. One Earth, 5(6), 650–662. Leal Filho, W., Tripathi, S. K., Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. D., Giné-Garriga, R., Orlovic Lovren, V., and Willats, J. (2019). Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(2), 179–190. Lehmann, S. (2021). Growing biodiverse urban futures: Renaturalization and rewilding as strategies to strengthen urban resilience. Sustainability, 13(5), 2932. Lepczyk, C. A., Aronson, M. F., Evans, K. L., Goddard, M. A., Lerman, S. B., and MacIvor, J. S. (2017). Biodiversity in the city: Fundamental questions for understanding the ecology of urban green spaces for biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 67(9), 799–807. Lim, H. C., Gawin, D. F., Shakya, S. B., Harvey, M. G., Rahman, M. A., and Sheldon, F. H. (2017). Sundaland’s east–west rain forest population structure: Variable manifestations in four polytypic bird species examined using RAD‐Seq and plumage analyses.  Journal of Biogeography, 44(10), 2259–2271. López, C. S. G., and Arreola, K. S. B. (2019). Impacts of tourism and the generation of employment in Mexico. Journal of Tourism Analysis: Revista de Análisis Turístico. Lucas, P. L., Kok, M. T., Nilsson, M., and Alkemade, R. (2013). Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in the post-2015 development agenda: Goal structure, target areas and means of implementation. Sustainability, 6(1), 193–216. Lukman, R. K., Glavič, P., Carpenter, A., and Virtič, P. (2016). Sustainable consumption and production– Research, experience, and development–The Europe we want. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, 139–147. Lundholm, J. T. (2006), Green roofs and facades: A habitat template approach. Urban Habitats, 4(1), 87–101. MacKinnon, K., van Ham, C., Reilly, K., and Hopkins, J. (2019). Nature-based solutions and protected areas to improve urban biodiversity and health. In: Marselle, M., Stadler, J., Korn, H., Irvine, K., Bonn, A. (Eds) Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change. Springer, Cham. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​-030​-02318​-8​_16.

350  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Marques, A., Martins, I. S., Kastner, T., Plutzar, C., Theurl, M. C., Eisenmenger, N., … and Pereira, H. M. (2019). Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 3(4), 628–637. Mckinney, M. L. (2002), Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience, 52(10), 883–890. Mikkelson, G. M., Gonzalez, A., and Peterson, G. D. (2007). Economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. PloS one, 2(5), e444. Nekmahmud, M., and Hassan, A. (2021). Tourism products and services in Bangladesh: In search of policy and development frameworks. In: Hassan, A. (Eds) Tourism Products and Services in Bangladesh. Springer, Singapore. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-981​-33​-4279​-8​_1. Newport, J., Shorthouse, D. J., and Manning, A. D. (2014), The effects of light and noise from urban development on biodiversity: Implications for protected areas in Australia. Ecological Management and Restoration, 15(3), 204–214. Nielsen, J., Hedeholm, R. B., Simon, M., and Steffensen, J. F. (2014). Distribution and feeding ecology of the Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus) in Greenland waters. Polar Biology, 37(1), 37–46. Nolan, G., Hamilton, M., and Brown, M. (2009), Comparing the biodiversity impacts of building materials. Architectural Science Review, 52(4), 261–269. O’Farrell, P. J., Anderson, P. M., Le Maitre, D. C., and Holmes, P. M. (2012). Insights and opportunities offered by a rapid ecosystem service assessment in promoting a conservation agenda in an urban biodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society, 17(3). Ogden, L. E. (2014). Does green building come up short in considering biodiversity? BioScience, 64(2), 83–89. Opoku, A. (2015). The role of culture in a sustainable built environment. In Sustainable Operations Management (pp. 37–52). Springer, Cham. Opoku, A. (2019). Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, (141), 1–7. Opoku, A., Ahmed, V., and Ofori, G. (2020). The sustainable development goals, organizational learning and efficient resource management in construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161. Phelan, A., Ruhanen, L., and Mair, J. (2020). Ecosystem services approach for community-based ecotourism: Towards an equitable and sustainable blue economy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(10), 1665–1685. Plummer, K. E., Gillings, S., and Siriwardena, G. M. (2020). Evaluating the potential for bird‐ habitat models to support biodiversity‐friendly urban planning. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(10), 1902–1914. Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C., Adams, H., Adler, C., Aldunce, P., Ali, E., … and Birkmann, J. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Prip, C. (2018). The Convention on Biological Diversity as a legal framework for safeguarding ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 29, 199–204. Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., Balaban, O., Dolla, C.N.H., Moreno-Peñaranda, R., A. Gasparatos, A., Iossifova, D., and Suwa, A. (2011), Cities and biodiversity: Perspectives and governance challenges for implementing the convention on biological diversity (CBD) at the city level. Biological Conservation, 144(5), 1302–1313. Ramachandra, T. V., and Saranya, G. (2022). Sustainable bioeconomy prospects of diatom biorefineries in the Indian west coast. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161, 112399. Ramalho, C. E., and Hobbs, R. J. (2012). Time for a change: Dynamic urban ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27(3), 179–188. Reginster, I., and Rounsevell, M. (2006). Scenarios of future urban land use in Europe. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(4), 619–636. Roe, D., Seddon, N., and Elliott, J. (2019). Biodiversity loss is a development issue. International Institute for Environment and Development. Available at: https://​www​.iied​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​ pdfs/​migrate/​17636IIED​.pdf, accessed on 02/11/22. Salem, H. S. (2010). Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Food Security in Palestine. Paper for the International Conference on “Climate Change, Biodiversity and Food Security in the South Asian Region”. In Jerath, N., Booj, R., and Singh, G. (Eds.), Climate Change, Biodiversity and Food Security in the South Asian Region, 2010. India, November 3–4, 2010.

Biodiversity conservation, the built environment, and the SDGs  351 Schewenius, M., McPhearson, T., and Elmqvist, T. (2014). Opportunities for increasing resilience and sustainability of urban social–ecological systems: Insights from the URBES and the cities and biodiversity outlook projects (AMBIO). A Journal of the Human Environment, 43(1), 434–444. SIDA (2016). Urban Development: Biodiversity and Ecosystems, Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Snep, R. P., and Clergeau, P. (2020). Biodiversity in cities, reconnecting humans with nature. Sustainable Built Environments, 251–274. UK Green Building Council (2009). Biodiversity and the Built Environment. A report by the UK-GBC Task Group, London: UK Green Building Council. UN (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, United Nations, online, available at: https://​www​.cbd​.int/​doc/​legal/​cbd​ -en​.pdf, accessed on 25/10/22. UN (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, Seventieth session on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1. UNDP (2016). Biodiversity and The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, Technical Note, The Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, www​ .cbd​ .int/​ Quebec, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), available at: https://​ development/​doc/​biodiversity​-2030​-agenda​-technical​-note​-en​.pdf, accessed on 7/11/22. UNEP (2011). United Nations Decade on Biodiversity: Living in Harmony with Nature, UNEP Convention on Biological Diversity, available at: https://​www​.cbd​.int/​undb/​media/​factsheets/​undb​ -factsheets​-en​-web​.pdf, accessed on 10/ 11/22. UNEP (2022). Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Draft recommendation submitted by the co-chairs, Open-ended working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD/WG2020/4/L.2-Annex, Fourth Meeting Nairobi, 21–26 June 2022, UN Environment Programme. UNEP and TNC (2014). Green Infrastructure: Guide for Water Management. Vagliasindi, G. M. (2018). Targeting Transnational Environmental Crime Through a Multifaceted Approach: Towards an Inclusive Governance of Serious Threats to Sustainable Development. In Transnational Crime (pp. 195–214). Routledge. Weiskopf, S. R., Rubenstein, M. A., Crozier, L. G., Gaichas, S., Griffis, R., Halofsky, J. E., and Whyte, K. P. (2020). Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. Science of the Total Environment, 733, 137782. Willmott Dixon (2010). The Impacts of Construction and the Built Environment, Briefing Note 33, Version 1, London. World Economic Forum (2020). Global Risks Report. 15th Edition. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Worldwatch Institute. (2013). State of the World 2007: Our Urban Future. Routledge. Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M. S., Eskicioglu, C., and Sadiq, R. (2013). An overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: A lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 15(1), 81–91. Yin, C., Zhao, W., Cherubini, F., and Pereira, P. (2021). Integrate ecosystem services into socio-economic development to enhance achievement of sustainable development goals in the post-pandemic era. Geography and Sustainability, 2(1), 68–73. Zari, M. P. (2012). Ecosystem services analysis for the design of regenerative urban built environments. Building Research Information, 40(1), 54–64. Zari, M. P. (2014). Ecosystem services analysis in response to biodiversity loss caused by the built environment. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society (S.A.P.I. EN. S), 7(1), 1–14.

PART IV PROSPERITY, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

20. Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals Timothy J. Dixon

INTRODUCTION As the world endures a rapidly warming climate with more extreme weather events becoming the norm, cities, which are home to a majority of the global population, continue to face huge challenges, not only in responding to these and other pressures, but also in maintaining and improving their resilience to future environmental and socio-economic shocks. Thinking in a considered, planned, and proactive way about the future world that we, and future generations want to inhabit is more important now than ever before, especially in terms of climate change risk and other global challenges, such as inequality and geopolitical tensions. In what seems a real turning point, a future that is based on sustainable principles is now the highest priority across the world if we are to avert global warming of more than 1.5OC by 2050 and its potentially dangerous and disastrous consequences. This chapter therefore examines the important role that cities, and the people that live in them, play in these crucial issues, tracing their early origins through to the more recent emergence of ‘smart and sustainable’ thinking. The chapter then examines the concept of ‘urban futures’, and the role of city visioning before looking at the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (especially in relation to cities and our urban areas) and their link with ‘localisation’ and the concept of ‘urban sustainability’. Three case studies of Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs), or evaluations of SDG implementation in a specific local context, are examined in Bristol (UK), New York (USA), and Cape Town (Republic of South Africa), to identify how they can best be implemented in different contexts, before the challenges and opportunities of integrating the SDGs and city visions are discussed in the concluding section of the chapter in relation to developed and developing countries.

SMART AND SUSTAINABLE CITIES: EVOLUTION AND DEFINITIONS Cities have been the focal point for civilisations for many thousands of years, and have been a source of inspiration for art, literature, and film. The world’s first great cities (such as Eridu in Mesopotamia) are known to have been built some 4,000 years ago and they brought together people to make markets and create trading opportunities (Knox, 2014). Foundational cities such as Athens and Rome followed later, before the emergence of more ‘modern’ cities in medieval times (e.g., Florence), through to the industrial revolution (e.g., London) and later on to present day ‘global cities’, such as Shanghai, New York, and Tokyo (Clark, 2016). Throughout the history of urban studies, we have seen shifts and changes in the way in which the city is viewed. This has led to parallel thinking about what makes an ‘ideal city’, 353

354  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals which has been typified by visions of the future which revolve around how new cities could be built, or how cities might be re-designed or re-configured to represent new or re-imagined futures. Two dominant city futures discourses have been (i) ‘the sustainable city’; and (ii) the ‘smart city’ (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). The origins of the term, ‘sustainable city’ (or ‘eco city’), can be found in previous ‘organic’ city visions such as Patrick Geddes’ ‘biopolis’ and Ebenezer Howard’s ‘garden city’ in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s, however, that the concept of what a ‘sustainable city’ might be started to permeate the world of urban studies. Whitehead (2003) suggests that this increasing focus was the result of the interweaving of an ‘ecological crisis’ and the ‘urban crisis’. As a result of this, increasing attention on cities and their environmental impact heightened; and as other texts such as the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth report (Meadows et al., 1972), which highlighted the instabilities of population growth and resource use, were published, the focus on the role of cities in the growing ecological crisis increased further (Hodson and Marvin, 2014). This growing interest was also reinforced by pioneering moves to develop alternative ‘eco-communities’, set aside physically away from cities: for example, the Findhorn project in 1962 in Scotland and the Arcosanti complex built in the Arizona desert in 1970 both of which gained recognition (Zhou and Williams, 2013). The growing concerns about cities were first addressed in a systematic way in the United Nations (UN) Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) Conference in Vancouver in 1976, which laid the foundations for the principles of sustainable urban development. Although the conference did not formally define the term, ‘sustainable city’, it was important for debating crucial issues such as the challenges of providing clean water and sanitation, migration to cities and slum living, and the potential that lay behind a more sustainable approach to urban development. A little over a decade later the publication of what is widely known as the Brundtland report (Brundtland Commission, 1987: 27) defined sustainable development as: … development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: • The concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and • The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

Many present-day issues and problems, relating to urban sustainability (and sustainable cities), can be viewed through the lens of the ‘triple bottom line’ approach, which views the sustainable development concept in terms of social, economic and environmental dimensions, underpinned by appropriate governance structures (Elkington, 1997), although the ‘praxis’ of sustainable development often lacks consistency in an urban context, as the wider concept is contested and debated (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). Cities matter in our world today not only because of their sustainability impacts but also because they perform four crucial functions (Knox, 2014) – they are centres of decision-making and political and economic power; they act as centres of transformative capacity because of their size, density, and diversity of population; they can act as mobilisation hubs for labour, capital and raw materials; and they can also act as centres of knowledge, information and innovation exchange. In this respect they also present us with an ‘urban paradox’ – that is,

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  355 despite these advantages they also contribute to climate change, environmental degradation, and resource depletion and to socio-economic inequalities (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). The increasing recognition of the importance of ‘sustainable cities’ led to a plethora of major international and EU-level policies during the 1990s culminating in the Habitat II City Summit in 1996 which focused on the Local Agenda 21 (LA21) in urban areas. LA21 was a voluntary process of local community consultation with the aim of creating local policies and programmes that work with the aim of achieving sustainable development. More recently the UN SDGs have refocused attention on ‘sustainable cities and communities’ through SDG 11 (see later in this chapter). Although definitions vary, a commonly used definition of a ‘sustainable city’, from the UN Human Settlement Programme (UN, 2002: 4) is: … a city where achievements in social, economic and physical development are made to last. A sustainable city has a lasting supply of natural resources on which its development depends (using them only at a level of sustainable yield). A sustainable city maintains a lasting security from environmental hazards which may threaten development achievements (allowing only for acceptable risks).

The core elements of this are implicitly recognised by SDG 11 which aims to renew and plan cities and other human settlements in a way that offers opportunities for all, with access to basic services, energy, housing, transportation and green public spaces, while reducing resource use and environmental impact (i.e., to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable) (for further details see Table 20.1). Although the sustainable city concept continues to run strongly through policy and practice discourses (e.g., in the UN and World Economic Forum agendas), over the last decade the ‘smart city’ leitmotif has also gained traction as a major ‘signifier’, and ‘global discourse network’ in urban development (Joss et al., 2019). Essentially, the smart city discourse relates to a normative view of the future founded on a technology-led ecological modernisation (Trencher and Karvonen, 2017). There are a very large number of definitions for smart city which not only reflects the differing origins of the term, but also the varying disciplinary and institutional lenses through which a city can be viewed (Kitchin, 2015). For example, some highlight the smart city as an urban environment that is idealistic, alluring and more liveable than the complex, fragmented environments that we live in today, but for others the smart city provides a new market for urban management systems and an opportunity to sell technology-led solutions to city authorities facing complex sustainability challenges (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). This lack of consensus, as in the case of sustainable cities, has led to a growing critical literature on smart cities, particularly as issues over the role of citizens, privacy and security are raised. For example, technology-driven, corporate-led, smart cities can produce outcomes which are less inclusive than citizen-driven, bottom-up projects (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). However, from the mid-2010s onwards, we have also seen the emergence of a new term, the ‘smart and sustainable city’, because of growing sustainability awareness, continued urban growth and the development of new technologies (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017; Dixon, 2018). This rebranding is intended to highlight the fact that not every smart city is necessarily a sustainable city – for example, smart transport technologies, such as parking apps (or applications) may simply continue to promote petrol or diesel car use at the expense of more sustainable modes of transport such as bus, walking and cycling (Dixon, 2018). A more formal definition of a ‘smart and sustainable’ city is one (ITU, 2014: 12–13):

356  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals … that leverages the ICT infrastructure to: • Improve the quality of life of its citizens. • Ensure tangible economic growth for its citizens. • Improve the well-being of its citizens. • Establish an environmentally responsible and sustainable approach to development. • Streamline and improve physical infrastructure. • Reinforce resilience to natural and man-made disasters. • Underpin effective and well-balanced regulatory, compliance and governance mechanisms.

Clearly then, definitions for smart and/or sustainable cities vary and there have also been many indices or frameworks used to measure city performance in these spheres, particularly in relation to sustainable cities, which includes the Global City Index, the Siemens Green City Index and CITYKeys (Gong and Lyiu, 2017). A further example is the Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index which is published annually and ranks 100 of the world’s cities based on 51 metrics, across 26 indicator themes, arrayed under the three pillars of sustainability: ‘planet’, ‘people’, and ‘profit’ (Arcadis, 2022). The Arcadis index also highlights the importance of ‘prosperous’ cities, or those in which a majority of residents are able to enjoy a high quality of life, and where that standard of living comes without the burden of environmental degradation or high costs of living, linking closely with the UN’s City Prosperity Initiative (UN Habitat, 2022a). A key issue here, however, is that there is no single agreed index for measuring urban sustainability. As Thomas et al. (2021) suggest, there are more than 200 urban sustainability benchmarking indices and frameworks which aim to compare cities globally (Moonen and Clark, 2013), and this also has important ramifications for finding consistent indicators for assessing city performance in relation to the SDGs (especially SDG 11), as we shall see later in this chapter.

‘URBAN FUTURES’ THINKING If we are to help cities (and their citizens) transition to a better future, then we need visions, strategies, plans and roadmaps in place to get there. For example, a ‘smart and sustainable future’ might be one particular ‘vision’ for a city or a town, as it is in the case of Reading, in the UK (e.g., the Reading 2050 vision1 (Dixon et al., 2018)). In its widest sense a ‘vision’ can be seen as a shared or desirable view of the future. Indeed, visionary thinking has been part of human culture, religion and politics for many thousands of years, and visions are fundamental to thinking about the future, and are often related to a shared sense of change and transformation. Early examples of what might be termed humanistic visionary thinking emerge in the writings of Plato (fourth century BC) and later, in Thomas More’s city-based Utopia (sixteenth century). This sense of ‘futurism’ is also seen in the writings of Patrick Geddes and Ebenezer Howard (see above), two of the early visionary planners who developed generic visions of what an ideal city should be (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). It has been argued by some authors that the inherent complexity and unpredictability of cities means that although we can develop models of cities as complex systems (which can help us understand how cities have evolved and how they behave in what is termed a ‘science of cities’), we cannot predict their future with any degree of certainty because we, as inhabitants of a city, are all part of that future (see e.g., Batty, 2018). On the other hand, it is true that although the future may not be ‘predictable’, it is crucial to find other ways of developing

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  357 desirable and shared visions for our future cities in light of the many complex and ‘wicked’ problems that we face (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). Therefore, to overcome the disconnection between relatively short-term planning horizons of five to ten years and longer-term environmental changes (20 years or more), it is vital for cities to develop specific longer term ‘visions’ that open a possibility space to explore multiple futures, and to provide a roadmap of how to achieve a shared and desirable future. This also requires us to develop new ways of seeing and planning for a transition to a sustainable urban future. This is what can be described as ‘urban futures’ thinking, which is a term used to (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021: 14): … imagine what cities and urban areas will be like in the long-term, how they will operate, what infrastructure and governance systems will underpin and co-ordinate them, and how they are best shaped and influenced by their primary stakeholders (civil society, governments, businesses and investors, academia and others).

Urban futures thinking requires city stakeholders to work together in terms of co-creating a city vision in a highly participatory way and means that four main groups need to work together to build and develop city visions: namely civil society, local government, academia and business in what is known as a ‘quadruple helix’ partnership (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021; Goddard and Tewdwr-Jones, 2016). As part of ‘urban futures’ thinking, city visioning is the formal process of creating a ‘city vision’, or a shared and desirable future for a particular city or urban area. However, in practice the city vision can either relate to a single preferred urban future or it can explore a variety of different and alternative urban futures. City foresight, which includes city visioning (or the development of visions for urban areas), is therefore the ‘science of thinking about the future of cities’ (GOfS, 2016) and includes a range of futures-based methods and tools to help build and develop a city vision: for example, ‘backcasting’ which starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programmes and pathways that will connect the present with the specified future, and ‘three horizons’ (3H) thinking, which is designed to help visioning participants think about three overlapping waves (e.g., short (now), medium (near future) and long term (far future)) into the future. In the context of urban planning, the idea of ‘city visioning’ (or having a clear and formal sense of where a particular city wants to be in the long-term future) emerged during the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the USA, not only as a way of understanding the future, but also to plan for a desirable, or preferred, set of sustainable outcomes (see e.g., Atlanta, and Portland) (Dixon et al., 2018). Newman and Jennings (2008) also highlight successful examples of city visions in Perth, Vancouver and Chicago during this period. This emergence of thinking about the future of cities also reflected a growing body of literature focusing on ‘visioning sustainability’ in a range of other contexts, such as energy futures (Wiek and Iwaniec, 2014). Since the early 2000s, we have also seen the development of more ‘formal’ visioning processes (or what might be termed ‘city foresight’ methods) in many cities and urban areas which have been used to develop city visions (see, e.g., Phoenix, Johannesburg and Vancouver or, in the UK, Reading (Dixon et al., 2018) and Newcastle (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021; GOfS, 2016; Tewdwr-Jones et al., 2015)). Recent examples, where participatory methods have been pursued in a sustainable and or smart context are Sydney (Australia) and Bristol, Oxford and Edinburgh (UK). There have also been wider national and continental scale programmes relating to urban futures and city visions in Norway, Saudi Arabia and Africa, for example (Dixon

358  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). In the developing world we have also seen the emergence of ‘city development strategies’, which are strongly supported by the UN (2012) and other organisations, such as the Cities Alliance (2017) (e.g., Jinja in Nigeria, Cape Town, South Africa (see case study section in this chapter), and Curitiba in Brazil). More recently UN Habitat (2022b) has also focused closely on global ‘urban futures’, highlighting the importance of the ‘cities for all’ leitmotif of its ‘New Urban Agenda’ (NUA), which was adopted by UN Habitat Conference at Quito in 2016, following publication of the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ in 2015 (see below). While many individual city visions have focused on achieving sustainable and/or smart outcomes by a certain date, in order to be effective, visions should be linked to climate change, energy, the economy, and to people, and the vision should be participatory and inclusive, analytically sound, and politically viable (Dixon, 2021). Visions which lack this integration, and importantly, an action plan and evidence base (plus roadmap) to assess performance against key targets in the vision, are very unlikely to succeed in their ambitions. Moreover, two other elements of the background and context of urban futures thinking are important to consider. Firstly, urban innovation is crucial in enabling cities to use their inbuilt (and imported) specialisms and expertise to tackle climate change and environmental issues, for example. Place-based innovation, often funded through national government programmes, and in the form of innovation districts or living labs, can help achieve positive outcomes for cities. Universities and the business sector are often again closely involved with other partners in the quadruple helix in ensuring such innovation pipeline projects achieve fruition. An example of this is the Reading 2050 vision which led to two successful funded projects: the Thames Valley Berkshire Live Lab project (£4.8m, 2019-21) (ADEPT, 2022) and the Thames Valley Smart City Cluster Project (£2.1m, 2018-20) (Thames Valley Berkshire LEP, 2022), both of which brought the six local authorities across Berkshire together. Secondly, urban futures can contribute to good governance in a place, or the way in which a city is run, managed, led and orchestrated (JLL, 2020). Good governance, particularly in terms of ‘hard power’ (metropolitan management, fiscal capacity and good land use and infrastructure policy) and ‘soft power’ (vision, brand and commercial readiness or agility) are key characteristics of this. In a post-COVID world, the cities which will attract investment and create continued and improved prosperity from sustainable economic growth will be the cities whose decision-makers have focused on urban futures thinking to underpin their governance structures. It will therefore be even more important to take the opportunity to rethink ‘business as usual’ in our cities and look to the benefits gained (such as air quality improvements and reduced traffic) and how they can be maintained in the future (UN Habitat, 2022).

THE SDGs, URBAN SUSTAINABILITY, AND LOCALISATION As we saw earlier in this chapter, the concept of sustainable development (as a pathway to the ultimate goal of ‘sustainability’) has influenced policy, practice and academic debate over the last four decades. A continuing theme has been how such a concept can be more formally linked to valid goals which tackle the underlying and interrelated global issues of environment, society and economy, and this culminated in three major global sustainability agendas: (i) the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (The Millennium Declaration, 2000); (ii) the SDGs

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  359 (The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2015); and (iii) the (NUA) (The 2016 New Urban Agenda). Although the eight MDGs, relating to important issues such as health, poverty, inequality and environment, were seen as a step forward, progress was patchy, especially in areas of the world where the need for action was greater and more imperative. The SDGs (or Global Goals) were therefore developed to provide greater impact and applicability and to ‘leave no one behind’. The SDGs are a set of 17 goals which were developed and adopted by the UN and its 193 member countries in September 2015 and are underpinned by 169 targets and 244 indicators. The SDGs are designed to be ‘universal’ in application and, in contrast to the MDGs do not cover just developing countries (Macleod and Fox, 2019) and specifically cover cities through SDG 11 (Klopp and Petretta, 2017). The SDGs also have a strong focus on the environmental, economic, and social context of sustainable development, are linked with a focus on ecological limits and planetary boundaries and recognise the importance of innovation and finance (Parnell, 2016), although the goals are not without their critics, pointing, for example, to a ‘neo-liberalist’ ideological premise (Weber, 2017). The NUA is also important in this context. The agenda was adopted by 167 nations in 2016 and is designed to set a new global standard for how we plan, manage and live in cities (UN Habitat, 2017). Essentially, the NUA provides guidance on how well-planned and well-managed urbanisation can be a transformative force for sustainable development for both developing and developed countries, to accelerate towards the SDGs. SDG 11, relating to ‘sustainable cities and communities’ seeks to ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’ (UN, 2015). In a real sense SDG 11 is seen as ‘pathbreaking’ in the UN system because it recognises the importance of cities in achieving sustainable development, and therefore, implicitly the importance of ‘urban sustainability’ (Parnell, 2016; Thomas et al., 2021). The UN has defined ten targets and fifteen indicators for SDG 11 which are set out in Table 20.1. There is also a related initiative (United for Smart Sustainable Cities (U4SSC)). This is a global UN programme coordinated by ITU, UNECE and UN-Habitat and set up in 2015 and which suggests linking a set of smart and sustainable city indicators (consisting of 91 indicators in total, with an evaluation of three performance dimensions – economy, environment, society and culture) with the SDGs (with a special focus on SDG 11) to monitor and assess progress (Grossi and Trunova, 2021; U4SSC, 2021). It is also important to note that the SDGs are intended to link and interrelate, so that a city focus is also implicit in many of the other SDGs, which relate to health, water, transport, housing and so on. To enable the SDGs and the overall targets within them to be more relevant and embedded at a local level, the process of ‘localisation’ has been promoted and developed in many parts of the world because local governments are the primary point of institutional contact for the majority of individuals (Jain and Espey, 2022). Essentially localisation can be seen as the process of implementing the SDGs in different territories and emphasises the importance of the subnational context to help deliver the 2030 Agenda (UCLG, 2021). Localisation in this sense has two purposes: (i) building local government support to achieve practical action on the SDGs; and (ii) using the SDGs as a framework for local sustainable development policy (Jain and Espey, 2022). However, to understand how cities and their stakeholders are responding to the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs (including SDG 11) necessitates measurement and monitoring of the goals at a local level. Indicators are therefore crucial in the way they help decision-makers in

360  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 20.1

SDG 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Target

Indicator

Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and Indicator 11.1.1: Proportion of urban population living in slums, affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums

informal settlements or inadequate housing

Target 11.2: By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable,

Indicator 11.2.1: Proportion of population that has convenient

accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving

access to public transport, by sex, age and persons with

road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special

disabilities

attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable

Indicator 11.3.1: Ratio of land consumption rate to population

urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and

growth rate

sustainable human settlement planning and management in all

Indicator 11.3.2: Proportion of cities with a direct participation

countries

structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically

Target 11.4: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the

Indicator 11.4.1: Total per capita expenditure on the

world’s cultural and natural heritage

preservation, protection and conservation of all cultural and natural heritage, by source of funding (public, private), type of heritage (cultural, natural) and level of government (national, regional, and local/municipal)

Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths

Indicator 11.5.1: Number of deaths, missing persons and

and the number of people affected and substantially decrease

directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000

the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic

population

product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters,

Indicator 11.5.2: Direct economic loss attributed to disasters in

with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable

relation to global gross domestic product (GDP)

situations

Indicator 11.5.3: (a) Damage to critical infrastructure and (b) number of disruptions to basic services, attributed to disasters

Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita

Indicator 11.6.1: Proportion of municipal solid waste collected

environmental impact of cities, including by paying special

and managed in controlled facilities out of total municipal waste

attention to air quality and municipal and other waste

generated, by cities

management

Indicator 11.6.2: Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g., PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population weighted)

Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive Indicator 11.7.1: Average share of the built-up area of cities that and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women is open space for public use for all, by sex, age and persons with and children, older persons and persons with disabilities

disabilities Indicator 11.7.2: Proportion of persons victim of physical or sexual harassment, by sex, age, disability status and place of occurrence, in the previous 12 months

Target 11.a: Support positive economic, social and

Indicator 11.a.1: Number of countries that have national

environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas

urban policies or regional development plans that (a) respond

by strengthening national and regional development planning

to population dynamics; (b) ensure balanced territorial development; and (c) increase local fiscal space

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  361 Target

Indicator

Target 11.b: By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities Indicator 11.b.1: Number of countries that adopt and implement and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated

national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai

policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency,

Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030

mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to

Indicator 11.b.2: Proportion of local governments that adopt and

disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai

implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with

Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, holistic

national disaster risk reduction strategies

disaster risk management at all levels Target 11.c: Support least developed countries, including

Indicator 11.c.1: No indicator is currently listed under 11.c. See

through financial and technical assistance, in building

E/CN.3/2020/2, paragraph 23.

sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials

No data for this indicator is currently available and its methodology is still under development

Source: 

UN https://unstats​.un​.org/.

tracking performance and guiding policy development in what is described as a ‘new managerialism’ in cities (Kitchin et al., 2015). There are, however, several challenges associated with urban sustainability indicators. Firstly, there is a plethora of existing indicator sets (Moonen and Clark, 2013) and their adequacy for assessing and measuring SDG 11 progress may be questionable. For example, in an evaluation of SDG 11 Thomas et al. (2021) examined 484 existing indicators of urban and regional environmental sustainability sourced from 40 indices and online data repositories and found many of them were not appropriate or were inadequate for measuring sustainable and inclusive progress (i.e., equity) because of the lack of benchmarks, targets and explicit measurement of equity. Secondly, even within the same city or urban area, people in different communities or neighbourhoods may experience different contexts and environments, making the consistent application of measurement more difficult across the city. Thirdly, many existing urban sustainability indicators relate to the global North and particular challenges exist in applying consistent indicators to rapidly urbanising countries such as China, India and those in Africa (Thomas et al., 2021) and other areas of the world. Moreover, although the UN-Habitat has pointed to the use of its City Prosperity Index as a consistent basis for assessment (UN Habitat, 2022b), the poor availability of standardised, open and comparable data (in comparison to the ‘ideal’ indicators in Table 20.1 which are often not always available in the real world in many cities), and the lack of robust data collections systems in many cities (especially but not exclusively in the global South) have hindered progress (Klopp and Petretta, 2017). Finally, and more generally, other commentators have pointed out the inherent gaps and conflicts between some individual SDGs and previous Conferences of the Parties (COP) agreements (Dzebo et al., 2019) – for example, a focus on renewables may come at the expense of increasing biodiversity or ensuring food security. Despite these challenges, many cities and urban areas around the world have been the focus for formal monitoring programmes of the SDGs in a localised context and this has become an even more important focus for city actors, because of the recent COVID pandemic. To begin with, following the 2030 Agenda, countries have committed to review the implementation of SDGs and ideally conduct regular reviews at both national (Voluntary National Review (VNR)) and subnational level VLR). Such reviews are voluntary and country-led, but each member state is expected to commit to two VNRs by 2030 and their format is guided by the UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs Handbook (UN DESA, 2021). However, there is currently no required content for a review, and so the results are variable with only 44 countries having committed so far through the UN High Level Political Forum2

362  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 20.2 City

VLRs: Case studies

Relevant City

Implementation

SDGs Featured

Lead Stakeholders in Vision

Vision

Period of Vision

in VLR

and SDGs

2018: All

Local authority, academia,

Relevant Weblinks

and SDGs Bristol,

One City Plan 2018 to present

UK

2050

New

OneNYC

York,

2050

https://www.bristolonecity.com/

business and civil society https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/

2018: Priority

Local authority, policy

SDGs

experts, business and civil

USA

2019: Priority

society

Cape

City

SDGs 2021: Priority

Local authority, academia,

https://www.capetown.

Town,

Integrated

SDGs

business and civil society

gov.za/Family%20and%20

RSA

Development

home/Meet-the-City/

Plan

Our-vision-for-the-City

(2022-2027)

https://www.iges.or.jp/en/vlr/

2015 to present

2020 to present

capetown

Source:  Author’s own.

– for example, the UK produced a VNR in 2019. Nonetheless, this national programme also led to the development of VLRs at a city level with the first being published in 2018 by New York City, Kitakyushu, Shimokawa and Toyama. This then culminated in a 2019 meeting convened by the Brookings Institution for ‘vanguard cities’ and ‘early adopters’ that were using the SDGs as a policy planning and monitoring tool (Pipa and Bouchet, 2022), and in 2021 there were some 17 cities globally which had completed a VLR according to UN Habitat, in comparison with 26 in 2020 (Ortiz-Meyer et al., 2021). In total, by 2021, some 69 VLRs had been completed globally (UN Habitat, 2021b). As a result of the shared learning from vanguard and early adopter case studies, the Brookings Institution highlighted an iterative ‘bottom up’ process of local SDG adaptation which comprised of six phases from raising awareness of the SDGs in the city; ensuring strategic alignment of the city vision or strategy with SDGs; ensuring evidence-based analysis is carried out to underpin the SDG; making sure the SDGs’ outcomes are actioned; promoting accountability through data and metrics; and linking local SDGs to global ambition (Pipa and Bouchet, 2022). Finally, it is also clear that there is a strong link between the development of VNRs and VLRs, as evidenced by the regular review of VLR (and VNR) progress by UN Habitat (see, e.g., UN Habitat, 2021a; 2021b). In the following section, three VLR case studies are explored in more detail based on published academic and ‘grey’ literature. The selected case studies are summarised in Table 20.2.

CASE STUDIES Bristol, UK Bristol, in the UK, has a population of 472,000, with the wider city region having a population of approximately 1 million. It is one of the fastest-growing cities in the UK outside London and has some of the most affluent areas in the country (Fox and Macleod, 2019). Although Bristol is a wealthy maritime city, with much of its prosperity based on its historic legacy of

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  363 slavery and tobacco and more recently technology and innovation, there are also significant areas of poverty and deprivation: for example, nearly 15% of the population live in neighbourhoods that are among the 10% most deprived in England (Macleod, 2020). Bristol has a long history and tradition of environmental activism, hosting several sustainability organisations (e.g., Sustrans and the Environment Agency), as well as being home to environmental and activist grassroots groups and movements (Fox and Macleod, 2021; Macleod, 2020). The origins of Bristol’s strong environmental focus can also be found in its status as EU Green Capital in 2015, and the partnership working that this entailed led to a detailed study on the SDGs being undertaken by the Bristol Green Capital Partnership and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol in 2018-19 (Fox and Macleod, 2021). This also came at a time when the elected Mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees, had begun a process of strategic restructuring which led to the development of the ‘One City Plan’ city vision for 2050, originally launched in January 2019 (Bristol One City/Bristol City Council, 2021). The One City Plan, which was developed through extensive consultation and citizen engagement, aims to provide a collective sense of direction for organisations and individuals in the city (with a special but not exclusive focus on the Bristol Sustainable Development Goals Alliance, a network of over 170 stakeholders representing nearly 100 organisations), rather than simply being a plan developed for city government. The plan sets out a vision for making Bristol a fair, healthy and sustainable city for all by 2050 and makes a commitment to the UN SDGs. The SDGs vision for sustainable and inclusive prosperity that ‘leaves no-one behind’ is therefore strongly aligned with the city’s collective priorities and ambitions (Fox and Macleod, 2019). Limited local government powers in the UK and the lack of national government initiatives to foster localised initiatives have led to civil society and academia often taking the lead (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021; Fox and Macleod, 2021). In July 2019, the Cabot Institute for the Environment at the University of Bristol therefore launched the United Kingdom’s first VLR of SDG progress. Linked closely to the One City Plan, the review reflected an integrated and whole city approach to tackling the SDGs and included information on the activities of 90 Bristol based organisations working to make the city more economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. The VLR reviewed progress on all 17 SDGs and included data on over 140 indicators and was based on extensive data gathering, based on a 2010 baseline. This was achieved through customising data to the local context and conducting an online survey of nearly 100 organisations (Fox and Macleod, 2019). Nationally and internationally, the city has also continued to advance the SDG agenda through the production of a VLR handbook to assist other cities in adopting and implementing the SDGs; leading the Local Government Association’s (UK) declaration and adoption of the SDGs; signing the Mayor of New York City’s VLR declaration; and supporting UK, EU and UN discussions on local SDG implementation and action (Bristol One City/Bristol City Council, 2021). The SDGs have also been used as the basis for the city’s COVID-19 recovery planning as well as the development of the climate and ecological emergency strategies, although with the recent vote (in 2022) to end the elected mayoralty in favour of a council-led committee from 2024, the future is somewhat uncertain. New York, USA In the United States and even globally, New York City is seen today as the epitome of all that is ‘urban’ (Rosenthal and Strange, 2005). As the USA’s largest city, with a population in

364  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals 2021 of 18.8 million, New York’s continued dominance, as a port city, in the US economy is based not only on its location but also on its continued ability to reinvent and reinvigorate its economy (Glaeser, 2005). From its origins as ‘New Amsterdam’ in the seventeenth century the city’s location as a centre for manufacturing led to its expansion and which later created further wealth and economic growth as a dominant hub for finance, business services and corporate management underpinned by the continuous flow of migration (Glaeser, 2005). New York’s scale, density, and flows of information and ideas have therefore been at the heart of its growth as a global trading centre throughout its history. Despite its overall wealth and continued growth, New York also suffers from deprivation: for example, approximately one in five New Yorkers lives in poverty and nearly half the city’s households are considered poor (Centre for New York City Affairs, 2022). Like Bristol, New York also has a strong tradition of environmental thinking with the city having played an important role in the development of the C40 Cities and Rockefeller Resilient Cities (disbanded in 2019) networks and with many global diplomatic organisations with strong sustainability principles, such as the UN, located there. The origins for an increased focus on sustainability in New York City can be found in the Superstorm Sandy which hit New York on 29 October 2012 and killed 44 people, leaving $19 billion worth of damage and the destruction of 69,000 homes, with many citizens displaced. The storm also highlighted critical gaps in New York’s resiliency and sustainability strategy, particularly in its poorer neighbourhoods. Although the city had developed a climate action plan, the city government decided to develop a vision with a much closer emphasis on equity and sustainability. In April 2015 the One New York City (OneNYC) 2050 vision was launched (City of New York, 2019a). Based on extensive consultation with key groups in the community, including city agencies, residents, businesses and policy experts, the vision sought to develop New York by 2050 as a ‘strong and fair city’, built on growth, equity, sustainability, and resiliency, by for example focusing on lifting 800,000 citizens out of poverty by 2025, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050, and eliminating long-term displacement from homes and jobs by 2050. After global leaders then committed to the SDGs in September 2015, the decision-makers in New York saw the synergies with the One NYC vision and the SDGs, and so a ‘Global Vision-Urban Action’ (GVUA) platform was established to use the SDGs as a common framework. In 2018 New York City became the first city in the world to conduct a VLR which was conducted by the NYC Mayor’s Office for International Affairs (IA) in partnership with the NYC Mayor’s Offices of Operations, and Climate Policy and Programs, and in consultation with relevant NYC agencies (New York City Mayor’s Office for International Affairs, 2018). New York City is at the present time the only city in the world to have conducted two VLRs (2018 and 2019). New York’s VLR compiles existing data from a range of existing sources and new survey work, and translates it into the common language of the SDGs. In this way, its VLR gathers previous information following the guidelines of the VNR format to showcase the achievements of OneNYC strategy. The VLR in 2018 focused on the ‘priority SDGs’ which were identified – SDGs 6 (water and sanitation), 7 (affordable and sustainable energy), 11 (safe cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption), and 15 (take care of the earth). New York City then updated its VLR in 2019, reviewing SDGs 4 (quality education), 8 (decent work for all), 10 (reduce inequality), 13 (stop climate change), and 16 (live in peace) (City of New York, 2019b; Ortis-Moya et al, 2020).

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  365 Cape Town, Republic of South Africa Cape Town is the second largest metropolitan centre in South Africa, with a population of 4.5 million. As a major port city, Cape Town plays an important role in the national economy, represented by a 9.6% share of the national economy. Despite its continued success as a financial and business services centre, the city’s challenges stem from the legacy of apartheid urban planning and where inequality, poverty and exclusion continue to be problematic alongside the more recent pressures of COVID and climate change. Cape Town’s informal economy is substantial and represented some 12.4% of the overall economy in 2019, with nearly 20% of the population also living in informal structures (City of Cape Town, 2021). Cape Town also has a substantial transport problem with high congestion and poor-quality public rail transport, yet also has a rich natural landscape with a national park inside the city boundary (Table Mountain). Cape Town faces many climate challenges, including a significant increase in temperatures, long-term decrease in rainfall, changes in rainfall seasonality, more extreme heat days and heat waves, and coastal erosion (Rebelo et al., 2020). As a result of these environmental and socio-economic challenges three key ‘anchor city strategies’ have been developed: the Cape Town Resilience Strategy; the City Integrated Development Plan (five-year reviews); and the post-pandemic recovery plan (City of Cape Town, 2021). The latest update to the City Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2022–2027) is important for highlighting a vision which sees Cape Town as ‘… a City of Hope for all – a prosperous, inclusive and healthy city where people can see their hopes of a better future for themselves, their children and their community become a reality’ (City of Cape Town, 2022: 2). The IDP also consists of five main pillars (‘the opportunity city’; ‘the safe city’; ‘the caring city’; the inclusive city’; and the ‘well-run’ city). Cape Town is also a member of several global alliances including the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and the 100 Resilient Cities network (disbanded 2019) (Croese, 2019). The city also undertook a city development strategy in 2012 (City of Cape Town, 2012) and developed a climate change strategy and action plan in 2020, although some commentators point to a lack of detail on, for example, nature and biodiversity (Rebelo et al., 2020). The groundwork for the Cape Town VLR (which was carried out in 2021) was partly achieved through an alliance between the city government and The Africa Centre for Cities in the University of Cape Town (Croese, 2019; Croese and Duminy, 2022). In particular, the Mistra Urban Futures Project brought together expertise in an international collaboration; firstly, on scoping out relevant SDG 11 indicators and secondly, later on, in the localised implementation of SDGs and the NUA in Cape Town, Kisumu (Kenya), Gothenburg and Malmo (Sweden), Sheffield (UK), Shimla (India) and Buenos Aires (Argentina) (Croese et al., 2021; Valencia et al., 2020). As part of this process an embedded researcher worked with Cape Town officials to develop an approach to SDG localisation between 2017 and 2019. This strongly embedded partnership between academia and the city council led to the organisation of awareness-raising activities, one-on-one meetings, exploring different pathways to SDG localisation (strategic, sectoral and programme-based) and internal/external knowledge exchanges, discussions and seminars (Croese and Majoe, 2022). This partnership also led to an approach to SDG localisation based on three principles: (i) internal strengthening of the city as an organisation in terms of monitoring and reporting into the SDGs; (ii) national reporting to feed into the national reporting of SDGs; and (iii) global positioning where SDGs are embedded into local planning and processes to localise the SDGs

366  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals (Croese, 2019). The three principles also formed the basis of the VLR which was conducted in 2020/21 and was the first to be conducted by a South African city. The VLR focused on eight priority goals: SDGs 1 (poverty); 2 (hunger, food security etc.); 6 (water and sanitation); 8 (decent work and economic growth); 9 (resilient infrastructure); 11 (safe, resilient and sustainable cities and communities); 13 (climate change) and 17 (strengthen global partnership). The VLR process was very much driven by the city authority which primarily used existing datasets to assess the SDGs (City of Cape Town, 2021).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This chapter has highlighted how urban futures thinking can play a crucial role in developing city visions and help city decision-makers and key stakeholders understand how to transition and transform to a smart and sustainable future. This is especially important when we consider the core principles of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development (people, prosperity, planet, partnership and peace) which can be seen through the lens of sustainable development linked to three core elements: social inclusion, economic growth, and environmental protection (UN System Staff College, 2015). A participatory-led, co-produced (or co-created) vision of a shared and desirable future for a place, underpinned by relevant roadmaps can help cities in a number of ways, especially when using more formal city foresight techniques. In the three case studies that were highlighted in this chapter, all had some form of long-term plan or vision in place. That may not always be the case where VLRs have been conducted, of course, but the presence of a formal vision (or long-term plan) provides a strong anchor point or touchstone for localisation of the SDGs. In terms of ‘tangible outcomes’ from this process it can lead to opening up novel ideas and new perspectives or challenging status quo views; providing fresh insights into policy linkages; identifying risk; and developing compelling brand narratives to attract investment. Also ‘hidden outcomes’ can arise; for example, developing new relationships and partnerships; developing greater buy-in for decisions and creating external confidence (GOfS, 2016). Similarly, research by the Brookings Institution suggests that five steps (the ‘5 As’) are important in understanding how different cities across the world have approached their VLRs. These comprise (1) Awareness building internally and externally; (2) Aligning local and global (and regional) goals and actions to the SDGs; (3) Analysing key relevant trends in the relevant city; (4) Actioning the relevant policies to achieve results; and (5) Accountability or enabling the process to be fully transparent perhaps through the use of data dashboards (Pipa and Bouchet, 2022). The case studies that were examined in this chapter also reveal that on a pragmatic basis there are four main phases in a VLR that in many ways map on to the city visioning process: (1) Collecting information and data; (2) Assessing the data and reviewing the SDGs through participatory approaches; (3) Formulating proposals for SDGs; (4) Taking action and funding projects (ECE, 2020). As with the development of city visions (as part of urban futures thinking), VLRs can help in terms of setting city-level policies and enabling improved political leadership, particularly through developing a long-term strategy for the urban area. They can also strengthen evidence-based policymaking and enable the assessment of progress in transparent and accountable ways, as well as identifying different kinds of governance or financing models

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  367 to help drive the SDGs (Pipa and Bouchet, 2022). On the other hand, the VLR also presents major challenges which include: ● Data deficits: data are not always available for all relevant SDGs in a city, and this may be a particular problem in the global South. In many areas in this part of the globe, a high degree of ‘informality’ means many processes and dynamics may be missing from datasets, for example in relation to transport or housing (Klopp and Petretta, 2017). Even in more developed cities it may not always be possible to access accurate and up to date data at the right scale for a city or to effectively ‘disaggregate’ national/regional data to a local level (Macleod and Fox, 2019). ● Data consistency: often data is neither standardised, nor open source, and lacks comparability so that the widely differing locales of cities across countries and continents can lead to problems in comparability. As Thomas et al. (2021) suggest in relation to SDG 11, at least ten of the fifteen indicators require new approaches and tools for collecting, analysing and using information, for example. ● Boundary issues and multi-level governance: firstly, cities are often ‘under-bounded’ and have impacts beyond their administrative boundaries. For example, most statistics relate to administrative boundaries, including carbon emissions, and so the data relating to SDGs may not reflect the complexities of cross-boundary impacts. Secondly, complex multi-governance structures can create challenges in allocating data access and responsibility for oversight to key players in the VLR process. ● Capacity and skills for conducting VLRs: municipalities and local authorities differ in their resources and capabilities and the impact of the COVID pandemic has also placed great pressures on such organisations (UN Habitat, 2022c). Those cities with academic institutions, and/or placed within national and international networks, are often more strongly placed to conduct VLRs than those without such partnerships. ● Comparability of existing vision with SDGs: where a city vision already exists there may be high level goals which do not necessarily map directly onto SDGs. This potential imbalance requires careful thought and a close watch on how existing structures and partnerships can be impacted by a new and fresh focus on SDGs. Recent work by Guarini et al. (2021) shows how SDGs can offer positive benefits by being integrated within existing strategies and visions. More specifically, in the developing world, there are challenges connected with available resources and the co-production of appropriate city visions, which lie at the heart of VLRs, but helpful guidance (e.g., from Africa) has suggested how more marginalised and under-represented groups can, and should, be consulted during the VLR process (UN Habitat, 2022c). Despite these challenges, urban futures thinking, as we saw earlier in this chapter, and a renewed focus on VLRs can offer real advantages to cities in an increasingly uncertain world in both developed and developing countries. However, this requires strong leadership at city level, and a desire to be participatory, bringing together all key stakeholders using a ‘quadruple helix’ approach where possible (Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). Indeed, the stakes could not be higher in a rapidly warming world and where resilience is crucial to cities’ survival and renewal. Ultimately, however, every city is different, and the responses to this and other changing and challenging global conditions should also reflect the unique characteristics (or

368  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ‘eigenart’) of a place. In the words of Patrick Geddes, the renowned nineteenth/early twentieth century planner and social activist (Geddes, 1915: 397): ‘Local character’ is thus no mere accidental old-world quaintness, as its mimics think and say. It is attained only in course of adequate grasp and treatment of the whole environment, and in active sympathy with the essential and characteristic life of the place concerned.

In other words, in the context of our urban world today, we all need to strive even more to ‘think global and act local’, and to act now before it is too late.

NOTES 1. See https://​www​.visit​-reading​.com/​business/​sustainable​-future 2. See https://​hlpf​.un​.org/​vnrs

REFERENCES ADEPT (2022). Thames Valley Live Lab: Final Review, ADEPT, London (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.adeptnet​.org​.uk/​documents/​thames​-valley​-live​-lab​-final​-review) Arcadis (2022). Sustainable Cities Index 2022, Ontario, Canada. (Accessed March 2023: https://​ www​.arcadis​.com/​en/​knowledge​-hub/​perspectives/​global/​sustainable​-cities​-index​?utm​_source​ =​google​&​utm​_medium​=​Search​_ad​&​utm​_campaign​=​Sci22​&​gclid​=​EAIaIQobChMI97LJn43L​-​ QIVTO3tCh3vhwUFEAAYASAAEgLtvfD​_BwE) Batty, M. (2018). Inventing Future Cities. Cambridge Mass/Cambridge, England: MIT Press. Bibri, S., and Krogstie, J. (2017). ‘Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review’. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183–212. Bristol One City/Bristol City Council (2021). One City Plan, Bristol City Council, Bristol (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.bristolonecity​.com/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​04/​Bristol​-One​-City​-Plan​ -2021​-2050​.pdf) Brundtland Commission (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Centre for New York City Affairs (2022). Inequality and Poverty (Accessed March 2023: http://​www​ .centernyc​.org/​inequality​-poverty​#:​~:​text​=​Approximately​%20one​%20in​%20five​%20New​,working​ %20poor​%20continues​%20to​%20rise) Cities Alliance (2017). Cities Development Strategies 2.0: Cities Growing with Vision, Brussels, Cities Alliance (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.citiesalliance​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​CDS​_Toolkit​_Web​ .pdf) City of Cape Town (2012). City of Cape Town City Development Strategy. City of Cape Town, RSA (Accessed March 2023: https://​resource​.capetown​.gov​.za/​documentcentre/​Documents/​City​ %20strategies​,​%20plans​%20and​%20frameworks/​CDS​.pdf) City of Cape Town (2021). Voluntary Local Review, 2021. City of Cape Town, RSA (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.iges​.or​.jp/​sites/​default/​files/​inline​-files/​2021​%20​-​%20Cape​%20Town​.pdf) City of Cape Town (2022). Integrated Development Plan (IDP) New Term of Office July 2022–June 2027. City of Cape Town, RSA (Accessed March 2023: https://​resource​.capetown​.gov​.za/​documentcentre/​ Documents/​City​%20strategies​%2c​%20plans​%20and​%20frameworks/​IDP​_2022​-2027​.pdf) City of New York (2019a). OneNYC 2050: Building a Strong and Fair City, City of New York, New York. (Accessed March 2023: https://​onenyc​.cityofnewyork​.us/​reports​-resources/​) City of New York (2019b). Voluntary Local Review: New York City’s Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, City of New York, New York (Accessed March 2023: https://​ su​stainabled​evelopment​.un​.org/​content/​documents/​24366International​_Affairs​_VLR​_2019​.pdf) Clark, G. (2016). Global Cities. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  369 Croese, S. (2019). Localisation of the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals in Cape Town, MISTRA Working Paper (Accessed March 2023: https://​ www​ .mistraurbanfutures​ .org/​ en/​ publication/​localisation​-2030​-agenda​-and​-its​-sustainable​-development​-goals​-cape​-town) Croese, S., and Duminy, J. (2022). ‘Co-producing urban expertise for SDG localization: The history and practices of urban knowledge production in South Africa’. Urban Geography, 1–20. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1080/​02723638​.2022​.2079868 Croese, S., and Majoe, N. (2022). Tackling SDG localisation sideways in Africa’s cities, ICLEI Cape Twon, RSA. (Accessed March 2023: https://​riseafrica​.iclei​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​10/​Tackling​ -SDG​-localisation​-sideways​-in​-Africa​%E2​%80​%99s​-cities​_final​.pdf) Croese, S., Oloko, M., Simon, D., and Valencia, S.C. (2021). ‘Bringing the global to the local: The challenges of multi-level governance for global policy implementation in Africa’. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 13:3, 435–447, DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2021.1958335 Dixon, T. (2018). ‘Smart and sustainable?: The future of “future cities”’. In Dixon, T., Connaughton, J., and Green, S. Dixon, T., (Eds.) Sustainable Futures in the Built Environment to 2050: A Foresight Approach to Construction and Development (pp. 94–116). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Dixon, T., Montgomery, J., Horton-Baker, N., and Farrelly, L. (2018). ‘Using urban foresight techniques in city visioning: Lessons from the Reading 2050 vision’. Local Economy, 33(8), 777–799. Dixon, T.J. (2021). ‘City visions: Toward smart and sustainable urban futures’. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures. pp.1–9. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​978​-3​-030​-51812​-7​_14​-1 Dixon, T.J., and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2021). Urban Futures: Planning for City Foresight and City Visions. Bristol: Policy Press/Bristol University Press. Dzebo, A., Janetschek, H., Brandi, C., and Iacobuta, G. (2019). Connections between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda: The case for policy coherence. SEI Working Paper. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) (2020). Draft Guidelines for the Development of Voluntary Local reviews in the ECE region. UN Economic and Social Council, Geneva. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. London: Capstone. Fox, S., and Macleod, A. (2021). ‘Localizing the SDGs in cities: Reflections from an action research project in Bristol, UK’. Urban Geography, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2021.1953286 Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in Evolution. London: Williams. Glaeser, E. (2005). ‘Urban colossus: Why is New York America’s largest city? FRBNY Economic Policy Review, December, 7–24. Goddard, M., and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2016). City Futures and the Civic University. Newcastle: Newcastle University. Gong W., and Lyu H. (2017). Sustainable City Indexing: Towards the Creation of an Assessment Framework for Inclusive and Sustainable Urban-Industrial Development. UNIDO, Vienna. (Accessed March 2023 from https://​www​.unido​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​files/​2018​-02/​BRIDGE​%20for​%20Cities​ _Issue​%20Paper​_2​.pdf) Government Office for Science (GOfS) (2016). Future of Cities: Foresight for Cities, London: GOfS. (Accessed July 2022: https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​publications/​future​-of​-cities​-foresight​-for​ -cities). Grossi, G., and Trunova, O. (2021). ‘Are UN SDGs useful for capturing multiple values of smart city?’ Cities, 114 (DOI, https://​www​.sciencedirect​.com/​science/​article/​pii/​S0264275121000913​?via​ %3Dihub) Guarani, E., Mori, E., and Zuffada, E. (2021). ‘New development: Embedding the SDGS in city strategic planning and management’. Public Money and Management, 41,6, 494–497. Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (Eds.) (2014). After Sustainable Cities? London: Routledge. ITU (2014). Smart Sustainable Cities—An Analysis of Definitions, Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union. Jain, G., and Espey, J. (2022). ‘Lessons from nine urban areas using data to drive local sustainable development’, NPJ Urban Sustainability, 2, 7 (DOI, https://​www​.nature​.com/​articles/​s42949​-022​ -00050​-4)

370  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals JLL (2020). Readiness, Resilience and Responsibility: City Governance and Real Estate in a Post-COVID World. JLL, London. (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.jll​.co​.uk/​en/​trends​-and​-insights/​research/​ city​-governance​-and​-real​-estate​-post​-covid) Joss, S., Sengers, F., Schraven, D., Caprotti, F., and Dayot, Y. (2019). ‘The smart city as global discourse: Storylines and critical junctures across 27 cities’. Journal of Urban Technology, 26(1), 3–34. Kitchin, R. (2015). ‘Making sense of smart cities: Addressing present shortcomings’. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 131–136. Klopp, J., and Petretta, D. (2017). ‘The urban sustainable development goal: Indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities’. Cities, 63, 92–97. Knox, P. (Ed) (2014). Atlas of Cities. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press. Macleod, A. (2020). Why the One City model works: Local Governance to Achieve the SDGs and Leave No One Behind. Brookings Institution (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.brookings​.edu/​wp​ -content/​uploads/​2020/​11/​City​-playbook​_Bristol​.pdf) Macleod, A., and Fox, S. (2019). Voluntary Local Reviews: A Handbook for UK Cities. University of Bristol. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W.. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books. Moonen, T., and Clark, G. (2013). The Business of Cities 2013: What do 150 City Indexes and Benchmarking Studies Tell Us About the Urban World in 2013? London: Jones Lang LaSalle. New York City Mayor’s Office for International Affairs (2018). Voluntary Local ReviewNew York City’s Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, City of New York, New York (Accessed March 2023: https://​www1​.nyc​.gov/​assets/​international/​downloads/​pdf/​NYC​ _VLR​_2018​_FINAL​.pdf) Newman P., and Jennings I. (2008). Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices. Washington, DC: Island Press. Ortiz-Moya, F., Kataoka, Y., and Fujino, J. (2021). ‘How can voluntary local reviews (VLRs) amplify local sustainability?’ IISD, 22 September, Online Blog (Accessed March 2023: https://​sdg​.iisd​.org/​ commentary/​guest​-articles/​how​-can​-voluntary​-local​-reviews​-vlrs​-amplify​-local​-sustainability/​) Parnell, S. (2016). ‘Defining a global urban development agenda’. World Development, 78, 529–540. Pipa, A., and Bouchet, M. (2022). Local Leadership Driving Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. Brookings Institution, Washington DC. (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.brookings​.edu/​ research/​local​-leadership​-driving​-progress​-on​-the​-sustainable​-development​-goals/​) Rebelo, A., Esler, K., Samways, M., Holmes, P., and Rebelo, T. (2020) ‘Cape Town’s climate strategy isn’t perfect, but every African city should have one’. The Conversation, November 10 (Accessed March 2023: https://​theconversation​.com/​cape​-towns​-climate​-strategy​-isnt​-perfect​-but​-every​-african​ -city​-should​-have​-one​-149287) Rosenthal, S., and Strange, W. (2005). ‘The geography of entrepreneurship in the New York metropolitan area’. FRBNY Economic Policy Review, December, 29–52. Tewdwr-Jones, M., Goddard, J., and Cowie, P. (2015). Newcastle City Futures 2065: Anchoring Universities in Cities Through Urban Foresight. Newcastle: Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Newcastle University. Thames Valley Berkshire LEP (2022). Smart City Cluster Website (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​ .t​hamesvalle​yberkshire​.co​.uk/​tvbsmartcity) Thomas, R., Hsu, A., and Weinfurter, A. (2021). ‘Replication data for: Sustainable and inclusive Evaluating urban sustainability indicators’ suitability for measuring progress towards SDG-11’. EPB: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(8), 2346–2362. Trencher G., and Karvonen, A. (2017). ‘Stretching “smart”: Advancing health and well-being through the smart city agenda’. Local Environment, 24(7), 610–627. U4SSC (2021). United for Smart Sustainable Cities: A UN Initiative, UN Geneva (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.itu​.int/​en/​ITU​-T/​ssc/​united/​Documents/​U4SSC​%20Publications/​U4SSC​_Brochure​ -June​%202020pdf​.pdf) UCLG (2021). Towards Localization of the SDGs. Barcelona: UCLG. UN (2002). Sustainable Cities Programme-1990-2000. Nairobi: UN.

Urban futures, localisation, and the role of sustainable development goals  371 UN (2012). Shanghai Manual: A Guide for Sustainable Urban Development in the 21st Century. New York: UN. (Accessed March 2023: https://​su​stainabled​evelopment​.un​.org/​index​.php​?page​=​view​&​ type​=​400​&​nr​=​633​&​menu​=​35) UN DESA (2021). Handbook for the Preparation of Voluntary National Reviews. Geneva: UN DESA. (Accessed March 2023: https://​su​stainabled​evelopment​.un​.org/​content/​documents/​27024Handbook​ _2021​_EN​.pdf) UN Habitat (2017). New Urban Agenda. Nairobi: UN Habitat. (Accessed March 2023: https://​habitat3​ .org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​NUA​-English​.pdf) UN Habitat (2021a). Guidelines for Voluntary Local Reviews Vol 1. A Comparative Analysis of VLRs. NAIROBI: UN Habitat. (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.uclg​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​uclg​_vlrlab​ _guidelines​_2020​_volume​_i​.pdf) UN Habitat (2021b). Guidelines for Voluntary Local Reviews Vol 2. Towards a New Generation of VLRs-Exploring the National-Local Link. Nairobi: UN Habitat. (Accessed March 2023: https://​ unhabitat​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​2021/​07/​vlrguidelines​_vol2​.pdf) UN Habitat (2022a). Envisaging the Future of Cities: World City Report, 2022. Nairobi: UN Habitat. (Accessed March 2023: https://​unhabitat​.org/​world​-cities​-report​-2022​-envisaging​-the​-future​-of​ -cities) UN Habitat (2022b). City Prosperity Index Website. Nairobi: UN Habitat. (Accessed March 2023: https://​unhabitat​.org/​programme/​city​-prosperity​-initiative) UN Habitat (2022c). Africa Voluntary Local Review Guidelines. Nairobi: UN Habitat. (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.uneca​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​TCND/​voluntary​-local​-reviews​-africa/​AFRICA​ %20VOLUNTARY​%20LOCAL​%20REVIEW​%20GUIDELINE​.pdf) UN System Staff College (2015). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Primer. Geneva: UN. (Accessed March 2023: https://​www​.un​.org/​development/​desa/​jpo/​wp​-content/​uploads/​sites/​55/​ 2017/​02/​2030​-Agenda​-for​-Sustainable​-Development​-KCSD​-Primer​-new​.pdf) Valencia, S. C., Simon, D., Croese, S., Diprose, K., Nordqvist, J., Oloko, M., Sharma, T., and Versace, I. (2020). ‘Internationally Initiated Projects with Local Co-Production: Urban Sustainable Development Goal project’. In Comparative Urban Research: From Theory to Practice. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Retrieved Aug 17, 2022, from https://​bristolun​iversitypr​essdigital​.com/​view/​book/​978144735 Weber, H. (2017). ‘Politics of “leaving no one behind”: Contesting the 2030 sustainable development goals agenda’. Globalizations, 14(3), 399–414. Whitehead, M. (2003). ‘(Re)analysing the sustainable city: Nature, urbanisation and the regulation of socio-environmental relations in the UK’. Urban Studies, 40(7), 1183–1206. Wiek, A., and Iwaniec, D. (2014). ‘Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science’. Sustainability Science, 9, 497–512. Zhou, N., and Williams, C. (2013). An International Review of Eco-City Theory, Indicators and Case Studies. Berkeley, USA: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

21. Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals Ani Raiden, Andrew King and Alex Opoku

INTRODUCTION Social value is a national/organisation level practical vehicle for realising the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Conceptually, they present an integrated view of the three spheres of sustainability: social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Social value is particularly relevant in the context of the continued increase in the global development of the built environment through construction and infrastructure projects which involve many different stakeholders. This chapter explores how the efforts of different stakeholders can be collectively and constructively aligned to achieve social value and thus realise the SDGs beyond what any individual project or initiative would be able to deliver alone. Social value has a partnership model at its heart and offers an opportunity to both disrupt and co-create new and inclusive ways of living, working, and placemaking. This chapter, therefore, showcases practical solutions and discusses key issues relating to social value, the built environment, and the SDGs.

SOCIAL VALUE – BACKGROUND AND CONNECTION TO THE SDGs As Raiden et al. (2019) highlight, the understanding of value in a business context has been traditionally informed by an economic perspective (see Griffith et al., 2003; Kelly et al., 2007). Three widely used concepts include ‘value in use’, ‘value in exchange’, and ‘esteem value’. Value in use refers to the function of a service or a product that satisfies a need or generates pleasure for its owner (Griffith et al., 2003: 71). Value in exchange relates to the worth or the monetary sums for which the service or product can be traded (Kelly et al., 2007: 150). Importantly, a particular service or a product may have a great value in use but a relatively low value in exchange, for example, water. Alternatively, a service or a product may have a high value in exchange but a low value in use, for example, diamonds. This is known as the paradox of value (Griffith et al., 2003: 71; Kelly et al., 2007: 152). It demonstrates that market prices often do not necessarily reflect personal notions of value – a problem which lies at the heart of controversies around the monetisation of social value. In the context of the built environment, it also helps to explain why market prices can often inadequately reflect the social value of construction and infrastructure developments where the value in use for various stakeholders is high, but value in exchange is relatively low. A good example of this is social housing provision within a deprived area where houses offer high social value, by providing homes for occupants suffering disadvantage who may otherwise be homeless, while financial market capitalisation opportunities for investors are small. Finally, esteem value relates to the 372

Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  373 Table 21.1

SDGs and examples of key targets relevant to social value in the built environment

Sustainable Development Goals

Target Examples

1. No poverty - End poverty in all its forms

1.2. By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all

everywhere

ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

2. Zero hunger - End hunger, achieve

2.1. By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and

food security and improved nutrition, and

people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient

promote sustainable agriculture

food all year round

3. Good health and well-being - Ensure

3.5. Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic

healthy lives and promote well-being for all drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol at all ages 4. Quality education - Ensure inclusive and

4.4. By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have

equitable quality education and promote

relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs

lifelong learning for all

and entrepreneurship

5. Gender equality - Achieve gender equality 5.1. End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere and empower all women and girls

5.5. Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life

6. Clean water and sanitation - Ensure

6b. Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water

availability and sustainable management of

and sanitation management

water and sanitation for all 7. Affordable and clean energy - Ensure

7.1. By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy

access to affordable, reliable, sustainable,

services

and clean energy for all

7.3. By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency

8. Decent work and economic growth

8.3. Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities,

- Promote sustained, inclusive, and

decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the

sustainable economic growth, full and

formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including

productive employment, and decent work

through access to financial services

for all

8.5. By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value 8.6. By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training

9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure

9.1. Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including

- Build resilient infrastructure, promote

regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human

inclusive and sustainable industrialization,

well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all

and foster innovation

9.2. Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry’s share of employment and gross domestic product, in line with national circumstances, and double its share in least developed countries

10. Reduced inequalities - Reduce inequality 10.2. By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of within and among countries

all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status 10.3. Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard

11. Sustainable cities and communities

11.3. By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for

- Make cities and human settlements

participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management

inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

in all countries 11.4. Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage

374  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Sustainable Development Goals

Target Examples

12. Responsible consumption and

12.5. Substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling

production - Ensure sustainable consumption and reuse and production patterns

12.7. Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities

13. Climate action - Take urgent action to

13.3. Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on

combat climate change and its impacts

climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning

14. Life below water - Conserve and

14.1. By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in

sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution resources for sustainable development 15. Life on land - Protect, restore, and

15.9. By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local

promote sustainable use of terrestrial

planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts

ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and stop and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss 16. Peace, justice and strong institutions -

16.7. Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies

at all levels

for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels 17. Partnerships for the goals - Strengthen

17.17. Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society

the means of implementation and revitalize

partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships

the global partnership for sustainable development

Source:  Raiden and King (2022: 8–11).

functions of prestige, appearance, and/or other nonquantifiable benefits, such as purchasing something simply for the sake of possession (Kelly et al., 2007: 151). Architecture and design work often carry high esteem value. However, evaluation of such value is subjective, and thus very difficult to measure. Measuring value then becomes an exercise of appreciating and considering often complex and competing questions about value in use, value in exchange and esteem value. Green and Liu (2007) add an insight into the social reality of value management and how as a theory and practice, conceptualised and enacted differently across different localised contexts, it defies universal definition. Differences in the perception of value and value management arise because there is no absolute truth and rather, it is groups of individuals who participate in the creation of a shared social reality. There are many internal and external influences on perception, some of which relate to the individual (e.g. background and value base), some that are relational and relative to the relationships between people and/or groups of people and/or people and organisations (e.g. politics), and some that draw from the macro environmental context (e.g. global attention on climate). This perspective sets a scene for social value to be considered, created and delivered as a contextual and situated concept and practice. Raiden and King (2022) connect social value to the SDGs and present insights into the many different ways in which individuals and organisations can make a positive impact towards resolving the ‘people, planet and prosperity’ agenda. They see social value as the practical tool for achieving the SDGs, something that organisations, projects, and people can do, and put in practice, and emphasise that the SDGs are interconnected. For example, affordability

Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  375 of energy use and the availability of clean energies (SDG 7) are related directly to health and well-being (SDG 3), industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). SDGs 3 (good health and well-being), 4 (quality education), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), 10 (reduced inequalities), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (sustainable consumption and production), 13 (climate action), and 17 partnerships for the goals feature throughout the many contributions in the book. And while some of the other SDGs are less directly connected to the remit of their work (e.g., SDGs 1 (no poverty), 2 (zero hunger), 6 (clean water and sanitation), 14 (life below water), and 15 (life on land)) at least indirectly, social value is really about all the SDGs. UK Green Building Council (2021) also endorse the very clear alignment between the SDGs and the social value agenda. Mapping out the social value outcomes against the SDGs can help organisations to identify which outcomes materially contribute to the achievement of relevant SDGs and assess where there may be other sustainable development issues that could influence value creation across the business (AECOM, 2022). After the following section on defining social value, we show how social value contributes to the SDGs, drawing on some of the key SDG targets listed in Table 21.1. Defining Social Value As social value has evolved conceptually over the last decade or so, many different definitions have emerged, often because they are tailored to specific circumstances or organisational priorities. For example, the British Standard (BS 8950) defines social value in broad terms as a net positive change in human wellbeing and assumes that the enhancement of social value is in the long-term interests of all of us (Levitt, 2020: 2).

Social Value International (2022) has set out ‘The Principles of Social Value’ (Figure 21.1.), which provide the basic building blocks for anyone who wants to make decisions that take a wider definition of value into account, in order to increase equality, improve well-being and increase environmental sustainability: Involve stakeholders – Inform what gets measured and how this is measured and valued in an account of social value by involving stakeholders. Understand what changes – Articulate how change is created and evaluate this through evidence gathered, recognising positive and negative changes as well as those that are intended and unintended. Value the things that matter – Making decisions about allocating resources between different options needs to recognise the values of stakeholders. Value refers to the relative importance of different outcomes. It is informed by stakeholders’ preferences. Only include what is material – Determine what information and evidence must be included in the accounts to give a true and fair picture, such that stakeholders can draw reasonable conclusions about impact. Do not over-claim – Only claim the value that activities are responsible for creating. Be transparent – Demonstrate the basis on which the analysis may be considered accurate and honest and show that it will be reported to and discussed with stakeholders. Verify the result – Ensure appropriate independent assurance.

376  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Be responsive – Pursue optimum Social Value based on decision making that is timely and supported by appropriate accounting and reporting.

Source: Adapted from Social Value International (2022).

Figure 21.1

The principles of social value

Working to a definition with a broad remit presents an opportunity for people/projects/organisations/communities to tailor their approach to social value to their particular circumstances. The UK Green Building Council (2021) notes that such focus on the best interests or needs of a group of people is necessary as what constitutes social value can look very different in different contexts. They present a three stage Framework for Defining Social Value: 1. Identify the relevant people based on the likely impact of the project on their quality of life. 2. Understand what is in the best interests of the relevant stakeholders. 3. Agree a bespoke set of social value outcomes for the project based on the best interests of the relevant stakeholders. Others, such as the Salford Social Value Alliance (2022) relate social value specifically to procurement: ‘If £1 is spent on the delivery of services, can that same £1 be used to also produce a wider benefit to the community?’. This involves looking beyond the price of each individual contract and instead looking at the collective benefit to a community.

Despite the calls for bespoke, broad, and longer-term views of social value by the abovementioned organisations as well as literature (see e.g., Raiden and King, 2022; Raiden et al., 2019), a link to procurement is commonly visible in different definitions, often because of historical and legislative influences. This is how The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requirements in the UK were interpreted. In the US, The Public Law 95–507 Act of 1978 has long required firms tendering for construction contracts of over a certain value to submit

Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  377 a buying plan that includes percentage goals for employing disadvantaged businesses; and the Australian Commonwealth Government’s Indigenous Procurement Policy has set a target for new domestic Commonwealth Government contracts being awarded to indigenous suppliers. This adds up to the emergence of ‘social procurement’ alongside social value (Raiden et al., 2019: 3–5). Further background discussion is available from a literature review and a summary provided by Cartigny and Lord (2017) and research on social procurement by Barraket and Loosemore (2018). Despite such diversity in defining social value, one theme that remains constant is a partnership model that sits at the heart of considering, creating and delivering social value and the SDGs. Based on the premise that social problems are too complex for any one organisation to solve alone, different cross-sector configurations, relationship, collaborations, joint ventures and partnerships are an opportunity to develop collaborative responses to local community needs (Raiden et al., 2019: 24). Large public and private sector organisations can play a useful role in helping communities prosper when they undertake construction work in the area and engage with local businesses and workforce (Abbott and Allen, 2004; Raiden et al., 2019: 70). Local SMEs are often well placed to respond to specific social value goals, often due to their smaller, more local sphere of operation (O’Connor, 2018). Due to their community-embedded roots and smaller size, they are often more versatile, have good local knowledge and can engage with many voluntary and community service organisations. As such, partnerships and hybrid collaborations present a form of organising that helps create social value through market harmony between large organisations and SMEs generating business opportunities for, for example, social enterprises and social businesses, within the supply chain. That said, the multiple actors in complex project networks are confronted with value pluralism originating from a plethora of competing organisational and institutional systems. Candel et al. (2021) show how it is not always possible to find solutions that satisfy all the actors during project delivery phase negotiations, and hence illuminate the importance of careful and proactive business case analysis. Kuitert et al. (2022) explore the emergence and nature of conflicts within different conflict arenas of collaborative project networks and suggest that a dynamic and flexible approach toward conflict management in project networks with a high degree of conflicting project interests could enhance the shift toward a more network-based project governance. In their discussion of the readiness for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), Whitmore et al. (2021) argue that success requires the people who deliver [mega]projects to be empowered such that they are able to provide the planned social value to all stakeholders involved. They note that significant developments in skills and competences associated with the 4IR in general are required. Collaborative working sits at the heart of this development and is expressed in SDG 17, partnerships for the goals. SDG 9 (industry, infrastructure, and innovation) is important for economic growth and the creation of social value as sustainable industrialisation can lift communities out of poverty. However, this needs to be managed carefully to avoid additional pressures on people and the planet while attempting to address the accompanying social challenges (UN Global Compact, 2017). Denoncourt (2020) argues that industry, innovation and infrastructure must be inclusive, sustainable, environmentally friendly and resilient, making SDG 9 inextricably linked to the aims of SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth). Infrastructure and innovation are key to the realisation of sustainable development and empowering communities with incomes and improvements in health and education. Technological innovation, in particular, is impor-

378  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals tant for achieving environmental objectives such as SDGs 6 (clean water and sanitation); 7 (affordable and clean energy); 13 (climate action); 14 (life below water); and 15 (life on land). Quantifying or measuring social value continues to be a big challenge for the built environment, although a number of methods and different approaches are increasing in popularity. These include the National Themes Outcomes and Measures (TOMs) framework, Social Return on Investment (SROI) model, Social Audit, Community Impact Analysis, Local Economic Benefits (LM3) and Cost Benefit Analysis (Harlock, 2014; Trotter et al., 2014). Many of these approaches draw on established valuation methods stemming across health, economic, and social policy (Corfe and Pardoe, 2022; RICS, 2020). Temple et al. (2014) argue that there are four steps to unlocking social value as illustrated in Figure 21.2.

Source: Adapted from Temple et al. (2014).

Figure 21.2

A framework for unlocking social value

SOCIAL VALUE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Social value in the built environment presents many opportunities to disrupt and co-create new and inclusive ways of living, working, placemaking, engaging with a range of stakeholders, and working towards the SDGs (Raiden and King, 2022: 4). In addition to high profile megaprojects, such as those connected with the Olympics (see e.g., Ramôa et al., 2021), the sector benefits from innovation by the very large number of small businesses that work in placemaking, construction and infrastructure. Ewart (2019) highlights the social consequences of minor innovations in construction through a study of housebuilding in rural Borneo: an interplay of technological and social change is enabling the achievement of SDGs 11 (sustainable cities and communities); 8 (decent work and economic growth); and 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), directly and many more indirectly. Placemaking, infrastructure projects and construction work are discussed below in relation to the SDGs. Placemaking Collaborative and participative design and placemaking, and urban planning, are some of the most impactful ways of thinking of social value, because, as both an overarching idea and a hands-on approach for improving a neighbourhood, city, or region, placemaking inspires people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every community. (Project for Public Spaces, 2018)

Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  379 In addition to placemaking and public spaces, Samuel and Hatleskog (2018) highlight ‘the obvious ethical imperative to make buildings that are good for people (and by implication the planet)’. Plowden et al. (2022) usefully bring these two themes together in their case study showcase from South Yorkshire in the UK. They provide practical insights and demonstrate how clients can help create and deliver social value. Awuzie et al. (2018) highlight the significance and the ability of the client to express their latent values and their ability to appoint a project manager who will serve as a social value champion to successfully deliver social value. Alvarez (2022) in turn offers an urban planning perspective on placemaking and social value. Placemaking aims often connect to the broad remit of SDGs 3 (good health and well-being – ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages); 13 (climate action); and 17 (partnerships for the goals). They also respond specifically to SDGs 11 (sustainable cities and communities - make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable); and 15 (life on land), target 15.9 to integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts. Candel et al. (2021) draw attention to co-creation of value propositions during the front-end of housing development projects and how this affects housing developers’ ability to drive change and innovation. Further, Styhre et al. (2022) present a study of an urban development project in a ‘particularly socially vulnerable’ city district in Sweden that shows how municipally-owned real estate companies and private construction companies need to collaborate with authorities (e.g. the police) and municipal boards (e.g. the education board) to advocate investment in amenities in order to increase housing stock evaluations, local housing market attractiveness, and the housing welfare of residents in blighted city districts. Collaboration and partnerships are a central theme in the work of de Sousa (2019, 2022), and Kay-Jones and Ivett (2022), who offer further practical insights on the co-design of collaborative economies. De Sousa (2019) explores the connection between people and place and how the quality of the built environment around them affects their social, cultural and economic interactions, together with the role that placemaking can play in improving people’s quality of life. De Sousa (2022) builds on this, exploring opportunities for co-designing change and embedding social value through community engagement in placemaking. Kay-Jones and Ivett (2022) show how the architectural design process, and collaborative and agile strategies, can be utilised to influence the design and co-ordination of a project team to collectively achieve social value. Social Value in Infrastructure Projects The application of the social value lens to infrastructure projects delivery can help encourage strategic thinking across the project lifecycle from planning, designing, constructing, operating, through to decommissioning in a way that provides social and environmental sustainability, in addition to economic and financial viability of the project. It is believed that investment in infrastructure provides multiple opportunities to deliver social value to the associated communities and regions. The integration of social value into business decisions ensuring the need to achieve value for money in investments is considered on balance with a commitment to generating benefits to society (AECOM, 2022). Professional bodies have taken an interest in advancing the research base and literature on social value. The Institution of Civil Engineers recently published a special issue on social

380  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals value in infrastructure within their Engineering Sustainability Journal (see Behar and Sykes, 2022; ICE, 2022). The Editors (Behar and Sykes, 2022) highlight that although infrastructure is the backbone of the built environment, providing vital facilities and services for society, the social value of a particular piece of infrastructure has only been considered as a ‘nice to have’ rather than a fundamental goal. They call for ‘‘a deeper engagement with the social value agenda’ on the basis of research conducted with Useful Projects that investigated approaches to social value across the infrastructure sector. This work identified a significant implementation gap between policy ambitions and the actual delivery of meaningful and beneficial social value in practice (Dobson et al., 2020). The papers in the special issue further the understanding of social value and showcase how infrastructure projects can provide maximum benefit to society through delivery of the highest-quality infrastructure, and thus close the implementation gap between policy and delivery (Behar and Sykes, 2022). Watts et al. (2022) discuss social value in small gas infrastructure projects. They emphasise the relationship between a client and the contractor in developing and agreeing a shared understanding and responsibility as being of utmost importance to the successful delivery of social value. There are specific challenges with gas works: high risk nature, short programme duration, and low project value. These issues make it difficult to implement many common social value initiatives, such as opportunities for work experience or apprenticeship training (ibid: 170). Thus, in this context more immediate, procurement focused, ‘local spend’ type social value initiatives are seen as feasible. Management of stakeholder relations and collaboration between different stakeholders is also a theme in other papers in the special issue. Fitton and Moncaster (2022) explore stakeholder engagement and highlight how crucial it is to invest time, resources, and money into collaboratively developing an understanding and identification of social value. Trust and co-production arise as key themes in delivering a successful scheme. Raiden et al. (2022), make explicit the link between social value and the SDGs. They present a transformative case study which has a partnership model at its heart whereby different regional key agents come together to collectively create and deliver social value. While their case example is focused on SDGs 11 (make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable); 13 (take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts); and 16 (promote peaceful and include societies for sustainable development), together the authors within the special issue specifically draw attention to SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals). Elsewhere, Awuzie and McDermott (2016) also found that the kind of contract adopted by infrastructure client organisations influenced their ability to drive the successful implementation of desirable social value objectives through their supply chain. Assessing and measuring social value is another prominent theme within the special issue. Fujiwara et al. (2022) set out the foundations for social value measurement techniques that underpin the methods and frameworks developed in central governments and multilateral and international organisations. They focus on cost–benefit analysis (CBA) within a practical case example, where metrics such as travel times, accidents, air quality and noise levels using the standard industry valuation, were identified as relevant and measured in addition to developing bespoke valuation scores to monetise the heritage impacts of the project. Freelove and Gramatki (2022) present another case example of a social CBA. They reveal the difficulties and challenges in defining and designing quantitative measures, in addition to advocating for a focus on key outcomes that generate the greatest impact. Of some concern is the sense of

Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  381 direction here. A generic focus on key outcomes that generate the greatest impact is against the ethos of Principle 3 of Social Value (Social Value International, 2022): Value the things that matter – Making decisions about allocating resources between different options needs to recognise the values of stakeholders. Value refers to the relative importance of different outcomes. It is informed by stakeholders’ preferences. (emphasis added)

Also, such a focus on greatest impact diverts from the UN vision behind the SDGs. For example, the vision is clear on envisaging: A world in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality and all legal, social and economic barriers to their empowerment have been removed. (https://​sdgs​.un​.org/​2030agenda)

Taken together, the two statements above suggest that, given the gender divide in the construction and infrastructure workforce, an initiative which allows for even a small number of women to achieve an equality of opportunity to participate in employment and/or training, may indeed be a scheme of relative importance to a community (and/or an organisation or a project). Should the value of such a scheme be measured against a number of male employees or training hours that they have benefitted from, then one might be mistaken to overlook SDG 5 (gender equality), in a drive to achieve the greatest impact on SDGs 4 (quality education), or 8 (decent work and economic growth). Given that women have been disproportionately affected by the socioeconomic fallout of the pandemic, struggling with lost jobs, increased burdens of unpaid care work and an intensifying silent epidemic of domestic violence (The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022: 2), the moral argument would be to prioritise SDG 5 even when it does not show greatest impact on metric statements. The SDG framework does not encourage maximising greatest impact. Rather, it is built on the principles of deontological ethics whereby the actions matter more than the volume of outcomes. One of the headlines in the SDGs Report (2022: 6) reads: ‘The pandemic was a reminder to leave no one behind.’ When defining, designing, considering, creating, delivering, assessing and/or measuring social value, one ought to keep in mind that social value is not about maximising profit, profitability, PR value, return on investment or other monetary metrics. It is about the three pillars of sustainability. Pollard et al. (2021) present one such study: the Boston tidal barrier in the UK that now better protects over 13,000 homes from tidal flooding delivered benefits against all 17 SDGs. The SDGs provided a framework for monitoring and evaluating the wider benefits of the project and enabled its full societal benefits to be understood and communicated by all key project stakeholders. Social Value in Construction Work Research by Barraket and Loosemore (2018), Raiden et al. (2019: 4), Troje (2018, 2020a, b) and Troje and Gluch (2019, 2020), highlights that in line with the emerging and contemporary principles of ‘New Public Governance’, one of the defining features of social value is social procurement. Rather than governments working alone to tackle social problems like entrenched unemployment, social problems are resolved through cross-sector collaborations and partnerships between the government, private and third sectors (Barraket et al., 2016; Furneaux and Barraket 2014). These new expectations to create social value by collaborating across

382  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals previously disconnected sectors raise many opportunities for professionals and businesses operating in the built environment. In particular, they correspond to SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals), and target 17.17 to encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. Troje and Gluch (2019) focus on employment requirements in Swedish construction sector organisations who hope that the initiatives will help mitigate problems such as unemployment, segregation and a construction sector desperate for more workers. They air a myriad of issues in the integration of employment requirements and involvement of the unemployed in construction work: problems with the coordination between central organisations and project organisations, unclear demands from clients, lack of trained or experienced people to hire, government bureaucracy, and lack of commitment from the actors working on the construction site, where some feel that they do not have the time, knowledge or mandate to properly work with employment requirements. Troje and Gluch (2020) suggest that a new type of actor, named the ‘employment requirement professional’ helps facilitate collaboration and mediates the contrasting interests of different stakeholders when new social procurement practices are created. The partnership model can be applied to apprenticeship training and education too (see e.g., Naylor et al., 2009; Raiden and King, 2022: 73–104; Raiden et al., 2019: 84). Naylor et al. (2009) report on a South West Wales Shared Apprentice Scheme in the UK, which is a partnership arrangement between the Welsh Assembly for Wales, local employers and learning providers, such as local further education colleges. The unique overall aim of this partnership was for a group of SMEs to collaborate and share a number of apprenticeship places, thus overcoming the structural problem associated with industry fragmentation of burdening one small firm with the need to support an apprentice by itself throughout their training. Their joined-up approach and partnership with the learning providers also created the opportunity for the local authority to adopt a more widespread strategic planned approach towards construction apprenticeships. Similar schemes have recently been successfully running in Sydney, Newcastle, Canberra and Adelaide in Australia. Master Builders (2018) operates Apprenticeship Group Training Schemes and places trainees with different contractors for varying periods over the duration of their training. The shared apprenticeship schemes offer job security and ‘earn while you learn’ for the apprentices on the programme. Thus, they contribute towards achieving SDGs 4 (quality education) target 4.4 to substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship; 8 (decent work and economic growth to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all); and 17 (partnerships for the goals), target 17.17 to encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. Denny-Smith et al. (2021) show how construction employment can create social value and assist recovery from COVID-19. Specifically, they highlight that work benefits, like adequate pay and training and development, together with cultural benefits, like inclusive workplaces, can be used to create social value and contribute towards SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all). Given the significant rise in unemployment as a result of COVID-19, this would help in achieving targets 8.5, to deliver full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons

Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  383 with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value, and 8.6, to substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training. In terms of critical success factors for social value in public-sector construction projects, Murtagh and Brooks (2019) identify organisational leadership, process and preparation, social and local awareness, effective support networks, and industry-focused strategy, as central to the Northern Ireland context. Furthermore, Mulholland et al. (2020) examine how ‘success’ or ‘failure’ in projects is framed and the implications of stakeholder management in shaping these notions of performance and collective understanding of value. They find that especially within megaprojects where key stakeholders change over time, and those most affected by the changing dynamics of the megaprojects, this dynamic impacts on the ways that conditions for success are framed and social value is defined. Thus, they stress the importance of taking a pluralistic and processual view of stakeholders and demonstrate the need for policymakers, practitioners and researchers to pay greater attention to fragmentation and integration of stakeholders’ interests and influences as they change over time. It is evident that the opportunities for using social value as the practical vehicle for realising the SDGs are vast. However, Raiden and King (2022a: 4-5; 2022b) identify polarisation in the understanding and appreciation of what it means to consider, create, and deliver social value as a central problem in the development and future of the concept. They observe divergence and tensions arising between those who run value-based businesses and do social value, and those who solely focus on measuring social value as an ‘added value’. People and organisations who see social value as an added value tend to look for simple and measurable activities and outputs that can be reported. To facilitate this, a number of consultancy organisations that can be employed to produce such reports are gaining market presence and contribute to the development of a ‘social value industry’. Should this stance become the norm, then organisations who only symbolically engage with social value receive the same legitimacy and benefits as those who substantively engage. Arguably, such legitimacy translates into success in tendering and procurement and that means contractors and consultants are winning work but fail to deliver social value. Areas of society that need social value are then left deprived. (ibid)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This chapter has focused on discussing social value as a national/organisation level practical vehicle for achieving the SDGs. The context for the discussion was set out, at first, by considering different conceptualisations of value, and then, the interconnectedness of the different spheres of sustainability and SDGs. Social value is thus a contextual and situated concept and practice, and, as understanding of social value has evolved, many different definitions have emerged. However, despite the calls for bespoke, broad, and longer-term views of social value, a link to procurement is commonly visible often because of historical and legislative influences. Another theme that has remained constant is the partnership model that sits at the heart of considering, creating and delivering social value and the SDGs. This is expressed explicitly in SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals). Social value in the built environment presents many opportunities to disrupt and co-create new and inclusive ways of living and working. Collaborative and participative design and placemaking, and urban planning, are some of the most impactful ways of thinking of social value. Placemaking aims often connect to the broad remit of SDGs 3 (good health and well-being); 11 (sustainable cities and communities); 13 (climate action); and 17 (partnerships for the goals). The application of the social value lens to

384  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals infrastructure projects delivery can help encourage strategic thinking across the project lifecycle from planning, designing, construction, operation, to decommissioned in a way that provides social and environmental sustainability in addition to economic and financial viability of the project. Although infrastructure is the backbone of the built environment, providing vital facilities and services for society, the social value of a particular piece of infrastructure has only been considered a ‘nice to have’ rather than a fundamental goal so far. The employment, training, and education-related opportunities for creating and delivering social value through construction are vast.

REFERENCES AECOM (2022). Unlocking the social value of infrastructure investment, Available at: https://​ publications​.aecom​.com/​social​-infrastructure/​article/​unlocking​-the​-social​-value​-of​-infrastructure​ -investment [accessed 25 November 2022] Awuzie, B. and McDermott, P. (2016). The role of contracting strategies in social value implementation, ICE Management, Procurement and Law, 169: 3, 106–114. Awuzie, B., Farag, F. and McDermott, P. (2018). Achieving social value through construction frameworks: The effect of client attributes, ICE Management, Procurement and Law, 171: 1, 25–31. Barraket, J. and Loosemore, M. (2018). Co-creating social value through cross-sector collaboration between social enterprises and the construction industry, Construction Management and Economics, 36: 7, 394–408. Behar, C. and Sykes, J. (2022). Editorial: Social value in infrastructure, Engineering Sustainability, 175: 4, 165–166. Candel, M., Karrbom Gustavsson, T. and Eriksson, P-E. (2021). Front-end value co-creation in housing development projects, Construction Management and Economics, 39: 3, 245–260. Cartigny, T. and Lord, W. (2017). Defining social value in the UK construction industry, ICE Management, Procurement and Law, 170: 3, 107–114. Cartigny, T. and Lord, W. (2019). Evaluating social value in the UK construction industry, ICE Management, Procurement and Law, 172: 1, 8–16. Corfe, S. and Pardoe, L. (2022). Investing in Social Value Perspectives from the Real Estate Sector, London: The Social Market Foundation. Daniel, E.I. and Pasquire, C. (2019). Creating social value within the delivery of construction projects: The role of lean approach, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26: 6. Denoncourt, J. (2020). Companies and UN 2030 sustainable development goal 9 industry, innovation and infrastructure, Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 20: 1, 199–235, DOI: 10.1080/14735970.2019.1652027 Denny-Smith, G., Sunindijo, R.S., Loosemore, M., Williams, M. and Piggott, L. (2021). How construction employment can create social value and assist recovery from COVID-19, Sustainability, 13: 988, DOI:10.3390/su13020988 Dobson, J., Sykes, J., Behar, C., Ramsden, C., Crudgington, A. and Huelin, C.A. (2020). Maximising Social Value from Infrastructure Projects Useful Projects London, UK, https://​usefulprojects​.co​ .uk/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2020/​01/​Maximising​_social​_value​_from​_infrastructure​_projects​_v1​.1​.pdf [accessed 4 November 2022] Ewart, I.J. (2019). The social consequences of minor innovations in construction, Construction Management and Economics, 37: 9, 537–549. Fitton, S. and Moncaster, A. (2022). Social value, infrastructure and stakeholder engagement: A complex triangle, Engineering Sustainability, 175: 4, 194–201. Freelove, S. and Gramatki, I. (2022). Creating long-term social value on major infrastructure projects: A case study, Engineering Sustainability, 175: 4, 186–193. Fujiwara, D., Dass, D., King, E., Vriend, M., Houston, R. and Keohane, K. (2022). A framework for measuring social value in infrastructure and built environment projects: An industry perspective, Engineering Sustainability, 175: 4, 175–185.

Social value, the built environment, and the sustainable development goals  385 Green, S.D. and Liu, A.M.M. (2007). Theory and practice in value management: A reply to Ellies et al., Construction Management and Economics, 25: 6, 649–659. Griffith, A., Knight, A., and King, A. (2003). Best Practice Tendering for Design and Build Projects, Thomas Telford: London. Harlock, J. (2014). From outcomes-based commissioning to social value? Implications for performance managing the third sector, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16: 4, 417–436. ICE (2022). Special issue: Social value in infrastructure, Engineering Sustainability, 175: 4, https://​www​ .icevirtuallibrary​.com/​toc/​jensu/​175/​4 [accessed 4 November 2022] Kelly, J., Male, S. and Graham, D. (2007). Value Management of Construction Projects, Blackwell: Oxford. Kuitert, L., Volker, L. and Hermans, M.H. (2022). Definitely not a walk in the park: Coping with competing values in complex project networks, Project Management Journal, DOI: 10.1177/87569728221127958 Mulholland, C., Chan, P.W., Canning, K. and Ejohwomu, O.A. (2020). Social value for whom, by whom and when? Managing stakeholder dynamics in a UK megaproject, ICE Management, Procurement and Law, 173: 2, 75–86. Murtagh, S.R. and Brooks, T. (2019). Critical success factors for social value in construction procurement in Northern Ireland, ICE Management, Procurement and Law, 172: 5, 183–196. Naylor, G., Raiden, A. and Morgan, A. (2009). Constructing apprenticeships: Transforming through sharing, In: Dainty, A.R.J (Ed.), Proceedings 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7–9 September, Nottingham, UK, Vol. 1, pp. 635–644. Plowden, M., Raiden, A. and King, A. (2022). A client perspective on creating and delivering social value, In: Raiden, A.B. and King, A. (Eds.) Social Value in Practice, Abingdon: Taylor and Francis, pp. 150–169. Pollard, K., Thompson, G., Robinson, A., Bell, C., Gelder, J., Evans, S.Y. and Pooley, M. (2021). Boston tidal barrier, UK: Adapting to climate change and delivering social outcomes, ICE Civil Engineering, 174: 5, 32–40. Project for Public Spaces (2018). What is Placemaking? Project for Public Spaces, https://​www​.pps​.org/​ article/​what​-is​-placemaking [accessed 7 November 2022] Raiden, A.B. and King, A. (2021). Social value, organisational learning, and the sustainable development goals in the built environment, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, DOI:/10.1016/j. resconrec.2021.105663 Raiden, A.B. and King, A. (2022a). Social Value in Practice, Abingdon: Taylor and Francis, ISBN: 9780367457150 Raiden, A.B. and King, A. (2022b). Considering, creating and delivering social value - problematic polarisations, Proceedings 38th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5–7 September Glasgow, UK. Raiden, A.B., King, A., Peace, J., de Sousa, S., Alvarez, L. and Osbon, K. (2021). Co-creating social value in placemaking: The grand balancing act, Engineering Sustainability, 175: 4, 202–210, DOI:10.1680/jensu.21.00046 Raiden, A.B., Loosemore, M., King, A. and Gorse, C. (2019). Social Value in Construction, Abingdon: Taylor and Francis, ISBN: 9781138295094 Ramôa, M.P., Shabsough, Y., Yamagishi, Y., Lucy, L. and Wiecek, N. (2021). Social Value in Major Events, Newcastle & Lausanne, Switzerland: Arup & International Academy of Sport Science and Technology (AISTS). RICS (2020). Measuring social value in infrastructure projects: Insights from the public sector, available at: https://​www​.rics​.org/​globalassets/​ricswebsite/​media/​knowledge/​research/​insights/​measuring​ -social​-value​_1st​-edition​.pdf [accessed November 2022] Samuel, F. and Hatleskog, E. (2018). Why social value? In: Olaizola, N.B. and Samuel, F. (Eds.) Creative Canal Project, pp. 6–13. Social Value International (2022). The Principles of Social Value, https://​www​.socialvalueint​.org/​ principles [accessed 7 November 2022] Styhre, A., Brorström, S. and Gluch, P. (2022). The value of housing in low-amenity and low purchasing power city districts: Social and economic value entangled by default, Construction Management and Economics, 40: 1, 72–86. Temple, N., Wigglesworth, C. and Smith, C. (2014). Communities Count: The Four Steps of Unlocking Social Value, Social Enterprise UK, London, UK.

386  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Troje, D. (2018). Rhetorical strategies to diffuse social procurement in construction. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (Eds.), Proceedings 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3–5 September, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK, pp. 505–514. Troje, D. (2020a). Can I get some help down here? Inter-project support for creating social value through social procurement. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (Eds.), Proceedings 36th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7–8 September, UK, pp. 105–114. Troje, D. (2020b). Constructing social procurement: An institutional perspective on working with employment requirements, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology. Troje, D. and Gluch, P. (2019). Social procurement in the real world: How employment requirements unfold in construction projects. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (Eds.), Proceedings 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2–4 September, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK, pp. 24–33. Troje, D. and Gluch, P. (2020). Populating the social realm: New roles arising from social procurement, Construction Management and Economics, 38: 01, 55–70. Trotter, L., Vine, J., Leach, M. and Fujiwara, D. (2014). Measuring the Social Impact of Community Investment: A Guide to using the Wellbeing Valuation Approach, London: Housing Association Charitable Trust (HACT). UK Green Building Council (2021). Framework for Defining Social Value, London: UK Green Building Council. UN Global Compact (2017). Blueprint For Business Leadership on the SDGs: A Principles-Based Approach Blueprint for Business Leadership on the SDGs, [online] available at: https://​d306pr3pise04h​ .cloudfront​.net/​docs/​publications​%2FBlueprint​-for​-Business​-Leadership​-on​-the​-SDGs​.pdf, [accessed 28 November 2022] Watts, G., Higham, A. and Abowen-Dake, R. (2022). The effective creation of social value in infrastructure delivery, Engineering Sustainability, 175: 4, 167–174. Whitmore, D., Papadonikolaki, E., Krystallis, I. and Locatelli, G. (2021). Are megaprojects ready for the Fourth Industrial Revolution? ICE Management, Procurement and Law, 174: 2, 49–58.

22. The built environment and industry/ construction 4.0 technologies towards achieving SDGs Aseel A. Hussien and Ayomikun Solomon Adewumi

INTRODUCTION Industry 4.0 represents a new concept of automation and digitalization of manufacturing processes. However, the aim is not only to optimize the product itself, but also to consider the organization as a whole, with a focus on a digital business model that integrates information technology (IT) infrastructure, manufacturing aspects, service providers, and the importance of the data collected from several sources, implementing analysis methods to produce information that endorses collaborative spaces to advance the value chain. Industry 4.0 aims to implement automated working environments, connected widely, systematized, and robotized at an elevated level (De Assis Dornelles et al., 2022). This alteration from conventional industry will require employee competencies and new skills (Hanna, et al., 2022). For example, engineering professionals with extensive digital skills, problem-solving, teamwork, agile learning, effective communication, and innovation will be required. Therefore, individuals should know how to respond to new production plant operations’ integrated digital and automatic work dynamics (Peres et al., 2020). Industry 4.0 includes a range of technologies to develop a digital and automated manufacturing environment and digitize the value chain. The term was developed by the German federal government and can be described as the trend toward digitalization and automation of manufacturing environments. In other words, Industry 4.0 is a new manufacturing paradigm that mainly focuses on the creation of smart products and processes by using smart machines and the transformation of conventional manufacturing systems into smart factories. As a result, the term “smart” is a keyword for the Industry 4.0 framework (Alaloul et al., 2020). This raises the following questions: one has to do with the main contribution of Industry 4.0. Another is the distinguishing feature from the other industrial revolutions. Comparing the four revolutions, the impact of the first three industrial revolutions was on the industrial processes by allowing productivity and efficiency to increase using disruptive technological developments, such as electricity, steam engine, or digital technology. In contrast, the impact of Industry 4.0 will completely and profoundly change the manufacturing and industry sectors and create new opportunities regarding production technology, business models, and new jobs and work organization (Hussien, 2017). The construction sector sits at a junction, affecting our everyday lives, and is economically crucial to the success of a country. The sector is a massive technical collection that adds value by supporting small-scale construction businesses and associated industries, including SMEs, in their different configurations and capacities. Several authors have described the sector as wide-ranging where the value-adding company, consisting of a large, medium, and 387

388  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals small-scale construction business, is the strength of economies (Babalola et al., 2019; Gunduz and Yahya, 2018). According to several research studies (Baghalzadeh Shishehgarkhaneh et al., 2022; Sadeghi et al., 2022), the construction sector has been part of various innovative ideas introduced in the form of cutting-edge technologies. Also, it has been constantly at the top of innovative technology, becoming the central point of attraction worldwide. For instance, the implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM), Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), Virtual Reality (VR), and Augmented Reality (AR) in the construction sector has massively increased, with the most popular combination of BIM, IoT, and AI seeking to improve organizational performance. Therefore, IoT and BIM could be considered among the most impactful and practical attempts to achieve smart construction 4.0. This includes a robust combination of knowledge, processes, data, and stakeholders. Lekan et al. (2021) suggested that innovation made by Industry 4.0 had shaped the construction sector by applying conventional tools and introducing the enhancement of productivity to achieve a sustainable built environment. BIM establishment has significantly impacted the construction sector. Zhao et al. (2022) argued that innovations have considerably affected construction and building work via the enhancement in productivity and motivation within the design and construction of buildings. Similarly, Olanrewaju et al. (2022) agreed with the view that more results have been noted in the aspect of building design, and general construction works. Also, it was discovered that implementing new technologies within the sector has improved the administration and the current practices and performance of previous tools. For example, establishing lean concepts, BIM, and building informatics has considerably affected the infrastructure design, management, and construction (Hussien, 2017). Several researchers have also considered the Internet of People (IoP) as a new theory that identifies people as an active part of the internet rather than being deemed as end-users only (Sun and Scanlon, 2019). According to Van Tulder et al. (2021), the United Nations (UN) perspective of the twenty-first century (Agenda 21), coupled with a reaction to global sustainability within different industries and economies, have formed a series of agreements aligning international development policies in a common framework called the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs adopted 17 goals within a universal agreement addressing the scientific and practical evidence required for a further sustainable attempt of its development actions (Dawes, 2022). This perspective emphasizes the significance of innovation in responding successfully to the challenges of Industry 4.0 professionals, in line with the responsibilities of SDGs. Innovative and dynamic professionals empower the integration of efficiency of human interaction, production systems, and automatic systems as solutions to new challenges along with these production systems (Wieser et al., 2021). To this end, this chapter explores the place of Industry 4.0 innovations in achieving SDGs within the construction sector using the industrial revolution as the primary point to achieve SDG 9. This chapter centres on achieving SDG 9, which states that investments in infrastructure are crucial in achieving sustainable development. The goal specified introducing cutting-edge technologies and achieving sustainable global development via innovations and Industry 4.0.

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies  389 Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9) SDG 9 is one of the 17 goals adopted by the UN. Therefore, building resilient infrastructure, advancing sustainable industry, and encouraging innovation are the three main purposes requiring achievement integration. This provides a roadmap for achieving the industrial digital revolution, industrial automation for increased productivity, process and procedure innovation, and resilient infrastructure development. The SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) targets are illustrated in Figure 22.1.

Source: Authors (2023).

Figure 22.1

SDG 9 and key targets

SDG 9 includes a road map for achieving industrial digitalization, automation to enhance innovation, productivity, procedure and process, and building resilient infrastructure and facility. Empowering innovation is needed to help bridge the gap between the masses and infrastructures. Therefore, achieving SDG 9 opens the way to digital industrialization, which aligns with the need of the present generation. The aim is to include the industrial revolution, technologies, and infrastructural development (Sadeghi et al., 2022). Technology innovations are processes or items through which new methods of achieving results are developed. Furthermore, the impact of SDG 9 could be achieved through conventional techniques by combining contem-

390  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals porary technologies with skills. Therefore, the concept of combining the fourth industrial revolution and SDG 9 was proposed for the construction sector to create a route for industrial development whilst also needed in the provision of goods and services for economic development. The impact of SDG9 is to be considered in some areas, such as balanced environmental conditions and affordable housing.

INDUSTRY 4.0/CONSTRUCTION 4.0 TECHNOLOGIES The European construction industry federation defined Construction 4.0 as a branch of Industry 4.0, which relates to the digitalization of the construction industry (Lubanski, 2000). The concept seeks to digitalize the construction industry by implementing new technologies that would positively and significantly impact the construction process. On the other hand, Construction 4.0 has been defined as the use of ubiquitous connectivity technologies for real-time decision-making. It has been argued to mean a more extensive approach that goes beyond the simple technologies framework to address the industry’s current challenges. Even though it has attracted several definitions, the concept works around one central point which is to find a connection between physical space and cyberspace through ubiquitous connectivity. Looking deeply, this connection already exists in the BIM. However, the weak point is that the presence of a human is necessary for this model to manage and maintain this connection which the new technologies would gradually replace (Chen et al., 2022). Several types of technologies have been used within the sector. This chapter will discuss each of them and the overlap amongst them with their massive benefit to the construction sector. Researchers observed that various factors must be implemented within Construction 4.0 in the construction sector, and four main questions arose: ● ● ● ●

What are the technologies included in Construction 4.0? Where are these technologies used? Do the technologies incorporate each other? What obligations should construction organizations take into consideration when implementing Construction 4.0?

Identifying Construction 4.0 Technologies and their Usage It is essential to identify the technologies facilitating this transformation of Construction 4.0. However, there are several technologies involved within the construction sector. This chapter concentrates on eight technologies often cited in literature. As presented in Table 22.1, these technologies have significantly affected an industry traditionally considered unproductive, inefficient, and hesitant to use technology.

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies  391  Table 22.1

Construction 4.0 technologies and their usage

Technologies

Definition, Benefit, and Sustainability Impact BIM is a management process developed resulting in an intelligent model linking the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector, enabling data exchange efficiently throughout a project’s life cycle (Chen et al., 2022). Incorporating BIM into the construction processes associated with building design, construction, and operation is the sustainability characteristic in the built environment.

Building Information

The higher level of traditional BIM is Integrated Building Information Modelling (IBIM) which

Modelling BIM

contains three elements (Hussien et al., 2020): ● The architectural integration specifies significant (IBIM) layers and how they are interlinked. ● Defines the object’s behavior function and content via the product model. ● The mechanism and interaction scheme between model objects via the process model. Resulting in smart and energy-efficient buildings, which will monitor the continuous improvements in SDG9. AR has been a research focus for decades since Ivan Sutherland first coined it in 1968 (Borgman, 2010). The properties of AR are: ● Combines real and virtual objects in a natural environment. ● Runs interactively and in real-time.

Augmented Reality AR

● Registers (aligns) real and virtual objects with each other. Until recently, the cost of the devices was the main barrier to implementing AR applications. The common implementation of mobile devices has eliminated this limitation, as tablets and smartphones contain all the processing units and sensors required to develop and use AR applications. In the building sector, monitoring operations, AR intuitively highlights any error or variation in a facility. VR is the technology in which the user is engaged in a virtual world (Jimeno & Puerta, 2006). Implementing VR technology in the built environment creates a new paradigm of design and communicating design in architecture via monitors of the construction process (Kim et al., 2013). The VR technology creates a virtual construction environment for subcontractors’ coordination, site layout, safety assessment, construction scheduling, and safety training of workers. This could

Virtual Reality VR

also help and promote interactive educational sessions where knowledge could become more comprehensive. However, within the engineering discipline, as Walker et al. (2020) stated, the adoption of VR technology in education is on the rise. Still, the specific educational approach employed in such virtual environments is often unclear or unarticulated. This endeavour leverages ongoing discussions about VR education and investigates the creation of a VR setting with an explicit pedagogical framework. 3D printing makes the processes of construction projects more effective by simultaneously allowing

3D printing

the moving of value-adding activities back to the construction site and moving only the manufacture of complex components off-site, mainly for small and medium-sized applications at the time (Olsson et al., 2021). AI represents a replication of humans by machines. One of the primary elements of AI is machine

Artificial intelligence AI

learning, where a machine learns from a set of data and predicts results, for example, the prediction of the performance and strength of structural elements (Forcael et al., 2020). Drones, also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been increasingly used in recent

Drones

years within the construction sector. For example, health and safety quality control, materials tracking, structural damage assessment, data collection, land surveying, human performance monitoring, and evaluation of the equipment damage (Aiyetan & Das, 2022).

392  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Technologies

Definition, Benefit, and Sustainability Impact The construction sector will benefit from implementing IoT, for example, better monitoring

Internet of Things IoT

execution, efficient controlling, improved quality, timesaving, and cost-saving. In addition to the improvement of decision-making due to the availability of real-time data (Gamil et al., 2020). BD is when large amounts of data are processed and valuable insights are extracted. Five characteristics are used in describing BD: variety, volume, value, velocity, and veracity. Several researchers such as Mehmood et al. (2019) argued that BD is important to the construction sector

Big Data BD

and showcased that the proper implementation of BD is feasible throughout the whole lifecycle of a construction project. The benefits include enabling improving decision-making, stakeholder-driven analysis, boosting transparency and information exchange, and project performance improvement (Yousif et al., 2021).

Construction 4.0 Incorporation of Technologies Construction 4.0 incorporates technology that maintains smart construction sites, virtualization, and simulation to encourage maximum project performance. 3D printing, prefabrication, mixed reality (AR and VR), drones, and Big Data (BD) are utilized to improve real-time decision-making processes. Construction 4.0 allows the construction sector to improve productivity, lower project costs and time delays, manage complexity, safety improvement, and improve quality and resource economy (De Assis Dornelles et al., 2022). This fits with SDG 9, which results in the construction sector becoming increasingly energy-efficient, affordable, comfortable, safe, and sustainable as advanced technologies and materials are developed. Innovative technologies and digital transformation within the construction sector provide an inclusive overview of the materials developments, cutting-edge technologies, and approaches in designing smart buildings, operations, and construction. The interactions of Construction 4.0 technologies are presented in Figure 22.2. The figure highlighted multiple applications, such as integrating AR objects with drone live feed. The implementation of AR in inspection and safety training, combining the use of drones in surveying with AR/VR simulations, leads to real-time virtual tours through cameras installed on drones. The construction sector is a critical partner in the global effort to achieve sustainable development by 2030 by delivering sustainable projects. This study identifies the important characteristics of Industry 4.0/Construction 4.0, correlated with automation, efficient production, digitalization, and connectivity through networking and digital communication. They concentrate on the characteristics that influence construction professionals. These characteristics are outlined within the challenges of SDGs, providing the foundation for classifying new abilities and characteristics that engineers and construction professionals would require.

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies  393

Source: Authors (2023).

Figure 22.2

Construction 4.0 technologies incorporation

THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION 4.0 TECHNOLOGIES ON DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS This section presents how Construction 4.0 technologies have influenced the practice of some of the key professions in the built environment. Specifically, the choice of these professions is because of their key roles in the decision-making process of physical development. Architecture The architectural practices have been impacted greatly by the uptake of the BIM paradigm from the pre-design through the design process and the building completion. This has been

394  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals demonstrated in developed countries and the developing country context, delivering global success in achieving SDG9 in the built environment. Building Information Modelling (BIM) as a concept helps architects to create a digital 3-dimensional (3D) model of a proposed development, enabling them to appreciate what it would look like. Besides, it also helps to generate appreciable data, which according to HMC Architects (2019) can be useful for establishing parametric relationships and model element dependency. In addition, the data could help in computational design; space planning; energy analysis; light and daylight analysis; display of complex spatial relationships. However, one of the greatest impacts of BIM is the seamless collaboration it enables between the design team and the developer. For instance, any change in design by the architect can easily be noticed by the other consortium members, indirectly enabling better communication. Notably, this form of efficient communication and update is not only amongst the design team at large but also within architects because all the architects on a project can see the latest design changes. Architectural practices have also benefitted from BIM being a handy modeling tool to deliver more detailed visualizations. Before BIM, architects could only appreciate the three dimensions (3D) height, width, and depth. However, BIM introduced two additional dimensions to traditional 3D modeling: the fourth dimension of time, which accounts for the project’s duration, and the fifth dimension of cost. BIM is a process that involves the creation and management of digital representations of the physical and functional characteristics of a building or structure. BIM encompasses all aspects of a building, including its physical and functional properties and its construction and operational life cycle. It involves the creation of a digital model that can be used throughout the building’s life cycle to facilitate communication, collaboration, and decision-making (Hussien, 2017). On the other hand, 3D Information Modeling is a narrower concept that refers specifically to creating 3D digital models. While 3D modeling can be a component of BIM, BIM includes many other aspects beyond just 3D modeling, such as scheduling, cost estimating, sustainability analysis, and more. In summary, 3D Information Modeling refers to the creation of 3D digital models, while BIM is a broader concept encompassing the creation and management of digital models throughout a building’s life cycle. Furthermore, BIM packages such as Revit Architecture enable architects to depict a building in its sixth dimension by providing comprehensive data about its environmental impact, including detailed analyses of its annual energy consumption, heating and cooling loads, and other relevant factors. These analyses help the architect in recommending suitable energy-efficient materials. Not to mention such packages as IESVE, which can be useful to help architects meet certain standards such as CIBSE, LEED, ASHRAE in their design decisions. Agreeing with Hossein (2019), the above submission suggests that the capabilities of the BIM methodology in architecture can be demonstrated at the seven stages of design; representation; documentation and information management; inbuilt intelligence; analysis; simulation tool; and collaboration and integration. Furthermore, three-dimensional (3D) printing has been enormous in architectural practice allowing designs to be created and printed in detail, influencing creativity. In the view of Nasir (2022), ideas can easily be appreciated inside the design creation process without embarking on a lengthy design process. The use of 3D printing technology in architecture has progressed from scale modeling to a full-sized finished product (Selcuk & Sorguc, 2015). Before the invention of 3D printing, architectural models were made of cardboard, wood, and other

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies  395 materials, which is time-consuming and resource-demanding. However, the following benefits have been made available by 3D printing. One is that building and construction components manufacturing on-site and off-site is now possible (Tay et al., 2017). Two is that construction 3D printing technology has helped fabricate houses and construction components such as columns, cladding and structural panels. Three is that 3D printing technology has been quite helpful in building under challenging situations where human labour appears impossible, especially in areas with difficult conditions (Camacho et al., 2018). More recently, this technology has been applied in interior architecture with no limit to creativity. Also, architects are no longer restricted to delivering imaginations with technical limitations due to the greater design flexibility provided by 3D printing. Besides these advantages, this additive manufacturing technique has helped save time, as what would take days or weeks as characterized by the typical methods is now possible within hours. Architects do not necessarily have to be restricted by the materials or resources available in the market because material selection is gradually but steadily becoming a key part of the interior design process. In summary, in the architecture industry, the technologies’ impact has proven to be valuable for several reasons. Firstly, it enables architects to showcase complicated designs in greater detail, allowing clients to visualize and better understand their proposed project. Additionally, architects can experiment with different materials and colours to test their design’s visual and functional properties. Furthermore, 3D printing technology can help with time management by allowing architects to quickly produce and modify prototypes before moving on to the final project. This can save time and money by reducing errors and minimizing the need for rework. Lastly, 3D printing technology allows for duplicating finished 3D models, making it easier for architects to communicate their designs to stakeholders and collaborate with other professionals. This can lead to better decision-making and more efficient project management. Civil Engineering The civil engineering profession has witnessed the great impact of Construction 4.0 technologies. Similarly to architectural practices, civil engineers have maximized the use of BIM applications in preparing and documenting structural drawings. The huge data generated by these applications have been very useful in presenting finished work to clients. Also, usually time-consuming calculations are now being carried out by these BIM applications. These various technologies have also been useful for civil engineering works on site, delivering quality and value within the minimal possible time. Also, it is important to note that these technologies have not only been applicable in new developments but have also been widely used in existing infrastructures. However, the digital twin is one of the major technologies that has continued to gain prominence with potential impact in the civil engineering profession (Pregnolato et al., 2022). In 2019, the global market was valued at USD $3.8bn, which is expected to go up to about USD $35.8bn by 2025 (Evans et al., 2020). Future projection suggests that at least 60 per cent of large industrial companies will be deploying at least one digital twin in the next decade (Costello & Omale, 2019). This is despite the inadequacy in terms of established protocols and standards that could result in a common narrative and guidance (Enzer et al., 2019) – a situation which is responsible for continued conversation between the industry and academia to arrive at a common definition for the technology, especially for existing infrastructure with less digital attributes than newly built (Arup, 2020). According to Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB (2020)) and Pregnolato et al. (2022), it is a process

396  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals whereby assets, systems, and processes are digitally represented realistically with a defining characteristic of a data connection between the real world and its digital representation. Conceptually, according to Jones et al. (2020), the digital twin comprises three corresponding parts: the physical entity (the real-world object) set in the physical environment; the virtual entity set in the virtual environment; and a two-way link that connects the two entities. Though still at its prototype stage in terms of application, digital twin, which provides access to both as-built and as-designed models, could begin to have an impact using individual assets as an example in the following ways. One is preventing catastrophic occurrences by tackling chronic stresses of aging infrastructure and unexpected acute shocks (CDBB, 2020). Two is improved monitoring and whole-life management of bridges and dams. According to Ye et al. (2019), such applications for bridges could result in efficient data queries, integrated data processing capabilities, and a single collaborative platform through the lifecycle. There is the potential of digital twin to enhance the maintenance system of a typical bridge structure as noted by Dang et al. (2018), Shim et al. (2019) and Shim et al. (2019), using a high-level framework. Ye et al. (2019) supported this possibility, providing an overview of the necessary capabilities needed for a digital twin of two railway bridges to conduct an early-age behavior assessment for structural health monitoring purposes. Four is the digital twin-enabled anomaly detection for built asset monitoring in operation and maintenance (Lu et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2020), which was demonstrated by developing a process flow and a pilot for circulating pumps in the HVAC system of a building. Other potential areas of digital twin in civil engineering as documented by Pregnolato et al. (2022) include: energy performance and carbon emission reduction (Alonso et al., 2019; Francisco et al., 2020); management of drinking water distribution networks (43); sustainability assessment of infrastructure (Kaewunruen & Xu, 2018); ground resistance model for liquefaction risk assessment (Song & Jang, 2018). In civil engineering, a digital twin is a virtual replica of a physical infrastructure asset, such as a bridge, road, or building. It is created by combining data from various sources, such as sensors, geographical information systems (GIS), and BIM. Digital twins in civil engineering can simulate various scenarios and conditions, including environmental factors, structural performance, and maintenance needs. This can help engineers and construction teams to identify potential issues early on in the planning and design phases, and to make more informed decisions about the design, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure assets. For example, digital twins can be used to monitor a bridge’s structural health, using data from sensors to identify signs of wear and tear or potential failures. This information can be used to plan maintenance and repair activities, and to reduce the risk of accidents or disruptions to traffic. Digital twins can also be used to simulate the performance of a building in different weather conditions or under different loads. This can help to optimize the design of the building for energy efficiency, comfort, and safety. Overall, digital twins in civil engineering have the potential to revolutionize the industry by improving the design, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure assets, and by enhancing safety and efficiency.

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies  397 Quantity Surveying Construction 4.0 through BIM has found a variety of applications in the quantity surveying profession as documented by various scholars (Kulasekara et al., 2016), with interconnected impacts in accuracy, cost efficiency, time, and quality of construction projects. This has not only been tested in developed countries but also in developing countries (Ismail et al., 2017). In fact, what distinguishes the uptake of BIM from the traditional approach is how it enables visualization of spatial information and the possibility of further analysis due to the huge database it provides. BIM helps to enhance the accuracy and reliability of output at the conceptual stage of work and supports the documentation of project performance over the project life cycle (Alhasan et al., 2019). Also, budgets can now be more reliable with fewer errors in the measurement of quantities due to the level of detail that has been made available by BIM technology. This has further led to more reliable working practices among Quantity Surveyors (Ismail et al., 2019). The data generated by BIM has been useful in cost analysis and construction project estimation. According to Forgues et al. (2012), this enhances the delivery of high-quality projects because the effectiveness of the BIM decreases the risk factors associated with inaccuracies typical of the traditional quantity take-off methods. It is noteworthy that this is also done within the shortest possible time, besides the accuracy that it brings. BIM has also been quite useful in assisting Quantity Surveyors by providing information about the building lifecycle alongside completed design documents which can easily be shared and accessible by team

Source: Authors (2023) adapted from Wong (2014).

Figure 22.3

Implications of BIM in quantity surveying profession

398  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals members working on the project. In summary, the impact of BIM in Quantity Surveying at both pre- and post-construction stages is illustrated in Figure 22.3, adapted from Wong (2014). Real Estate Although the Industry 4.0 technologies such as BIM have been widely applied and developed by the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector to help in design management and construction data, other professions such as real estate have benefitted immensely from the used data within, or that is linked to BIM models (Wilkinson & Jupp, 2016). It is important to note that the data can be useful when assessing the sustainability potential of a property and its overall rating when evaluated against the standard of assessment frameworks such as BREEAM, LEED, or Green Star. According to El-Gohary (2010), this has the potential to add value to the property. With the data as well, clients and residents can be better informed about the social, environmental, and economic costs and benefits of the property which could guide in their decision-making when considering various options. With BIM methodology, it is now easier and more efficient to have an overview of the lifecycle management of a building. It provides the anticipated operating costs of the building from the cradle to the grave. According to HM Architects (2019), this information enables estate and facility managers to make decisions that would contribute to cost savings while ensuring simpler future building maintenance. The real estate industry is no exception and is already experiencing the benefits of Industry 4.0 technologies. Here are some ways in which Industry 4.0 technologies are transforming the real estate industry: ● Smart buildings: Smart buildings use IoT and BIM’s easy communications usage, temperature, and other metrics to optimize energy consumption, improve comfort levels, and reduce operating costs. ● VR and AR: VR and AR technology allows real estate developers to create immersive, realistic experiences for prospective buyers and tenants, enabling them to visualize the space before construction even begins. ● BIM: BIM is a digital representation of a building that includes detailed information on every aspect of its design and construction. BIM can allow collaboration between architects, engineers, contractors, and other stakeholders, reduce errors and rework, and optimize building performance. ● Drones: Drones are increasingly being used in the real estate industry for site surveys, inspections, and to capture aerial footage for marketing purposes. ● Blockchain: Blockchain technology can facilitate real estate transactions, track property ownership, and streamline the buying and selling process. Overall, Industry 4.0 technologies are transforming the real estate industry by improving efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing the customer experience. As these technologies continue to evolve, we can expect to see even more innovations in the real estate sector in the years to come.

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies  399 Construction Management BIM leads to faster project completion because it now takes less time to deliver the design which allows the construction process to start earlier than when there was no such provision. The construction managers also benefit from BIM’s easy communication with the design team, developers, and clients. Also, BIM contributes to the overall quality of the design delivery. This is because, from the project’s inception, building contractors can identify the position and placement of every element such as windows, floors, doors, and insulation, that would enhance the building to perform most efficiently. Additionally, contactors can now spot mistakes which would be helpful to reduce the risk of repair cost later in the project phase. In addition to the BIM methodology, which is very useful at the pre-construction stage, the evolution of a smart construction site is one of the key elements of Construction 4.0. This has been widely applied in construction management. A construction site can be considered smart when equipment and workers can be continuously tracked near real time (Hammad et al., 2012). Beyond this, it also encompasses the adoption of automated machines connected to cloud data whereby these machines (or robots) would be able to carry out tasks with less human intervention or support (Osunsanmi et al., 2020). This, on its own, can address the challenge of staff shortage being witnessed in the construction industry, ensuring timely delivery of projects. Recently, the use of drones has been introduced to the construction site, whilst other aspects that contribute to a smart construction site such as prefabrication, internet of things, radio frequency identification (RFID), automation and product lifecycle management, have continued to aid the construction process (Akanmu et al., 2013). Besides timely delivery of projects and resource management, RFID, which is the most popular, has resulted in reduced hazards on site because the activities of construction workers can now be easily monitored. As a key aspect of a smart construction site, it also contributes to management of construction quality information, material supply information and promoting collaborative working (Zhou et al., 2018). Smart construction sites rely on several key aspects to optimize the construction process and improve outcomes. One of these aspects is managing construction quality information and material supply information. By implementing smart technologies such as sensors, drones, and other IoT devices, construction teams can gather real-time data on various aspects of the project, including quality control measures and material inventory levels. This information can then be shared with stakeholders and team members in a collaborative working environment, helping to improve communication and decision-making throughout the construction process. For example, if a quality issue is detected, the team can quickly identify the source of the problem and take corrective action to ensure that the project stays on track. Smart technologies can also facilitate the tracking and managing of material supply information, including orders, deliveries, and inventory levels. This can help construction teams ensure they have the right materials to hand at the right time, reducing delays and other issues that can arise when material supply needs to be managed effectively. By leveraging smart technologies to manage construction quality and material supply information, construction teams can improve efficiency, reduce waste, and ultimately deliver higher-quality projects on time and budget.

400  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION To achieve building resilient infrastructure, advancing sustainable industry, and encouraging innovation requires people, process and technology in the construction section to be integrated. BIM paradigm was an initiative that through Lean Management shows the capacity of elaborating Lean Management and BIM from a more conceptual and sophisticated perspective. Hence, to achieve targets such as: development of sustainable resilient and inclusive infrastructures; promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization; increasing access to financial services and markets; upgrading all industries and infrastructures for sustainability; enhancing research and upgrading industrial technologies; facilitate sustainable infrastructure development for developing countries; support for domestic technology development and industrial diversification; universal access to information and communications technology, it requires the architecture engineering construction and operation (AECO) sector to be ready on how technology integration within projects and enterprises could be linked and the associated benefits. According to Hill (2010), the uptake of new technology is heavily influenced by the three factors of perceived benefits, external forces, and internal readiness. Undoubtedly, these need to be addressed to ensure the uptake of BIM and other Construction 4.0 technologies in both developed and developing country contexts. Internal readiness is driven by technology know-how and support from the top management team. On the other hand, the key external forces are the government political will and the push from the market (software developers) for BIM. Both organizations and government have a great role to play in driving the adoption of Construction 4.0 components not only to achieve SDG 9 but to deliver on resource efficiency and carbon reduction. Organizations need more organization support by providing the enabling environment for this to thrive in their operations. In addition, top management team members need to be more receptive to change and seek knowledge of Construction 4.0 where necessary. For instance, Parida et al. (2010) showed that managers’ awareness and understanding of the BIM methodology greatly influence its uptake in their organizations. The quantity surveying profession appears to be the most affected in this aspect as argued by Gilchrist (2021), who noted that Quantity Surveyors are reluctant to adopt the BIM methodology but would prefer to follow the traditional method which appears to be because of inadequate understanding of the potential uses and benefits that BIM offers. This does not only affect BIM but also extends to other digital technologies such as AI, VR and AR and the use of drones amongst others. Whilst the Construction 4.0 market has continued to grow with companies like Autodesk facing healthy competition from other software developers such as Glodon, prominent in China, used for engineering quantity calculation, what appears to be a critical challenge in the global drive for SDG 9 is the cost of the BIM packages in most developing countries where it is still being sold in foreign currencies, suggesting a need for indigenous software companies in those countries. Additionally, new areas such as the digital twin that are currently being explored in civil engineering also have some key barriers that need to be addressed. Besides the high level of complexity, there appears not to be a definition of a unified process (Pregnolato et al., 2022). This chapter has attempted to explore how the uptake of Construction 4.0 technologies could be a suitable platform for achieving SDG 9 in both developed and developing countries. Whilst some of the impacts and benefits that Construction 4.0 technologies bring are already appreciated in the industry, there are potentials which have only been explored theoreti-

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies  401 cally, especially in digital twin. With continued knowledge sharing, awareness, willingness to change, learning from demonstration projects, there is more that can be expected from Construction 4.0 in delivering SDG 9.

REFERENCES Aiyetan, A.O. and Das, D.K. (2022). Use of drones for construction in developing countries: Barriers and strategic interventions. International Journal of Construction Management, pp.1–10. Akanmu, A., Anumba, C. and Messner, J. (2013). Scenarios for cyber-physical systems integration in construction. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 18(12), pp.240–260. Alaloul, W.S., Liew, M.S., Zawawi, N.A.W.A. and Kennedy, I.B. (2020). Industrial Revolution 4.0 in the construction industry: Challenges and opportunities for stakeholders. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 11(1), pp.225–230. Alhasan, S., Amoudi, O., Tong, M. and Kumar, B. (2019). Effectiveness of adopting BIM on quantity surveying profession during the project life cycle. In Thirty-Fifth Annual Conference (p.273). Alonso, R., Borras, M., Koppelaar, R.H., Lodigiani, A., Loscos, E. and Yöntem, E. (2019). SPHERE: BIM digital twin platform. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings, 20(1), p.9. Babalola, O., Ibem, E.O. and Ezema, I.C. (2019). Implementation of lean practices in the construction industry: A systematic review. Building and Environment, 148, pp.34–43. Baghalzadeh Shishehgarkhaneh, M., Keivani, A., Moehler, R.C., Jelodari, N. and Roshdi Laleh, S. (2022). Internet of Things (IoT), Building Information Modeling (BIM), and Digital Twin (DT) in construction industry: A review, bibliometric, and network analysis. Buildings, 12(10), p.1503. Chen, Y., Huang, D., Liu, Z., Osmani, M. and Demian, P. (2022). Construction 4.0, Industry 4.0, and Building Information Modeling (BIM) for sustainable building development within the smart city. Sustainability, 14(16), p.10028. Conejos Fuertes, P., Martínez Alzamora, F., Hervás Carot, M. and Alonso Campos, J.C. (2020). Building and exploiting a digital twin for the management of drinking water distribution networks. Urban Water Journal, 17(8), pp.704–713. Dang, N., Kang, H., Lon, S. and Shim, C. (2018). 3D digital twin models for bridge maintenance. In  Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges, Quebec City, QC, Canada (Vol. 31). Dawes, J.H.P. (2022). SDG interlinkage networks: Analysis, robustness, sensitivities, and hierarchies. World Development, 149, p.105693. de Assis Dornelles, J., Ayala, N.F. and Frank, A.G. (2022). Smart working in Industry 4.0: How digital technologies enhance manufacturing workers’ activities. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 163, p.107804. El-Gohary, N. (2010). November. Model-based automated value analysis of building projects. In Proceedings of the CIB W (Vol. 78, p. 2010). Enzer, M., Bolton, A., Boulton, C., Byles, D., Cook, A., Dobbs, L., El Hajj, P. A., Keaney, E., Kemp, A., Makri, C., Mistry, S., Mortier, R., Rock, S., Schooling, J., Scott, S., Sharp, M., West, M., and Winfield, M. (2019). Roadmap for delivering the information management framework for the built environment. Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository. https://​doi​.org/​10​.17863/​CAM​.38227. Forcael, E., Ferrari, I., Opazo-Vega, A. and Pulido-Arcas, J.A. (2020). Construction 4.0: A literature review. Sustainability, 12(22), p.9755. Francisco, A., Mohammadi, N. and Taylor, J.E. (2020). Smart city digital twin–enabled energy management: Toward real-time urban building energy benchmarking. Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(2), p.04019045. Fung, W.P., Salleh, H. and Rahim, F.A.M. (2014). Capability of building information modeling application in quantity surveying practice. Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property, 5(1), pp.1–13. Gamil, Y., A. Abdullah, M., Abd Rahman, I. and Asad, M.M. (2020). Internet of things in construction industry revolution 4.0: Recent trends and challenges in the Malaysian context. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 18(5), pp.1091–1102.

402  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Gilchrist, C.R., Cumberlege, R. and Allen, C., (2021). Lack of implementing Building Information Modelling in the quantity surveying profession. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 654, No. 1, p. 012025). IOP Publishing. Gunduz, M. and Yahya, A.M.A. (2018). Analysis of project success factors in construction industry. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(1), pp.67–80. Hammad, A., Vahdatikhaki, F., Zhang, C., Mawlana, M. and Doriani, A. (2012). Towards the smart construction site: Improving productivity and safety of construction projects using multi-agent systems, real-time simulation and automated machine control. In Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) (pp. 1–12). IEEE. Hanna, A., Larsson, S., Götvall, P.L. and Bengtsson, K. (2022). Deliberative safety for industrial intelligent human–robot collaboration: Regulatory challenges and solutions for taking the next step towards industry 4.0. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 78, p.102386. Hussien, A. (2017). ARGILE: A Conceptual Framework for Combining Augmented Reality with Agile Philosophy for the UK Construction Industry. Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom). Hussien, A., Waraich, A. and Paes, D. (2020). A review of mixed-reality applications in Construction 4.0. Construction 4.0, pp.131–141. Ismail, N.A.A., Adnan, H. and Bakhary, N.A. (2019). Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption by quantity surveyors: A preliminary survey from Malaysia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 267, No. 5, p. 052041). IOP Publishing. Ismail, N.A.A., Chiozzi, M. and Drogemuller, R. (2017). An overview of BIM uptake in Asian developing countries. In AIP conference Proceedings (Vol. 1903, No. 1, p. 080008). AIP Publishing LLC. Jimeno-Morenilla, A. and Puerta, A. (2007). State of the art of the virtual reality applied to design and manufacturing processes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 33 (9/10), pp.866–874 (2007). https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s00170​-006​-0534​-2 Jones, D., Snider, C., Nassehi, A., Yon, J. and Hicks, B. (2020). Characterising the digital twin: A systematic literature review. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 29, pp.36–52. Kaewunruen, S. and Xu, N. (2018). Digital twin for sustainability evaluation of railway station buildings. Frontiers in Built Environment, 4, p.77. Kreider, R., Messner, J. and Dubler, C. (2010). Determining the frequency and impact of applying BIM for different purposes on projects. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) (pp. 9–11). Kulasekara, G., Jayasena, H.S. and Ariyachandra, M.R.M.F. (2016). Comparative effectiveness of quantity surveying in BIM implementation. Lekan, A., Clinton, A. and Owolabi, J. (2021). The disruptive adaptations of Construction 4.0 and Industry 4.0 as a pathway to a sustainable innovation and inclusive industrial technological development. Buildings, 11(3), p.79. Lu, Q., Xie, X., Parlikad, A.K. and Schooling, J.M. (2020). Digital twin-enabled anomaly detection for built asset monitoring in operation and maintenance. Automation in Construction, 118, p.103277. Qiuchen Lu, V., Parlikad, A.K., Woodall, P., Ranasinghe, G.D. and Heaton, J. (2019). Developing a dynamic digital twin at a building level: Using Cambridge campus as case study. In International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019 (ICSIC) Driving data-informed decision-making (pp.67–75). ICE Publishing. Lubanski, N. (2000). Moving closer together-trade union Europeanisation in the construction sector. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 6(1), pp.103–109. Mehmood, M.U., Chun, D., Han, H., Jeon, G. and Chen, K. (2019). A review of the applications of artificial intelligence and big data to buildings for energy-efficiency and a comfortable indoor living environment. Energy and Buildings, 202, p.109383. Nasir, O., Iqbal, M.F. and Kamal, M.A. (2022). An Appraisal of 3D Printing Technology in Interior Architecture and Product Design. Architecture Engineering and Science, 3(3), pp.188-197. Olanrewaju, O.I., Kineber, A.F., Chileshe, N. and Edwards, D.J. (2022). Modelling the relationship between Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation barriers, usage and awareness on building project lifecycle. Building and Environment, 207, p.108556. Olsson, N.O., Arica, E., Woods, R. and Madrid, J.A. (2021). Industry 4.0 in a project context: Introducing 3D printing in construction projects. Project Leadership and Society, 2, p.100033.

The built environment and industry/construction 4.0 technologies  403 Osunsanmi, T.O., Aigbavboa, C.O., Emmanuel Oke, A. and Liphadzi, M. (2020). Appraisal of stakeholders’ willingness to adopt construction 4.0 technologies for construction projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(4), pp.547–565. Parida, V., Johansson, J., Ylinenpää, H. and Braunerhjelm, P. (2010). Barriers to information and communication technology adoption in small firms: Past experiences, current knowledge and policy implications. Working Papers Series from Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum. Working Paper 2010:03. Available at:  https://​e​ntreprenor​skapsforum​.se/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2013/​03/​WP​_03​.pdf Peres, R.S., Jia, X., Lee, J., Sun, K., Colombo, A.W. and Barata, J. (2020). Industrial artificial intelligence in industry 4.0-systematic review, challenges and outlook. IEEE Access, 8, pp.220121–220139. Pregnolato, M., Gunner, S., Voyagaki, E., De Risi, R., Carhart, N., Gavriel, G., Tully, P., Tryfonas, T., Macdonald, J. and Taylor, C. (2022). Towards Civil Engineering 4.0: Concept, workflow and application of Digital Twins for existing infrastructure. Automation in Construction, 141, p.104421. Sadeghi, M., Mahmoudi, A. and Deng, X. (2022). Adopting distributed ledger technology for the sustainable construction industry: evaluating the barriers using Ordinal Priority Approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(7), pp.10495–10520. Shim, C.S., Dang, N.S., Lon, S. and Jeon, C.H. (2019). Development of a bridge maintenance system for prestressed concrete bridges using 3D digital twin model. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 15(10), pp.1319–1332. Shim, C.S., Kang, H.R. and Dang, N.S. (2019). Digital twin models for maintenance of cable-supported bridges. In International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019 (ICSIC) Driving data-informed decision-making (pp.737–742). ICE Publishing. Song, S.J. and Jang, Y.G. (2018). Construction of digital twin geotechnical resistance model for liquefaction risk evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Computer Science and Intelligent Control (pp. 1–6). Sun, A.Y. and Scanlon, B.R. (2019). How can Big Data and machine learning benefit environment and water management: A survey of methods, applications, and future directions. Environmental Research Letters, 14(7), p.073001. Van Tulder, R., Rodrigues, S.B., Mirza, H. and Sexsmith, K. (2021). The UN’s sustainable development goals: Can multinational enterprises lead the decade of action? Journal of International Business Policy, 4, pp.1–21. Wieser, A.A., Scherz, M., Passer, A. and Kreiner, H. (2021). Challenges of a healthy built environment: Air pollution in construction industry. Sustainability, 13(18), p.10469. Ye, C., Butler, L., Calka, B., Iangurazov, M., Lu, Q., Gregory, A., Girolami, M. and Middleton, C. (2019). A digital twin of bridges for structural health monitoring. Structural Health Monitoring. Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring. Vol.1. DEStech Publications, Inc.  https://​doi​.org/​10​.12783/​shm2019/​32287 Yousif, O.S., Zakaria, R.B., Aminudin, E., Yahya, K., Mohd Sam, A.R., Singaram, L., Munikanan, V., Yahya, M.A., Wahi, N. and Shamsuddin, S.M. (2021). Review of big data integration in construction industry digitalization. Frontiers in Built Environment, p.159. Zhao, L., Zhang, W. and Wang, W. (2022). BIM-based multi-objective optimization of low-carbon and energy-saving buildings. Sustainability, 14(20), p.13064. Zhou, H., Wang, H. and Zeng, W. (2018). Smart construction site in mega construction projects: A case study on island tunneling project of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 5(1), pp.78–87.

23. The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Alex Opoku, Peter Guthrie, Yaning Qiao, Moohammed Wasim Yahia and Kwabena Opoku-Ntim

INTRODUCTION Globally, the concept of sustainable infrastructure is gaining ground. As a result of COVID-19, many nations recognize the need to link their plans with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement to address severe infrastructure shortages, strengthen crisis resilience, and enhance economic recovery (UNEP, 2021). Infrastructure is crucial in delivering basic services, boosting residents’ quality of life, and preventing environmental degradation. In Africa, infrastructure project delivery is necessary for the continent to be successful in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN), Agenda 2063 of the African Union (AU). The presence of a robust infrastructure can have both a direct and an indirect impact on the overall output of an economy and its contribution to its GDP (ADB, 2018). Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) falls so far behind other regions, according to international organizations, national governments, civil society organizations, and academics, that multiple development goals must be addressed to achieve sustainable development (Juju et al., 2020). The SDGs were developed as a result of the realization that a paradigm shift was necessary for meaningful global development. This paradigm change will improve international environmental governance and assure the balanced integration of the economic, social, and environmental elements of sustainable development (Omisore, 2018; UNEP, 2021). However, the performance of infrastructure in SSA continuously ranks at the bottom of all emerging regions, and an increasing number of stakeholders point to inadequate infrastructure as a major hurdle to growth and the reduction of poverty across the region. The expansion of infrastructure takes on an even greater level of significance as the world population continues to rise. The majority of developing nations, particularly those in Asia and Africa, are experiencing rapid population growth, which has resulted in a high demand for fundamental infrastructures such as reliable electricity, an effective transportation system, portable drinking water, and advanced information technology (Omisorei et al., 2022). Despite the vast sums being mobilized for infrastructure investment, there is still inadequate availability of finance for infrastructure, such as energy, water, telecommunication, and transportation services in some regions of the world. Investors are repelled by weak governance, significant political and financial risks, and the limited ability of citizens to pay for services to accrue back money invested (Thacker et al., 2019). This chapter, therefore, seeks to provide a systematic examination of the issues regarding infrastructure project delivery and SDGs as an aspect of sustainability development for addressing global challenges. The chapter discusses sustaina404

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in SSA  405 ble infrastructure project delivery and critically analyses the link between infrastructure and the SDGs. It further highlights the role of sustainable and resilient infrastructure towards the realization of the SDGs SSA. It also discusses the deficit in financing infrastructure projects for the SDGs in Africa.

SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT DELIVERY The climate of the future will be determined by the infrastructure developed today. Globally, it is estimated that 60 percent of carbon emissions result from the construction and operation of existing infrastructure. Although support for sustainable infrastructure is growing, current progress is disappointing (Fay et al., 2017). The promotion of concepts such as green building, sustainable design and construction, and ecological building materials have been used to enhance the idea and implementation of sustainable infrastructure (Isa et al., 2019). However, the concept of sustainable infrastructure, a concept that has not been adequately explored, is still challenged and with limited adaptability. Changing configurations and capacity of the infrastructure in Africa, informed by knowledge of the range of future climate outcomes, could improve the performance of the infrastructure. For example, in forecasts for wetter conditions, there is potential for adaptation to improve outcomes by adjusting the capacity of infrastructure to match future climate projections. Studies showed that planning sustainable infrastructure without considering the impact of climate change is not recommended, as the climate change adaptation process and benefits need at least to be considered at the decision-making level (Cervigni et al., 2015). Studies also stated that planning infrastructure without considering the impact of climate change in Africa is not recommended; the climate change adaptation process and benefits must at least be considered at the decision-making level (Cervigni et al., 2015). According to a 2019 report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, infrastructure is a key component of the UN 2030 Agenda because it necessitates the construction of appropriate projects to minimize negative environmental effects and spur the required social, economic, and cultural development (Goubran, 2019). The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Group (2018) defines sustainable infrastructure as infrastructure projects that are planned, designed, built, operated, and decommissioned in a way that ensures economic and financial, social, and environmental (including climate resilience), sustainability throughout the project’s life cycle. From Yanamandra (2020) and Hammer and Pivo (2016), a sustainable infrastructure project can be defined generally in relation to the three dimensions of social, economic and environmental standpoints that are committed to achieving one or more SDGs in the long run while assessing and monitoring objectives of a project lifecycle to achieve financial sustainability and affordability for consumers. Infrastructure is important for all three facets of sustainable development that is, economic, environmental, and social sustainability. As the world strives to accomplish ambitious goals like the SDGs (as outlined in Agenda 2030), it must also ensure infrastructure services are robust and accessible. As such, planning, design, delivery, and management must involve all stakeholders (Pocock et al., 2016). Therefore, clear economic and social mechanisms should be instituted from the project design stage to the end of its lifecycle to prevent schedule and budget overruns which negatively affects resource usage and smooth project delivery. The ability of ecosystems to maintain their functions over the long term is a key component of environmental sustainability (Castro et al., 2019). According to Brauch (2017), for infra-

406  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals structure to be considered environmentally sustainable, infrastructure must restrain and reduce air, water, soil contamination, and other pollutant types; facilitate ecosystem management by improvement of green infrastructure’s ability to support ecosystems; spread the adoption of eco-friendly technologies; encourage the responsible use of water, electricity, and other scarce resources. Economic sustainability refers to an organization’s ability to maximize profits while also minimizing negative impacts on the environment (Osburg and Lohrmann, 2017). Furthermore, studies (Brauch, 2017) also show that sustainable infrastructure is economical when it provides the greatest return on investment for all stakeholders in the economy, including local and national governments, private investors, taxpayers, and end users. It also creates employment, thereby increasing income levels. Also, it assists in fostering green economic development by building the essential infrastructure required by many industries, thereby increasing both capital and efficiency of labour. A sustainable social infrastructure, on the other hand, is expected to contribute to the alleviation of poverty as well as social inequality by ensuring equality in the building of and access to infrastructure. Thus, ensuring inclusive, affordable infrastructure is needed to enhance well-being, income generation, social well-being, and preservation of the environment (Mansell et al., 2019). The ability of a society to sustain intergenerational justice, equity, and communal well-being is a key component of social sustainability. Saghir (2017) also viewed sustainable infrastructure as involving designing, building, and running projects with social, economic, financial, ecological, and environmental considerations. It improves citizens’ quality of life, protects natural resources and the environment, and maximizes financial resources. Thus, for a sustainable infrastructure project to have SDG-related impacts, according to Mansell et al. (2019), a consistent approach to measuring and evaluating sustainability must begin from its project delivery phase (design and construction) to the post-delivery phase (maintenance and operation). Multiple international organizations have published regional International Rating Systems to evaluate the lifecycle sustainability of construction and infrastructure projects. The Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System (SIRSDEC) was made to encourage the design, construction, and operation of sustainable infrastructure projects. It was made as a tool to encourage the use of sustainable practices and to explain sustainability to everyone, from construction workers to citizens (Diaz-Sarachaga et al., 2017). Rating systems include the following: ENVISION (USA), Civil Engineering Environmental Quality (CEEQUAL), and Infrastructure Sustainability (IS); Rating tools exist to assess sustainable infrastructure projects (Liu et al., 2021). Others also include the Sustainable Transportation Appraisal Rating System framework (STARS), Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol, World Bank Environmental and Social Framework, International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (IDB Group, 2018; Zuofa, 2020).

INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Infrastructure plays a crucial role in combatting climate change and encouraging sustainable practices to contribute to the long-term health of economies. Due to this, infrastructure is a critical component of achieving the SDGs. Before being accepted by the leaders of 193 nations, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, which were produced through an inclusive and partic-

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in SSA  407 ipatory process, were outlined in full in transforming our world (United Nations, 2015). The SDGs, in contrast to its forerunners, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), provide a more specific and realistic view (Saito et al., 2017). In addition, they are far more ambitious and comprehensive concerning the requirements of both human and natural systems (Moyer and Bohl, 2019). Therefore, the purpose of goals, targets, and indicators is to help nations measure, manage, and track their progress toward achieving economic, social, and environmental sustainability (Anderson et al., 2017). However, the increased number of goals, targets, and indicators, as well as their cross-cutting nature, make monitoring the success of the SDGs a challenging endeavour in comparison to the MDGs. With the SDGs and infrastructures interconnected, it is predicted that 72 percent of SDG targets are directly or indirectly influenced by the networked infrastructure sectors of electricity/energy, transport, water, and telecommunications (Thacker et al., 2019). They are considered fundamental public infrastructures, which serve as the building blocks of society and the economy. Thus, transportation, water supply, and sanitation, information and telecommunications, and energy/electricity should all be included in a comprehensive definition of infrastructure. a.

Energy Infrastructure

Energy infrastructure comprises the physical structures that produce, transport, transform, and transmit energy to consumers. The generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity and a system of oil and natural gas pipelines make up the global energy infrastructure which ensures that supply and demand in all parts of the global economy can meet each other reliably and affordably (Bridge et al., 2018). This fuels stable and long-term economic growth. b.

Transportation Infrastructure

Transport infrastructure is a type of infrastructure that deals with facilitating the movement of people and products in an area/region (Prus and Sikora, 2021). Thus, it facilitates easy access to markets and raw supplies and boosts production (Luo et al., 2021). Given its relevance to the social economy, sustainable transportation infrastructure is one of the SDGs’ most important areas for promoting economic growth and social welfare (Umar et al., 2020). Roads, railways, and ports are examples of transportation infrastructure that enable the swift movement needed to produce goods or the provision of services to stimulate economic growth (Nidziy, 2017). c.

Telecommunication Infrastructure

Telecommunication infrastructure comprises the internet, satellites, fibre optics, telephones, telegraphs, radios, and microwave communication systems that exchange information over distances (Azolibe and Okonkwo, 2020). From the study by Chen et al. (2019), it is noted that the internet plays a significant role as a telecommunication infrastructure in promoting trade (buying and selling of goods or services) among both developed and developing countries.

408  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals d.

Water Supply and Sanitation Infrastructure

Water infrastructure refers to the physical facilities responsible for the collection, storage, treatment, management and supply of water for sanitation and health, agricultural development, and energy production (Adeniran et al., 2021; Furlong et al., 2016). SDG 6 is linked directly and indirectly to other SDGs. SDG 2, water is vital for agricultural productivity and food processing; clean water is vital to human health; SDG 5, reducing the time women in many countries spend getting their family safe water; SDG 7, water is vital for electricity production; SDG 12 drives industrial water demand. SDG 14 seeks to prevent erosion into water bodies and pollution; SDG 15 lays out that ecosystems need enough quality water (Anderson et al., 2017; Hakimdavar et al., 2020). Given that current infrastructure systems contribute to more than 60 percent of global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, investing in sustainable infrastructure is crucial to meeting the SDGs and the climate targets of the Paris Agreement 2030 (Pfeiffer et al., 2018). While only SDG 9 specifically addresses infrastructure, it is crucial to the achievement of all the other socioeconomic goals (Thacker et al., 2018). Dependent upon infrastructure, a number of SDGs are directly related to sustainable infrastructure development including, SDG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9, 12 and 13, as illustrated in Figure 23.1. Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. Thus, the clearest call for more investment in sustainable infrastructure can be found in SDG 9. Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for everyone at all ages. Target 3.8 focuses on access to quality essential infrastructure healthcare services, which will require health centres and hospitals to be provided. Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. The availability, accessibility, and sustainable water management are the main objectives of this goal and its underlying targets, all of which call for carefully thought-out infrastructure development initiatives. Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable resilient, sustainable, and modern energy for all. It refers to the promotion of investment in the growth of energy infrastructure which is specifically mentioned in targets 7a (enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology) and 7b (expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all). Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. In order to accomplish SDG 11, targets linked to infrastructure planning or challenges such as waste management, transportation, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and resource efficiency, require the construction of sustainable infrastructure (Adshead et al., 2019; Casier, 2015; Thacker et al., 2019). Sustainability assessments of the SDGs have been characterized as the procedures of monitoring and evaluating the possible impact of various activities and options on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) economy, environment, and society (Omisore, 2018). To begin conversations and map progress toward SDG achievement, organizations can use resources like the SDGs Industry Matrix (United Nations Global Compact and KMPG, 2016) and the step-by-step guidance on implementing SDGs into an organization’s business plan (Anthesis Group, 2019). Implementation of SDGs can also take place through the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future (SFSF). Scores to targets under a particular SDG are against three

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in SSA  409

Figure 23.1

The link between infrastructure and the SDGs

criteria, namely, on applicability, implementability, and transformational impact. The target score is then put together to derive the SDG scores (Osborn et al., 2015). Also, assessment tools such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), and ITACA (Italian Institute for Innovation and Transparency in Procurement and Environmental Compatibility) propose different sets of criteria and indicators to measure, monitor, and evaluate the progress of making SDGs operational with planned interventions along dimensions of environmental, social, and economic activities (Saiu et al., 2022). Under the UN’s SDGs agenda, each nation is responsible for monitoring and tracking the achievement of the SDGs. It is expected that various countries produce a proposal to achieve the 2030 SDGs with detailed implementing strategies (United Nations, 2019). Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9 Targets and Indicators) Goal 9 of the Sustainable Development Agenda represents “build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation” (United Nations, 2015). SDG 9 focuses on three crucial facets of sustainable development: infrastructure, industrialization, and innovation. Infrastructure provides the fundamental physical infrastructure needed by industry and society; industrialization promotes economic growth and the creation of jobs, which in turn reduces income inequality; while innovation increases the technological capacities of industrial sectors and fosters the establishment of new skill sets (Boys, 2019; UNOPS, 2018). SDG 9 is supported by eight targets and twelve indicators, as indicated in Table 23.1. With a direct link to the global goals of the 2030 Agenda, the SDG 9 index provides a useful tool for nations to evaluate their progress toward inclusive and sustainable

410  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 23.1

SDG 9 targets and indicators

Targets

Indicators

9.1 Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure,

● 9.1.1 Proportion of the rural population who live

including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all 9.2 Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise the industry’s share of employment and gross domestic product, in line with national circumstances, and double its share in the least developed countries 9.3 Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in particular in developing countries, to financial services, including

within 2 km of an all-season road ● 9.1.2 Passenger and freight volumes, by mode of transport ● 9.2.1 Manufacturing value added as a proportion of GDP and per capita ● 9.2.2 Manufacturing employment as a proportion of total employment ● 9.3.1 Percentage share of small-scale industries in total industry value added

affordable credit, and their integration into value chains and markets

● 9.3.2 Percentage of small-scale industries with a loan

9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them

● 9.4.1 CO2 emission per unit of value added

or line of credit sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action per their respective capabilities 9.5 Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending 9a. Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing states

● 9.5.1 Research and development expenditure as a percentage of GDP ● 9.5.2 Researchers (in full-time equivalent) per million inhabitants ● 9a.1 Total official international support (official development assistance plus other official flows) to infrastructure

9b. Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to

● 9b.1 Percentage of medium and high-tech manufacturing value added in total value added

commodities 9c. Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in the least developed countries by 2020

● 9c.1 Percentage of the population covered by a mobile network, by technology

Source:  Adopted from the United Nations (2015).

industrial and infrastructure development in light of their own national development plans (Kynčlová et al., 2020).

SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE According to a 2019 report that was recently published by the World Bank, the potential lifetime net benefits of investing in resilient infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries (also known as LMICs) might amount to $4.2 trillion (Hallegate and Rozenburg, 2019). Infrastructure systems are regarded as the backbone of a society and play a crucial role in maintaining a resilient, sustainable, and robust economy. Instead of preventative and

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in SSA  411 proactive maintenance and resilience management, many cities and towns believe it is more cost-effective to replace infrastructure components only when they fail (Yang et al., 2018). Resilience is intrinsically linked to the three sustainability pillars of social, environmental, and economic concepts. It is sustainable for infrastructure to recover from a disaster and to restore the original quality of life and function for the environment, society, and the economy (Chatterjee and Layton, 2020). Hence, resilience is described by the National Research Council (2012) as the capacity to anticipate, cope with, recover from, or more successfully adapt to real or potential unfavourable situations (Cutter et al., 2013). This concept adheres to the fundamental emergency management phase which is a requirement for the infrastructure system to react or adapt to when confronted by unforeseen circumstances (Alderson et al., 2022). A resilient infrastructure therefore allows infrastructure (electricity/energy, transport, water, and telecommunications) to withstand environmental impacts and handle the stress that comes from natural disasters associated with climate change (Faremo, 2015). It should be able to handle, recover from, and lessen the effects of climatic extreme and unusual natural and man-made risks, floods, earthquakes (Hudson et al., 2012). Due to the interdependence of various infrastructure-electricity/energy, transport, water, and telecommunications, damage to one infrastructure results in the spread of hazardous effects to the operation of the others (Ravadanegh et al., 2022). World Bank Group (2019) reports that the productivity of businesses, as well as the jobs and income they generate, can be negatively impacted when there are interruptions or outages in power, transportation, or communications. This, in turn, can affect people’s quality of life. In a similar vein, when households lose access to water this can lead to unsanitary conditions as well as contribute to the spread of diseases that are transmitted by contaminated water. It is therefore important to adopt sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems to ensure their continuous operation which in turn, promotes both fiscal and societal sustainability for systems that are prone to disruptive events. The Realization of the SDGs in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Role of Infrastructure African governments, in particular, have the weakest systems in place for keeping an eye on the interplay between economic growth, social progress, and environmental protection (Omisore, 2018). Building up Africa’s infrastructure is essential to the continent’s economic growth and the improvement in the standard of living (Murray, 2019). It makes a large impact on improving people’s lives, decreasing poverty, and meeting other SDGs (African Development Bank, 2018). Infrastructure is the primary factor that can expedite the TBL balance of economic, social, and environmental factors in these nations (Bain et al., 2019). However, with few resources at their disposal, governments throughout SSA are faced with a tremendous development hurdle to address the issue of sustainable infrastructure delivery (PRI, 2020; Sagyir, 2017). According to the World Bank (2017), reducing the infrastructure gap across SSA countries (53 countries in all) could increase annual GDP growth per capita by 2.6 percent. Infrastructure development is a prerequisite for achieving sustainable development. Improving the lives and economic well-being of people in SSA requires substantial investments in sustainable infrastructure projects (Peters, 2017). Thus, to narrow down SSA’s infrastructure gap and to have any chance of achieving the SDGs by 2030, governments throughout SSA must increase infrastructure investment (Opoku, 2018). From the World Bank Group and PPIAF (2017), low levels of infrastructure have been shown to stifle growth in SSA econo-

412  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals mies, keeping poverty rates high indefinitely. Inadequate infrastructure is one of the greatest obstacles to industrialization because businesses cannot thrive without it. As reported by the African Development Bank (2018), the inadequate availability of productive infrastructures like power, water, and transport services that would allow businesses to flourish in sectors with a comparative advantage is a major hindrance to industrialization in SSA. Most countries in this region lack the financial means to address severe infrastructure gaps. According to the World Bank (2019) report on the SDGs, SSA had manufacturing value added (MVA) as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2017 at 10.25 percent, lower than the global average of 15.59 percent. This highlights the SSA’s low level of industrial development and the necessity of major investments in the sector to achieve SDG 9; where, SDG 9 emphasizes infrastructure. Quality infrastructure is key to achieving SDGs because it boosts economic growth. Energy or power generation represents Africa’s largest infrastructure shortfall, necessitating 40-60 percent of infrastructure investment. Forty-three percent of the population in SSA now has access to electricity, according to the International Energy Agency (2017), which is a significant improvement as compared to a study by Bazilian et al. (2012), who reported that close to 580 million in SSA were unable to access electricity due to an acute lack of access to an electrical power source. According to Eberhard et al. (2011), 93 percent of Africa’s economically feasible hydropower potential to generate approximately 937 terawatt hours each year, which represents one-tenth of the global total, remains untapped. Moreover, with an inadequate exploration of SSA’s solar and wind renewable energy sources, the majority of factories operating in West and East Africa are forced to rely on pricey backup generators as their principal energy supply, which negatively impacts their profit margins (African Development Bank, 2018; Owusu-Manu et al., 2019). SSA has seen a significant improvement in water access from 24 percent to 30 percent (UN, 2015). Before this, the SSA region was far behind in meeting the MDG target and SDG 6 of providing access to clean water and improved sanitation (UNICEF and WHO, 2015), which led to the African Development Bank (2018) making calls for massive water infrastructure investment to enable improved access. As a key part of the telecommunications infrastructure, the Internet has a big impact on the industrial sector of the economy. In SSA, telecommunications infrastructure is getting better for all income levels. Studies by Owusu-Manu et al. (2019) and World Bank (2017) show that most of the flow of transactions, accounts, and documents in the industrial sector depends directly on the internet with an estimated $9 billion spent on mobile telecommunications and a terrestrial fibre optic transmission network up and running in SSA, with another 41,000 km being built. One of the biggest barriers to progress and poverty alleviation in SSA is the glaring lack of an efficient transportation system (Beuran et al., 2015). Road transportation dominates the continent of SSA, carrying more than 75 percent of all passengers and cargo. However, sea transport, which accounts for 92 and 95 percent of worldwide trade, dominates Africa’s trading routes. Over the past few decades, Africa’s rail transportation system has experienced a sharp collapse (AfDB, 2018). The overall length of the railway network, which is the most economical way to move bulk cargo across long distances on land, was projected to be 90,320 km in 2005, or just 3.1 km per 1,000 km2 (UNECA, 2009). The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for a renewed commitment to achieving the 17 SDGs outlined in the UN 2030 Agenda as a global blueprint for eradicating poverty, safeguarding the planet, and securing prosperity for all (Nauli, 2022). Problems such as a lack of infrastructure and a flawed healthcare system, have been brought to light by the pandemic, one

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in SSA  413 of the things the SDGs aim to fix. It will be necessary for all SSA nations to re-evaluate their progress toward the SDGs for equitable distribution of infrastructure growth after COVID-19 (Seshaiyer and McNeely, 2020). In light of this, the region lacks the resources and expertise to provide suitable infrastructure. It is noticed that the majority of infrastructure funding in SSA has come from the public budget, which does not make up substantial infrastructure investment to close the infrastructure gap (Billah, 2021). Future sustainable infrastructure in Africa needs to be climate-resilient (Ismail, 2022). Previous studies stated that there are five strategies to be considered to implement Climate-Resilient Development (CRD), introduced by Denton et al. (2014). These strategies need to be considered at the national and regional level through i) renewable energy and the so-called “just transition” (Smith, 2017), and green industrialization; ii) adaptation: agriculture and green manufacturing; iii) climate finance and strengthening development finance institutions; iv) trade and investment and climate-resilient developmental regionalism; and v) global governance and global new green deal. In the section below, the chapter proceeds to discuss the concept of renewable energy, the just transition, and green industrialization in the context of regional integration in Africa (Ismail, 2022). This brings us to the conclusion that competitiveness, economic growth, poverty alleviation, and quality of life improvement in the SSA region all depend on the implementation of sustainable infrastructure (Bielenberg et al., 2016). Hence, the integration of SDGs in sustainable infrastructure project delivery requires monitoring and evaluation to ensure its realization/implementation. However, the tools developed to aid the understanding and integration of SDGs in projects have not been properly delved into in the SSA region. SSA is missing a lot of essential infrastructures. To achieve the SDGs, it is crucial to integrate them into national development plans and policies using the right assessment tools (Yonehara et al., 2017).

FINANCING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR THE SDGs The infrastructure investment decisions made globally will begin to set the stage for decades to come, either choosing a course toward climate-resilient, future-proof infrastructure or a track toward high-carbon, inefficient, and unsustainable infrastructure that will worsen climate change (Gili and Secchi, 2021). According to studies such as Bhattacharya et al. (2018) and McKinsey (2016), between 2016 and 2030, the estimated annual global financing requirement for infrastructure ranges from USD 3.3 trillion to USD 7.9 trillion. Africa’s economic potential will undoubtedly be helped by funding infrastructural projects throughout the region. However, a number of constraints relating to the complexity, magnitude, and feasibility of infrastructure projects in general make it difficult to finance investments in African infrastructure (Miyamoto and Chiofalo, 2016). Policymakers, and private and public investors in SSA countries continuously rate infrastructure as their top priority, despite their inability to achieve this goal (Saghir, 2017). Approximately half of the funding now comes from government expenditures, with the remainder coming from loans and grants from International Financial Institutions, China, and other development partners (IMF, 2016). Considering this, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates show that existing financing is, however, significantly inadequate to address infrastructure needs (UNCTAD, 2014).

414  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Compared to the current spending, there is a financing deficit that prevents the realization of closing the infrastructure gap to maintain economic growth as well as partly achieving its related SDGs (Bryne, 2014). Before an investor or government starts a project, a complete feasibility study that includes financial and economic analysis, environmental and social impact assessment, technical design, market study, and legal, regulatory, and institutional analysis is performed to choose project financing prospects (Bisbey et al., 2020). In addition to this, there are three approaches to financing infrastructure projects for the SDGs to be realized: proper project preparation, revenue sustainability, and risk allocation and mitigation (Bhattacharya et al., 2019). When talking about infrastructure development, the term financing refers to the management of cash flow. The focus is on getting the capital together to make those first crucial infrastructure investments possible. Public investments, private investments, public–private partnerships, the World Bank, and foreign direct investments are known as popular infrastructure finance sources in our world today (Kumari and Sharma, 2017). In public investment financing, the government of a nation is seen as the sole investor of infrastructure development (Chang and Lee, 2022). The government finances the construction, implementation, operation as well as maintenance for infrastructure, which leads to better standard of living and higher income generation for its citizens. Private investments form partnerships in which public and private sectors collaborate in the construction of projects. Due to the tight public budgets, the role of private sector investments is even more important now than ever before. Due to insufficient domestic investment, the majority of developing nations lack adequate infrastructural facilities which require foreign direct investments from foreign countries (Rath and Samal, 2015). Approximately half of the funding now comes from government expenditures, with the remainder coming from loans and grants from International Financial Institutions, China, and other development partners (IMF, 2016). This type of financing has played a vital role in the development of telecommunications, transportation and energy/power infrastructural projects that are costly to implement. Public–private partnerships involve an agreement between a government/statutory entity on one side and a private sector company on the other side for delivering an infrastructural service on payment of user charges (Sambrani, 2014). The different types of public–private partnerships include build– operate–transfer (BOT), build-own–operate (BOO) arrangements, leasing, joint ventures, contracting out, design–bid–build (DBB), design–build (DB), design–build–operate (DBO), design–build–finance–operate (DBFO) (Dewulf and Built-Spiering, 2012). This financing method reduces the risk involved in setting up infrastructure projects due to shared finance between entities. For all countries to meet the SDGs’ investment needs, there will need to be a big change in both public and private financing. Therefore, innovative project financing through partnerships with the public and private sectors, as well as international organizations, foundations, civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should be encouraged (Acuti et al., 2020; UNTACD, 2014). Critical aspects influencing financial decisions include the ability to identify and allocate responsibility for risks, as well as develop effective risk management policies. Risks connected with infrastructure include, but are not limited to, income shortfalls, project delays or cost overruns, foreign exchange risk and the chance of a change in law or policy that boosts capital expenditures or operational expenses (Monteiro and Tandberg, 2020). One problem that exists is that finance for sustainable infrastructure is not tracked in a transparent way (Croce et al., 2015). It is critical to conduct an assessment to see how easily

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in SSA  415 sustainable infrastructure financing can be tracked and evaluated in relation to the SDGs. Given the size of the investment needed for sustainable infrastructure, financing from all sources, domestic, international, public, and private, should be significantly increased, and the connections between them should be strengthened. It can increase long-term returns, thereby lowering capital costs.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The UN’s SDGs, the Paris Agreement, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development have been adopted globally, making them the primary set of rules for ensuring a bright and sustainable future for all. Thus, the SDGs can only be attained via the concerted, coordinated, and mutually supportive efforts of all relevant stakeholders (government/policymakers, civil society, the academic community, and multi-stakeholder partnerships). Infrastructure has a major role to play in the achievement of the SDGs. From the study, it is noted that infrastructure systems include transportation, water and green manufacturing, telecommunications, and energy infrastructure. Therefore, adding value to infrastructure investment, finance, and business is a socioeconomic benefit of sustainable infrastructure. From an eco–environmental standpoint, the major objective of sustainable infrastructure is to reduce carbon and pollutant emissions throughout the whole design, construction, maintenance, and demolition process. In addition, sustainable infrastructure should actively conserve and enhance ecosystems and be resilient to global climate change. Through adopting the SDGs, governments should implement the goals and targets into their national development strategies and create a plan of action. Also, monitoring and evaluating are very important for achieving the SDGs. Achieving the SDGs is a big challenge, especially when planning, monitoring, assessing, and funding. Enhancing the means of implementation by adopting sustainable infrastructure rating systems to evaluate impact is a unique and ambitious attempt to balance progress and sustainability by building a sustainable world that leaves no one behind.

REFERENCES Acuti, D., Bellucci, M. and Manetti, G. (2020). Company disclosures concerning the resilience of cities from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) perspective. Cities, 99, p.102608. Adeniran, A., Daniell, K.A. and Pittock, J. (2021). Water infrastructure development in Nigeria: Trend, size, and purpose. Water, 13(17), p.2416. Adshead, D., Thacker, S., Fuldauer, L.I. and Hall, J.W. (2019). Delivering on the sustainable development goals through long-term infrastructure planning. Global Environmental Change, 59, p.101975. African Development Bank (AfDB) (2018). The African Economic Outlook (AEO) 2018 [Online]. Abidjan, Cote D’Ivoire. Available at: https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/document/ african-economic-outlook-aoe-2018-99877 Anderson, K., Ryan, B., Sonntag, W., Kavvada, A. and Friedl, L. (2017). Earth observation in service of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geo-spatial Information Science, 20(2), pp.77–96. Anthesis Group (2019). Applying the United Nations SDGs to your business operations and strategy. Azolibe, C.B. and Okonkwo, J. J. (2020). Infrastructure development and industrial sector productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Economics and Development.

416  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Bain, P.G., Kroonenberg, P.M., Johansson, L.O., Milfont, T.L., Crimston, C.R., Kurz, T., Bushina, E., Calligaro, C., Demarque, C., Guan, Y. and Park, J. (2019). Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), pp.819–825. Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Rogner, H.H., Brew-Hammond, A., Foster, V., Pachauri, S., Williams, E., Howells, M., Niyongabo, P., Musaba, L. and Gallachóir, B.Ó. (2012). Energy access scenarios to 2030 for the power sector in sub-Saharan Africa. Utilities Policy, 20(1), pp.1–16. Beuran, M., Gachassin, M. and Raballand, G. (2015). Are there myths on road impact and transport in Sub‐Saharan Africa? Development Policy Review, 33(5), pp.673–700. Bhattacharya, A., Gallagher, K.P., Muñoz Cabré, M., Jeong, M. and Ma, X. (2019). Aligning G20 infrastructure investment with climate goals and the 2030 agenda. Foundations, 20. Bhattacharya, A., Kharas, H., Plant, M. and Prizzon, A. (2018). The New Global Agenda and the Future of the Multilateral Development Bank System. Economics Discussion Papers 2018-26, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel). Billah, M.M.S. (Ed.) (2021). Islamic Wealth and the SDGs: Global Strategies for Socio-Economic Impact. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Bisbey, J., Nourzad, S.H.H., Chu, C.Y. and Ouhadi, M. (2020). Enhancing the efficiency of infrastructure projects to improve access to finance. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 4(1), pp.27–49. Boys, D. (2019). SDG 9 – Towards a new approach to public infrastructure provision | 2030 Spotlight. [online] www​ .2030spotlight​ .org. Public Services International (PSI). pp.139–-143. Available at: https://​www​.2030spotlight​.org/​en/​book/​1883/​chapter/​sdg​-9​-towards​-new​-approach​-public​ -infrastructure​-provision. [Accessed 28 Oct. 2022]. Brauch, M.D. (2017). Contracts for Sustainable Infrastructure. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Bridge, G., Özkaynak, B. and Turhan, E. (2018). Energy infrastructure and the fate of the nation: Introduction to special issue. Energy Research & Social Science, 41, pp.1–11. Byrne, P.J. (2014). Economic agenda: Cut the deficit while boosting infrastructure. News Weekly, 2925, p.6. Casier, L. (2015). Why infrastructure is key to the success of the SDGs. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://​www​.iisd​.org/​articles/​insight/​why​-infrastructure​-key​-success​-sdgs [Accessed September 2022]. Castro, G.D.R., Fernandez, M.C.G. and Colsa, Á.U. (2021). Unleashing the convergence amid digitalization and sustainability towards pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A holistic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, p.122204. Cervigni, R., Liden, R., Neumann, J.E. and Strzepek, K.M. (2015). Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Africa’s Infrastructure: The Power and Water Sectors. Africa Development Forum. © Washington, DC: World Bank. http://​localhost:​4000//​entities/​publication/​6c6785aa​-2f8f​-56dc​-876a​-0daabb0466ee Chang, M. and Lee, H. (2022). Infrastructure Fiscal Multiplier and Corporate Taxations. [online] Available at: https://​hanbaeklee​.github​.io/​Webpage/​Chang​_Lee​_2022​.pdf [Accessed 28 October 2022]. Chatterjee, A. and Layton, A. (2020). Mimicking nature for resilient resource and infrastructure network design. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 204, p.107142. Chen, J., Huang, J., Zheng, L. and Zhang, C. (2019). An empirical analysis of telecommunication infrastructure promoting the scale of international service trade: Based on the panel data of countries along the belt and road. Transformations in Business & Economics, 18(2), pp.124–139. Croce, R.D., Paula, J. and Laboul, A. (2015). Infrastructure financing instruments and incentives. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Denton, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Abeysinghe, A.C., Burton, I., Gao, Q., Lemos, M.C., Masui, T., O’Brien, K., Warner, K., Bhadwal, S., Leal, W., Ypersele, J.P. and Wright, S.B. (2015). Climate-resilient pathways: Adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. 10.1017/CBO9781107415379.025. Dewulf, G., Blanken, A. and Bult-Spiering, M. (2012). Strategic Issues in Public-Private Partnerships. London, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M., Jato-Espino, D. and Castro-Fresno, D. (2017). Methodology for the development of a new Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System for Developing Countries (SIRSDEC). Environmental Science & Policy, 69, pp.65–72.

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in SSA  417 Faremo, G. (2015). Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. UN Chronicle, 51(4), pp.21–22. Fay, M., Andres, L.A., Fox, C., Narloch, U. and Slawson, M. (2017). Rethinking Infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean: Spending Better to Achieve More. World Bank Publications. Furlong, C., De Silva, S., Guthrie, L. and Considine, R. (2016). Developing a water infrastructure planning framework for the complex modern planning environment. Utilities Policy, 38, pp.1–10. Gili, A. and Secchi, C. (2021). The global quest for sustainability: The role of green infrastructure in a post-pandemic world. The Global Quest for Sustainability, pp.1–290. Goubran, S. (2019). On the role of construction in achieving the SDGs. Journal of Sustainability Research, 1(2), https://​doi​.org/​10​.20900/​jsr20190020 Hakimdavar, R., Hubbard, A., Policelli, F., Pickens, A., Hansen, M., Fatoyinbo, T., Lagomasino, D., Pahlevan, N., Unninayar, S., Kavvada, A. and Carroll, M. (2020). Monitoring water-related ecosystems with earth observation data in support of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 reporting. Remote Sensing, 12(10), p.1634. Hallegatte, S., Rentschler, J. and Rozenberg, J. (2019). The resilient infrastructure opportunity. Sustainable Infrastructure Series. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (2018). What is Sustainable Infrastructure? A Framework to Guide Sustainability Across the Project Cycle. [online] Available at: http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.18235/​ 0001043International Monetary Fund (IMF). Isa, R.B., Bilau, A.A., Nmadu, H.G., Ogunbode, E.B. and Ayegba, C.U. (2019). Exploring the Drivers and Barriers for Sustainable Infrastructure Projects Delivery in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environmental Technology & Science Journal, 10(2), pp.118–128. Ismail, F. (2022). Trade and climate-resilient development in Africa: Towards a global green new deal. Forum on Trade, Environment & the SDGs (TESS). Juju, D., Baffoe, G., Dam Lam, R., Karanja, A., Naidoo, M., Ahmed, A., Jarzebski, M.P., Saito, O., Fukushi, K., Takeuchi, K. and Gasparatos, A. (2020). Sustainability challenges in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). In Sustainability Challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa I (pp. 3–50). Springer, Singapore. Kumari, A. and Sharma, A.K. (2017). Infrastructure financing and development: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 16, pp.49–65. Kynčlová, P., Upadhyaya, S. and Nice, T. (2020). Composite index as a measure on achieving Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG-9) industry-related targets: The SDG-9 index. Applied Energy, 265, p.114755. Liu, B., Xue, B. and Chen, X. (2021). Development of a metric system measuring infrastructure sustainability: Empirical studies of Hong Kong. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, p.123904. Luo, P., Song, Y. and Wu, P. (2021). Spatial disparities in trade-offs: Economic and environmental impacts of road infrastructure on the continental level. GI Science & Remote Sensing,  58(5), pp.756–775. Mansell, A.P., Philbin, S.P. and Konstantinou, E. (2019). Infrastructure projects’ impact on sustainable development–case study of a water utility company. In Otmc Conference. Mansell, P., Philbin, S.P., Broyd, T. and Nicholson, I. (2019). Assessing the impact of infrastructure projects on global sustainable development goals. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability (Vol. 173, No. 4, pp.196–212). Thomas Telford Ltd. Mckinsey Global Institute (2016). Bridging Global Infrastructure Gaps, McKinsey Global Institute. Mengistu, T.M. (2013). Emerging Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms in Sub-Saharan Africa (No. RGSD-316). Miyamoto, K. and Chiofalo, E. (2016). Official development finance for infrastructure: With a special focus on multilateral development banks. OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 30, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1787/​9e93790e​-en. Monteiro, R., Rial, I. and Tandberg, E. (2020). Fiscal risks in infrastructure. Well Spent: How Strong Infrastructure Governance Can End Waste in Public Investment, 40(34), p.201. Moyer, J.D. and Bohl, D.K. (2019). Alternative pathways to human development: Assessing trade-offs and synergies in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Futures, 105, pp.199–210. Murray, S. (2019). The critical role of infrastructure for the sustainable development goals. The Economist Intelligence Unit.

418  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals National Research Council (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Nauli, B.P. (2022). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Jurnal Hubungan Internasional, 10(2), pp.96–107. Nidziy, E. (2017). Financing the construction of transport infrastructure as the basis for sustainable development of the regional economy. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (90(1), p. 012172). IOP Publishing. Omisore, A.G. (2018). Attaining Sustainable Development Goals in sub-Saharan Africa; The need to address environmental challenges. Environmental development, 25, pp.138–145. Opoku, A. (2018). Sustainable infrastructure delivery: Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in sub-Saharan Africa Blog post retrieved on 27th September 2022 from https://​www​.ucl​.ac​.uk/​bartlett/​ construction/​news/​2018/​feb/​sustainable​-infrastructure​-delivery​-achieving​-sustainable​-development​ -goals​-sub Osborn, D., Cutter, A. and Ullah, F. (2015). Universal sustainable development goals. Understanding the Transformational Challenge for Developed Countries. Osburg, T. and Lohrmann, C. (2017). Sustainability in a Digital World. New York: Springer International. Owusu-Manu, D.-G., Jehuri, A.B., Edwards, D.J., Boateng, F. and Asumadu, G. (2019). The impact of infrastructure development on economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa with special focus on Ghana, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 24(3), 253–273. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1108/​JFMPC​-09​-2018​-0050 Peters, J. (2017). Infrastructure and Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa, by A. Estache and Q. Wodon. The Journal of Development Studies, 53(3), pp.460–462, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​00220388​.2016​.1233652 Pfeiffer, A., Hepburn, C., Vogt-Schilb, A. and Caldecott, B. (2018). Committed emissions from existing and planned power plants and asset stranding required to meet the Paris Agreement. Environmental Research Letters, 13(5), p.054019. Pocock, J., Steckler, C. and Hanzalova, B. (2016). Improving socially sustainable design and construction in developing countries. Procedia Engineering, 145, pp.288–295. Principles Responsible Investment (PRI) (2020). How infrastructure investors can contribute to SDG outcomes. United Nations, https://​www​.unpri​.org/​sustainable​-development​-goals/​bridging​-the​-gap​ -how​-infrastructure​-investors​-can​-contribute​-to​-sdg​-outcomes/​6053​.article, (Accessed September 2022). Prus, P. and Sikora, M. (2021). The impact of transport infrastructure on the sustainable development of the region—Case study. Agriculture, 11(4), p.279. Rath, R. and Samal, S. (2015). An Impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on infrastructure development for the economic growth in India: An economic survey on Indian scenario. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(5), pp.78–95. Ravadanegh, S.N., Jamali, S. and Vaniar, A.M. (2022). Multi-infrastructure energy systems resiliency assessment in the presence of multi-hazards disasters. Sustainable Cities and Society, 79, p.103687. Saghir, J. (2017). Sustainable Infrastructure Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A view from the ground. Institute for the Study of International Development (ISID): Quebec, QC, Canada. Saito, O., Managi, S., Kanie, N., Kauffman, J. and Takeuchi, K. (2017). Sustainability science and implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science, 12(6), pp.907–910. Saiu, V., Blečić, I. and Meloni, I. (2022). Making sustainability development goals (SDGs) operational at suburban level: Potentials and limitations of neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 96, p.106845. Senadjki, A., Awal, I.M., Nee, A.Y.H. and Ogbeibu, S. (2022). The belt and road initiative (BRI): A mechanism to achieve the ninth sustainable development goal (SDG). Journal of Cleaner Production, 372, p.133590. Seshaiyer, P. and McNeely, C.L. (2020). Challenges and opportunities from COVID‐19 for Global Sustainable Development. World Medical & Health Policy, 12(4), pp.443–453. Smith, S. (2017). Just Transition: A Report for the OECD. https://​www​ .oecd​ .org/​ environment/​ cc/​ g20​-climate/​collapsecontents/​Just​-Transition​-Centrereport​-just​-transition​.pdf (Accessed 21 October 2019). Sy, A.N., (2016). Impediment to growth: Africa’s inadequate infrastructure limits the continent’s economic progress, but funding roads, ports, and power projects are difficult. Finance & Development, 53(002).

The role of infrastructure in achieving the sustainable development goals in SSA  419 Thacker, S. (2018). Infrastructure: Underpinning Sustainable Development. United Nations Office for Project Services, pp.23–24. Thacker, S., Adshead, D., Fay, M., Hallegatte, S., Harvey, M., Meller, H., O’Regan, N., Rozenberg, J., Watkins, G. and Hall, J.W. (2019). Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), pp.324–331. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2019). The critical role of infrastructure for the Sustainable Development Goals. London (UK): The Economist Intelligence Unit. Umar, M., Ji, X., Kirikkaleli, D. and Xu, Q. (2020). COP21 roadmap: Do innovation, financial development, and transportation infrastructure matter for environmental sustainability in China? Journal of Environmental Management, 271, p.111026. UNICEF and World Health Organization (2015). Joint Water Supply and Sanitation Monitoring Programme, 2015. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update and MDG Assessment. United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations (2019). Sustainable Development Goals Report. https://​unstats​.un​.org/​sdgs/​report/​2021/​ The​-Sustainable​-Development​-Goals​-Report​-2021​.pdf, (Accessed 3rd October 2022). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2014). World Investment Report 2014: Investing in the SDGs: An Action Plan. UN. United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Integrated Approaches in Action: A Companion to the International Good Practice Principles for Sustainable Infrastructure. Nairobi. United Nations General Assembly (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations: New York, NY, USA. United Nations Global Compact and KMPG. (2016). SDGs Industry Matrix: Industrial Manufacturing. World Bank (2017). Why We Need to Close the Infrastructure Gap in Sub-Saharan Africa. http://​ www​.worldbank​.org/​en/​region/​afr/​publication/​why​-we​-need​-to​-close​-theinfrastructure​-gap​-in​-sub​ -saharan​-africa World Bank Group (2019). World Bank Report Illustrates benefits of Resilient Infrastructure. https://​sdg​ .iisd​.org/​news/​world​-bank​-report​-illustrates​-benefits​-of​-resilient​-infrastructure/​ World Bank Group and PPIAF. (2017). Mobilising Islamic Finance for Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships. Washington, DC: World Bank Group and Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Fund. Yanamandra, S. (2020). Sustainable Infrastructure: An Overview Placing infrastructure in the context of sustainable development. University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Yang, Y., Ng, S.T., Xu, F.J. and Skitmore, M. (2018). Towards sustainable and resilient high density cities through better integration of infrastructure networks. Sustainable Cities and Society,  42, pp.407–422. Yonehara, A., Saito, O., Hayashi, K., Nagao, M., Yanagisawa, R. and Matsuyama, K. (2017). The role of evaluation in achieving the SDGs. Sustainability Science, 12(6), pp.969–973. Zuofa, T. (2020). Achieving sustainable major infrastructure projects: Development and management. In Routledge Handbook of Planning and Management of Global Strategic Infrastructure Projects (pp. 71–102). Routledge.

24. Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals Athira Sushama Bhaskaran, Amritha Palakkadavath Kumarankutty and Chithra Kurukkanari

INTRODUCTION Sustainability has been considered a core strategy for over three decades in the built environment. The modern era of globalisation led to homogenisation in architecture, separating the modern and Traditional Architectural Knowledge Systems (TAKS) worldwide. This gap is widening at an alarming speed, alienating architecture to the context and its people by ignoring sustainability. There does seem to be a good amount of systematic research happening in the fields like traditional knowledge systems, vernacular architecture, regionalism, climate, and architectural education in different parts of the world. However, a gap exists in the influence of TAKS in attaining sustainability in the built environment. Hence it is relevant to review and understand the relationship between TAKS and sustainability in present-day practices by identifying the link between the targets of SDGs and TAKS. TAKS has evolved concerning the environmental, cultural, technological, economic, and historical context within which it exists. The different fields like water management and irrigation systems, agriculture, weather forecasting, architecture, medicine and health care, art, craft, and disaster resistance in different parts of the world followed traditional knowledge systems. This chapter explores two domains, TAKS and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It examines the link between them based on the United Nations (U.N.) and affiliated forum’s reports/declarations and a comprehensive review of the available literature. Many experts and scholars like Opoku (2015), Goubran (2019) and others have already established the relevance of SDGs in the sustainable built environment (SBE). This chapter addresses the role of TAKS in achieving sustainability in the built environment. The R package tool ‘bibliometrics’ was used to analyse previous studies and literature in the area of research. It collected studies related to sustainability and TAKS from two primary databases: Scopus and Web of Science. The articles published between 1997 and May 2022 (25-year span) were identified using the chosen search strings in the bibliometric database, and a final list of 336 articles was established. The summary statistics of the scientific production are mentioned in Table 24.1. While analysing scientific production over time, the past 15 years (2007–2021) have increased attention among the research community, having four turning points in 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021. It can be seen from Figure 24.1 that there were not many studies that happened during the first decade of the selected period. The dramatic surge of research following 2007 can be attributed to the growing global concerns about the homogenisation of the built environment due to climate change, vulnerability to many hazards, and other issues. Increasing attention of the U.N. and other international forums to achieve sustainability in the built environment has also accelerated the interest in the research community. 420

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  421 Table 24.1

Summary statistics of scientific production

Description

Results

Time span

1997–2022

Sources (Journals, Books, etc)

97

Documents

336

Annual Growth Rate %

13.56

Document Average Age

4.82

Average Citations per doc

9.57

References

13,590

Figure 24.1

Scientific production over time

SDGs AND SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT (SBE) The ‘Brundtland Report’ published in 1987, defines sustainable development as the ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). The economic, social, and environmental dimensions are considered the three pillars of sustainable development. However, culture has also become crucial to sustainable development in recent years. The SBE spans many areas, from material manufacture to building design and engineering, interior environmental quality, community cohesiveness, and urban planning (Elsevier, 2017). Governments, corporate groups, and scholars are paying more attention to the sustainability of buildings, infrastructure, and urban development. It is justified because of these activities’ risks and challenges to the environment and society (James, 2014). The building sector is the largest industry for emissions, accounting for 40 percent of global energy consumption and more than 30 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions (Goubran, 2019). World Economic Forum (2016) recognised that the building industry consumes 30 percent of the world’s raw materials, consumes 12 percent of fresh water, and produces up to 40 percent of all landfill garbage. Although there are differences in the anticipated environmental effects of architecture and urban growth, there seems to be a consensus that the construction industry needs

422  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals to undergo significant changes to attain sustainability and support SBE. Such measures are thought to be necessary to sustain and promote the urban, economic, social, scientific, and cultural developments anticipated in the near future and to prevent the expected 56 percent increase in its emissions by 2030. Two-thirds of the world’s population is projected to reside in urban areas by 2050 (World Urbanization Prospects, 2018). More than 500 million sqm of new office space and more than 250 million new dwellings will be needed to accommodate the 750 largest cities in the world, including the 14 new megacities that are anticipated to form (PwC Real Estate, 2014). The prevalence of sustainability in the construction industry has increased in industrialised nations while it has decreased dramatically in underdeveloped nations (Jones, 2018). The World Economic Forum’s ‘Shaping the Future of Construction initiative’ uses scenarios to examine the architecture field’s changes in the future years (World Economic Forum, 2020). In this respect, rules at both international and national levels will cause a dramatic shift in the building industry, opening up new avenues for cutting-edge sustainable technology and research and development. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2019, architecture is at the core of the U.N. 2030 Agenda because it necessitates developing the appropriate kinds of projects to minimise ecological harm and spur the necessary social, economic, and cultural growth. Pocock et al. (2016) highlight the need for changes in project design, construction and management to ensure that projects are within the capabilities of local populations and consistent with local culture (Pocock et al., 2016). With the current attention to the 2030 Agenda, it is possible that in the future, the architecture and planning field would be expected to include the goals set forth by the agenda in its plans and initiatives. As a concrete illustration of the construction sector, the national acceptance of sustainability principles has compelled the implementation of certification requirements in public projects. Recent research has demonstrated that even the most complete systems, like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), ignore some key features of sustainable development (López et al., 2019). The literature that analyses the prevalent standards, tools, and systems for evaluation and certification also emphasises these systems’ particular focus on energy performance and a constrained set of environmental factors (Bernardi et al., 2017; López et al., 2019). Most of the time, issues like natural disaster resilience, economic evaluation, and social dimensions (such as education and awareness, inclusivity, local employment, and stakeholder relations) are not considered (Illankoon et al., 2017; Kylili et al., 2016). The environmental aspect of sustainability continues to be emphasised in architecture and planning. The SDGs of the 2030 Agenda allow the building sector to broaden its focus. Hence this field needs to expand its horizons and integrate its strategies with the SDGs to provide the agenda’s five Ps—people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships—equal attention in the face of global change. The SDGs and their impact on SBE are shown in Table 24.2. The targets of the SDGs can be classified into three broad headings, ● directly dependent on the SBE ● Indirectly dependent on the SBE ● Less impact on SBE From Table 24.2, most SDGs are directly or indirectly related to the built environment. SBE impacts SDG 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 more evidently than others. Whereas SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 13 are indirectly dependent on SBE. The remaining SDGs have less or no impact on attaining SBE. SDGs aim to protect the environment while fostering human prosperity. Hence, sustainable

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation

Goal 7

Goal 9

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Goal 12

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote

Goal 2

Goal 13

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Special attention to the selection of building materials and active cooling systems.

Construction of infrastructure/buildings addresses the risk of climate change.

Investments and funding in the development of infrastructure and SBE projects.

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Employment opportunities in the construction sector.

productive employment and decent work for all

Training of vocational skills in construction.

opportunities for all

Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning

Goal 8

Construction and development of educational institutions.

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Goal 4

Development of better health facilities/hospitals.

Develop infrastructure for food production and storage.

Employment opportunities in construction and maintenance.

existing built assets.

Promote the usage of sustainable building materials. Conservation and preservation of

communities.

Promote SBE projects and effective planning in the infrastructure in both urban and rural

Design and construct sustainable infrastructure.

Reduce consumption of non-renewable energy sources.

Reduce wastage of water during the construction process.

Goal 3

sustainable agriculture

End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 1

SDGs indirectly dependent on the architecture and planning

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Goal 11

and foster innovation

Design and develop an efficient water management system and adequate sanitation

Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Goal 6 facilities.

Impact in SBE

SDGs and impact on sustainable built environment

SDG Description of goal SDGs directly dependent on the architecture and planning

Table 24.2

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  423

Description of goal

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for

Goal 14

Ensure harmonious living through policies and planning strategies.

Reduce environmental impact due to the construction process.

No impact in SBE.

Financial support to developing countries and promotion of PPP for SBE projects.

Encourage women’s employment in the construction sector.

Impact in SBE

Sustainable Development

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the Global Partnership for Ensure better connectivity by advanced transportation facilities.

institutions at all levels

provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development and

degradation and halt biodiversity loss

sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land

Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,

Source:  Compiled by the author.

Goal 17

Goal 16

Goal 15

Reduce inequality within and among countries

Goal 10

sustainable development

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Goal 5

SDGs with less/no impact on SBE

SDG

424  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  425 practices in the architecture and planning field lead to achieving SDGs. Therefore, we can substantiate that SDGs and SBE are interlinked.

TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS (TAKS) AND SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT (SBE) ‘Traditional’ means a belief, custom or way of doing something that has existed for a long time among a particular group of people; a set of these beliefs or customs (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2020). ‘Knowledge’ refers to a standard body of information found in literary and non-literary sources. It springs from the knowledge and understanding gained by extensive observation, testing, and analysis, which are further enhanced. ‘System’ means a structured methodology and a classification scheme to access the available corpus of knowledge. The U.N.’s University proposal defines ‘Traditional Knowledge Systems’ as ‘Traditional knowledge or “local knowledge” which is a record of human achievement in comprehending the complexities of life and survival in often unfriendly environments. Whether technical, social, organisational, or cultural, traditional knowledge was obtained as part of the great human experiment of survival and development. According to Nader (2014), the purpose of studying Traditional Knowledge Systems (TKS) is ‘to open up people’s minds to other ways of looking and questioning, to change knowledge attitudes, to reframe the organisation of science—to formulate a way of thinking globally about traditions’.

Figure 24.2

Sources of TAKS

The TAKS is millennia old and endures today as a ‘living’ tradition in India. These tremendous information assets are accessible as ancient texts, chronicled edifices, and traditional craftsmanship (Piplani, 2020). Oral traditions also play a vital role since they enhance the transfer of knowledge to future generations. These four sources of TAKS are shown in Figure 24.2. Oxford dictionary defines the “context” as ‘the circumstance that forms the setting for an event, statement, or idea in which it can be fully understood’ (Oxford Advanced Learner’s

consumption.

transportation cost. Hence it reduces overall energy

and decent work for all

productive employment

economic growth, full and

inclusive and sustainable

Goal 8. Promote sustained,

primary energy and GDP.

energy efficiency.

employed person.

and innovation, including through a focus on

non-agriculture employment by sex.

encourage the formalisation and growth of micro-, small-

to financial services.

and medium-sized enterprises, including through access

8.3.1) Proportion of informal employment in

entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and

support productive activities, decent job creation,

8.3) Promote development-oriented policies that

high-value-added and labour-intensive sectors.

8.2.1) Annual growth rate of real GDP per

through diversification, technological upgrading

8.2) Achieve higher levels of economic productivity

7.3.1) Energy intensity measured in terms of

7.3) By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in

workers.

job opportunities for local artisans and construction

Proper management of human resources enhances

Employment of people in the local community.

efficiency and influences GDP.

Proper resource utilisation enhances energy

comfort.

of electricity is needed for lighting and thermal

energy consumption.

energy. Since it is available locally, there is no

It is climate responsive. Hence optimum usage

renewable energy in the global energy mix.

to affordable, reliable,

7.2.1) Renewable energy shares in the total final

methods. These materials have low embodied

In TAKS it uses locally available materials and

Impact of TAKS

energy for all

7.2) By 2030, increase substantially the share of

Goal 7. Ensure access

Indicators

sustainable and modern

SDG targets

SDGs targets, indicators and impacts on TAKS

SDG

Table 24.3

426  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

8.4.2) Domestic material consumption, domestic material consumption per capita, and domestic material consumption per GDP.

10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable

Consumption and Production, with developed countries

to support them financially by providing job

8.9.2) Number of jobs in tourism industries as a proportion of total jobs and growth rate of jobs,

sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local

culture and products.

population growth rate.

11.3.1) Ratio of land consumption rate to the

slums, informal settlements or inadequate housing.

affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.

11.3) By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable

11.1.1) Proportion of urban population living in

11.1) By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and

by sex.

GDP and in growth rate.

8.9.1) Tourism direct GDP as a proportion of total

with disabilities.

sustainable

planning and management that operate regularly

in all countries.

and democratically.

participation structure of civil society in urban

sustainable human settlement planning and management

systems.

principles, and theories followed in the traditional

Urban settlement planning, based on the planning

Improving housing for the poor by adopting TAKS.

more affection recently. It also supports TAKKS.

Accommodation with regional architecture had

automatically enhance TAKS.

Promoting architectural/heritage tourism will

8.5.2) Unemployment rate by sex, age and persons opportunities in construction.

The community can utilise vulnerable people

with disabilities.

resource management.

Optimum usage of material and proper human

Impact of TAKS

male employees, by occupation, age and persons

8.9) By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote

for work of equal value.

young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay

and decent work for all women and men, including for

8.5) By 2030, achieve full and productive employment

8.5.1) Average hourly earnings of female and

capita, and material footprint per GDP.

environmental degradation, in accordance with the

taking the lead.

8.4.1) Material footprint, material footprint per

and endeavour to decouple economic growth from

Indicators

resource efficiency in consumption and production

8.4) Improve progressively, through 2030, global

SDG targets

inclusive, safe, resilient and urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated and 11.3.2) Proportion of cities with a direct

and human settlements

Goal 11. Make cities

and decent work for all

productive employment

economic growth, full and

inclusive and sustainable

Goal 8. Promote sustained,

SDG

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  427

sustainable

in that area. It was proven that TAKS could mitigate disaster to some extent.

11.b.2) Number of countries with national and

the construction and retrofitting of sustainable, resilient and resource-efficient buildings utilising

resilient buildings utilising local materials.

local materials.

least developed countries that is allocated to

and technical assistance in building sustainable and

11.c.1) Proportion of financial support to the Locally available materials are used in TAKS.

years. Hence it addresses vulnerability to disasters

Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. local disaster risk reduction strategies.

TAKS is pragmatic and has evolved through the

strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for

respect to the current needs.

Following traditional planning principles with due

region.

it enhances the cultural heritage of the particular

TAKS evolved from culture and context. Hence

Impact of TAKS

adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction

11.b.1) Proportion of local governments that

resource needs by the size of the city.

11.c) Support least developed countries through financial

2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.

with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line

efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change,

integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource

cities and human settlements adopting and implementing

11.b) By 2020, substantially increase the number of

inclusive, safe, resilient and planning.

that implement urban and regional development

areas by strengthening national and regional development plans integrating population projections and

and human settlements

11.a.1) Proportion of population living in cities

sector and sponsorship).

funding (donations in kind, private non-profit

expenditure/investment) and type of private

environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural

11.a) Support positive economic, social and

level of government (national, regional and

world’s cultural and natural heritage. local/municipal), type of expenditure (operating

mixed and World Heritage Centre designation),

heritage, by type of heritage (cultural, natural,

and conservation of all cultural and natural

capita spending on the preservation, protection

11.4.1) Total expenditure (public and private) per

Indicators

11.4) Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the

SDG targets

Goal 11. Make cities

SDG

428  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

and production patterns

sustainable consumption

Goal 12. Ensure

SDG

materials and human resources.

sound technologies.

consumption and production and environmentally

on research and development for sustainable

12.a.1) Amount of support to developing countries

(d) student assessment.

policies, (b) curriculum, (c) teacher education, and

are mainstreamed in (a) national education

development (including climate change education)

education and (ii) education for sustainable

or policies and implemented action plans with agreed monitoring and evaluation tools.

development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates

jobs and promotes local culture and products.

12.b) Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable 12.b.1) Number of sustainable tourism strategies

more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.

scientific and technological capacity to move towards

12.a.) Support developing countries to strengthen their

development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.

the relevant information and awareness for sustainable

12.8) By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have

recycled.

through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse. 12.8.1) Extent to which (i) global citizenship

12.5.1) National recycling rate, tons of material

local communities and indigenous architecture.

Enhance architectural/heritage tourism to strengthen

traditional knowledge systems.

materials suitable for the current era based on

Researching and producing sustainable building

zones of the country to promote indigenous wisdom.

establishing the centre for excellence in different

emphasising traditional knowledge systems and

students aware. Many countries like India are now

TAKS should be part of the curriculum to make

recyclable.

stone, mud blocks, brick etc. are reusable and

The natural materials in TAKS, such as wood,

consumption and production of locally available

material consumption per capita, and domestic material consumption per GDP.

Efficient resource management by sustainable

12.2.2) Domestic material consumption, domestic

Impact of TAKS

capita, and material footprint per GDP.

12.2.1) Material footprint, material footprint per

Indicators

12.5) By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation

efficient use of natural resources.

12.2) By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and

SDG targets

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  429

communicated the strengthening of institutional,

adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.

action to combat climate

support, including finance, technology and

for effective climate change-related planning and

Source:  Compiled by the author.

planning and management, including focusing

and local and marginalised communities.

communities.

on women, youth and local and marginalised

capacities for effective climate change-related

developing states, including focusing on women, youth

management in least developed countries and small island capacity-building, for mechanisms for raising

receiving specialised support, and amount of

13.b) Promote mechanisms for raising capacity

and small island developing states that are

13.b.1) Number of least developed countries

transfer, and development actions.

implement adaptation, mitigation and technology

systemic and individual capacity-building to

13.3.2) Number of countries that have

change and its impacts

curricula.

and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation,

warning into primary, secondary and tertiary

mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early

13.3.1) Number of countries that have integrated

emissions.

climate resilience and low greenhouse gas

adverse impacts of climate change and foster

plan which increases their ability to adapt to the

operationalisation of an integrated policy/strategy/

communicated the establishment or

13.2.1) Number of countries that have

Indicators

Goal 13. Take urgent

policies, strategies and planning.

13.2) Integrate climate change measures into national

SDG targets

13.3) Improve education, awareness-raising and human

SDG

 

construction based on TAKS.

Climate impact reduction through sustainable

Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced.

reduced.

of active cooling and lighting measures can be

TAKS is climate responsive. Hence the usage

Impact of TAKS

430  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  431 Dictionary, 2020). The dictionary by Merriam-Webster defines context as the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs (Merriam-Webster’s Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary, 2014). Context is not an element of design. However, a building context incorporates various aspects, including the environment, geography, socio-cultural features, political climate, ethical and belief systems, economic considerations, and material availability. In the architectural sense, context gives a building’s elements significance by connecting them to their surroundings (Sillitoe, 2000). The architectural context consists of physical/natural elements and socio-cultural elements that can be analysed, adapted, and followed to combine the building that fits its context. Jason F. McLennan identified six principles of sustainable design: lining natural systems, respect for energy and natural resources, respect for people, respect for a place, respect for the future, and systems thinking (McLennan, 2004). These principles and theories are what is being said in TAKS also. The development of TAKS, which showcases people’s unparalleled knowledge, occurred in a specific setting within a specific physical and socio-cultural milieu. It stands for knowledge, expertise, technology, and standard control procedures articulated by cultural systems (Chakrabarti, 1998). The SDGs, targets, and indicators were analysed with TAKS and listed below in Table 24.4. The detailed review of all the SDGs, targets and indicators (Table 24.3) shows that among the 17 SDGs, TAKS directly influenced five SDGs. They are SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Human Settlement), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 13 (Climate Change).

REVIEW OF REPORTS ON TAKS AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT World Intellectual Property Organisation defines ‘Traditional knowledge’ (TK) as ‘knowledge, know-how, skills and practices that are developed sustained and passed on from generation to generation within a community, often forming part of its cultural or spiritual identity’. The U.N.’s permanent forum on Indigenous Issues (2019) defined TK as indigenous peoples’ knowledge, innovations and practices. Developed from experience gained over the centuries and adapted to the local culture and environment, TK is often transmitted orally from generation to generation. It tends to be collectively owned and can be expressed in stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, cultural values, beliefs, rituals and many others. It is also the source for the traditional use and management of lands, territories and resources, with indigenous agricultural practices that care for the earth, without depleting the resources. Indigenous peoples follow oral traditions, with dances, paintings, carvings and other artistical expressions, that are practised and passed down through millennia. The Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum on Sustainable Development published the first report on the implementation of SDG 11 under the theme ‘Cities 2030 – Cities for All: Implementing the New Urban Agenda’ (World Urban Forum, 2018). U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development (2020) describes Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) as being recognised as inherently encompassing most aspects and principles of SDGs. In response to this concern, UNESCO reiterated the need to recognise and protect cultural diversity in its Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001) and the

432  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 24.4 2019

Timeline of documents of international forums dealing with TAKS and sustainability

9th session of the World Urban Forum, Kuala Lumpur UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development – first report on the implementation of SDG 11.

2017

Plan for the Implementation of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of Culture & Protection of Culture in Emergency Situations related to Natural Disasters 2nd UNESCO Global Report ‘Re Shaping Cultural Policies’ 6th UNGA resolution on Culture and Sustainable Development adopted.

2016

Memorandum of Understanding for the protection of cultural property, UNESCO International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Habitat III conference – Global Report ‘Culture: Urban Future’.

2015

● 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage revised. ● Convention of Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage Global Report on Post-2015. ● UNDP and UNFPA 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 1st UNESCO Global Report ‘Re Shaping Cultural Policies’ 5th UNGA resolution on Culture and Sustainable Development, International conference ‘Culture for Sustainable Cities’. ● 4th UNGA resolution on Culture & Sustainable Development, Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of Culture & Promotion of Cultural Pluralism.

2014

‘UNESCO Culture for Development Indicators: Methodology Manual’ UNGA Thematic Debate on Culture and Sustainable Development UN Report on Culture and Sustainable Development, Florence Declaration UNESCO World Forum on Culture and Cultural Industries, Florence.

2013

International congress ‘Culture: Key to Sustainable Development’, and Hangzhou Declaration, UNGA Thematic Debate on, Post 2015 Agenda World Culture Forum.

2011

Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape UNESCO at its General Conference MDG-F initiative ‘Making Culture Work for Development’ launched.

2010

1st UNGA resolution on Culture and Development, 2011 Report on Culture and Development and 2nd UNGA resolution on Culture and Development.

2009

● UNESCO World Report ‘Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue’. ● 1st UN Creative Economy Report, followed by the 2010 edition and the UN/UNDP/UNESCO 2013 special edition.

2007

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly.

2005

Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions UNESCO.

2004

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report ‘Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World’.

2003 2002

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage UNESCO. The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage adopted by the World Heritage Committee – includes an appropriate and equitable balance between conservation, sustainability and development.

2001

Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity by UNESCO Convention on Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage UNESCO.

1999

UNESCO/World Bank conference ‘Culture Counts: Financing Resources and the Economics of Culture in Sustainable Development’, Florence.

1988 to 1998 1988-1997 World Decade for Cultural Development, 1995 World Commission on Cultural Development report ‘Our Creative Diversity’, 1998 UNESCO Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, Stockholm. 1982

World Conference on Cultural Policies: first conference to acknowledge links between culture and development.

1972

Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage by UNESCO.

Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). The ICOMOS Charter of Built Vernacular Heritage (1999) recognised the ‘homogenisation of culture’ and ‘global socio-economic transformation’ as threats to traditional ways of life as they push traditions toward ‘obsolescence’ (Naeem, 2020). Recently, various international forums started concentrating on the relevance of TBKS. Projects to document the TKS were

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  433 carried out by organisations like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United National Development Program (UNDP), and the United National Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). It is noteworthy that the World Conference on Science, organised through UNESCO and the International Council for Science (ICSU), explicitly recognised the significance of TKS and the need to value and promote its application for a variety of human endeavours in its Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Proficiency (ICSU, 2002). The World Conference on Science (Budapest, June 1999) also supported the Science Agenda: Framework for Action and worked on TKS (UNESCO, 2000). These reports and declarations demonstrate the significance of TBKS and its recent rise in public awareness. The reports and declarations were analysed chronologically and a timeline prepared (refer to Table 24.4). As mentioned earlier, TAKS evolved from the contextual parameters. Hence the international forum’s report with primary concern for cultural heritage and TKS was listed here. In 1972, attention towards the protection of cultural heritage and diversity began. However, the sudden hike in this area started in 2001. After that, the reports/declarations almost every year included TK or cultural aspects.

REVIEW OF ANCIENT TEXTS AND TREATISES FROM THE INDIAN CONTEXT Each country has different TAKS. This study selected TAKS in the Indian context as the case example. It has evolved concerning the environmental, cultural, technological, economic, and historical context within which it exists. In addition to reflecting regional customs and traditions, TK promotes local needs and the availability of building materials. It was passed down orally until it was converted into written documents. The indigenous knowledge produced by Indian society is referred to as ‘Indian.’ Indian refers to the geographical region that stretches from Burma in the east to modern-day Afghanistan in the west and from the Himalayas in the north to the Indian Ocean in the south, also known as the undivided Indian subcontinent (Akhanda Bharatha-The Undivided India). There are shared social, literary, and cultural practices in this area. Throughout the history of unbroken India, people and ideas have been constantly exchanged. Western expertise and technology have a hegemonic role in the developmental efforts of many growing countries, while TK has been characterised as inefficient, old-fashioned, and now no longer scientific and relegated to insignificance. Today’s education and practice disregard Indian treatises that explain TAKS (Breidlid, 2009). Many texts and treatises in India formed the basis of TAKS. India inherits rich traditional wisdom because of its diverse geographical and climatic conditions. These systems are deeply rooted in the cosmic or ‘cultural perspective’ and are manifested through traditional art, craft, and architectural practices. Some systems are documented in the historical written texts, even as some lay scattered as visible texts, rituals, and practices (Diddee and Gupta, 2017). Apart from built examples, architectural literature is available in the form of treatises in Sanskrit and regional languages, known as our Shilpa Shastras. The literature regarding residential architecture can be broadly classified into two broad subdivisions; Architecture literature and Non-Architecture literature. Later, all

434  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals the lore was expounded in Puranas, Agamas, Tantras, and many others. Non-Architectural literature can be classified into ten categories. Formal Architectural category treatises are divided into norms for constructing buildings such as houses, palaces, temples, and many other building typologies. The Vastu literature of architectural proper and architectural adjuncts can be conventionally classified into 11 classes: Vedic literature, Epic literature, Kautilya’s Arth Shastra, Puranas, Agams, Tantras, Samhita, Pratishta Vedas, Shukraniti and Shilpa Shastras. Some key examples of the works which formed the basic idea for TAKS are Manusmriti (an ancient Hindu legal text written in Sanskrit), the Vedas (a Vedic collection of hymns, or poems, written in archaic Sanskrit), and texts on the science of architecture, including the shastras (rules) contained in the Vastu Shastra (the science of architecture), Manasara (book on the essence of measurement), Shilpa Shastra (the science and technology of craftsmanship), and Samarangana-Sutradhara (Encyclopaedic work on classical Indian architecture) (Dhumal, 2020). With Sanskrit language and traditions, the Indo-Aryans are enshrined in a perfect collection of writings referred to as the Vedas. Hinduism, a Vedic religion that had a vital role in the development of India’s sacred architecture, was created due to the fusion of the Vedic and local traditions (Tadgell, 1994). The Rig, Sama, Atharva, and Yajur are the four recognised Samhitas (collections) of the Vedas. The Rig Veda, the earliest and most significant Aryan literature, was composed as a collection of hymns around 1500 BCE. The Atharva Veda alludes to homes of diverse kinds and varied sizes. It carries architectural terms, including vansa (beam) and sthun (post). The study of the Vedas and the six Vedanganas, which are ancient auxiliary disciplines in Vedic culture, as well as the Jyotisa (astrology and astronomy) and Kalpa, establishes the rules for sacrifice and ceremonies, all contain references to architecture. India’s architecture is closely related to astrology and religion (Shukla, 1961). The Brihat Samhita (an encyclopaedia that covers an extensive range of subjects, consisting of astrology, planetary movements, rainfall, clouds, and architecture compiled by Varahamihira, an Indian astronomer, mathematician, and astrologer) of the sixth century C.E. is based on the knowledge of the master architects, namely Maya, Visvakarman, Garga, and Manu. It is the earliest foundation for the Vastu Shastra and provides a succinct overview of their treatises. Varahamihira introduces the chapter on architecture, Vastu Jnana (architectural knowledge) (Kramrisch, 1946). Before the eleventh century, publications on architecture like Mayamata and Manasara, which discussed planning, design, and construction knowledge, were included in the Silpsastra or Vastu Shastra of the Samarangana Sutradhara texts. Silpa is a term for excellent art. As a result, the Silpasastra are connected to Vastu Shastra’s entire architectural code. Between 1018 and 1060 C.E., King Bhoja of Dhara produced various ancient writings, including the Samarangana Sutradhara. The first seven chapters cover the need, history, schools, scope, and requirements for becoming an architect. It is followed by information on town planning, regional planning, land surveying, the examination of soil conditions (bhumipariksa), the system of measurements (hasta-laksana), and the detailed canons of town-planning (puranivesa). There are site plans for several types of Vastu-padas, including those for towns, temples, homes, and royal palaces. It also covers secular architecture, building houses and other civil constructions, foundation-laying techniques (silanyasa-vidhi), architectural design and component details, materials, masonry, doors, pillars, and decoration. It also discusses concepts like vedha (obstruction), bhanga (breakage), and defects that are relevant to Hindu architecture (Shukla, 1961). An influential and comprehensive treatise on architecture is called Mayamata (Treatise of Housing, Architecture, and Iconography). It appears to be the oldest of the existing treatises and has been cited as an authority on architecture by later

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  435 Table 24.5

Indicators identified from TAKS

Sl no

Indicators from TAKS

1

Spatial planning (pada-vinyasa) and site development

2

Use of locally available materials

3

Details of architectural elements/components

4

Semi-open areas/courtyards/verandahs

5

Orientation of building (diknirnaya) and location of each space

6

Built form/architectural morphology

7

Inclusion of panjabhootha (five elements of design)

8

Landscape planning

writers (Dhumal, 2020). Analysing all the treatises mentioned above, eight design indicators of TAKS were identified and listed below in Table 24.5.

DISCUSSION The scientific mapping of the available literature demonstrates the recent attention in the selected study area. The interdependence of SDGs and SBE was established and tabulated in the first session of the chapter. It was evident that most SDGs directly or indirectly contribute to attaining SBE. The relationship between TAKS and SBE was established in the next section. The TAKS evolved from the context, which means they address the environmental, social, cultural and economic aspects of that particular context/community. Hence they automatically become sustainable. The impact of TAKS in achieving SDGs was tabulated with SDG targets and indicators. Five goals (SDG 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13) out of 17 SDGs were directly related to TAKS. The U.N. reports and conferences of many international forums show worldwide recognition over the past few years on TAKS. From the timeline of international forums dealing with TAKS, it is evident that the last two decades show increased global attention compared with previous years. This trend highlights the relevance of TAKS in achieving sustainability at the international level. While analysing the case example- ancient Indian texts and treatises, it was noticed that it covers every aspect of design, ranging from city planning level to building component detailing level. The recent homogenisation, the ‘one model fit to all approach’ will not be a wise solution to attain an SBE. On the other hand, the development rooted in the context will be a resilient solution for preserving society’s and the environment’s authenticity. The traditional theories and practices are a verified version of the contextual architecture and can be a path to achieving sustainability in the built environment. Though, the current building industry suggests that buildings designed and built with the aid of using modern technology are nevertheless the overpowering norm and not at all sustainable. The advantages of TAKS have been identified throughout most of the long human history. However, they have narrowed in modern-day practices. Nevertheless, they are now returning and influencing context-responsive building design. There is an urgent need to cope with the context-based design and approach to achieving sustainability. However, many present-day architects and designers are unaware of TAKS and do not know how to adapt to them. Yet, something found in TAKS may be precious, imparting a vital link between humans and the environment, and hence it automatically leads to sustainability. It facilitates the identification of the specific traits of humans, places, cultures, and climates.

436  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Architecture and planning based on TAKS is a rational way to address human needs and can be a path to achieving an SBE. SDG 11 is purely based on architecture and planning and incorporating TAKS will lead to achieving SBE. In the era of rapid technological development and vast construction, there is still much to examine from the cumulative knowledge embedded in traditional systems. In this chapter, the relevance of linking TAKS and sustainability was established by analysing the bibliometric database and reviewing reports/declarations of the U.N. and such international forums. The literature review with specific reference to the ancient texts and treatises from the Indian context supports the positive relationship between TAKS and sustainability. The literature study identified eight indicators of TAKS and its associated sustainability aspects. The indicators identified in the current research serve as a general guideline for developing context-specific designs suited for enhancing sustainability in the built environment. At the same time, when designing high-rise buildings, it is essential to research TAKS’s applicability. The TAKS must be a ‘wise’ design solution, a rich storehouse of time-tested practices, aware of the local climate, set within the socio-cultural milieu, and in sync with the contextual character, traits that could evolve with time and adjust, with ‘native style.’ The chapter strongly recommends that TAKS in architecture and planning are relevant in the current scenario of globalisation and homogenisation, and one of the paths toward sustainability. The lessons from TAKS worldwide have emphasised the significance of a climate-conscious building design method to perform human needs and hold many social, cultural, and heritage values in the region. Hence in the discourses on sustainability, we need to revisit the TAKS in the built environment. The exploration is a piece of a more significant journey to comprehend and evaluate the TAKS from the ancient texts and treatises on achieving sustainability. On a larger scale, it needs more intervention in the field to search for alternative paths and approaches to transferring TAKS to an SBE.

REFERENCES Abraham, M. A. (Ed.) (2017). Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies, vol. 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Oxford, Cambridge, viewed August 2022, http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.1016/​B978​-0​-12​-804677​-7​.02003​-X. Adams, A. C. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals, Integrated Thinking and the Integrated Report, International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), London. Athira, S. B., Amritha, P. and Chithra, K. (2021). Relevance of Traditional Indian Knowledge Systems in the Art and Architecture Education to Achieve Contextual Aesthetics, International Conference on Arts and Humanities (ICAH), Kolkata, India. Attia, S. A. (2022). Learned Lessons from Traditional Architecture in Yemen – Towards Sustainable Architecture, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1197–1204. Bernardi, E., Carlucci, S., Cornaro, C. and Bohne, R. (2017). An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings, Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 7. Breidlid, A. (2009). Culture, Indigenous Knowledge Systems, and Sustainable Development: A Critical View of Education in an African Context, International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 29, no. 2. Brundtland, G. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission in Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Traditional architectural knowledge systems and the sustainable development goals  437 Chakrabarti, V. (1998). Indian Architectural Theory and Practice: Contemporary Uses of Vastu Vidya, Curzon Press. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division (2014). World Urbanization Prospects The 2014 Revision, New York (U.S.): United Nations, p. 517. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division (2018). World Urbanization Prospects Revision, New York (U.S.). Dhumal, R. I. (2020). Rediscovering Traditional Knowledge Systems in the Conservation and Management of Heritage in India: Bibliographical Research, in Traditional Knowledge Systems and the Conservation and Management of Asia’s Heritage, ICCROM, ISBN 978-92-9077-286-6. Díaz-López, C., Carpio, M., Martín-Morales, M. and Zamorano, M. (2019). Analysis of the Scientific Evolution of Sustainable Building Assessment Methods, Sustain Cities, vol. 49. Diddee, J. and Gupta, S. (2016). Traditional Approach Towards Contemporary Design: A Case Study, International Journal of Engineering Research and Application, IJERA, vol. 7, no. 3. Duxbury, N., Kangas, A. and Beukelaer, C. (2017). Cultural Policies for Sustainable Development: Four Strategic Paths, International Journal of Cultural Policy, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 214–230. Evaluating Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (2017). Sustainability Survey, Globescan, Toronto, Canada. Gartler, S., Kuklina, V. and Schweitzer, P. (2020). Culture and Sustainability, Arctic Sustainability, Key Methodologies and Knowledge Domains, 1st Edition, Routledge. Goubran, S., Masson, T. and Caycedo M. (2019). Evolutions in Sustainability and Sustainable Real Estate, Sustainable Real Estate, pp. 11–31. Halsall, P. (2011). Culture, Sustainability and the Built Environment: Revisiting Heritage and Vernacular in Economic Decline, The International Journal of Global Built Environment Review (GBER), vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 71–73. Illankoon, I. M. C. S., WY Tam, V., Le, K. and Shen, L. (2017). Key Credit Criteria Among International Green Building Rating Tools, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 146, pp. 209–220. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2017​.06​.206 James, P. (2014). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice, New York (U.S.), Routledge, London. Jones, S. A. and Laquidara-Carr, D. (2018). World Green Building Trends 2018— Smart market report., Bedford (U.S.): Dodge Data and Analytics, p. 80. Kazimee, B. A. (2008). Learning from Vernacular Architecture: Sustainability and Cultural Conformity, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Eco-Architecture II, vol. 113, pp. 3–13. Kramrisch, S. (1946). The Hindu Temple, University of Calcutta, Calcutta, India. Kylili, A., Fokaides, P. A. and Jimenez, P. (2016). Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Approach in Buildings Renovation for the Sustainability of the Built Environment: A Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy, vol. 56, pp. 906–915. Lopes, J. P., Oliveira, R. A. and Abreu, M. I. (2011). The Construction Industry and the Challenges of the Millennium Development Goals, Proceedings of Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 20–23. McLennan, J. F. (2004). The Philosophy of Sustainable Design: The Future of Architecture, Ecotone, Kansas City. Merriam-Webster’s Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary (2014). Britannica/Rosen Education Service. Naeem, A. (2020). ‘The diminishing wealth of Traditional Knowledge Systems and practices: A growing challenge for the sustainability of historic environments and cultural landscapes in Pakistan’, in Traditional Knowledge Systems and the conservation and management of Asia’s heritage, ICCROM, Cultural Heritage Administration. Opoku, A. (2015). ‘Chapter 3: The Role of Culture in a Sustainable Built Environment’, in Sustainable Operations Management, Springer International Publishing, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-14002-5_3. Opoku, A. (2016). ‘SDG2030: A sustainable built environment’s role in achieving the post-2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals’, in P W Chan and C J Neilson (Eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5–7 September 2016, Manchester, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management. 2, pp. 1149–1158. Opoku, A. (2019). Biodiversity and the Built Environment: Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 141, pp. 1–7.

438  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2020). 10th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2020, ISBN-13- 978-0194798501. Pedersen, C. S. (2018). The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in Procedia CIRP., no. 69, pp. 21–24. Piplani, N. (2020). Traditional Building Knowledge in Architecture Education in India, Sushant School of Art and Architecture Sushant University, Gurugram. Pocock, J., Steckler, C. and Hanzalova, B. (2016). Improving Socially Sustainable Design and Construction in Developing Countries, Procedia Engineering, vol. 145, pp. 288–295. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1016/​j​.proeng​.2016​.04​.076 PwC Real Estate (2014). Building the future. PwC., New York (U.S.). Report from the ICSU Study Group on Science and Traditional Knowledge (2002). International council for science, science and traditional knowledge, Rio de Janeiro. Sachs, J. D. (2012). From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals, The Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9832, pp.  2206–2211. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​S0140​-6736(12)60685​-0 Shukla, D. N. (1961). Vastu Sastra Vol.-I Hindu Science of Architecture, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, viewed 2022, . Sillitoe, P. (2000). Let Them Eat Cake: Indigenous Knowledge, Science and the ‘Poorest of the Poor’, Anthropology Today, vol. 16 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain. Tadgell, C. (1994). The History of Architecture in India, Phaidon Press. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2019). The Critical Role of Infrastructure for the Sustainable Development Goals (2019). London (U.K.). UNEP (2015). Embedding the Environment in Sustainable Development Goals, UNEP Post-2015. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Discussion Paper 1, Version 2. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. UNESCO (2000). Science for the Twenty-first Century, a New Commitment (2000). UNESCO World Conference on Science, ISBN 1 903 598 001, Paris 07 SP, France. United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) (2019). Traditional knowledge: Generation, transmission and protection (2019). United Nations Headquarters, New York. World Economic Forum (2016). Environmental Sustainability Principles for the Real Estate Industry (2016). World Economic Forum, Geneva Switzerland. World Economic Forum (2020). Future Scenarios and Implications for the Industry (2020). The Boston Consulting Group, World Economic Forum, Cologny, Switzerland. World Urban Forum (2018). Cities 2030-Cities for All- Implementing the New Urban Agenda (2018). United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), The Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum.

25. Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals Ka Leung Lok (Lawrence), Alex Opoku, Andrew J. Smith and Ka Lam Cheung

INTRODUCTION Opoku and Lee (2022) asserted that the emphasis of Facility Management (FM) is moving towards a long-term focus by adopting practices that consider social, environmental and economic benefits of business decisions. They provide a discussion of how the FM sector can contribute to the realization of various aspects of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at various organizational levels, integrating data driven management technologies. The adoption of sustainable FM practices will reduce energy, water and waste in the maintenance and operation of buildings. FM is currently shifting emphasis towards a strategic focus through the adoption of the newly recognized United Nations (UN) SDGs that consider Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) in business decisions. However, the FM sector is encountering potential risks to implementing the new recognized international SDGs. British Standards Institution (2018) clarifies that “FM is a strategically important discipline to all organizations in the management, operation and maintenance of the workplace, its assets, and operational efficiencies”. FM is currently shifting emphasis towards a sustainable focus through the adoption of the newly recognized UN’s SDGs when making business decisions. As SDGs aim at establishing a constantly evolving baseline of proven practices, the goals can be considered a part of sustainable FM. It is believed that strategic-level support is crucial for the smooth adoption of sustainable FM practices and processes. However, sustainable FM helps in objectively quantifying the added value of FM to the core business and as such recognizes international SDGs to the FM global industry. Advanced technology and strategy can contribute to the sustainability of any profession and industry, but it also requires a community to tackle the problems. No matter what kind of profession, sustainability can further improve the efficiency and productivity of the profession. The introduction of SFM must be beneficial to the international FM industry. However, the success of the SFM should not only depend on the efforts of the FM members but also most importantly on the application of the new SDGs by the international FM community. Without the use of SDGs on the daily FM services, the power of SFM cannot be developed, and the FM services cannot be comprehensively improved. Lok et al. (2018) added that organizational level support is required to smoothly adopt sustainable FM practices and processes. The ISO/TC 267 technical committee for facilities management first started in 2012 (ISO, 2022). In 2022, there were 51 countries participating in this FM technical committee. For example, the recent ISO FM standards which is to ensure consistency of essential features of goods and services, such as quality, ecology, safety, economy, reliability, compatibility, interoperability, efficiency and effectiveness can follow the principles of SDGs (ISO/TC 267). Lee 439

440  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals and Kang (2013) include the use of environmentally friendly materials that enhance indoor air quality, water reuse, efficient energy use for thermal comfort, sustainable renovation and retrofitting, flexible design and circularity. The problem is that it is believed that the effective use of SFM can further enhance the productivity and efficiency of the FM service. Although all the FM community understand the importance of sustainability, FM services may not be effectively arranged without relevant SDGs. The aim of this chapter is to investigate SFM and the implementation of FM SDGs. What is the significance of SFM and SDGs to the built environment? This is understanding that the aim of FM is to achieve a high quality of daily living and working lives. In order to achieve a high quality of life, we need to achieve high performance in FM. The performance of FM services can be excelled and advanced by SFM and SDGs. Addressing the SDGs in FM as a sustainability driver is paramount. This may mean a paradigm shift in how the SDGs are delivered and acquired to help enable a more resilient world and more sustainable practice in the workplace and FM. Nowadays, no modernized people can escape the trend; all generations must learn and update UN goals. People pursue sustainability in daily life more than ever to have effective communication and productivity. What are the FM Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) effects on SFM and SDGs? The research question of this chapter is whether it is now difficult to develop SFM and implement SDGs for FM. A study by Collins et al. (2019) that explored the gap between sustainable buildings and sustainable FM found that the need to bridge the traditional gap between design, construction and FM demands more effective solutions based on life cycle assessments. Opoku and Lee (2022) asserted that the emphasis of FM is moving towards a long-term focus by adopting practices that consider social, environmental, and economic benefits of business decisions. The paper provides a discussion of how the FM sector can contribute to the realization of various aspects of the UN’s 17 SDGs at various organizational levels, integrating data driven management technologies. The adoption of sustainable FM practices will reduce energy, water and waste in the maintenance and operation of buildings. Opoku and Lee (2022) further suggested that the FM sector should be at the heart of the engagement and drive towards integrating sustainability into daily FM practice to bring improved customer service. The SFM and the SDGs are gaining importance for various building assets around the world and impact (or are impacted by) sustainable development objectives. With the possible exception of security, each of them fits into environmental, social, and economic strands of sustainable development. In addition, the SFM is in alignment with SDGs essentially for investigation. ISO has published more than 22,000 International Standards and related documents (ISO, 2022b) that represent globally recognized guidelines and frameworks based on international collaboration, contributing to the achievement of every one of the SDGs.

SUSTAINABLE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND THE SDGs Strategic sustainable FM has the potential to realize the 17 SDGs at all levels of organization in the FM sector. Strategic sustainable FM is one force that has rapidly shaped the management of the built environment and FM recently and rapidly, especially in the Covid-19 period. This is impacting the FM industry. Opoku and Lee (2022) assert that the concept of SFM brings together the two concepts of FM and sustainable development by adopting technology and

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals  441 innovative business practices that balances the social, economic, and environmental impacts of business decisions. Nielsen and Galamba (2010) describe it as the consideration of the sustainability principles on core business, support function, and the impact on the local community of operation and the global community. However, Lee and Kang (2013) provide a more detailed description of SFM to include the use of environmentally friendly materials that enhance indoor air quality, reuse of water, and efficient energy use that offer good thermal comfort, sustainable renovation and retrofitting, flexible design of developments that promote sustainable cities and communities, circularity, and so on. Tucker (2013) adds that SFM involves the management, implementation and the delivery of an organization’s core and non-core business services that contribute to economic, social, and environmental sustainability. The FM sector should be at the heart of the engagement and drive towards integrating sustainability into day-to-day FM practices to achieve better services to customers. SFM is about the ability to make smart decisions that will minimize the negative impact of business decisions on the environment by implementing sustainable practices across the business that address the 3Cs of FM, consisting of customer experience, climate change, and competition. Elmualim et al. (2012) believe that facility managers have a critical role in adopting sustainability principles in the wider built environment, and the FM sector in particular. However, implementing sustainability principles in FM requires collaborative partnership with the relevant stakeholders on effective strategies that promote health, safety, and well-being practices in the organization. The adoption of sustainable FM practices could help address many FM challenges, simplifying the everyday FM work at strategic, tactical, and operational levels. This requires a more holistic plan that coordinates investment, administration, space management, operation, and service functions. Even though SFM seems to be biased towards technical and isolated environmental problems (Lok et al., 2018), FM organizations are progressively addressing environmental, social, and economic sustainability of their business activities simultaneously. Opoku and Lee (2022) confirm that the benefit of SFM of existing facility such as greening the existing building stock will offer more benefits than delivering new sustainable construction projects as SFM promotes energy savings, waste reduction, water conservation, carbon footprint controls, and so on. A facility manager’s decision can either positively or negatively affect the planet (Aceves-Avila and Berger-García, 2019). At the forefront of organizational behavioural change is the facility manager who is in the position to influence the behaviour change of individuals working at all levels of business where they have the role to manage facility (Elmualim et al., 2009). Buser et al. (2018) argue that 80 percent of a building’s impact on climate change happens during the operation phase, highlighting the negative impact of a building operation on the environment. The built environment alone accounts for more than 33 percent of energy and 40 percent of materials use, producing 40–50 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally. The SFM of existing building stock and infrastructure is essential in achieving the global agenda towards sustainability due to the volume of existing building stock (Nielsen, et al., 2009; Radebe and Ozumba, 2021). SFM can help in addressing some of the global challenges such as climate adaptation, energy efficiency, and sustainable development by developing innovative solutions for organizations and society (Nielsen et al., 2016). Even though the FM profession has a potential role to play towards the realization of SDGs, Kwawu and Elmualim (2011) argue that facility managers will require the development of the relevant knowledge and skills to be able to fully embrace

442  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 25.1

The role of FM in achieving the SDGs

The role of the FM

SDGs

● Provide individual economic and social improvement for these people in

1

No poverty

SDG Targets 1.2, 1.4

2

Zero hunger

2.1, 2.4

3

Good health and well-being

3.7, 3.8

Quality education

4.3, 4.4

5

Gender equality

5.5, 5.6

6

Clean water and sanitation

6.2, 6.4

7

Affordable and clean energy

7.2, 7.3

8

Decent work and economic

8.3

need. ● Catering influences sourcing of food products, food security, nutritional value and waste. ● The co-creators of the workplace and they take responsibility for the working conditions of the employees. ● Improving education around the world is the supply of proper school equip- 4 ment and enabling new ways. ● Facility management contribute to the home-work balance by providing good and flexible work conditions. ● Responsible for water management reducing water losses by controlling leakages, increasing water efficiency. ● The real task is to implement and maintain the innovations. This in a continuous improvement process. ● Facility managers around the world can greatly contribute to the overall working conditions of the employees. ● Important tech innovations are often related to smart buildings and

growth 9

workplaces.

Industry, innovation and

9.5

infrastructure

● More and more multinationals tender their maintenance and facility services 10

Reduced inequalities

10.2, 10.6

Sustainable cities and

11.3, 11.6

on a European and/or global scale. ● Contribute to sustainable growth by maintaining buildings, districts, cities.

11

communities ● Source their food resources with a circular procurement strategy.

12

Responsible consumption

12.4, 12.5

and production ● Sustainable business management has a high priority within the field of

13

Climate action

13.3

14

Life below water

14.2, 14.4

15

Life on land

15.1, 15.5

16

Peace, justice and strong

16.2, 16.10

facility management. ● Pollution by plastic is a big issue. FM can help by circular procurement policy and waste control. ● Often in direct contact with a large portion of animal products and can therefore try to decrease the usage. ● Peace and justice are not only responsibilities for the government in line with their strong institutions. ● FM can play an important role in bringing together all supporting depart-

institutions 17

Partnerships for the goals

17.7, 17.9

ments of organisations.

Sources:  United Nations (2015); IFMEC (2018).

the opportunities of integrating sustainability principles into core FM business strategies and operations. A study by the International Facility Management Expert Centre (IFMEC, 2018) in the Netherlands revealed that strategic SFM has the potential for the realization of the 17 SDGs because the FM profession has the advantage of incorporating the SDGs at all levels of organization, from corporate to the operational levels, and can influence behavioural changes at the individual level by providing the enabling environment for sustainable practices. Table 25.1 indicates the 17 SDGs linked to SFM in terms of the scope of work. However, Table 25.2 indicates the link between the SDGs and ISO standards, and Table 25.3 describes the benefits of SFM. Opoku and Lee (2022) claim that by providing economic and social improvement for individuals through job creation (SDG 8 - decent work and economic growth), the FM sector can

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals  443 Table 25.2

The link between the SDGs and ISO standards

SDGs

Interpretation of SDGs to ISO standards

1

No poverty

● By providing a platform for best practice in all areas of economic activity, from agricul-

2

Zero hunger

● ISO has over 1,600 standards for the food production sector designed to create confi-

3

Good health and well-being

● Access to quality healthcare is an essential human right. ISO has over 1,300 standards

ture to banking, ISO International Standards. dence in food products. supporting practices in quality management, environmental management, health and safety, energy management, food safety and IT security towards the achievement of the economic, environmental and societal dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 4

Quality education

● ISO 21001, educational organizations, management systems for educational organiza-

5

Gender equality

● Gender equality is a key component of social responsibility, and the empowerment of

6

Clean water and sanitation

● Globally, over 80% of wastewater generated by society flows back into the ecosystem

7

Affordable and clean energy

● Represent internationally agreed guidelines and requirements for solutions to energy

8

Decent work and economic

● International Standards, by their very nature, promote economic growth by setting

tions requirements with guidance. women and their equality in society. without being treated or reused. efficiency and renewable sources. growth

a common language and internationally.

9

Innovation and infrastructure

● Sustainable industrialization through internationally agreed specifications that meet

10

Reduced inequalities

● Ensure proper functioning of the market, protect people’s health and safety and preserve

11

Sustainable cities and

● Responsible use of resources, preserving the environment and improving the well-being

quality, safety and sustainability requirements. the environment. communities

of citizens are the end goal.

12

Consumption and production

● Reducing our environmental impact, promoting the use of renewable sources of energy.

13

Climate action

● Essential role in the climate agenda, helping to monitor climate change, quantify green-

14

Life below water

● Provides a unique opportunity to participate in the development of fisheries and

15

Life on land

● Protecting and promoting life on land through better use of resources is the objective of

16

Peace, justice and institutions

● Effective, accountable and inclusive societies and institutions rely on good governance

17

Partnerships for the goals

● Consensus of a wide range of stakeholders from all corners of the Earth, including repre-

house gas emissions. aquaculture. hundreds of ISO standards. at all levels. sentatives from government.

Sources:  United Nations (2015); International Organization for Standardization (2018).

also help address SDG 1 (no poverty). The FM profession is the heart of the food supply chain in many organizations including companies, schools, hospitals, and so on; co-creating the workplace and the working condition of employees, thereby addressing SDG 2 (zero hunger) and SDG 3 (good health and well-being), respectively. The sector is also responsible for the sustainable maintenance of buildings in cities and communities (SDG 11 - sustainable cities and communities), which includes managing building energy usage (SDG 7 - affordable and clean energy) and the efficient management of water (SDG 6 - clean water and sanitation) in buildings by reducing water losses through avoidable leakages. The FM profession is managing educational facilities globally, thereby improving quality education for all, SDG 4 (quality

444  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 25.3 Perspectives

Benefits of sustainability facilities management Benefits of Sustainable Facilities Management ● Add value to their organisations and customers through efficient management of sustainability issues and practices;

Social

● A long-range focus in organisations and has continuity responsibilities; ● Incorporate the SDG’s from a corporate level into a broad scope of enabling practices; ● A leadership network working to advance gender parity in executive management. ● Determining profitability, productivity, energy management, waste management, employee well-being and public perception of an organization;

Environmental

● Home-work balance by providing good and flexible work conditions; ● Ensure proper functioning of the market, protect people’s health and safety and preserve the environment; ● Reduction in energy consumption, waste reduction, increase productivity, elimination of oil and air pollution, sustainable urbanization, reduction of deforestation and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. ● Technology advances beyond our wildest imaginings; resources becoming more scarce; higher efficiency of operations demanded by customers; ● Preserving the environment, incorporating sustainable practices in the management of buildings comes with

Economic

the benefit of reduced cost; ● Reduces the running/operational cost of the organisation and carbon emissions of buildings; ● Lifecycle cost reduction, financial gain, investment drive, profitability, to remain competitive and market expansion. ● A wide recognition of the benefits and importance of incorporating sustainability into FM practice; pressure from legislation, fierce market competition and constantly changing business environments warranting the need to seek competitive edge;

Drivers for SFM

● Interestingly, pressure from stakeholders, employees and lifecycle cost reduction were regarded as the least of the drivers to SFM practice; ● Identified job creation for local communities, waste reduction and enhancing relationships with stakeholders as the main drivers to SFM.

Sources:  Abigo, A., et al. (2012); Elmualim, A. et al. (2012); Baaki Kurannen, T. et al. (2016); IFMEC (2018); International Organization for Standardization (2018).

education). The FM sector continues to be a model for other sectors to follow in terms of its record of a diverse workforce of all nationalities (Goal 9 - reduced inequalities), equal rights in wages and career opportunities for women, demonstrating gender equality (SDG 5) in the sector. The FM sector has done well by adopting relevant technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), and so on, as parts of the sector’s smart building agenda to support the realization of SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) (IFMEC, 2018). In addition, they observe that the FM sector can contribute to the realization of SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) by promoting policies and practices that source food and other resources through sustainable and circular procurement strategies to ensure that only healthy products (eco-friendly) with no or minimum damage to health and the environment are used in the FM sector. For example, the FM sector should only buy wood-related products with a sustainable certificate to prevent the loss of biodiversity (Goal 15 - life on land, biodiversity). Such policies and actions will lower the sector’s CO2 emission and carbon footprint (Goal 13 - climate action), which could be absorbed into oceans and seas (Goal 14 - life below water), which is critical for the planet. The FM sector works in partnership with people, organizations and authorities (Goal 17 - partnership for the goals) to maintain safety and security (Goal 16 - peace, justice and strong institution) in and around building facility (IFMEC, 2018).

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals  445 Facility managers are urged to focus on the long-term environmental impact of business decisions as opposed to short-term maintenance issues of buildings. The heart of the SFM practice is the creation of net-zero energy buildings and the provision of innovative energy utilization solutions in existing building stock. These include integrating data-driven management technologies such as AI, IoT and machine learning (ML), adopting the circular economy concept by recycling plastic, the use of compost waste for landscaping, and delivering relevant waste-to-energy projects. Building automation through the use of smart technology in retail premises, offices and residential communities will result in efficient operation of building facility. To ensure effective implementation of sustainability in the FM sector, training the workforce on best sustainability practices, policies, and procedures, and raising awareness among end-users, is essential. Sustainability practices should be incorporated into FM operations and functions, such as reducing water usage through the installation of automated toilets, waterless urinals, low flow, the use of locally grown food, waste disposal and recycling, and the use of space management practices, such as hot-desking (Berardi, 2013).

LINKING FM KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO SUSTAINABLE FACILITY MANAGEMENT AND THE SDGs How are the KPIs of FM related to the SDGs? Lok et al. (2021) addressed the importance of measuring and quantifying SFM on outsourcing services through KPIs. The future of FM was influenced by society’s need for improving efficiency following the economic crisis of the mid-1970s and the evolvement of new public management (Klungseth, 2015). Haugen and Klungseth (2017) explained that since its conception, FM has focused on productivity, and, from the late 1980s, one crucial topic for discussion has been the efficiency of FM services related to their quality. Nowadays, the focus is also on cost control, customer satisfaction and service quality through digital technology and how it is applied in FM. The effectiveness and efficiency of SFM are considered to have an impact on productivity in offices. Poor FM practices cannot positively impact the client’s productivity (Ikediashi et al., 2012). It is valuable to measure users’ satisfaction, comfort, and productivity (Fleming, 2004). Hou et al. (2016) claimed that comprehensive strategic planning and effective budget analysis are key to improving FM performance and relationships. European organizations have recently focused on cost efficiency, procedures improvement and headcount reduction (Ernst and Young, 2013). Quantifiable and measurable indicators are necessary as Pintelon and Puyvelde (1997) suggested that performance metrics are mostly ratios demonstrating effectiveness, efficiency, or productivity. More research studies in providing quantifiable KPIs for strategic decision-making in organizations are vital (Shohet, 2003). The performance indicators to measure facility and/or organizations need to be quantifiable to make valid analysis and references (Augenbroe and Park, 2005; Cable and Davis, 2004; Chan et al., 2001; Gumbus, 2005; Ho et al., 2000; Shohet, 2003; Tsang et al., 1999). For example, advanced quantifiable and measurable methodology with digitalization technology such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) is used to measure the performance metrics of FM outsourcing services (Lok et al., 2021). In the daily operational process, the AI approach using ANN can quantify and measure the intangible FM outsourcing services objectively and robustly (Lok et al., 2020).

446  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Among major facility performance measurement practices are benchmarking, the balanced scorecard approach, post-occupancy evaluation and measurement through metrics of KPIs (Lavy et al., 2014). To express the performance of the facility holistically, developing performance metrics is an imperative step in the performance evaluation process (Amaratunga et al., 2000a; Brackertz, 2006; Cable and Davis, 2004; Lebas, 1995; Varcoe, 1996). Cable and Davis (2004) critically asserted that the senior management team can make strategic decisions for performance measurement by using established KPIs. This is the cause and effect between KPIs and high-quality service performance. It is also believed that KPIs can measure the effectiveness of FM services even if SDGs are applied. However, there is a little in-depth discussion on the association of FM KPIs to SFM and SDGs. Measurement of FM Services by Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) The measurement of performance as KPIs depends on who actually uses the performance assessment (e.g., executives, managers or supervisors), the public or private nature of the organization, the assessment objectives (financial, functional, or physical) and prevailing trends in the industry (Amaratunga et al., 2000b; Cable and Davis, 2004; Cripps, 1998; Eagan and Joeres, 1997; Hinks, 2004; Lebas, 1995]. Lavy et al. (2010) list four KPIs in FM: financial, functional, physical and user satisfaction. For instance, the financial category of KPIs may include operating, occupancy, utility, and capital costs of FM outsourcing services. The functional category includes building physical condition, resource consumption—energy, water, property and real estate, waste, health and safety, indoor environmental quality, and security of FM outsourcing services. The physical category includes productivity and space utilization of FM outsourcing services. The user satisfaction category includes customer/building occupants’ satisfaction with products or services of FM outsourcing services. Lavy et al. (2014a) claimed that the current assessment of facility performance measurement emphasizes financial aspects such as business, organizational goals, job satisfaction, work environment, environmental issues, and also other non-financial qualitative aspects in a detailed manner holistically. It is generally accepted that the FM services can be assessed by both non-financial aspects and financial qualitative aspects of KPIs through the utilization and implementation of ISO FM standards. Non-financial qualitative aspects Mendell and Heath (2004) addressed Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) of a building as a primary concern today as it reflects and influences the health and well-being of its occupants. According to Fowler et al. (2005), IEQ has major impacts on occupant health and productivity and eventually could adversely influence occupants’ turnover rate, absenteeism, and satisfaction. Furthermore, IEQ-related problems possess economic implications, as Prakash (2005) suggested that IEQ-related problems, such as sick building syndrome, other building-related illnesses, and absenteeism result in increased costs. Kockat et al. (2018) explained that buildings can efficiently operate with high indoor environmental quality and facilitation on digitalization of knowledge-sharing. Digitization of the built environment is considered as a significant factor for innovation in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operation sector (Mannino et al., 2021). Improved IEQ performance of a facility enhances the satisfaction and productivity level of its occupants (Fisk, 2000; Ford, 2006; Fowler et al., 2005; Heath and Mendell, 2002; Mozaffarian, 2008; Prakash, 2005). An enhanced IEQ

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals  447 increases productivity and reduces the financial burden and enhances confidence in the organization’s ability to provide a safe, comfortable and healthy atmosphere (Fowler et al., 2005; Mozaffarian, 2008; Prakash, 2005). Mendell and Heath (2004) concluded that the performance of students in school or non-school indoor atmospheres demonstrates a direct relationship to indoor pollutants, thermal comfort and building characteristics because of health-related problems. Bakker and Van der Voordt (2010) and Smith, Tucker and Pitt (2011) discovered that plants can positively impact human productivity. Those studies indicate that the non-financial qualitative aspects of the IEQ relate to Lavy et al.’s (2010) three KPIs in FM: functional, physical and user satisfaction. The issue of indoor environmental quality has direct impacts on the quality of all kinds of FM services. Financial aspects FM provides supportive services to core businesses for companies (CEN, 2006) such as infrastructure maintenance, equipment repair, and so on. Companies (especially large ones) that are faced with the challenge of maximizing business productivity and reducing costs are increasingly considering outsourcing their non-core activities such as FM (Maechling and Bredeson, 2005). Cui and Coenen (2016) argued that FM service suppliers can add potential value in this dimension by improving employees’ productivity, increasing user satisfaction, and innovating customers’ business processes in business relationships. Haugen (2003) explained the client–supplier model regarding long-term gains in productivity. The client–supplier model had a greater focus on the core business of the local authorities and was anticipated to reduce organizations’ administrative and operational aspects. From the perspective of FM, KPIs of FM can be used to measure the FM performance. Lavy et al. (2014b) explained that the current assessment of facility performance measurement emphasizes financial aspects. Productivity Clements-Croome and Kaluarachchi (2000) discussed the occupant productivity measurement and how the various factors that affect it can be quantified into measurable entities. Other factors affect productivity; Bradley (2002) proposed that the business measures that can be derived from the balanced scorecard, and are specific to real estate and workplace, are as follows: space utilization, process speed and quality, waste levels. Productivity is generally defined as the ratio of output (produced goods and services) and input (consumed resources/ corresponding offers) in the production transformation process (Oeij, 2012; Tangen, 2002; Van der Voordt, 2004). As a result, productivity is closely linked to the available resources; this means that productivity is reduced if the resources are not used properly or if there is a lack of appropriate resources. On the other hand, productivity is strongly linked to the creation of value. This means that high productivity is obtained when adding value to the produced goods and services in the production transformation process (Tangen, 2002). The built environment has incontrovertible effects not only on the health, safety, and productivity of building occupants, but also on the elemental systems ecology of the natural world (Lavy, 2014b). It is widely understood that measurable and quantifiable efficiency of the built environment can affect the FM performance. The SDGs can help to objectively quantify the added value of FM to the core business and the global FM industry, including impact of ISO standards and stakeholders (clients, service providers and researchers). The chapter also defines and identifies the challenges of adopting the SDGs in the FM sector.

448  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO THE ADOPTION OF THE SDGs IN THE FM SECTOR SDGs have become prevalent and facility managers can use the standards to truly improve their operational services. However, the FM sector is also encountering potential barriers to the implementation of the SDGs. Both sustainability and security/emergency management have gained such an organizational tailwind that, if managed properly, they will be at the forefront of all facility managers’ practices (Roper and Richard, 2014). This section explains sustainable development in terms of FM in the context of this research and why this may be related to the SFM and SDGs. Recent studies in sustainability research (Olawumi and Chan, 2018), focus on various subject categories such as green and sustainable technology and construction and building technology. They also observe that the emerging research and global trends in sustainability research are in the areas of sustainable urban development, sustainability indicators, environmental assessment, and public policy. Nielsen et al. (2016) provide an overview of theoretical and practical knowledge which can guide: how to systematically document and measure the performance of building operations in terms of environmental, social and economic impacts such as sustainability tools and standards. The categorized FM KPIs in terms of each of the environmental, social, and economic strands are derived from SFM. In other words, the KPIs regarding SFM can be significantly linked by sustainable development. However, the global development of SFM is sluggish. SFM and the SDGs are not good happenings currently. There are possible risks referring to the four perspectives of FM KPIs: finance, function, physics, and user satisfaction. Financial Perspective Brackertz (2004) aims to provide facilities that are economically sustainable and are affordable to the community, including service cost and building cost. In fact, various kinds of businesses such as the IT mobile industry, banking, and financing organizations are suitable for implementing the new FM international SDGs, especially international companies or organizations. However, they may consider these goals not a top priority or even as not important and may be unwilling to invest substantial finance and resources in implementing the standards. The fact is that most organizations already have implemented various ISO management system standards, such as 9001, 14001, 55001 and so on. In many cases, the added value of goals is not directly seen and the business case for implementing yet another management system is not positive. As long as the primary focus for FM is on cost reduction instead of creating strategic value, this issue will remain (Lok and Baldry, 2015). Physical Perspective Brackertz (2004) aims to provide buildings that are fit for the purpose for which they are being used, including building condition, maintenance, compliance, risk and duty of care, IT capability and flexibility. Some traditional FM practitioners perhaps do not understand or neglect or pay little attention to the importance of new FM international SDGs to their assets of companies or organizations and their steps are behind the global schedule. Generally, long-established companies consider that they can run their business as effectively without the SDGs. The fact is that ISO FM practitioners are still pushing the relevant SDGs. The

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals  449 ISO 41001 Annex (“Guidance on the use of this document”) facilitates productive use of the standard, explaining and listing specifically functions to assign and assess. Each organization and each solution is different, but the universal framework applies to all (Reynolds, 2022). However, some traditional FM practitioners have shown little interest in the importance of the SDGs to their business. This has an adverse impact on the productivity of the FM services on the global track. Functional Perspective Brackertz (2004) aims to provide facilities that are available to the community at times of demand and that are well used including opening hours, user numbers, capacity and demand by the utilization perspective, and aims to provide facilities that are environmentally sustainable including rating scheme, energy management, recycling, waste management and building materials by the environmental perspective. Facility users or operators from various businesses may consider these SDGs not a top priority or even as unimportant in the life cycle of building assets. The SDGs can develop a new environmental ecosystem for the industry globally. If companies are willing to join and utilize the new digitalized technique for the data under appropriate governance measures, the stakeholders may have sufficient incentive and financial support to overcome potential economic and/or social challenges (Linkov et al., 2018). All the stakeholders’ investments are sustainable with extra finance, resources, and technology during the process. All the financial and non-financial problems can be constituted as barriers to the environment. This is a competition on the functional category whether the companies can have a positive return and better productivity after overcoming the implementation of the SDGs. User Satisfaction Perspective Insufficient data and information can affect the digitalized development of FM (Mannino et al., 2021). Perhaps the existence of psychological obstacles for individuals or communities leads to the FM practitioners not understanding or neglecting the importance of new FM technology and development for the benefit of their companies or organizations. They may be unwilling to put effort into the development of SDGs in their businesses. The problem is that they cannot understand the need and expectations of the users in terms of SDGs. Users’ experience cannot be satisfied. Individuals may have their own problems in facing the SDGs. Questions include “How to change the FM to SDGs around the FM world?” “How to make the FM people understand the importance of SDGs on the business?” “How to connect the FM people understanding the importance of new FM Sustainable development goals to their services?”. The FM practitioners perhaps do not consider AI or any advanced computing such as machine learning or techniques that can help and support their FM business (Lok et al., 2022). These professionals still use their traditional mindsets to operate and run their existing businesses. They do not believe that SDGs can improve or make more success for their business. They are afraid of new technology or even object to any change with the use of new things. However, understanding FM SDGs may help them to update their mindset. The general user satisfaction experience cannot be achieved because of the lack of experience in services on SDGs. Standardized and strategic level support is crucial for the smooth adoption of sustainable FM practices and processes.

450  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

THE ROLE OF FACILITY MANAGEMENT IN ACHIEVING THE SDGs From the two perspectives of function and user satisfaction, new SDGs are useful and beneficial to the FM community for their reference and use. The goals can be achieved to maintain the quality and improve the FM services in the built environment systematically if risks can be managed. It is understood that the SDGs are not adopted as quickly and widely as expected. The barriers that are considered are at the fringe of FM, where FM can make further horizontal managerial connections with other business columns such as IT, HR and so on, especially when discussing SFM. SFM and implementation of SDGs for FM are necessary to the industry. From a financial perspective, one potential driving demand for organizations towards the adoption of SFM could be the possibility of objectively benchmarking FM organizations. SDGs can also aid in avoiding unnecessary effort/costs (waste) for both the demand and FM organization when trying to have IT systems communicate with one another. Especially when a demand organization has multiple service providers in multiple geographical locations and/ or a FM organization has multiple clients. SFM can also provide ways to make interfaces effective and lean. From a physical perspective, risks could be a perceived lack of power or influence by SFM if FM goes this way, another could be the lack of technical knowledge and insight by FM professionals and lack of long-term or strategic thinking abilities in FM.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This chapter is an initiative to discuss the SDGs throughout the FM world. Although these have been emphasized in relation to SFM, the FM professionals will inevitably need to solve different and new problems while implementing these goals. Through more effectively and efficiently applying the new innovative international SDGs, academics and FM professionals can understand and use SFM. The SDGs can provide the possibility for easing access between sustainable management and FM systems. In addition, it is important to reduce waste sustainably. According to the literature review, several FM KPIs affecting SFM and FM SDGs were identified, including function, user experience, physical and finance. To address some of these issues, FM research has emerged in productivity, efficiency, customer service, resource allocation, assets, and cost. In this sense, we organized this chapter into two sections: the first provided a review of FM KPIs. The second section focused on the discussion of the implementation of SFM and FM SDGs. In the end, we should reiterate that understanding the implementation of SFM and FM SDGs not only leads to cost and resource efficiency gains but also elevates users’ satisfaction by increasing the quality and reliability of FM services. We have identified several areas that need an update and further research. The development of SFM and implementation of SDGs for FM should be systematically linked through an integrated model that considers the criticality of services, from the four FM perspectives including function, user experience, physics and finance for these services. Further, SFM should go beyond assessing the performance based on the functionality of FM services and link the FM services to its impact and contribution to the efficiency and effectiveness of the routine daily operations in the building assets. In addition, implementing SDGs for FM, owing to its criticality of services, should involve adopting availability-based strategies, currently in practice in the global FM industry, to ensure service continuity while avoiding

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals  451 over-expectation or under-expectation of efficiencies. However, the limitations of this study are that the research is based only on literature reviews on recent FM-related and published SDGs and the narrow viewpoints of the researchers. The existing outcome is rather limited. To have more generalized results or outcomes, conducting a large-scale research survey or research on SFM and implementing the new FM international SDGs is recommended. This chapter contributes to the FM industry by making recommendations for improvement in the use of SDGs on sustainability. In summary, the significance of this chapter is that sustainable FM offers both possibilities and problems to the application of the new recognized international SDGs in the FM industry. Recommendations The link between FM KPIs and SDGs is still unclear from the physical perspective. Risks could be a perceived lack of power or influence by technical knowledge if FM goes this way, another could be the lack of insight by FM professionals and lack of long-term or strategic thinking abilities in FM. The risks encountered relate to the new strategic role for FM (ISO41001 series) and ringing new digital, data and technology within the realm of FM (ISO41016), and use of these standards could help to mitigate the risks. The introduction of SDGs for FM must be beneficial to the international FM industry. However, the success of the SDGs should not only depend on the efforts of the FM members but also most importantly on the application of the SDGs by the international FM community. Without the use of the SDGs on daily FM services, the power of the SDGs cannot be developed, and the FM services cannot be comprehensively improved. The challenges in developing SDGs for FM are the two perspectives of function and user satisfaction. The SDGs are useful and beneficial to the FM community for their reference and use. The SDGs can be used not only to maintain the quality but also to improve the FM services in the built environment systematically if risks can be managed. It is understood that the SDGs are not adopted as quickly and widely as expected. The barriers that are considered are at the fringe of FM, where FM can make further horizontal managerial connections with other business columns such as IT and HR, especially when discussing SDGs. SDGs for FM are necessary to the industry.

REFERENCES Abigo, A., Madgwick, D., Gidado, K. and Okonji, S. (2012). “Embedding sustainable facilities management in the management of public buildings in Nigeria”, In EPPM 2012, pp. 369–380, University of Brighton. Aceves-Avila, C.D. and Berger-García, M.A. (2019). “Sustainable facility management in higher education institutions”, In Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, Leal Filho, W., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Germany. Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M. (2000a). “Assessment of facility management performance in higher education properties”, Facility, Vol. 18, pp. 293–301. Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M. (2000b). “Assessment of facility management performance— What next?”, Facility, Vol. 18, pp. 66–75. Atkin, B. and Bildsten, L. (2017). “A future for facility management”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 17, Issue: 2, pp.  116–124, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​CI​-11​-2016​-0059 Augenbroe, G. and Park, C.S. (2005). “Quantification methods of technical building performance”, Building Resources Information, Vol. 33, pp. 159–172.

452  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Baaki Kurannen, T., Rizal Baharum, M. and Shah Ali, A. (2016). “A review of sustainable facilities management knowledge and practice”, University of Malaysia, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Bakker, I. and van der Voordt T. (2010). “The influence of plants on productivity: A critical assessment of research findings and test methods”, Facility, Vol. 28, pp. 416–439. Berardi, U. (2013). “Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems”, Environment Development Sustainability, Vol. 15, pp. 1573–1591. Birkel, Hendrik S., Veile, Johannes W., Müller, Julian M., Hartmann, E. and Voigt, Kai-I. (2019). “Development of a risk framework for industry 4.0 in the context of sustainability for established manufacturers”, Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 384. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su11020384 Brackertz, N. (2004). “A framework for the strategic management of facilities, balancing physical and financial considerations with service, customer, utilisation and environmental requirements”, paper presented at Pacific RimReal Estate Conference: International Property Investment, Windsor SuiteHotel, Bangkok. Brackertz, N. (2006). “Relating physical and service performance in local government community facility”, Facilities, Vol. 24, pp. 280–291. Bradley, S. (2002). “What’s working? Briefing and evaluating workplace performance improvement”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 4, pp. 150–159. British Standards Institution (2018). “Facility management – Management systems – Requirements with guidance for use (ISO 41001:2018)”, UK. British Standards Institution (2022). “Digitize, digitalize, digital transformation”, available at: https://​ www​.bsigroup​.com/​en​-GB/​blog/​Built​-Environment​-Blog/​digitize​-digitalize​-digital​-transformation/​ (accessed 11 February 2022). Brochner, J., Haugen, T. and Lindkvist, C. (2019). “Shaping tomorrow’s facility management”, Facilities, Vol. 37, pp. 366–380. Buser, M., Støre-Valen, M., Olsen, E.B., Straub, M. and Lauridsen, K.A. (2018). “Improving the implementation of sustainable facility management: The role of end-users in realising energy efficient solutions”, In Proceedings of the 17th EuroFM Research Symposium EFMC, EuroFM, Sofia, Bulgaria. Available online: https://​www​.semanticscholar​.org/​paper/​Improving​-the​-implementation​ -of​-sustainable​-the​-of​-Buser​-St​%C3​%B8re​-Valen/​3dfcfb5462​83bc205703​c89c1b96088ed66e263b (accessed 1 February 2022). Cable, J.H. and Davis, J.S. (2004). “Key Performance Indicators for Federal Facility Portfolios, Federal Facility Council Technical Report 147”, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. CEN. (2006). “Facility Management—Part 1: Terms and Definitions”; NSAI, Dublin, Ireland. Chan, K.T., Lee, R.H.K. and Burnett, J. (2001). “Maintenance performance: A case study of hospitality engineering systems”, Facility, Vol. 19, pp. 494–503. Clements-Croome, D. and Kaluarachchi, Y. (2000). “Assessment and measurement of productivity”, In Creating the Productive Workplace; Clements-Croome, D.”, Ed. E&FN Spon, London, UK, pp. 129–166. Collins, D., Haugen, T., Lindkvist, C. and Aamodt, C. (2019). “Bridging the gap between sustainable FM and sustainable buildings—An exploratory study of six public buildings in Norway”, Facility, Vol. 37, pp. 639–652. Cripps, S. (1998). “Calgary K-12 District benefits from the Facility management evaluation program”, Facility Management Magazine, Vol. 14, pp. 27–33. Cui, Y.Y. and Coenen, C. (2016). “Relationship value in outsourced FM services–value dimensions and drivers”, Facility, Vol. 34, pp. 43–68. Eagan, P.D. and Joeres, E. (1997). “Development of a facility-based environmental performance indicator related to sustainable development”, Journal of Clean Production, Vol. 5, pp. 269–278. Elmualim. A., Valle, R. and Kwawu, W. (2012). “Discerning policy and drivers for sustainable facility management practice”, Journal of Sustainability Built Environment, Vol. 1, pp. 16–25. Elmualim, A.A., Czwakiel, A., Valle, C.R., Ludlow, G. and Shah, S. (2009). “The practice of sustainable facility management: Design sentiments and the knowledge chasm”, Architectural Engineering Design Management, Vol. 5, pp. 91–102. Ernest & Young (2013). “Outsourcing in Europe: An In-depth Review of Drivers, Risks, and Trends in The European Outsourcing Market”, EYGM Limited, London, UK.

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals  453 European Digital SME Alliance (2022). Sustainable facility management [online], Available at: https://​www​.digitalsme​.eu/​what​-is​-sustainable​-digitalisation/​#:​~:​text​=​Sustainable​%20digitalisation​ %20aims​%20to​%20support​,to​%20strengthen​%20European​%20digital​%20sovereignty (accessed 28 February 2022). Fisk, W.J. (2000). “Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their implications for the US Department of Energy”, In Proceedings of the E-Vision 2000 Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 11–13 October. Fleming, D. (2004). “Facility management: A behavioral approach”, Facility, Vol. 22, pp. 35–43. Ford, S.A., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D. and Huizenga, C. (2006). “Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings”, Healthy Bldgs, Vol. 3, pp. 365–370. Fowler, K.M., Solana, A.E. and Spees, K. (2005). “Building Cost and Performance Metrics: Data Collection Protocol”, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA, USA. George, O. (2022). Research companion to construction economics, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK. Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Tookey, J., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Azhar, S., Efimova, O. and Raahemifar, K. (2017). “Building Information Modelling (BIM) uptake: Clear benefits, understanding its implementation, risks and challenges”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 75, pp.  1046–1053, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.rser​.2016​.11​.083 Gumbus, A. (2005). “Introducing the balanced scorecard: Creating metrics to measure performance”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 29, pp. 617–630. Haugen, T. and Klungseth, N.J. (2017). “In-house or outsourcing FM services in the public sector—A review of 25 years of research and development”, Journal of Facility Management, Vol. 15, pp. 262–284. Haugen, T. (2003), “Norway: Contracting out property and facility services in Norwegian municipalities”, The Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, Vol. 1, pp. 52–70. Heath, G.A. and Mendell, M.J. (2002). “Do indoor environments in schools influence student performance? A review of literature. In Air 2002 Conference, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate”, International Academy of Indoor Air Sciences: Herndon, Monterey, CA, USA, 30 June–5 July, pp. 802–807. Hinks, J. (2004). “Business-related performance measures for Facility management”. In Facility Management: Innovation and Performance; Alexander, K., Atkin, B., Brochner, J., Haugen, T., Eds. SPON Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 97–107. Ho, D.C.H., Chan, E.H.W., Wong, N.Y. and Chan, M. (2000). “Significant metrics for facility management benchmarking in the Asia Pacific region”, Facility, Vol. 18, pp. 545–555. Hou, H., Ho, D., Chung, J.K.H. and Wong, K.K.W. (2016). “Tight budget constraints and the absence of strategic planning—an exploratory analysis of FM service outsourcing”, Facilities, Vol. 34, p.8. IFMEC (2018). “Facility Management Approach to Realizing the Sustainable Development Goals”, International Facility Management Expert Centre (IFMEC), Roden, The Netherlands. Ikediashi, D.I., Ogunlana, S.O. and Boateng, P. (2012). “Analysis of risks associated with facility management outsourcing”, Journal of Facility Management, Vol. 10, pp. 301–316. International Organization for Standardization (2018). Contributing to the UN sustainable development goals with ISO standards, Switzerland. International Organization for Standardization (2022a). “Working Group for TC 267, Strategy and Planning”, available at: https://​committee​.iso​.org/​home/​tc267 (accessed 11 February 2022). International Organization for Standardization (2022b). “How Sustainable Development Goals help meet the SDGS”, available at: https://​www​.iso​.org/​sdgs​.html (accessed 23 June 2022). ISO 41001 (2018). “Facility management – Management systems – Requirements with guidance for use”, available at: https://​www​.iso​.org/​obp/​ui/​#iso:​std:​iso:​41001:​ed​-1:​v1:​en Jeffrey, D. S., Guillaume Lafortune, Christian Kroll, Grayson Fuller, and Finn Woelm (2022). “Sustainable development report 2022”, TJ Books Limited, Padstow Cornwall, United Kingdom. Klungseth, N.J. (2015). “Cleaning Services in Local Authorities. Ph.D. Thesis”, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway, available at: https://​hdl​.handle​.net/​11250/​ 2364934 (accessed 17 September 2016).

454  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Kockat, J., Dorizas, P. V., Volt, J., Staniaszek, D. (2018). Building 4 people: Quantifying the benefits of energy renovation investments in schools, offices and hospitals, Buildings Performance Institute Europe, Nov. Kwawu, W. and Elmualim, A. (2011). “Sustainability in facility management: A review of drivers and policy issues”, In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, Bristol, UK, 5–7 September; Egbu, C., Lou, E.C.W., Eds.; Association of Researchers in Construction Management: Reading, UK, pp. 1185–1194. Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A. and Dixit, M. (2010). “Establishment of KPIs for facility performance measurement: Review of literature”, Facilities, Vol. 28, pp. 440–464. Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A. and Dixit, M. (2014a). “KPIs for facility’s performance assessment, Part I: Identification and categorization of core indicators”, Facility, Vol. 32, pp. 256–274. Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A. and Dixit, M. (2014b). “KPIs for facility’s performance assessment, Part II: Identification of variables and deriving expressions for core indicators”, Facility, Vol. 32, pp. 275–294. Lebas, M.J. (1995). “Performance measurement and performance management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 41, pp. 23–35. Lee, J. Y. and Kang, M. (2013). “Innovation characteristics and intention to adopt sustainable facility management practices”, Ergonomics, Vol. 56, pp. 480–491. Linkov, I., Trump, B. D., Poinsatte-Jones, K. and Florin, M. V. (2018), “Governance strategies for a sustainable digital world”, Sustainability, 10, no. 2, 440. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su10020440 Lok, K. L. and Baldry, D. (2015). “Facility management outsourcing relationships in the higher education institutes”, Facility, Vol. 33, No. 13/14, pp. 819–48. Lok, K. L., Opoku, A. and Baldry, D. (2018). “Design of sustainable outsourcing services for facility management: Critical success factors”, Sustainability, Vol. 10, Iss 7, pp. 2292–2307. Lok, K. L., So, A., Opoku, A. and Chen, C. (2021). “A sustainable facility management outsourcing relationships system: Artificial neural networks”, Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 9, p. 4740, https://​doi​ .org/​10​.3390/​su13094740 Lok, K L, So, A., Opoku, A. and Chen, C. (2022). “A sustainable artificial intelligence facility management outsourcing relationships system: Case studies”, Frontier Psychology, 13:920625. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.3389/​fpsyg​.2022​.920625 Lok, K. L., So, A., Opoku, A. and Song, H. (2020). “Globalized service providers’ perspective for facility management outsourcing relationships: Artificial neural networks”, Management Decision, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp.  134–151, doi​.org/​10​.1108/​MD​-01​-2019​-0102 Maechling, T. and Bredeson, J. (2005). “Discovering value in outsourcing facility management”, Biopharm International, Vol. 18, pp. 66–72. Mannino, A., Dejaco, M. C. and Re Cecconi, F. (2021) “Building information modelling and internet of things integration for facility management—Literature review and future needs”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 7, p. 3062. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​app11073062 Manuele, F. A. (2009). “Leading & lagging indicators: Do they add value to the practice of safety?”, Professional Safety, December, pp. 28–33. Mendell, M.J. and Heath, G.A. (2004). “Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature”, Indoor Air, Vol. 15, pp. 27–52. Mozaffarian, R. (2008). “Life-Cycle Indoor Air Quality Comparisons between LEED Certified and Non-LEED Certified Buildings, Master’s Thesis”, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Nielsen, S. B. and Galamba, K. R. (2010). “Facility management – When sustainable development is core business”, In 9th EuroFM Research Symposium, EFMC: Madrid, Spain. Nielsen, S.B., Jensen, J.O. and Jensen, P.A. (2009). “Delivering sustainable facility management in Danish housing estates”, In Proceedings of the CIMNE 2009 international conference on Sustainability Measurement and Modelling, Barcelona, Spain, 5–6 November. Nielsen, S.B., Sarasoja, A.L. and Galamba, K.R. (2016). "Sustainability in facility management: An overview of current research", Facilities, Vol. 34 No. 9/10, pp. 535–563. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​F​ -07​-2014​-0060 Oeij, P.R.A., de Looze, M.P., ten Have, K., van Rijhn, J.W. and de Graaf, H.A.L.M. (2012). “From productivity strategy to business case: Choosing a cost-effective intervention for workplace innovations”, Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra: The Business and Economics Research Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 171–184.

Sustainable facility management practices and the sustainable development goals  455 Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2018). “A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 183, pp. 231–250. Opoku, A. and Lee, J.Y. (2022). “Editorial: The future of facility management: Managing facility for sustainable development.” Sustainability, Vol. 14, p. 1705. Pintelon, L. and Puyvelde, F.V. (1997). “Maintenance performance reporting systems: Some experiences”, Journal of Quality Maintenance and Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 4–15. Prakash, P. (2005). “Effect of indoor environmental quality on occupant’s perception of performance: A comparative study. Master’s Thesis”, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Radebe, S. and Ozumba, A.O.U. (2021). “Challenges of implementing sustainable facility management in higher institutions of learning”, In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK. Reynolds, D. (2022). Facility Management - ISO 41000 Series in Brief with Emphasis on ISO 41001, Global Facility Management Alliance. Roper, K.O. and Richard, P. (2014). “The Facility Management Handbook”, AMACOM, New York, NY, USA. Shohet, I.M. (2003). “Building evaluation methodology for setting maintenance priorities in hospital buildings”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 681–692. Smith, A., Tucker, M., Pitt, M. (2011). “Healthy, productive workplaces: Towards a case for interior plantscaping.” Facility, Vol. 29, No. 5/6. Tangen, S. (2002). “A Theoretical Foundation for Productivity Measurement and Improvement of Automatic Assembly Systems. Licentiate Thesis”, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Tsang, A.H.C., Jardine, A.K.S. and Kolodny, H. (1999). “Measuring maintenance performance: A holistic approach”, International Journal of Operational Production and Management, Vol. 19, pp. 691–715. Tucker, M. (2013). “Sustainable Facility Management, in Total Sustainability in the Built Environment”, Cotgrave, A., Riley, M., Eds., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Van der Voordt, T.J. (2004). “Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 6, pp. 133–148. Varcoe, B.J. (1996), “Facility performance measurement”, Facility, Vol. 14, pp. 46–51. Versteeg, K., Bigelow, P., Dale, A. M. and Chaurasia, A. (2019). “Utilizing construction safety leading and lagging indicators to measure project safety performance: A case study”, Safety Science, Vol. 120, December 2019, pp.  411–421, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.ssci​.2019​.06​.035 Wong, J. K. W., Ge, J. and He, S. X. (2018). “Digitisation in facility management: A literature review and future research directions”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 92, August, pp. 312–326.

PART V PARTNERSHIP, BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

26. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda in the built environment Sulafa Badi and Mohamed Alhosani

INTRODUCTION Governments working alone cannot complete the complex goals of sustainable development. Therefore, working with the private sector is essential to construct a robust public-private partnership (PPP) foundation for sustainable development (Ojelabi et al., 2018). Sustainable infrastructural development can contribute substantially to the United Nations (UN) Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) as the sustainability of the built environment has a long-term impact on the standard of living, the economy, the health, and the welfare of people and the environment (Opoku, 2016). Governments have traditionally developed infrastructure projects using public funds; however, limited public capital and a lack of managerial expertise in government departments have increased the use of alternative procurement mechanisms to construct and maintain infrastructure projects (Shen et al., 2016). Governments have identified PPP worldwide as an appropriate sustainable method for creating, financing, and supplying public infrastructure and services (Roehrich et al., 2014). Fiscal limitations, bureaucratic inefficiencies in government projects, increased demand for public services amid a growing population, and robust economic growth have all contributed to the trend toward PPP arrangements (Ikpefan, 2010). Notably, the world faces a glaring gap of $18 trillion in infrastructure investments by 2040, projected between $79 trillion and the $97 trillion needed to provide adequate global infrastructure (Mansaray et al., 2022). As a result, the role of PPPs in providing high-quality infrastructure to address chronic infrastructure gaps, expand access to finance, allow off-balance-sheet financing, promote innovation, and assist in risk shifting becomes critical (Mohieldin, 2018). The primary role of the private sector in providing instrumental economic, environmental, and social value via PPPs has been strategically linked with the need to accomplish the SDGs (Wang and Ma, 2021). PPPs should be based on an equally integrated approach as the SDGs: each component of the triple bottom line of economic, environmental, and social sustainability must be pursued as an essential element of the whole, or a sustainable outcome would be difficult to attain (Mohieldin, 2018). Recognising these, the collaboration or partnerships is incorporated within the UN SDGs as a stand-alone goal – SDG 17, “partnering for the goals” (Duane et al., 2021). Numerous countries and experts have recognised PPP promotion by the UN as a possible instrument for sustainable development and have created an impetus in global focus towards PPP as a suitable means to accomplishing sustainable development (Dumitriu and Ahmed, 2018; Wang and Ma, 2021). Furthermore, progress on the SDGs was made at a rate of 0.5 points per year from 2015 to 2019, which was insufficient to meet the 2030 deadline (Sachs et al., 2022). Since 2019, multiple crises, including the COVID-19 pan457

458  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals demic and the war in Ukraine, have shifted the focus of policies and governmental priorities. Notably, a decline in the progress of SDGs has been recorded, which necessitates the prioritisation of recovery plans and reforms to accelerate SDG progress in all countries (Sachs et al., 2022). Under these conditions, PPPs provide an alternative path to overcoming the limitations of dominant traditional procurements by increasing the efficiency and sustainability of public infrastructure provisions such as energy, transportation, water, telecommunications, education and healthcare (World Bank, 2022a). This chapter aims to validate the notion of PPPs in the built environment by examining how PPPs can help achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in the present and the future. The chapter investigates the concept of PPP by providing a brief history and exploring models, scope, and levels of PPP arrangements across the globe. It then presents a synthesis of findings on PPPs performance by analysing the benefits and challenges of executing PPPs in the built environment. The significance of partnerships, particularly SDG 17, in achieving the SDGs is then examined while discussing the role of the private sector in this endeavour. The chapter also outlines key enabling aspects to enhance future efforts to develop successful PPPs and propose directions for future scholarly research.

THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (PPPs) Having a unified definition for PPPs is challenging as the spectrum, and types of PPPs are vast (Akintoye et al., 2015). The standard features or characteristics of existing definitions can be coined to define a PPP as any long-term contract between a public and a private entity through which the two organisations collaborate to provide traditional public services. The public and private sectors jointly develop the products and services and share risks, costs, and resources associated with these products and services, allowing public and private partners to capitalise on each other’s advantages and mitigate disadvantages (Berrone et al., 2019; Dumitriu and Ahmed, 2018; Dykes and Uzuegbunam, 2022; Hodge and Greve, 2011). The World Bank defines PPP as a long-term contract between a private party and a government entity, for providing a public asset or service, in which the private party bears significant risk and management responsibility, and remuneration is linked to performance (World Bank, 2014, p. 1). Simply put, the public sector allocates the responsibility for the design, financing, construction, and management of public infrastructure to the private sector to achieve optimal long-term value for money (VfM) goals (Wang and Ma, 2021). PPPs seek to maximise the attainment of all parties’ aims by utilising synergies through creatively integrating their resources, knowledge and expertise (Jomo et al., 2016). PPP is becoming a key component of infrastructure development projects throughout the world because it is thought to be an innovation in public service and public policy that can overcome the typical limitations of public procurement (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022; Dumitriu and Ahmed, 2018; Haque et al., 2020). It counterbalances the public sector’s monopoly and full privatisation, granting both the public and private sectors ownership rights and joint accountability for providing high-quality public infrastructure (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022).

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  459 An Overview of PPP Arrangements from Across the World PPP is not a new concept; its origins may be traced back thousands of years (Jomo et al., 2016). During the Roman Empire, concessions (the most prevalent type of PPP) were used as legal mechanisms for road building, public baths, and market operations (Irina and Veronica, 2022; Jomo et al., 2016). Many infrastructure facilities such as water canals, roads and railroads in Europe, the United States (US), Japan and China have been privately funded under concession contracts since the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Jomo et al., 2016). Although governments have used a combination of public and private ventures throughout history, the early twenty-first century has seen a consistent pattern of governments worldwide extensively utilising various PPP arrangements (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022). The global explosion of the PPP concept was stimulated in the 1990s by the United Kingdom’s (UK) government’s reintroduction and rebranding of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) as a partnership model between the state and the private sector. PFT has significantly boosted the public sector’s private funding of mega infrastructure projects (Akomea-Frimpong et al., 2022a; De Oliveira Sampaio, 2018). A wide range of infrastructural projects, including roads, bridges, railways, airports, seaports, power plants, water supply, telecommunication networks, schools, hospitals, hotels and prisons, have been successfully developed through the adoption of PPPs, with greatly improved value to the outcomes (Anwar et al., 2017; He et al., 2020). Due to differences in growth rates, economic circumstances, financial sector development, and liberalisation, countries worldwide are at various phases of PPP development (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022). The current global leaders in PPP arrangements, the US, UK, France, Australia and Germany, are already in the advanced stages of PPP maturity with a wide range of private equity and elaborate procurement models (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022; Irina and Veronica, 2022; Wang et al., 2018). From 1990 to 2016, around 1,765 PPP contracts were signed in the European Union (EU), with a total capital value of over €356 billion (Akomea-Frimpong et al., 2022a). Within Europe’s PPP agreements, the apparent front-runner is the UK, where up to 80 new deals worth tens of millions of pounds are signed each year, offering up to 17 percent savings to the country’s budget (Irina and Veronica, 2022). In addition, China is currently regarded as the country with the most significant number of PPP projects and the most considerable PPP investment amount in Asia, with more than 10,471 PPP projects valued at approximately 12.46 trillion Yuan (Wang et al., 2018). Despite the urgent need for developing countries to adopt PPPs for infrastructure development, their level of adoption remains relatively low (Ojelabi et al., 2018). In the early stages of PPP growth, most developing nations prioritise establishing a robust legal framework to support PPPs (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018). However, implementing PPPs in emerging countries is challenging due to a lack of professional, impartial, and fair legal environments at the local government level (Wang et al., 2018). The assessment of PPP performance amongst world countries conducted by the World Bank Group under the thematic areas of preparation, procurement, and contract management has shown a trend of higher performance with higher income levels of the group (World Bank, 2020a). PPP success varies across sectors, with PPPs typically more appropriate for economic infrastructures with reasonably consistent demand, such as transportation and power. However, PPPs are far less likely to result in efficiency gains in the social sector, like schools and hospitals, where equity and accessibility are significant concerns (Jomo et al., 2016).

460  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals PPP Models PPPs exist at several levels of government, including regional partnerships between local governments and local private sector firms, partnerships of national governments with national firms, and partnerships of international organisations with multinational firms (Hodge and Greve, 2011). PPPs, sometimes referred to as “Hybrid Value Chains,” are not only limited to bilateral collaboration between a public body and a private entity; they can also include multi-partner frameworks that bring together private businesses with organisations like non-governmental organisations (NGO), university research centres, and foundations (Ferroni and Castle, 2011). PPP projects typically involve three primary partners, including 1) the awarding authority, which is the client from the public sector in charge of project procurement (e.g., a local authority or government department); 2) the project consortium known as the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), which is a limited company formed with the express intent of carrying out the project; and 3) external sources of funding, such as bonds, bank loans, or equity (Alshawi, 2009; Gebre and Demsis, 2022). PPPs lack a clearly defined standard form; instead, a collaboration between public authorities and the corporate world occurs within various organisations with various roles and abilities affected by historical legal precedents (Irina and Veronica, 2022; Oktavianus and Mahani, 2018). The rules of a PPP are often outlined in a contract or agreement to explicitly share risk and specify the obligations of each participant (World Bank, 2022e). The range of PPP agreements is shown in Figure 26.1 (World Bank, 2022e).

Source: Adapted from World Bank (2022e).

Figure 26.1

Spectrum of PPP agreements

The term “management contract” has been used to refer to a variety of contracts where the awarding authority appoints a private operator to manage a variety of activities for a brief period (two to five years). The awarding authority pays the private operator a fixed fee for completing particular tasks (World Bank, 2022b). In most public-private sector agreements, such as leases and affermage contracts, the private operator manages and maintains the utility but does not fund the investment (World Bank, 2022c). Leases and affermage differ from management contracts, primarily in that the operator charges customers a fee instead of receiving a set payment from the awarding body for services (World Bank, 2022c). Output-focused PPPs include concessions, build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects, and design-build-operate (DBO) projects, the latter of which often involve considerable design and building as well as long-term operations (World Bank, 2022d). A concession grants a concessionaire the long-term right to utilise all resources granted to them, including operational responsibilities and some investment. Typically, the concessionaire receives most of its income directly from the customer (World Bank, 2014; World Bank, 2022d). The concessionaire will pay the

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  461 authority a concession fee normally ring-fenced and utilised for asset replacement and growth (World Bank, 2022d). In a BOT project, the operator finances, builds the facility or system, owns it, operates it commercially for the project’s duration, and then transfers ownership of the facility to the authority. The operator typically generates revenue by charging the utility or government a fee rather than through consumer tariffs (World Bank, 2021b). In a DBO project, the private sector plans, develops, and runs the assets to achieve specific agreed-upon outcomes while the public sector owns and finances their creation (World Bank, 2022d). For the design-build of the facility, the operator will typically get a lump sum payment, payments payable in instalments upon achieving construction milestones, and an operating fee for the operational duration. The operator is in charge of the capital’s design, construction, and operation while assuming little to no finance risk (World Bank, 2022d). When a contracting authority demands an equity stake (“shares”) in the project business or operator, joint ventures may emerge between the public and private sectors. A joint venture may also arise when a state-owned enterprise (SOE) or public utility sells a portion of its stock to a private corporation (World Bank, 2020b).

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The significance of the need to develop the built environment in alignment with sustainability is widely recognised (Mansaray et al., 2022; Opoku, 2016). Relevant built environment infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and building structures are closely related to the common well-being of citizens for achieving social, ecological, and economic sustainability and act as an enhancer of a nation’s competitiveness (Oktavianus and Mahani, 2018; Opoku, 2016; Spraul and Thaler, 2020; Wang and Ma, 2021). Infrastructure investment, in general, is a crucial driver of development and social progress, employment creation, boosting productivity, and increasing trade. Infrastructure investment promotes economic growth, creates new economic possibilities, and supports human capital investment (World Bank, 2022a). All of these can directly alleviate poverty by, among other things, realising widespread access to infrastructure and more effectively distributing public services such as education and health services, clean energy, water and sanitation, among others (UNECE, 2018). However, the status of global fundamental infrastructure deficits is alarming. For instance, the World Bank reports that around 800 million people globally live without electricity, and 2.2 billion people lack safely-managed drinking water services (World Bank, 2022a). The capacity for adequate provision of services is limited globally and is marked by the widening gap between the infrastructure investment requirements and national budgets (Anwar et al., 2017; Mohieldin, 2018). The absence of necessary infrastructure prevents access to safe drinking water, energy, and food, lowering the quality of life for billions of people worldwide and impeding mobility and the potential to link markets and generate jobs (Berrone et al., 2019). This problem could be worse for the less-developed and fragile states for meeting rising demands in job creation, poverty reduction and conflict prevention (Alinaitwe and Ayesiga, 2013; Berrone et al., 2019; Mansaray et al., 2022). Growing demand for investment in critical infrastructure projects in the built environment, such as safe roads, energy access, clean water, improved housing, and modern health care, drives the private sector to join in with financing, risk, and profit sharing (Anwar et al., 2017).

462  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Furthermore, the built environment provides assets for public services and infrastructure. It has a long-term influence on the economy, environment, and social stability, making it a targeted area for sustainability (Wang and Ma, 2021). In recent times, PPPs traditionally utilised in horizontal infrastructure such as bridges, roads and transit have been employed to fund vertical infrastructure in the form of schools, student and military housing, hospitals, municipal buildings, courthouses and prisons (Catsi, 2018). Since the early 1990s, private-sector financing of infrastructure through PPPs has increased from circa $10 billion in 1990 to almost $190 billion in 2012 and hovering around $90 billion in 2018 (Mansaray et al., 2022). In 2021, private participation in infrastructure (PPI) investment totalled $76.2 billion over 240 projects, accounting for 0.26 percent of all low- and middle-income countries’ GDP (World Bank, 2021a). East Asia Pacific had the highest overall commitment ($28.1 billion) under private investment in 2021, while Europe and Central Asia had the highest percentage increase in private sector commitments compared to 2020 (World Bank, 2021a). In 2021, the transportation industry received $43.8 billion in investments across 82 projects, accounting for 58 percent of worldwide PPI spending (World Bank, 2021a). Private sources supplied 63 percent of PPI projects’ financing, state sources contributed 18 percent, and development and export finance institutions contributed 19 percent (World Bank, 2021a). Drivers for PPPs in the Built Environment PPPs in the built environment are mainly motivated by the need to address infrastructure deficits, encourage private sector innovation and effectiveness, and distribute risks between parties while also providing lucrative business opportunities and enhancing transparency in procurement processes (Alshawi, 2009; Batjargal and Zhang, 2022; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018). The primary driver of PPPs globally is the need to address infrastructure deficits and encourage private-sector innovation and operational and management effectiveness in public-sector projects (Alshawi, 2009; Batjargal and Zhang, 2022; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018). Partnership, especially with limited budgetary resources, depends on the private sector’s experience, organisational methods, technology, and soft skills (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022). In developing nations, the massive infrastructure deficit, which places significant financial strain on the national economy, remains a fundamental motivator for many governments to encourage private sector investment in infrastructure projects (Akomea-Frimpong et al., 2022a; Alshawi, 2009; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018). In addition to financial constraints, the justifications for PPP implementation in developing economies have expanded to include aspects such as innovation and risk sharing provided by PPP policies (Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018). In industrialised nations, sustainability-oriented PPPs emphasise increasing the quality and effectiveness of public goods and services rather than relieving financial strain on the government. The rationale for governments in developed economies is not likely underpinned by substantial infrastructure gaps, as seen in developing countries (Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018; Petrunenko et al., 2021). In industrialised nations, sustainability-oriented PPPs emphasise increasing the quality and effectiveness of public goods and services rather than relieving financial strain on the government (Wang and Ma, 2021). For instance, in the US, PPPs were considered valuable for mitigating inefficient management in public administrations (Irina and Veronica, 2022). PPPs were primarily driven in New Zealand by the speed of infrastructure provision, more effective risk distribution, and cost reductions over the whole life cycle of a project (Osei-Kyei

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  463 and Chan, 2018). Additionally, in Italy, the private sector’s expertise and capabilities were the primary motivation for PPPs. At the same time, in the UK the driving forces included improved project technology, widespread social benefit and public sector cost reductions. PPPs also offer the private sector lucrative business opportunities to employ cutting-edge technological and advanced management skills while lessening the burden of public fiscal deficiency and ensuring the timely provision of cost-effective and high-quality infrastructure (Mohd-Rahim et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2016). A PPP is one of the integrated methods to create and administer the built environment, addressing all project-related processes under one roof (Batra, 2021). As the concessionaire’s financial benefits are tied to the performance and condition of the facility in a PPP, the incorporation of whole lifecycle costs of the project is necessary to propagate improved public service performance (Catsi, 2018). To enable whole lifecycle costs, a PPP includes operations and maintenance costs (approximately 70 percent of the cost of the project) which are not considered otherwise in traditional methods, along with design and construction costs (30 percent of the cost of the project) (Batjargal and Zhang, 2021; Catsi, 2018). Furthermore, PPPs allow the cost of a project to be spread out over a longer period of time, relieving public funding for investments in areas of the economy where private involvement is either unfeasible or unsuitable (Beckers and Stegemann, 2021). PPPs are also driven by political motives such as reducing corruption and conflict among investors, contractors, and government officials and enhancing greater transparency in procurement processes (Almarri and Abu-Hijleh, 2017; Batjargal and Zhang, 2022; Oktavianus and Mahani, 2018). In addition, the use of PPPs has added the capability to bring better value to the funds invested by the distribution of the risks between the parties, the use of the skills of the private sector, efficient delivery of project management, built-environment innovation and whole lifecycle considerations (Batra, 2021; Catsi, 2018; Daskalova, 2019; Nie et al., 2021). Efficiency, performance standard and VfM are the three strategic objectives of PPPs in infrastructural development projects (Dumitriu and Ahmed, 2018). The main philosophy is that no single entity (neither the public nor the private sector) has all the strengths required to deliver an efficient service (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022). Overall, PPPs provide the opportunity to develop VfM and modernise public infrastructure compared to traditional bid-build systems in several ways (Irina and Veronica, 2022; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018). Challenges of PPPs in the Built Environment The use of PPPs is facing several challenges, including those pertaining to controlling financial resources, maintaining trust between partners, participation in decision-making processes, enforcement mechanisms and agreements on the sharing of risk and responsibilities (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022; Haque et al., 2020; Mwakabole et al., 2019; Petrunenko et al., 2021). The root of most PPP challenges is the lack of prior planning for risk management, which creates risks related to contracting, resources, divergent goals, structure, partner commitment, and the external environment, increasing project implementation costs, shortfall risks (unexpected economic condition), and other significant risks (Batjargal and Zhang, 2012). Due to the collaboration between the public and private sectors, which include organisations with different cultures and varying interests, values, and opinions, these cross-sector collaborations are complicated and time-consuming (Reich, 2018). Due to the different working styles of the parties involved, managing profit-oriented private sector companies and non-profit public sector organisations is challenging (Tiwari, 2007). Infrastructure projects supplied under PPP

464  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 26.1

Several drivers for PPPs in the built environment

Driver Address infrastructure deficits

Details PPPs are motivated by the need to address infrastructure deficits, particularly in developing nations where the deficit significantly strains the national economy. PPPs can help governments encourage private sector investment in infrastructure projects.

Encourage private sector

PPPs enable the private sector to employ cutting-edge technological and advanced management

innovation and effectiveness

skills, leading to lucrative business opportunities for private sector entities. PPPs are also considered valuable for being capable of mitigating the phenomena of inefficient management in public administrations.

Distribute risks between parties

PPPs distribute risks between parties, providing better value for the funds invested and efficient project management delivery.

Provide lucrative business

PPPs offer the private sector lucrative business opportunities, particularly in developing the

opportunities

built environment.

Enhance transparency in

PPPs enhance transparency in procurement processes, reducing corruption and conflict among

procurement processes

investors, contractors, and government officials.

Source:  Author’s own.

schemes may become legal monopolies where investors and developers prioritise their own interests over the welfare of society if government authorities cannot impose effective external control on the private sector’s behaviour (Castelblanco and Guevara, 2022). Experience from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations demonstrates that delivering value for money can be challenging if government organisations are not equipped to successfully manage PPP implementation problems (Batjargal and Zhang, 2021). According to Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015), successful PPP arrangements in Hong Kong, Australia, and the UK share traits with each other that include a solid legal foundation, commitment from both the public and private sectors, strong and deserving private firms, adequate risk sharing and distribution among parties, and steady microeconomic environments. A sector’s market structure must establish the prerequisites for the private sector to function, and regulatory agencies must be competent to safeguard operators from political meddling and guarantee fair prices. Additionally, public authorities must possess the necessary skills to develop a pipeline of bankable PPP projects that will attract the private sector’s interest (Almarri and Abu-Hijleh, 2017; World Bank, 2015). Choosing appropriate risk-reduction tactics for PPPs is crucial for the risk management pre-planning process (Batjargal and Zhang, 2012).

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGs) WITH A FOCUS ON SDG 17 The Brundtland Commission’s report provides the most popular definition of sustainable development: “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Report, 1987, p. 43). By ensuring that resource exploitation, investment strategy, technological development strategy, and institutional reform are all carried out in unison, sustainable development maximises both the present and potential future ability to meet human desires and goals (Akomea-Frimpong et al., 2022a; Opoku and Ahmed, 2014). The 2030 Agenda proposed an ambitious and

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  465 Table 26.2

Several challenges for PPPs in the built environment

Challenge Financial resource control

Details PPP projects require substantial funding and managing financial resources can be challenging. This includes ensuring that funds are allocated and utilised effectively and transparently.

Maintaining trust between

Establishing and maintaining trust throughout the project is crucial, given the differences in culture,

partners

interests, and working styles between public and private sector partners. This involves building strong relationships and communication channels.

Risk management

Lack of prior planning for risk management can lead to various risks such as contracting, resources, divergent goals, structure, partner commitment, and the external environment, which can increase project implementation costs and create significant risks. Effective risk management is crucial for successful PPP implementation.

Regulatory and legal

PPPs require a solid legal foundation and regulatory agencies that are competent to safeguard

framework

operators from political meddling and guarantee fair prices. The regulatory and legal framework must also establish prerequisites for the private sector’s functioning, such as a steady microeconomic environment.

Public sector capacity

Successful PPP implementation requires public authorities to possess the necessary skills to develop a pipeline of bankable PPP projects that will attract the private sector’s interest. This includes choosing appropriate risk-reduction tactics for PPPs and ensuring that value for money is delivered.

Source:  Author’s own.

comprehensive project with 17 SDGs, 169 targets, and 232 indicators to achieve sustainable development. These areas of sustainable development include, among others, education, health, economic development, battling climate change, and environmental preservation (Berrone et al., 2019; Opoku, 2016). According to the premise of “no one will be left behind,” the 2030 Agenda aims to track, measure, and report progress or regress in all member nations, whether developed or developing (Andries et al., 2019). The ambitious SDGs targets by 2030 will require multi-stakeholder partnerships across industrialised and developing economies. Hence “partnering for the goals” has been selected as stand-alone SDG 17 (Duane et al., 2021). This has prompted SDG 17 on Global Partnerships, which focuses on businesses’ ability to contribute to a sustainable future through the formation of partnerships that allow them to contribute their knowledge, experience, and resources, to recognise cross-sector partnerships as a critical component of the industry’s contribution to long-term sustainability (Castillo-Villar, 2020). SDG 17 calls for fostering multi-stakeholder partnerships in general and effective PPPs in particular (goal 17.17), recognising the significance of such partnerships across developed and developing countries (Berrone et al., 2019). The UN defines PPPs as voluntary and cooperative interactions between different parties, including state and non-state, in which all participants choose to work together to achieve a shared objective or take on a specific job and share risks and duties, resources, and advantages (Hodge and Greve, 2011). The foundation of these inclusive partnerships is the belief that “principles and values, a shared vision and shared goals that place people and the planet at the centre, are needed at the global, regional, national and local level” (Duane et al., 2021). SDG 17 seeks to establish a framework for diverse types of cooperation. Government and private sector partnerships can take place on a bilateral basis. According to Dumitriu and Ahmed (2018), these events may occur within a broader context that includes multiple stakeholders, multiple levels of government (local, national, and supra-national), and multiple dimensions. This context involves various relevant actors, each with their roles in promoting sustainable development within a country.

466  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals For the SDG agenda to be effectively advanced, SDG 17’s objectives and ambitions must be met since they meet the demands for measures to enhance capacity for implementing the SDGs at all levels, functioning as the primary influencer and facilitator of the other SDGs (Hall et al., 2016; Maltais et al., 2018). Hence, SDG 17 is a broad objective that seeks to “revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development” in order to accomplish the other 16 objectives of the 2030 Agenda by strengthening relationships between the public and corporate sectors and civil society (Maltais et al., 2018; Terzakis and Klein, 2021). SDG 17 advocates the need for additional financial resources to achieve the other SDGs through promoting partnerships (Küfeoğlu, 2022). Figure 26.2 shows how SDG 17 serves as the foundation for all other SDGs from 1 to 16 and may help even out the benefits shared by developed and developing nations. This will significantly aid in implementing all 17 SDGs (Fu et al., 2019).

Source: Adapted from Stibbe and Prescott (2020).

Figure 26.2

The 2030 agenda and the essential role of partnerships

SDG 17’s targets fall into five broad categories: finance (targets 17.1 to 17.5), technology (targets 17.6 to 17.8), capacity building (target 17.9), trade (targets 17.10 to 17.12), and systemic issues (targets 17.13 to 17.19) (Sondermann and Ulbert, 2021; Terzakis and Klein, 2021). Targets 17.1–17.5 of the finance sub-goal focus on developing countries’ collaboration and support of developing nations in assistance mobilisation, long-term debt sustainability, and investment promotion (Küfeoğlu, 2022). Technology (targets 17.6 to 17.8) addresses the technological gap between the global North and South. Closing the gap includes strengthening current alliances and mechanisms, improving coordination, creating a global facilitation

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  467 mechanism, and creating and disseminating environmentally friendly technologies under advantageous conditions (Sondermann and Ulbert, 2021). Through North-South, South-South, and triangular cooperation, capacity building (objective 17.9) intends to increase international assistance for emerging countries’ efforts to adapt their national plans to the SDGs. Trade (targets 17.10 to 17.12) aims to increase the proportion of developing countries participating in international trade by utilising multilateral organisations and frameworks (Küfeoğlu, 2022; Sondermann and Ulbert, 2021; Terzakis and Klein, 2021). Trade emphasises the significance of rules-based and equitable trading. Systemic concerns fall into three categories: i) Targets 17.13–17.15 emphasise institutional and policy coherence to improve macroeconomic stability and sustainable development, along with a strategy that takes into account country-specific modalities; ii) Targets 17.16 and 17.17 address the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships to coordinate and share resources, knowledge, expertise, and technology in support of the SDGs, particularly in developing countries; and iii) Targets 17.18 and 17.19 deal with data, monitoring, and accountability, as well as promoting and strengthening nations’ capability to expand the access to high-quality data and enhance statistical capabilities in developing economies (Terzakis and Klein, 2021). Table 26.3 provides further information on SDG 17’s aims and measures. Although the 19 objectives span various topics, they are mostly linked to SDG 16 and SDG 9 targets that pertain to improving access to technology and public administration, respectively (Terzakis and Klein, 2021). SDG 17 calls on wealthy nations to shoulder greater responsibility, such as influencing coordinated decision-making (SDG 17.14), supporting infrastructure development in developing countries (SDG 17.9), or improving access to sustainable and environmentally friendly technology for developing countries (SDG 17.9) (Küfeoğlu, 2022). More than half of all official development assistance (ODA) given to emerging countries comes from the EU, making it the most significant donor in the world (Küfeoğlu, 2022). The EU and its 27 Member States increased their ODA to partner nations worldwide in 2021, reaching €70.2 billion (European Commission, 2022).

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The built environment sector is connected to every one of the 17 SDGs since people live in the settlements that the built environment creates. Therefore, sustainable infrastructure development is fundamentally linked to realising the UN SDGs (Opoku, 2022). As a result, it is essential to create a dependable and sustainable built environment to fulfil the growing ambitions of billions of people worldwide and combat the problem of climate change (World Bank, 2022a). The scale of the ambition and the systematic strategy used to achieve this under the auspices of the UN SDGs show that several societal actors must work together to achieve these overall goals rather than a single institution to succeed (Berrone et al., 2019). Indeed, the UN promotes PPPs, recognising the value of cooperation among several stakeholders and the complexity and scope of the SDGs (Dumitriu and Ahmed, 2018). In order to create critical infrastructures such as safe roads, access to power, clean water, better housing, and contemporary health care, the private sector is being urged to participate in funding, risk sharing, and reputation building (Anwar et al., 2017).

17.1.2 Proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxes 17.2.1 Net official development assistance, total and to least developed countries, as a proportion of the OECD Development Assistance Committee donors’ gross national income (GNI)

developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection

17.2 Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance

commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target

17.3.2 Volume of remittances (in United States dollars) as a proportion of total GDP

Cooperation as a proportion of the total domestic budget

17.5.1 Number of countries that adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least

countries, by type of cooperation 17.6.2 Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed

mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms,

preferential terms, as mutually agreed

technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and

transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies

17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound 17.7.1 Total amount of approved funding for developing countries to promote the development,

mechanism

in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation

17.6.1 Number of science and/or technology cooperation agreements and programmes between

on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge-sharing on

developed countries

17.6 Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation

Technology

17.5 Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries

and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress

policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate,

17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated 174.1 Debt service as a proportion of exports of goods and services

17.3 Mobilise additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources

GNI to least developed countries

providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 percent of ODA/

developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 percent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA

17.3.1 Foreign direct investments (FDI), official development assistance and South-South

17.1.1 Total government revenue as a proportion of GDP by source

17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilisation, including through international support to

of 0.7 percent of gross national income for official development assistance (ODA/GNI) to

Indicators

Targets and indicators of the UN SDG 17

Targets Finance

Table 26.3

468  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

17.8.1 Proportion of individuals using the Internet

17.8 Fully operationalise the technology bank and science, technology and innovation

17.15.1 Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation

for poverty eradication and sustainable development

sustainable development

17.14.1 Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of

17.15 Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies

17.14 Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development

policy coherence

17.13 Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and

Policy and institutional coherence

developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access Systemic Issues 17.13.1 Macroeconomic dashboard

developing states

including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least

17.12.1 Average tariffs faced by developing countries, least developed countries and small island

basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions,

17.11.1 Developing countries and least developed countries’ share of global exports

17.12 Realise timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting

doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020

17.11 Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to

Agenda

Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development

non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade

17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open,

17.10.1 Worldwide weighted tariff-average

South and triangular cooperation) committed to developing countries

in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable

Development Goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation Trade

17.9.1 Dollar value of financial and technical assistance (including through North-South, South-

17.9 Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building

enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology Capacity Building

capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of

Indicators

Targets

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  469

monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the sustainable development goals

partnerships

building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships

disaggregation when relevant to the target, in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics 17.18.2 Number of countries that have national statistical legislation that complies with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics

least developed countries and small island developing states, to significantly increase the

availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age,

race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics

relevant in national contexts

17.19.2 Proportion of countries that (a) have conducted at least one population and housing

capacity-building in developing countries

Source:  United Nations (UN) (2016, pp. 21–23).

developing countries

sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical

death registration

census in the last ten years; and (b) have achieved 100 percent birth registration and 80 percent

17.19.1 Dollar value of all resources made available to strengthen statistical capacity in

17.19 By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on

implementation, by source of funding

17.18.3 Number of countries with a national statistical plan that is fully funded and under

17.18.1 Proportion of sustainable development indicators produced at the national level with full

17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for

Data, monitoring and accountability

17.17.1 Amount of United States dollars committed to public-private and civil society

17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public- private and civil society partnerships,

countries, in particular developing countries

financial resources, to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all

17.16.1 Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness

multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilise and share knowledge, expertise, technology and

Indicators

17.16 Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by

Multi- stakeholder partnerships

Targets

470  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  471 Achieving the SDGs is challenging in terms of scope, complexity, and ambition since they are multi-sectoral, multi-dimensional, and multi-actor. It also requires considerable funding, knowledge, and resources that governments or other actors may not have (Berrone et al., 2019; Ojelabi et al., 2018). Due to the enormous disparity between the investment required and the capacity of national budgets to meet this demand, implementing the 2030 Agenda thus offers an immediate challenge, especially for developing nations (Anwar et al., 2017). Adopting PPPs is a possible opportunity, especially when given a chance to lessen the effects of fiscal money shortages on government infrastructure projects (Wang and Ma, 2021). By taking a comprehensive approach incorporating sustainability principles, PPPs can be used to enhance the development of the built environment. This can significantly impact achieving the SDGs by promoting economic growth, creating new opportunities, and facilitating investment in human capital (Opoku, 2016; World Bank, 2022a). PPPs promote development and social advancement using the private sector’s knowledge, experience, and technical innovation. They also partially mitigate the issues caused by governmental and market failure (Wang and Ma, 2021). Since the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the launch of the Global Compact, the idea of partnerships as a means for the UN to facilitate actions in achieving SDGs has evolved over decades, and Member States have increasingly acknowledged the value of partnerships with the private sector (Dumitriu and Ahmed, 2018). A substantial portion of PPP investments globally have gone into public utilities (e.g., energy, water supply, and wastewater treatment), transportation (e.g., roads, bridges, railways, and airports), education and health (e.g., hospitals and schools) and other specialised services (e.g., communications networks and defence equipment), which are crucial for any meaningful and sustainable long-term economic growth (Mansaray et al., 2022). Lessons learned in the last two decades show that PPP models can answer these dilemmas by having less impact on existing public or future public budgets (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), 2018). Adopting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provided momentum for a renewed UN engagement with the private sector (Dumitriu and Ahmed, 2018). Indeed, private sector players may substantially contribute to attaining the SDGs by offering resources, knowledge, the ability for implementation and enforcement, and legitimacy (Marx, 2019). PPPs in the built environment are strategically connected to the SDGs in several ways. First, they provide a viable means of bridging the enormous infrastructure deficit (Berrone et al., 2019). The implementation of projects and the promotion of employment, innovation, the building of infrastructure, and industrial growth can all be seen as contributing to the economic sustainability of PPP (Wang and Ma, 2021). By contributing funding, sector-specific experience and information, management and enforcement ability, and a greater readiness to take risks, private actors and corporations may substantially contribute to the SDGs (Berrone et al., 2019). This can be crucial for developing nations to reduce fiscal constraints and promote local, sustainable economic growth (Alshawi, 2009; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018; Wang and Ma, 2021). PPP agreements bring in private finance to assist nations in focusing on the crucial areas highlighted in the UN SDGs (Wang and Ma, 2021). Second, PPPs have the potential to create social values in addition to instrumental economic values; it was proposed that the social sustainability of PPPs entails equal cooperation relationships, sustainable stakeholders, a transparent process, and credible accountability, integrated as a conceptual framework (Wang and Ma, 2021). Third, because of their long-term nature and financial rewards connected to the facility’s performance and condition, PPP operators place a high priority on minimising or

472  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals eliminating environmental harm and increasing the effective use of natural resources (Catsi, 2018; Wang and Ma, 2021). As a result, including environmental sustainability in projects will help lessen or even eliminate environmental harm and increase the effectiveness of natural resources (Chen et al., 2018). By supporting creative strategies to safeguard the environment and lower carbon emissions throughout a project’s life cycle, PPPs may significantly contribute to environmental sustainability in the built environment (Akomea-Frimpong et al., 2022a). Integrating efficiency and technological innovation into the three pillars (triple bottom), meaning the economy, society, and the environment achieves the link between PPP arrangements and sustainability (Wojewnik-Filipkowska and Węgrzyn, 2019). In fact, there has been an increase in approaching sustainability-oriented PPP studies due to several policy decisions in countries such as the US, the UK, and China. For example, the Chinese government’s National Plan on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development states that it intends to actively facilitate the application of PPP in supporting sustainable development (Wang and Ma, 2021). Furthermore, in 2015, the UN released PPP standards supporting the SDGs (UNECE, 2018), hence advocating PPP as a vehicle for sustainable development (Wang and Ma, 2021).

THE FUTURE OF PPPs IN A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT According to empirical studies, every region of the world, whether developed or developing, has an acute infrastructure gap, and the infrastructure investment shortfall is growing (Anwar et al., 2017; World Bank, 2020a). For example, in the UK, economic infrastructure is predicted to grow to 3-3.5 percent of GDP, or £55-65 billion per year, while social infrastructure will grow to 1-1.5 percent of GDP, or £20-25 billion per year (Oktavianus and Mahani, 2018). The disparity between infrastructure investment needs and national budgets is especially pronounced in low- and middle-income countries (World Bank, 2020a). Despite increasing private sector participation in infrastructure finance in developing nations, private finance remains a modest share of total infrastructure investment in the developing world (Jomo et al., 2016). Despite the tremendous desire for increased private investment in Africa, one of the areas with many developing countries, private investment from partnerships with the public sector is just 2 percent (Ojelabi et al., 2018). It should be emphasised that PPPs are more prevalent in large and developed markets since they support faster cost recovery and more secure revenues with increased consumer demand and macroeconomic stability (Roehrich et al., 2014). The low amount of private investments in developing nations is due to constraints or perceived risks discouraging investors from partnering with the government through the PPP platform (Ojelabi et al., 2018). Many regions worldwide have inadequate regulatory frameworks controlling PPP projects, particularly in low-income countries (World Bank, 2020a). A clear risk management plan is critical in PPP implementation to meet PPP goals (Batjargal and Zhang, 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the provision of PPP infrastructure services and had an immediate negative impact because of sharply declining revenues that put infrastructure assets in financial distress, delays in projects in the planning and construction phases, renegotiation of PPPs, and force majeure claims. These factors are in addition to the pervasive constraints in PPP (Casady and Baxter, 2020; World Bank, 2020a). A high-risk

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  473 climate has been established through COVID-19, where the public sector has welcomed hazardous partnerships and procurement. In contrast, the private sector has taken entrepreneurial risks seeking rewards from public contracts (Tille et al., 2021). While exceptional obstacles exposed infrastructure projects to significant risks, the involvement of PPPs was also seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an emphasis on monitoring, public health preventive and mitigation measures, diagnostics, medicines, and vaccination (Akomea-Frimpong et al., 2022b; Tille et al., 2021). Özeke (2021) predicts that the pandemic will cause megaprojects to take a backseat for the foreseeable future and will focus on smaller, less risky investments and renovations to existing projects to boost efficiency. Consequently, as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic’s global economic instability, investment in infrastructure is seen as being more crucial, especially in emerging nations, for the progress of the SDGs (Global Infrastructure Investor Association (GIIA), 2021). Governments everywhere must rely on PPPs to create a high-quality infrastructure that can bridge infrastructure gaps (World Bank, 2020a). Private participation in infrastructure (PPI) investment commitments increased by 49 percent in 2021 compared to the previous year, totalling US$76.2 billion, showing clear signs of recovery from pandemic effects. However, it is too soon to predict an upward PPI trend, given that the investment commitments were still 12 percent below the previous five-year average (World Bank, 2021a). Furthermore, recovery from the significant recession caused by the COVID-19 epidemic has been uneven, leaving certain regions behind. Although the recovery in East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and Central Asia was more substantial, PPI investments in Sub-Saharan Africa remained roughly the same as the previous five years’ average. PPI investments in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia decreased compared to 2020 (World Bank, 2021a). Interest in PPPs will probably rise in the post-pandemic world. Additionally, the COVID-19 disaster has demonstrated that many government agencies and public sector organisations in the European area lacked the necessary resources to respond to a public health emergency (Tille et al., 2021). Therefore, it is also expected that the new PPP projects being implemented globally would concentrate on regional socioeconomic demands brought on by the pandemic, particularly in the healthcare industry (Özeke, 2021). In the post-COVID-19 environment, efficient government management of the costs and risks associated with PPPs would necessitate significant efforts (Fouad, 2021). In order to maintain projects without experiencing significant cost overruns, effective risk allocation will be more crucial than ever (Özeke, 2021). According to Tille et al. (2021), three general processes are essential for successful PPPs: i) establishing a transparent budgetary process to reduce fiscal risks and guarantee overall integrity; ii) grounding PPP selection in value for money; and iii) establishing a transparent and credible institutional structure. Enabling legislation is regarded by many as essential to the success of PPPs; a framework must be in place before initiating and supporting PPP (Arimoro and Elgujja, 2019; Catsi, 2018). The US, UK, Australia, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and other nations with enabling laws have long and effectively employed PPP techniques, according to a study of worldwide experience (Abdymanapov et al., 2016). In reality, by-laws and other rules should be changed as soon as possible since bringing the PPP legislation into compliance with the broader legal framework necessitates the establishment of particular PPP regulations (Abdymanapov et al., 2016). To give appropriate flexibility to all parties concerned, it is crucial to ensure that force majeure clauses are written concerning the possibility of the emergence of pandemics or other similarly disruptive events (Casady and Baxter, 2020; Özeke, 2021). Macroeconomic stability,

474  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals investment policies, and a robust institutional foundation are all factors that have been shown to support PPP success (Oktavianus and Mahani, 2018). To harness the potential of PPPs as a critical instrument for national economic recovery efforts in the face of shared risks, stakeholders must shift their relationships to a more cooperative, team-based approach. This requires trust, a shared vision, and long-term commitments (Baxter and Casady, 2020). Overall, the future of PPPs in the built environment appears optimistic. PPPs are essential to address the infrastructure investment shortfall and bridge infrastructure gaps in developed and developing nations. Private participation in infrastructure (PPI) investment commitments increased in 2021, indicating signs of recovery from pandemic effects, but it is too soon to predict a sustained upward trend. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for efficient government management of the costs and risks associated with PPPs, with transparent budgetary processes, value for money, and credible institutional structures being essential for successful PPPs. In the post-COVID-19 environment, PPP projects are expected to focus on regional socioeconomic demands, particularly in the healthcare industry. Overall, PPPs will likely become more critical for achieving the SDGs and creating high-quality infrastructure globally.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Collaboration between public and private parties through PPP arrangements is vital to complement governmental initiatives to provide sustainable solutions to ambitious public services and infrastructure projects in developed and developing countries. Despite the high need for PPPs in developing countries, their adoption level remains low. On the other hand, in high-income countries with robust legal frameworks and stable microeconomic conditions, PPP preparation, procurement, and contract management aspects have shown higher performance levels. The surge in popularity of PPPs globally was initially driven by budgetary constraints for essential development projects. However, evidence shows that the popularity of PPPs is also increasing due to their ability to achieve other strategic objectives, such as better risk allocation, innovation, efficiency, and value for money. This is because PPPs encourage consideration of the entire lifecycle of a project. PPPs significantly impact how government projects are planned, developed, managed, financed, and implemented. They also serve as a catalyst for advancing the built environment’s sustainable development goal. PPPs are a useful organisational framework for addressing severe infrastructure shortages on a global scale. Many low-income emerging and developing economies face significant investment deficits to reach their UN SDGs. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these already exhausted growth rates of UN SDGs, making the recovery plans of SDGs more critical. It was witnessed that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed existing infrastructure PPP arrangements to tremendous pressure. Concomitantly, private party collaborations excelled in responding to emergencies through surveillance, preventative measures for public health, diagnostics, treatments, and immunisation. Leveraging infrastructure investments through PPPs can drive recovery from COVID-19 to facilitate economic transformation with a greener and more resilient built environment. Under balanced regulatory environments, well-designed and adequately implemented private partnerships can play a central role in recovering other SDG growth rates and potentially creating momentum, with SDG 17 as a backbone to all other SDGs. Signs of recovery

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  475 from private investment declines during the COVID-19 pandemic are promising. However, the differential popularity of PPP usage, particularly low for developing countries, must be addressed, and efforts to intensify further must be prioritised. Governments worldwide are anticipated to focus on strengthening the health sector through PPP arrangements to improve emergency preparedness for future pandemics. Governments must accelerate this huge responsibility of creating interest in private companies to invest in abundant social infrastructure opportunities. The wide range of significant benefits of PPP needs to be harnessed at national and sub-national levels throughout the recovery phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and to build resilience for future threats. The optimal level of private sector involvement and risk transfer can result in efficient and effective outcomes in infrastructure projects, which can be completed on time and under budget. This approach can help better utilise governmental resources and ultimately benefit society as a whole. Developing nations must highly prioritise the creation of advantageous legal and institutional frameworks, adequate risk distribution and sharing, and government engagement by offering guarantees, political backing, stable macroeconomic policies, and a financial market to support PPPs. Based on the conclusion, there are several recommendations for future research. First, further studies should explore why PPP adoption remains low in developing countries despite their high need. Second, more research is needed to determine how PPPs can effectively address the investment deficits many low-income emerging and developing economies face to reach their UN SDGs. Third, studies should investigate how PPPs can play a central role in recovering other SDG growth rates and creating momentum, with SDG 17 serving as a backbone to all other SDGs. Fourth, research should explore the impact of COVID-19 on existing infrastructure PPP arrangements and identify best practices for private-party collaborations in responding to emergencies. Fifth, more research is needed to explore the wide range of significant benefits of PPP and how they can be harnessed at national and sub-national levels throughout the recovery phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and for building resilience for future threats. Finally, studies should investigate the optimal level of private sector involvement and risk transfer in infrastructure projects to result in efficient and effective outcomes that can ultimately benefit society as a whole.

REFERENCES Abdymanapov, S.A., Toxanova, A.N., Galiyeva, A.H., Abildina, A.S. and Aitkaliyeva, A.M. (2016). Development of public-private partnership in the Republic of Kazakhstan. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(5), pp.1113–1126. Available at: Akintoye, A., Beck, M. and Kumaraswamy, M. (Eds.) (2015). Chapter1: An overview of public private partnerships. In Public private partnerships: A global review. London: Routledge. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .4324/​9781315686516 Akomea-Frimpong, I., Jin, X. and Osei-Kyei, R. (2022). Mapping studies on sustainability in the performance measurement of public-private partnership projects: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(12), p.7174. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su14127174 Akomea-Frimpong, I., Jin, X., Osei-Kyei, R. and Tumpa, R. (2022). A critical review of public–private partnerships in the COVID-19 pandemic: Key themes and future research agenda, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, preprint. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​SASBE​-01​-2022​-0009 Alinaitwe, H. and Ayesiga, R. (2013). Success factors for the implementation of public-private partnerships in the construction industry in Uganda. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 18(2). pp.1–14. Available at:

476  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Almarri, K. and Abu-Hijleh, B. (2017). Critical success factors for public private partnerships in the UAE construction industry – a comparative analysis between the UAE and the UK. Journal of Engineering, Project & Production Management,  7(1). pp.21–32. Available at: Alshawi, M. (2009). Concept and background to public private partnership (PPP)/private finance initiative (PFI): UK Experience. Opportunities for Infrastructure Financing in Iraq, 4(1), pp.109–115. Andries, A., Morse, S., Murphy, R., Lynch, J., Woolliams, E. and Fonweban, J. (2019). Translation of earth observation data into sustainable development indicators: An analytical framework. Sustainable Development, 27(3), pp.366–376. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1002/​sd​.1908 Anwar, B., Xiao, Z., Akter, S. and Rehman, R.U. (2017). Sustainable urbanisation and development goals strategy through public–private partnerships in a South-Asian metropolis. Sustainability, 9(11), p.1940. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su9111940 Arimoro, A. and Elgujja, A. (2019). Public-private partnership and the achievement of sustainable development goals: The role of subnational governments. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://​dx​.doi​.org/​ 10​.2139/​ssrn​.3678670 Batjargal, T. and Zhang, M. (2022). Review on the public-private partnership. Management Studies, 10(1), pp.1–11. https://​doi​.org/​10​.17265/​2328​-2185/​2022​.01​.001 Batra, R. (2021). A thematic analysis to identify barriers, gaps, and challenges for the implementation of public-private-partnerships in housing. Habitat International, 118, p.102454. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ j​.habitatint​.2021​.102454 Baxter, D. and Casady, C.B. (2020). A coronavirus (COVID-19) triage framework for (sub) national public–private partnership (PPP) programs. Sustainability,  12(13), p.5253. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ su12135253 Beckers, F. and Stegemann, U. (2021). A smarter way to think about public–private partnerships.  Mckinsey & Company. Available at: Berrone, P., Ricart, J.E., Duch, A.I., Bernardo, V., Salvador, J., Piedra Peña, J. and Rodríguez Planas, M. (2019). EASIER: An evaluation model for public–private partnerships contributing to the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 11(8), p.2339. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su11082339 Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report), The World Commission on Environment and Development. https://​su​stainabled​evelopment​.un​.org/​content/​documents/​5987our​ -common​-future​.pdf Casady, C.B. and Baxter, D. (2020). Pandemics, public-private partnerships (PPPs), and force majeure: COVID-19 expectations and implications. Construction Management and Economics,  38(12), pp.1077–1085. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​01446193​.2020​.1817516 Castelblanco, G. and Guevara, J. (2022). Building bridges: Unravelling the missing links between public-private partnerships and sustainable development. Project Leadership and Society, 3, December 2022, p.100059. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.plas​.2022​.100059 Castillo-Villar, R.G. (2020). Identifying determinants of CSR implementation on SDG 17 partnerships for the goals. Cogent Business & Management,  7(1), p.1847989. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​23311975​ .2020​.1847989 Catsi M. (2018). Public-private partnerships. Economic Development Journal,  17(3), pp.12–20. Available at: Chen, C., Li, D. and Man, C. (2018). Toward sustainable development? A bibliometric analysis of PPP-related policies in China between 1980 and 2017. Sustainability, 11(1), p.142. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .3390/​su11010142 Daskalova, T. (2019). Public-private partnership at implementation of urban development projects. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 17(1), pp 69–75. Available at: De Oliveira Sampaio, D. (2018). Public-private partnerships and their relationship with sustainable development in Brazil. Outlook, p.5. https://​doi​.org/​10​.47556/​b​.outlook2018​.16​.4 Duane, S., Domegan, C. and Bunting, B. (2021). Partnering for UN SDG# 17: A social marketing partnership model to scale up and accelerate change. Journal of Social Marketing, 12(1), pp. 49–75. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​JSOCM​-10​-2020​-0200

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  477 Dumitriu, P. and Ahmed, A. (2018). Public private partnerships for the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Outlook, p.1. https://​doi​.org/​10​.47556/​b​.outlook2018​.16​.1 Dykes, B.J. and Uzuegbunam, I. (2022). Foreign partner choice in the public interest: Experience and risk in infrastructure public–private partnerships. Journal of International Business Policy, pp.1–20. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1057/​s42214​-022​-00134​-z European Commission (2022). Team Europe’s official development assistance reaches €70.2 billion in 2021. Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022]. Ferroni, M. and Castle, P. (2011). Public-private partnerships and sustainable agricultural development. Sustainability, 3(7), pp.1064–1073. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su3071064 Fouad, M. (2021). Chapter1: Introduction in mastering the risky business of public-private partnerships in infrastructure, Washington DC, International Monitory Fund Fiscal Affairs Department. Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022]. Fu, B., Wang, S., Zhang, J., Hou, Z. and Li, J. (2019). Unravelling the complexity in achieving the 17 sustainable-development goals. National Science Review, 6(3), pp.386–388. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​ nsr/​nwz038 Gebre, Y.K. and Demsis, B.A. (2022). Reasons for the potential implementation of public-private partnerships in Ethiopian road infrastructure provision. Advances in Civil Engineering, p.4863210. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1155/​2022/​4863210 Global Infrastructure Investor Association (GIIA) (2021). Public-private partnerships for infrastructure investment: A global perspective[pdf]. Available at: Hall, N., Richards, R., Barrington, D., Ross, H., Reid, S., Head, B., Jagals, P., Dean, A., Hussey, K., Abal, E. and Ali, S. (2016). Achieving the UN sustainable development goals for water and beyond. Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. Available at: Haque, M.N., Saroar, M., Fattah, M.A. and Morshed, S.R. (2020). Public-private partnership for achieving sustainable development goals: A case study of Khulna, Bangladesh. Public Administration and Policy: An Asia-Pacific Journal, 23(3), pp.283–298. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​PAP​-04​-2020​-0023 He, N., Li, Y., Li, H., Liu, Z. and Zhang, C. (2020). Critical factors to achieve sustainability of public-private partnership projects in the water sector: A stakeholder-oriented network perspective. Complexity, p.8895980. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1155/​2020/​8895980 Hodge, G. and Greve, C. (2011). Theorising public-private partnership success: A market-based alternative to government. In Public Management Research Conference, Syracuse, USA 2–4 June. Available at: Ikpefan, O.A. (2010). Challenges of public-private partnership in infrastructural financing in Nigeria. The Nigeria Accounting Horizon, pp.61–76. Available at: Irina, C. and Veronica, B. (2022). World practice in the evolution of public-private partnership of infrastructure projects. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies, 9(1), pp.1–12. https://​doi​.org/​10​.55284/​ijebms​.v9i1​.599 Jomo, K.S., Chowdhury, A., Sharma, K. and Platz, D. (2016). Public-private partnerships and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: fit for purpose? DESA Working Paper No. 148 ST/ESA/2016/ DWP/148. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at: Küfeoğlu, S. (2022). SDG-17: Partnerships for the goals. Emerging Technologies. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham. pp 497–504. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​-031​-07127​ -0​_19 Maltais, A., Weitz, N. and Persson, Å. (2018). SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals. A review of research needs. Technical annex to the formas report forskning för agenda 2030: Översikt av forskningsbehov och vägar framåt. Stockholm Environment Insitute, Stockholm. Available at

478  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Mansaray, A., Ataullah, A., Coleman, S. and Sirichand, K. (2022). Countries’ Attractiveness for Public Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development (March 31, 2022). Available at SSRN: https://​ ssrn​.com/​abstract​=​4071517 or http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.2139/​ssrn​.4071517. Marx, A. (2019). Public-private partnerships for sustainable development: Exploring their design and its impact on effectiveness. Sustainability, 11(4), p.1087. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su11041087 Mohd-Rahim, F.A., Abd-Rahim, M.S., Zainon, N., Chuing, L.S. and Abd-Samad, Z. (2018). Project life cycle risk of public-private partnership (PPP) projects for construction sustainability. Journal of Design and Built Environment, Special Issue: Liveable Built Environment, pp.39–53. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.22452/​jdbe​.sp2018no1​.4 Mohieldin, M. (2018). SDGs and PPPs: What’s the connection? Available at: [Accessed 29 September 2022]. Mwakabole, G.C., Gurmu, A.T. and Tivendale, L. (2019). Investigation of the challenges facing public-private partnership projects in Australia. Construction Economics and Building,  19(1), pp.57–74. https://​doi​.org/​10​.5130/​ajceb​.v19i1​.6629 Nie, X., Feng, K., Zhao, G., Fan, T. and Wang, S. (2021). The evolutionary game of trust in public-private partnership project networks. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, Article ID 5514708, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1155/​2021/​5514708. Ojelabi, R.A., Fagbenle, O.I., Afolabi, A.O., Tunji-Olayeni, P.F. and Amusan, L.M. (2018). Appraising the barriers to public-private partnership as a tool for sustainable development of infrastructures in a developing economy. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 146(1), p.  012016. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1088/​1755​-1315/​146/​1/​012016 Oktavianus, A. and Mahani, I. (2018). A global review of public private partnerships trends and challenges for social infrastructure. In MATEC Web of Conferences, 147, p.06001. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1051/​matecconf/​201814706001 Opoku, A. (2016). SDG2030: A sustainable built environment’s role in achieving the post-2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In P W Chan and C J Neilson (Eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5–7 September 2016, Manchester, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management. 2, pp.1149–1158. Opoku, A. (2022). Chapter 10: Construction industry and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In  Research Companion to Construction Economics, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://​doi​.org/​10​.4337/​9781839108235 Opoku, A. and Ahmed, V. (2014). Embracing sustainability practices in UK construction organisations: Challenges facing intra-organizational leadership. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 4(1), pp.90–107.  https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​BEPAM​-02​-2013​-0001 Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P. (2015). Review of studies on the critical success factors for public–private partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), pp.1335–1346. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.ijproman​.2015​.02​.008 Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P. (2018). Comparative study of governments’ reasons/motivations for adopting public-private partnership policy in developing and developed economies/countries. International Journal of Strategic Property Management,  22(5), pp.403–414. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3846/​ijspm​.2018​ .5223 Özeke, H. B. (2021). The future of public private partnerships in a post-pandemic world, Lexology, [online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022]. Petrunenko, Y.V., Petrunenko, I.V., Vasylieva, N.V., Prylipko, S.M., Kryzyna, N.P., Lavrynenko, S.O. and Zhuk, I.I. (2021). Features of public-private partnership financing as an economic and legal tool for sustainable development. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 18, pp.794–802. https://​doi​.org/​10​.37394/​23207​.2021​.18​.75 Reich, M.R. (2018). The core roles of transparency and accountability in the governance of global health public–private partnerships. Health Systems & Reform,  4(3), pp.239–248. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 23288604​.2018​.1465880 Roehrich, J.K., Lewis, M.A. and George, G. (2014). Are public–private partnerships a healthy option? A systematic literature review. Social Science & Medicine, 113, pp.110–119. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ j​.socscimed​.2014​.03​.037

PPPs for the realisation of the sustainable development agenda  479 Sachs, J., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G. and Woelm, F. (2022). Sustainable development report 2022. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1017/​9781009210058 Shen, L., Tam, V.W., Gan, L., Ye, K. and Zhao, Z. (2016). Improving sustainability performance for public-private-partnership (PPP) projects. Sustainability,  8(3), p.289. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ su8030289 Sondermann, E. and Ulbert, C. (2021). Transformation through ‘meaningful’ partnership? SDG 17 as metagovernance norm and its global health implementation. Politics and Governance,  9(1), pp.152–163. https://​doi​.org/​10​.17645/​pag​.v9i1​.3656 Spraul, K. and Thaler, J. (2020). Partnering for good? An analysis of how to achieve sustainability-related outcomes in public–private partnerships. Business Research,  13(2), pp.485–511. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​s40685​-019​-0097​-3 Stibbe, D. and Prescott, D. (2020). The SDG partnership guidebook. A practical guide to building high impact multi-stakeholder partnerships for the sustainable development goals. The Partnering Initiative and UNDESA. Available at: Terzakis, K. and Klein, M. (2021). SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. Policy Brief, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, pp.1–8. Tille, F., Panteli, D., Fahy, N., Waitzberg, R., Davidovitch, N. and Degelsegger-Márquez, A. (2021). Governing the public-private-partnerships of the future: learnings from the experiences in pandemic times. Eurohealth, 27(1), pp.49–53. Available at: Tiwari, R. (2007). The early phases of innovation: opportunities and challenges in public-private partnership. Asia Pacific Tech Monitor, 24(1), pp.32–37. Available at: United Nations (UN) (2016). Final list of proposed Sustainable development Goal indicators[pdf]. Available at: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2018). Revised guiding principles on people-first public-private partnerships for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals[pdf]. Available at :​ Valaguzza, S and Parisi, E. (2020). Public private partnership: First steps towards a juridical definition. In Public Private Partnerships. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp 2–29. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.4337/​9781789903737​.00008 Wang, H., Xiong, W., Wu, G. and Zhu, D. (2018). Public–private partnership in public administration discipline: A literature review. Public Management Review,  20(2), pp.293–316. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1080/​14719037​.2017​.1313445 Wang, N. and Ma, M. (2021). Public–private partnership as a tool for sustainable development–What literatures say? Sustainable Development, 29(1), pp.243–258. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1002/​sd​.2127 Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A. and Węgrzyn, J. (2019). Understanding of public–private partnership stakeholders as a condition of sustainable development. Sustainability,  11(4), p.1194. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .3390/​su11041194 World Bank (2014). Public-private partnerships: Reference guide version 2. World Bank. Available at : [Accessed 28 September 2022]. World Bank (2015). World Bank Group support to public-private partnerships: lessons from experience in client countries, FY02–12. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: World Bank (2020a). Benchmarking Infrastructure Development 2020: Assessing Regulatory Quality to Prepare, Procure, and Manage PPPs and Traditional Public Investment in Infrastructure Projects, Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: World Bank (2020b). Joint ventures / government shareholding in project company. Available at:

[Accessed 28 September 2022]. World Bank (2021a). Private participation in infrastructure (PPI) 2021 annual report[pdf]. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: World Bank (2021b). Concessions projects de construction-exploitation-transfert (bot) et de conceptio n-construction-exploitation (DBO). Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022]. World Bank (2022a). Public-private partnerships[online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022]. World Bank (2022b). Management/operation and maintenance contracts[online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022]. World Bank (2022c). Leases and affermage contracts[online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022]. World Bank (2022d). Concessions build-operate-transfer (bot) and design-build-operate (dbo) projects[online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022]. World Bank (2022e). PPP arrangements/types of PPP agreements[online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 September 2022].

27. Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction towards the realisation of the SDGs Samuel Ekung, Alex Opoku and Isaac Odesola

INTRODUCTION Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) represent one of the most widely discussed concepts in businesses, politics, and industries. The Brundtland Report (1987) ‘Our Common Future’ describes Sustainable Development (SD) as the quest to promote developments that meet today’s needs without compromising the chances to achieve future needs. Over time, different sectors have developed blueprints to mainstream SD into respective practices, with the buzzword sustainability adorning the literature space. Early reception and reaction towards SD issues were misperceived in the construction industry as a call to marginalise development against the call to restrain inappropriate development (Halliday, 2008). Response to SD progressed using the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were upgraded to the SDGs. The United Nations (UN) policy document interpreted SDGs into 17 objectives, which can be summarised as no poverty, zero hunger, healthy living and well-being, quality education for all, gender equality, sustainable water management and sanitation, sustainable economic growth and employment, resilient infrastructures, reduced inequality, sustainable cities and settlements, ethical resource consumption, climate change mitigation, sustainable life in water, sustainable diversity, world peace and partnership for development. The construction industry is the crux to achieving these goals (e.g., Goubran, 2019; Opoku et al., 2022; Raiden and King, 2021). Sectorial strategies in the construction industry began essentially in 1994 with the conceptualisation of sustainable construction (Kibert, 2013). However, the integration of sustainability in design and procurement underweights the growing interest in research. In response to this problem, research shows the underpinning obstacles have linkages with diverse factors. However, the dearth of understanding, awareness, training, learning and diverse stakeholders are some prominent issues increasingly headlined across studies and reports (Ekung et al., 2019a; Heffernan et al., 2012). The debate on the nature of learning needed to stimulate SD revolves around individual literacy and Organisational Learning (OL) (Upstill-Goddard et al., 2015). One of the most important learning strategies is OL (Ekung et al., 2019b; Fortune and Opoku, 2010; Gleeson and Thomson, 2012). This understanding translates to evolving appropriate learning prescriptions; however, scholars emphasise tools and techniques in practice, but the critical gap is to examine the learning processes and learning needs organisations can leverage to upscale SD and their impacts on SDGs. The trend also aligned with project learning, which fundamentally focuses on the sets of tools imperative to creating and sharing knowledge in the construction industry.

481

482  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals OL research is underrepresented in construction management; more needs to be done in addressing this gap in construction research (Ekung et al., 2022). Accounting for the low research, studies blamed the basic attributes of the construction industry (e.g., Nesan, 2012). Despite these limitations, the industry needs OL to expand environmental concerns and curb the dearth of business assurance (Tennant and Fernie, 2013). In addition, there is pressure to evolve a better conceptualisation of accelerating the frontiers of SDGs (Tu and Wu, 2021). In developing these frontiers we must first disentangle project learning, prevalent thinking in construction from OL. Project learning depicts learning theories focused on knowledge produced from the projects, while OL extends learning beyond project contexts to general settings (Opoku and Fortune, 2010). In addition, studies in learning organisations evaluate the pragmatic approach employed to transfer knowledge to actions. At the same time, OL investigates social organisation systems, process management protocol and psychological and behavioural aspects of learning. This chapter presents a comprehensive state of research on the role of OL in stakeholder engagement to achieve SDGs; exploring this goal involves stakeholders’ analysis in sustainable projects, their roles, engagement practices, OL and performance in achieving SDGs. Inclusive discussions were undertaken to unravel future research needs for improving stakeholder engagement and the benefits of OL in fast-tracking SDGs. The remaining sections of the chapter map stakeholders in sustainable projects, their roles, stakeholders’ engagement and SDGs, OL and SDGs and the agenda for OL in achieving SDGs. Each of these segments explored conceptual issues, state of research and espoused their relationships with OL.

STAKEHOLDERS IN SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Within the context of SD, stakeholders are defined by their roles. In the construction industry, stakeholders are people with vested interests in the project’s outcome; this includes primary stakeholder groups (those with contractual capacity in the project) and secondary stakeholders, others without contractual capacity (Ekung et al., 2014). Akin to the definition of the comprehensive term stakeholder, the specifications of the relevant stakeholders’ groups in Sustainable Projects (SP) likewise differ. The archetypes of critical stakeholders in the conventional project settings are seen in Olander (2007) and in marine ecology (Miller et al., 2020). These archetypes differ in SP due to the additional layers of roles in environmental systems assessment and management, sustainability assessment, energy modelling as well as other roles. SP is cross-functional covering finance, environmental management, health and safety, security, information technology and facilities management (Alias et al., 2014). Multiple stakeholders are needed for the operation, maintenance, financial, environmental, health and safety, security, information technology and facilities management of SP (Halliday, 2008). Developers, construction companies, government, homebuyers, banks, planning authorities, research institutions and professionals are involved. Ekung et al. (2020) identified parties to sustainable energy technology projects as government, professionals, manufacturers, client, users, and community, international energy agencies, donor agencies, project developers, contractors, technicians, installers, IRENA, policy makers and regulators. Institutions such as political, social, national and local governments, environmentalists, trade and industry, the media, traditional authorities and worshipers (Miller et al., 2020). The composition of the SP teams demonstrates an array of stakeholders, and por-

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   483 trays diverse skills sets and knowledge integrated to achieve SDGs strategies in construction that are beyond the confines of professionals in the industry. Stakeholders’ Roles in Sustainable Construction Projects The role of stakeholders in SP projects highlights variations in the competencies of stakeholders. In the public sector, the different tiers of government tend to drag effectual development of synergy towards SDGs (Borg et al., 2020; Shi and Yan, 2020). However, the public sector taking the lead in SP policy development is deemed strategic to promoting sustainability (Dobrovoskiene et al., 2021), while specific stakeholder strategies (owners and design team) are needed to achieve cost-effective energy efficient buildings. Immediate actions needed to expedite the uptake of SP are imperatively the responsibility of the public sector, professional bodies, regulatory bodies and academia (Ekung et al., 2021a). In the short-term learning policy, the public sector must develop incentives and standards (regulatory instruments) and facilitate the institution and functionality of important associations and bodies such as the green building associations (Ekung et al., 2019a). Progress towards institutionalising these bodies in Africa has dragged on for over two decades without substantive results. Public intervention through funding would facilitate the enabling structures needed for take-off. Client’s understanding of the interpreted project goals is strategic to supporting the decision to proceed with SP. This is important to mainstreaming the project decision based on long-term benefits of SP, which seem negligible in the short-term. Client’s acceptability would propel the willingness to implement SP for the wider SDGs. Growing from these viewpoints, studies have placed the client as the lead driver of sustainable construction adoption (Griffin et al., 2010). Fewings (2009) observed that client’s awareness is objective to ring-fencing project decisions at the early stage and shores project decisions against rational economic choice among developers (Ekung et al., 2021b). Government intervention in learning was prioritised as critical to achieving cost economy in renewable energy adoption in buildings (Ekung et al., 2020). Government interventions would empower communities, companies, and civil liberty society groups to make economic choices. On the other hand, the federal government could provide guidance through a strong research agenda, access to information on available technologies and available international support. These interventions are crucial to promoting policies, environmental education, generating funding, research and development, increasing awareness towards sustainable energy uses and dissemination about the social, economic and environmental benefits of SDGs strategies in construction. The professional and regulatory bodies’ responsibilities include training, continuous professional development and provision of services (design, management, and sustainability assessment) during actual project implementation (Ekung et al., 2021a). However, the readiness of the professionals to discharge these duties is limited by severe skills dearth (Ekung and Odesola, 2018). The media (TV, radio, newspaper and internet, social media) is also increasingly identified in SDGs discourse. Mehmood et al. (2022) found that organisations can leverage social media to optimise stakeholders’ engagement. Manufacturers must invest in research and development to upscale efficiency to reduce costs. The end-users are strategic in maintaining SDGs goals through the demand for SPs (Heffernan et al., 2012). However, it is a good practice to involve end-users in demand specifications as an energiser of process innovation in SP (Delhavas, 2012). Across stakeholder groups, learning impact must advance

484  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals basic literacy in the principles of SDGs strategies, provide a multidisciplinary perspective to deliver projects and enhance communication with others using a common language.

STAKEHOLDERS’ ENGAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Varying arrays of stakeholders have implications for their engagement practices, which is estimated as complicated (Miller et al., 2020). The critical issues for stakeholder engagement in SP are trust, teamwork, thoughtfulness and respect, and, importantly, understanding what the stakeholders need to gravitate to SDGs in each sector of the society. Conceptually, stakeholder engagement is a strategic process encompassing communication structures, setting criteria for collaboration and monitoring performance. Engagement denotes interface practices with the stakeholders to stimulate welfare and growth (Yu et al., 2020). The act of engagement fulfils the SDGs, notably SDG 17 (partnership for sustainable development); through this thinking, engagement is ‘a type of interaction that involves, at minimum, recognition and respect of common humanity and how the actions of one may affect the others’ (James and Philips, 2010). Although different frameworks of engagement are available, many were developed to solve problems in business and management. However, the enabling framework with adaptation in a construction context has three critical elements, namely: the agreement to negotiate involvement, setting parameters for negotiation and monitoring performance and feedback. In terms of procedures, several studies and practices draw from Arnstein’s (1969) eight processes. Narrowing into the peculiarity of stakeholders in SPs, Bal et al. (2013) validated seven steps, namely: identifying, relating, prioritising, managing, evaluating performance and implementing outcomes. Even though procedures are less important issues in engagement, the consensus stresses the need for increased participation due to its influence on the outcome. Leung et al. (2013) implemented this context in construction projects and revealed a focus on the broad involvement of relevant stakeholders in assessing learning. In addition, engagement must extend beyond consultation to participation in decision-making. This means seeking greater involvement of stakeholders in the decision-process than mere consulting to disseminate SDGs. Hence, stakeholders must pursue a two-way communication. These goals are objective performance criteria for assessing engagement outcomes (Ekung et al., 2014; Yu and Leung, 2015). Policymakers can also stimulate SDGs through stakeholder engagement using relational, cognitive and material ingredients (Nonet et al., 2022); these elements constitute the essential parameters for OL. Engaging stakeholders with structured SDGs information positively affects organisations supporting and delivering SD. Yamane and Kaneko (2021) scaled stakeholders who assessed SDGs information and gained the awareness to have a greater attraction for companies implementing associated strategies. Through increased market access, disseminating SDGs information enhances an organisation’s capacity to build resilience and sustainability (SDG 8). In the service sector, firms providing sustainable construction services will also likely achieve better business sustainability (Ekung et al., 2022). Among the contractors, dissemination of SDG information enhances organisations’ propensity to integrate sustainable construction into their business portfolio (Ekung et al., 2019b). Stakeholders in construction can expedite the penetration of these values across the supply chain, notably SDG 12, through enabling policies (Raiden and King, 2021). However, research in this area is limited to developing

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   485 pro-sustainability pre-qualification criteria for contractors’ selection (Al-Atesh et al., 2021; El-Sayegh et al., 2021). Silva (2021) evaluated a process model for promoting the legitimisation of companies to benefit from pro-SDGs behaviour. Leveraging pro-SDGs customer benefits requires an institutional change to organisational structures (OL inclusive). Arguing from the structuration theory perspective, Ekung et al. (2019b) extended the needed legitimisation beyond rules to organisational resources. Beyond practices (setting procedure for sense-making-OL) and normative actions, empowering corporate resources to interact based on expertise promoting SDGs using social networks and economic resources would add value. When internal structuration is achieved, SDGs can be legitimised in the organisations by mapping sustainability into existing routines, and setting-up sustainability structures as aspirations for the future business or as an add-on to existing business portfolio (Silva, 2021). Stakeholders also need to exhibit appropriate behaviours to leverage re-structuring of SDG performance. The requisite behaviour is building mutual trust, pro-sustainable energy technologies decision, developing a learning-network and developing exemplar projects (Bossink, 2020). Engagement for SDGs also needs to optimise the role of the local authority in the global sustainability efforts because local impacts have global implications and vice versa (Ningrum et al., 2020). Empowerment is recommended to optimise the role of locals and the requisite empowerment includes readily available and reliable resources, appropriate planning and policy tools, competency of local actors and trust (Ningrum et al., 2020). OL represents a collective action in which the diversity of the locals can be properly managed. Diversified, equitable and inclusive organisations would likewise optimise SDGs 5 and 10; however, assessing the beliefs, biases and privileges of stakeholders and setting guidelines for management would galvanise local interests to optimise SDGs. Policy tools and the demand for sustainable projects are other viable tools pressuring stakeholders to participate in SD. Acquiescing these pressures and the demand for green buildings demand effective OL (Tu and Wu, 2021). However, the path of green innovation to sustainable competitive advantage is predicated on stakeholders’ willingness to initiate OL activities towards integrating green concepts. Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2021) scaled OL to reduce negative environmental impacts resulting from the firm’s operation in the construction industry. In construction generally, OL aids firms’ capabilities to SD by facilitating the implementation of sustainability practices towards achieving SDGs. Stakeholders’ positive actions can promote SDGs subject to the availability of relevant policy tools and stakeholders can be influenced to take action that promote SDGs through incentive policy (Fan and Wu, 2020). Logically, stakeholders are situated to impact and produce control in development programmes as well as the decisions that affect their lives directly and indirectly (Li et al., 2018).

ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OL theory became prominent in the 1990s among the business communities. Initially, OL was conceived as the ‘detection and correction of errors’ (Fortune and Opoku, 2010) without altering the inherent understanding of performance criteria. This position was modified to include actions initiated due to change in the fundamental assumptions (Wong et al., 2009) and now, the terms are used to depict the process of instituting a system for continuous learn-

486  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ing within the organisation (Javernick-Will, 2009). In this chapter, OL is a process involving social construction that converts knowledge created by individuals into established actions that enhances organisational objectives and project management competency. The utilisation of OL processes in construction-based organisations seems low compared to other sectors (Ekung et al., 2022; Tennant and Fernie, 2013). OL literature identified the dearth of consensus about learning practices and low knowledge of the state of OL in construction. Due to these problems, OL is misperceived as a barrier to SD based on the perceived neglect of individual learning (Upstill-Goddard et al., 2015). Despite the challenges facing OL development in construction, the misconception is contestable. OL theory has different approaches (economic, developmental and managerial) (Bell et al., 2002); each of these dimensions has individual, group and organisational components that are deeply integrated. The relationships among these groups are not necessarily linear, take place at the same time and loop to the performance of another. Individuals learn surrounded by other people to improve performance with learned materials but to qualify for group learning, the learning must be shared among members (Silva et al., 2013). Therefore, individuals, processes/systems, culture, knowledge management, continuous improvement and innovation and creativity are the focal premise of OL. Expansive evidence further supports OL to improve individual learning, organisational systems, processes, culture, knowledge management, continuous improvement and innovation. In addition, OL is fundamentally an individual process involving exploitation of knowledge before processing the knowledge through organisation processes (exploration). However, since knowledge exploitation and exploration are executed at the same time due to inherent conflicts (Eismman et al., 2021; Werder and Heckman, 2019), the individual learning component seems overwhelmed by organisational processes. Recent research interest in OL in the construction industry means an integrated framework for implementation is required in construction (Tennant and Fernie, 2013; Yan et al., 2016; Eken et al., 2020) as per the increasing adaptation in other industries like the pharmaceutical industry (Ghasemzadeh et al., 2019). Upscaling OL research in construction-based settings would not only remove the nascency underlying inherent misperceptions but is strategic to developing structures, solving challenges and exploring opportunities for the next normal and sustainable development. However, bridging the research gaps demands a pluralist approach on account that the knowledge processes in the industry are frail. Based on the effectiveness of stakeholders’ engagement analysed previously, OL can integrate positive control over SDGs’ development strategies such as GB development (Tu and Wu, 2021). OL therefore represents a viable systemic structure imperative to accelerating SDGs. Andelin et al. (2015) explained sustainable structures as people and emphasised that the progress of SDGs relies on the awareness of the people on aspects of benefits and practices, capability and readiness to act with knowledge (see also Yamane and Kaneko, 2021). The structure links stakeholders with learning and imperatively OL. Synergy among stakeholder groups and the right policies is the departure point for tackling climate change through OL (Yamane and Kaneko, 2021). Over time, OL was linked with competitive advantage (Yap et al., 2022), organisational survival (Alerasoul et al., 2022), institutional sustainability (Ekung et al., 2022), dynamic capabilities, resource-based management, resilience and innovations (Do et al., 2022), among others. Learning and implementing circular economy practices interacted positively with the realisation of SDGs 9 and 11 (waste management and environmental sustainability) (Lahane and Kant, 2022). Dicle and Köse (2014) also reported a positive relationship between OL and SDG 11 (environmental strategy). Intra and inter-organisational

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   487 OL enhances the circular economy’s path to sustainable production practices (e.g., zero waste practices and lean manufacturing) (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2021). Critical to achieving these SDGs, is the compelling need to mainstream circular economy practices into OL. OL drives resource-based management initiative, resilience and innovations in business organisations (Do et al., 2022). Contributing to this relationship is self-awareness about environmental dynamics. Self-awareness embeds knowledge within the resource-based and dynamic capabilities theories to give credence to the role of resource development in organisational performance; OL being a knowledge mining and processing tool, automatically extends self-awareness to influence organisation performance. Through this nexus, OL unpacks the complex structure of an organisation’s social values to advance resilience pivoted on knowledgeable organisational resources. Building on the role of social values, Raiden and King (2021) showed that various stakeholders in the UK are transforming to achieve sustainable production through structured OL systems. OL empowers stakeholders to create social value structures needed to achieve sustainable production (SDGs) through value-based systems and inter-organisational networks; however, greater social value is best achieved using collective efforts and partnership (SDG 17). Social values extend sustainable production to business and community engagement, inter-organisational networking, partnerships (SDG 17) and efficient use of resources (SDG 12). By unifying different stakeholders for project delivery, SDGs 5 (gender equality) and 10 (reduced inequalities) are also enhanced through equality in team selection; professionals (consultants) trained in sustainability could also leverage environmental impact reduction, while the contractor leverages education, work and innovation (SDGs 4, 8, 9 and 11). In the ship-building industry, OL helps to mitigate diversity problems, interdependence, dynamicity and uncertainty to govern projects to success (De Toni and Pessot, 2021); OL therefore assists stakeholders in managing project complexities. De Toni and Pessot stressed that varying dimensions of complexities require different OL processes in which the project organisations need to activate. In this context, OL aids SDGs by fostering diversity management, interdependence and innovation (SDGs 9, 10, and 16). In the service-based construction, OL also assisted consultancy firms to navigate business turbulence. Cognitive learning factors (knowledge worker and empowerment) produced a significant correlation with sustainable organisation development (Turi et al., 2021). This postulation characterised the role of cognitive learning in effective stakeholder engagement and established OL trajectory to SDGs 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure). OL also mediated the relationship between green innovation and positive competitive advantage in construction enterprises. In the green innovation-competitive advantage model, the relationship path is possible through the synergy between large-scale green innovation strategy uptake and minimal OL activities (Tu and Wu, 2021). Minimal OL efforts can stimulate significant competitive advantages in construction organisations, thereby assisting in developing human capital and the practice of knowledge-oriented leadership. Knowledge-oriented leadership and human resource development also produced sustainable competitive advantage through organisational innovations in Thai’s S-curve industry (Banmairuroy et al., 2022) through collectivist culture (SDG 5) and industry innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9). In the Brazilian manufacturing sector, OL capabilities facilitated firms’ uptake of digital technologies innovations (industry 4.0), and related firms produced better organisational performance (Tortorella et al., 2020). The outcomes have implications for different SDGs, notably 8 and 9. Technological innovation stimulated quicker resolution of industrial prob-

488  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals lems. Technology innovations also enable OL and knowledge management, which leverages business innovation towards SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) (Watkins and Kim, 2018). Ekung et al. (2022) found that information technology-related OL practice positively affected institutional sustainability drivers. OL, therefore, expedites the benefits of technological innovation in building a robust, resilient and sustainable industrialisation (SDG 9). However, merely adopting technological innovations in organisations is not likely to produce organisational performance, organisational performance comes with mainstreaming the benefits of innovation adoption into the organisational practices.

SETTING AGENDA FOR OL TOWARDS ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Across the globe, the demands for products and services are pressuring organisations technically, operationally and resource-wise. The construction industry offers products and services, providing the fulcrum upon which other sectors of the national economies thrive. New perspectives on technical, operational and resource competencies are mandatory for the future of this industry and SDGs (Bastas and Liyanage, 2021). Synthesis of the literature in the previous sections reveals that integrating and engaging stakeholders to learn these competencies to stimulate SDGs defies isolated learning frameworks. In this section, the chapter sets an agenda for OL requirements in the construction industry to activate stakeholders to accelerate and achieve SDGs. The framework outlines pertinent learning needs and issues that OL must address. The framework’s philosophy examines the fundamental issues that must guide OL and their implications for SDGs. The framework seeks to equip the stakeholders to implement sustainable projects and to situate construction organisations to accept SDGs innovations positively. Nature of Learning for SDGs in Construction Sustainability learning begins with the awareness that conventional methods and practices to project delivery are incongruous with society’s and the environment’s long-term survival. This means exhibiting and demonstrating practical ecological intelligence (Gleeson and Thomson, 2012). In construction, the knowledge of SDGs strategies (sustainable construction) is multidisciplinary in nature. It embraces technical, technological, organisational, management, social, environmental, economic, social, cultural, psychological, and political dimensions (Amaratunga et al., 2014). These components tend to aggregate professional roles in sustainable project delivery. This philosophy is paraded into sustainability practices such as sustainability advisor, where certification training recognises organisations only. Even though this practice would promote OL, each professional must be equipped to understand their roles and responsibilities in the project delivery processes. Fostering the needed skills and knowledge requires knowledge databases, free technical advisory services, performance rating disclosure and mandatory sustainability standards (Diaz-Lopez et al., 2021). Long-term learning in the form of information services is also important to create awareness and capacity building programs, develop renewable energy market enhancers and infrastructures, and improve policy and financial frameworks and supply chain collaboration. The services aim to promote cross-fertilisation of shared experiences across regions (Ekung et al., 2020).

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   489 By varying compositions, attributes, awareness and education, tools and policies, this chapter argues for the internationalisation of stakeholders’ learning needs. Policy variance with stakeholders’ expectations inhibited the marketing of building energy efficiency in China (Qian et al., 2011). Effective stakeholders’ engagement could attract optimal policies for promoting SDGs; however, engagement programmes must target the stakeholders as the pivots for producing positive mindsets and attitudes (Salama and Hurol, 2020). Therefore, the learning needs of stakeholders to improve SDGs are not some realities awaiting unveiling but extant and emerging practical endeavours that can be acquired and improved (Adindu et al., 2022). In analysing the framework for producing the first cost reduction in emerging green markets, Ekung et al. (2021a) stressed synergy among stakeholder groups and the right policies as the departure point for tackling unsustainable construction impacts. The research explained that prior learning is needed to eliminate obstacles to SDGs by developing and analysing the right skills, mindsets and setting incentive mechanisms. The learning needed to steer SDGs is a series of repeated actions that must be embedded within each region’s structures (Adindu et al., 2022). The anatomy of requisite learning stresses the phasing of programmes into short, medium, and long-term targets (Ekung et al., 2021a). Short-term learning would equip the requisite skills, awareness, and policy formulation for SDGs; this phase must precede actual SP implementation. Medium-term learning should educate the specific guidelines and strategies for cost-effective projects as the pivot of affordable SP. Long-term learning involves performance improvement and continuous development of applied strategies for developing the system’s sustainability. The performance of learning, as stated earlier is contingent on placing stakeholder analyses with specific duties. Developing Absorption Capacity Over time, modifying practices to suit emerging dimensions such as sustainability, which is deemed a change process, imperatively survives on OL (Maonet al., 2009). Also, popular among theoretical analyses of OL issues is the role of organisational resources in fostering learning. Low resources are among the resources-related problems underlying the frail learning outputs in construction organisations. OL showed a strong affinity to absorption capacity (Upstill-Goddard et al., 2015). Absorption capability depicts the tendency to produce competitive benefits flowing from the implementation and exploitation of knowledge and innovative resources (Delmas and Montiel, 2011). The absorptive resource is crucial to advancing environmental strategies and performance improvement in the supply chain (Ayuso et al., 2013). This understanding situates knowledge acquisition strategies to structured learning and reinforces proactive behaviour to innovative strategies. Through this medium, construction organisations could transmit innovative skills through the supply chain (Ayuso et al., 2013). OL activities must improve the absorption capacities of stakeholders in the organisation. Learning Dissemination OL also needs to design knowledge dissemination strategies for propagating requisite learning. Dissemination is important to empowering the transfer of innovation to improve existing organisational practices. King (2010) defined dissemination as actions undertaken to ‘embed and upscale innovation within its own context or to replicate or transform an innovation in a new context and to embed the innovation in that new context’. Dissemination objectives

490  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals are awareness, understanding and action; in construction awareness is achieved through person-to-person interfacing, cluster briefing, emailing and web-based publishing strategies. Dissemination for understanding on the other hand, seeks to entrench deeper understanding of a concept through research publications, scientific literature and dedicated journals, conferences, workshops, symposia, exhibition fairs and other clustering activities. Dissemination for action seeks to drive a change to practice by stimulating innovative practice or product adoption using strategies such as workshops, seminars and conferences. A cluster of dissemination tools influences organisation disposition to adopt sustainable construction, however, exemplar projects, case studies and clusters briefly have greater affinity to produce optimal performance through knowledge socialisation, internationalisation and externalisation and combination (Ekung et al., 2019b). Regulatory Policy Adequate and enforceable regulatory tools can promote compliance with SDGs strategies in construction. This position further reinforces the responsibility of the government to pursue actions that will promote SDGs. Codes and regulation must set clear criteria, which developments must adhere to including social, economic and environmental objectives. Regulatory mechanisms are also required to trigger the adoption of certain green technologies that is hitherto prohibited by statute, for example, composting toilets in some regions. Mandating compulsory sustainability standard and rating performance disclosure are important regulatory policies for promoting awareness, knowledge and education (Chau et al., 2013). Regulatory instruments exist as carrots and sticks, carrots set guidelines and sticks refer to incentives (Zhang et al., 2017). Planning and regulations also facilitate SD by developing necessary standards. Policy tools must sustain consumers’ awareness campaigns through education and training and ensuring that benefits are vastly disseminated. Government also needs to state a clear vision and take the lead in entrenching SDG strategies for each sector as norms by revising extant planning laws and enabling standards. In developing countries, the need for more regulatory tools and standards such as sustainability assessment tools is seminal (Atanda and Olukoya, 2019). This factor is deemed to impede SD integration into curriculum (Ekung et al., 2019a). Thus far, research only responds to the problems by proposing performance assessment and schema for residential buildings (Amasuomo et al., 2017). Efforts to outline the opportunities for green building standards also exist (Atanda and Olukoya, 2019). Al-Jebouri et al. (2017) assessed performance indicators towards sustainable building assessment in Oman, similar studies in Pakistan (Khan et al., 2021), Saudi Arabia (Banani et al., 2016) also exist. Future tools for the developing green markets should draw on prescriptive performance to reduce the soft costs associated with sustainability assessment in buildings (Ekung et al., 2021b). Dealing with Misperceptions Opoku and Ahmed (2014) advocated the need for a change in perceptions about SDGs strategies (sustainable construction). Misperception inhibits the implementation of SDGs strategies. In the construction industry, perceived misperception is a significant obstacle to the adoption of green innovations in building projects. An important area, in which misperceptions must reduce to grow the integration of SDGs strategies is the cost; the cost information related to

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   491 these strategies is misread in different ways (Ekung et al., 2021c; Ekung et al., 2021d). For instance, the cost premium in sustainable projects is factually a life cycle cost but is often misread as the first cost. This misreading also affects stakeholders’ perceptions of the tangible benefits, which are factually long-term. The critical stakeholders, mostly developers, need short-term benefits, as a result, the adoption of related practices is inhibited. The right perception is one of the key strategies for cost-effective green buildings. The principles of the right perceptions are built around attitude and mind-set, education and vision, integrated design process, knowledge propagation, life cycle costing and rewarding innovation. Dealing with misperception requires training in the requisite skills and reform of extant contract requirements and procurement approaches from a short-term one-off to long-term (Opoku and Ahmed, 2014). The role of leadership also exists but the right kind of leadership is still evolving. Synergies between sustainable construction processes (design, procurement and construction) can also stimulate key performances. However, the OL framework must synergise three important areas, namely: deciding green strategies early in the projects, hiring experienced design and construction team members and using integrated delivery teams. Ekung et al. (2021b) translated these requirements as closing the gaps related to cost management, knowledge and sustainability accounting. As an act of misinformation about a change paradigm, requisite strategies towards improving misperception must address three key problems, namely: communication, quality improvement in product and process and benchmarking (Delhavas, 2012). This position reinforces the need for objective dissemination of SDGs strategies. Regionalisation of Policies and Learning Developing cost-effective ways to achieve SDGs in construction is contingent on solutions modelled to resolve regional issues and stakeholders’ learning needs. Strategies for SDGs vary along with regional contexts (Adindu et al., 2022); in the temperate region, airtightness and insulation are objective design criteria, while cooling might be important to warm, hot and humid regions (D’Agostino and Parker, 2018). In Europe, the interpretation of the EU Framework for net zero energy buildings are implemented using differing criteria, varying assumptions and calculations. In addition, the choice of GB systems, technologies and methods responds to regional climatic factors. Beyond developing methods suiting climatic variations, OL needs to develop and implement wide-ranging building systems suiting varying financial conditions. The costliness of green building systems (cost premium) answers directly to materials, construction methods and level of technologies; OL must guide the development and improvement of skills, technologies and systems to promote the cost economy needed to expedite uptake. Drawing from the theory of practice, the emerging argument suggests that SDG strategies in construction are imperatively what a practice deems applicable (Adindu et al., 2022; Zinzi and Mattino, 2019). Zinzi and Mattino (2019) showed that the understanding of net zero energy building concepts in the European Union (EU) standards is subject to the conceptualisation of member states. Regional issues further become an eccentric issue for OL because regional competence and the productive advantage increase with the maturity of Sustainable Project (SP) implementation (Sherwin, 2006). Settings which spread implementation of SP will likely achieve cost economy through process efficiency (Adindu et al., 2022). Therefore, acquaintance with SP processes for defined building types (residential, commercial, educational,

492  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals among others) and specialisation in building types, increases the efficiency needed to support cost reduction.

ASSESSING SDGs IN CONSTRUCTION Imperative to OL are the fundamental learnings such as what makes a building green and how stakeholders can measure greenness. Green rating research peaks notably during 2000–2015 as well as certification and sustainability assessment (Kibert, 2013); although little in developing countries. The apparent need for SP rating tools in most African countries provided provable evidence of the enormous gap in sustainability assessment. To accelerate SDGs in construction, a study suggested a standard tool would facilitate critical learning (Cole, 2005). Even though other studies have also elaborated on this, the prerequisite hints that the drive for a common tool seems impossible due to regional issues discussed previously. Sustainability assessment is a veritable tool for enhancing learning and advising decision-making across project life cycles (Gilmour et al., 2015). Pope et al. (2004) showed that sustainability assessment could facilitate stakeholders’ engagement, dialogue and learning. However, leveraging these benefits is predicated on OL’s ability to address varying complexities in terms of quantity and quality of required information as well as the documentation of learned lessons relating to the performance of past projects, which can guide future assessments to provide audit and inter-project knowledge capture and transfer. OL also needs to include socio-economic criteria as critical performance indicators needed to reward efforts aimed at optimising SDGs in the construction industry. For emerging green markets in developing countries, OL must recognise the dissimilarities between conditions where the tool is adopted and the new context. Experience from the adoption of US-LEED in India and Australian tools in South Africa reveal that new context needs to adjust importantly for project and professional accreditation and implementation. The key to smooth transition to SDGs assessment in emerging markets is setting clear sustainability targets. Methodological Gaps in Quantifying the Benefits of SDG Interventions One important barrier to the diffusion of SP adoption is the need for tangible benefits for promoting marketing and decision-making at the early stages of projects. OL framework must facilitate research into intangible benefits quantification and ensure effective dissemination of benefits in economic terms. Addressing this problem would eliminate essential barriers emanating from different frontiers including communication, information, awareness, and educational gaps (Cartlidge, 2018). Effective market penetration with the benefits of SP, integrated social responsibility, profit maximisation and economic sustainability valuation are much desired. This area needs better education, more empirical evidence and better information (Chau et al., 2013). More evidence using regional data would advance the dissemination of innovations across projects, awareness, education, training, factual cost information and risk perceptions as antecedents of barriers to factual evidence (Ekung et al., 2021c). The benefits of SPs are based essentially on cost savings and productivity gains such as reduction in health and safety costs, and savings from energy, maintenance, and operational costs. The emerging concern with these metrics for OL is the need for demonstrating the link between sustainable features and business operations needed to substantiate the intangible

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   493 outcomes such as improved productivity. Benefits metrics also need to address the nexus between SP features, business performance and return on investment to advance the salient sustainability features future designs can prioritise. Climate Change Mitigations Climate change is a critical factor in the choice of building systems, design and technological choices. Varying bioclimatic characteristics therefore represent a wide range of sustainable design choices. Education for SD is undoubtedly an effective approach to combat temperature rises and their effects on living things in the future through responsible actions of trained professionals and other stakeholders. Leung (2018) established a theoretical relationship between achieving a reduction in energy consumption in greening buildings and a reduction in climate change. Studies have, over time, stressed that managing climate change entails curtailing building operational and embodied carbon footprints (Panagiotis et al., 2016). SP strategies focus on the reduction in embodied and operational energy/carbon like manufacturing, transportation, lighting, electrical equipment and heating, and air-conditioning systems. Active and passive energy used by buildings are linked with over 80 percent of the total energy consumed by buildings globally (D’Agostino and Parker, 2018). This understanding situates energy consumption at the heart of global warming and climate change. Buildings in warmer climatic belts risk overheating; SP abates this disaster by availing strategies to mitigate this risk; assessing solar radiation and managing free gains are essential to ensuring comfort. Strategies such as low-solar gaining windows for warm climates and high-solar gaining windows for cold climates are recommended. The impact of sustainable construction on climate change is, therefore, an exponent of reduction in energy consumption or energy savings achieved using applicable strategies. In studies exploring cost-optimal strategies to optimising SP performance, the assessment of performance is likewise predicated on minimum energy performance requirements. SP strategies are linked with energy savings ranging from 13.90 percent to 90 percent for retrofitted buildings and new construction globally, and fundamental strategies in this category are efficient lighting and appliances (D’Agostino and Parker, 2018).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The transition to a sustainable society involves multi-faceted networking among the different elements of successful business operations and actors in society. The change needed to steer SDGs is a series of repeated actions embedded within the structures of different organisations across regions. The evaluation of the theoretical interaction between stakeholders’ engagement and OL shows that both dimensions are imperative to achieving SDGs. This relationship path is pivoted on stakeholders’ roles and willingness to partner through learning and actions. Stakeholders must partner to learn, embed learned lessons internally in their organisations and transfer knowledge externally through project relationships and delivery processes to achieve SP. Throughout this chain, OL transforms processes, organisations, products, and services most sustainably. Construction organisations transmit SDGs through internal organisational practices, processes, services, products and structured policies. Achieving these goals in the construction industry requires the integration of SDGs into the learning processes and portfolio

494  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals management. Given the dispersed nature of relevant stakeholders, construction organisations can improve learning and SDGs by identifying, relating, prioritising, managing, integrating and evaluating individual roles in transferring knowledge to SP. When the different stakeholders align, organisations can integrate sustainability into operations either as an add-on to existing policies in business, learning and project management or by modifying inherent products, services and processes. Thus far, the stakeholders’ engagement in OL to achieve SDGs in construction literature is not extensively grounded empirically; inherent endeavours include few qualitative studies. The linkage between OL activities, sustainability learning and SDGs exists conceptually against the seminal development in other sectors, notably business and manufacturing. In addition, OL and SDGs are discussed in isolation; such a level of knowledge only strengthens the disconnect between the effectiveness of OL and prohibits engagement with OL to leverage inherent benefits towards realising SDGs. In response to the low engagement with OL without specifying the path of learning to SDGs in construction, this chapter set an agenda for sustainability learning, espoused OL structures and decoupled the misconception surrounding the potency of OL to enhance SDGs. The gap transmits to the need for a more structured framework for sustainability learning requirements aiding SDGs in the construction industry. Filling these gaps, thematic agendas for OL were drawn from the literature to depict the linkages between different stakeholders, their roles, engagement practices and implications for SDGs. The agendas mirror the comprehensive stakeholders’ engagement and what OL needs to address in construction to accelerate SDGs. It is suitable for drawing learning modules, policy instruments and tools, learning methods, knowledge transfer and benefits linked to specific SDGs. From this agenda, empirical studies can develop and extend the theoretics of the discussed premise, guide learning design and determine criteria for assessing SDGs goals in the construction industry. Improvement to the outlined structure of OL can involve the role of technological innovations in OL since OL seems to expedite the benefits of technological innovation in building robust, resilient, and sustainable industrialisations. This is important as merely adopting technological innovations in an organisation is not likely to produce organisational performance, instead, organisational performance comes with mainstreaming the benefits of innovation adoption into the organisational practices.

REFERENCES Adindu, C., Ekung, S. and Ukpong, E. (2022). Green cost premium as the dynamics of practice: A critical review. Journal of Project Management, 7, pp.133–146. Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Tang, L., Afum, E., Baah, C. and Dacosta, E. (2021). Organisational identity and circular economy: Are inter and intra organisational learning, lean management and zero waste practices worth pursuing? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, pp.648–662. Al-Atesh, E.A., Rahmawati, Y., Zawawi, NAWA. and Utomo, C. (2021). A decision-making model for supporting selection of green building materials. International Journal of Construction Management, DOI:10.1080/15623599.2021.1944548 Al-Jebouri, M.F.A., Saleh, M.S., Raman, S.N., Rahmat, R.A.K. and Shaaban, A.K. (2017). Toward a national sustainable building assessment system in Oman: Assessment categories and their performance indicators. Sustainable Cities and Society, doi.10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.014. Alerasoul, S.A., Afeltra, G., Hakala, H., Minelli, E. and Strozzi, F. (2022). Organisational learning, learning organisation, and learning orientation: An integrative review and framework. Human Resource Management Review, 32(3), p.100854.

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   495 Alias, A., Isa, N.K.M. and Samad, Z.A. (2014). Sustainable building through project planning process. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(4), pp.207–218. Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Ginige, K. and Malalgoda, C. (2014). Reformation of the Curricula on Built Environment. In The Eastern Neighbouring Area (CENEAST), Research Showcase, College of Science and Technology, University of Salford, Mediacity June 18th, 2014. Amasuomo, T.T., Atanda, J. and Baird, G. (2017). Development of a building performance assessment and design tool for residential building in Nigeria. Procedia Engineering, 180, pp.221–230. Andelin, M., Sarasoja, A.L., Ventovuori, T., Junnila, S. (2015). Breaking the circle of blame for sustainable buildings—Evidence from Nordic Countries. Journal Corporation of Real Estate, 17, pp.26–45. Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Atanda, J.O. and Olukoya, O.A.P. (2017). Green building standards: Opportunities for Nigeria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, pp.366–377. Ayuso, S., Roca, M. and Colomé, R. (2013). SMEs as ‘transmitters’ of CSR requirements in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(5), pp.497–508. Bal, M., Bryde, D., Fearon, D. and Ochieng, E. (2013). Stakeholder engagement: Achieving sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability, 6, pp. 695–710. Banani, R., Vahdati, M.M., Shahrestani, M. and Clements-Croome, D. (2016). The development of building assessment criteria framework for sustainable non-residential buildings in Saudi Arabia. Sustainable Cities and Society, 26, pp.289–305. Banmairuroy, W., Kritjaroen, T. and Homsombat, W. (2022). The effect of knowledge oriented leadership and human resource development on sustainable competitive advantage through organizational innovation’s component factors: evidence from Thailand’s new S- curve industries. Asian Pacific Management Review, 27(3), pp.200–209. Bastas, A. and Liyanage, K. (2019). Setting a framework for organisational sustainable development. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 20, pp.207–229. Bell, S.J., Whitwell, G.J. and Lukas, B.A. (2002). Schools of thought in organizational learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), pp.70–86. Bohari, A.A.M., Skitmore, M., Xia, B., Teo, M. and Khalil, N. (2020). Key stakeholder values in encouraging green orientation of construction procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, [122246]. doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2020​.122246 Borg, R., Gonzi, R.D. and Borg, S.P. (2020). Building sustainably: A pilot study on the project manager’s contribution in delivering sustainable construction projects—a Maltese and international perspective. Sustainability, 12, pp.162–187. Cartlidge, D. (2018). New Aspects of Quantity Surveying, Fourth Edition, London, Spon Press. Chau, C.K, Leung, T.M., Lutzkendorf, T.P. and Balouktsi, M. (2013). A review on barriers, policies, and governance for green buildings https://​www​.irbnet​.de/​daten/​iconda/​CIB​_DC26611​.pdf (retrieved on 22nd December 2020). Cole, R. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions and roles. Building Research and Information, 33, pp.455–467. D’Agostino, D. and Parker, D. (2018). A framework for the cost-optimal design of nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs) in representative climates across Europe. Energy, doi: 10.1016/j. energy.2018.02.020. De Toni, A.F. and Pessot, E. (2021). Investigating organisational learning to master project complexity: An embedded case study. Journal of Business Research, 129, pp.541–554. Delmas, M. and Montiel, I. (2011). Greening the supply chain: When is customer pressure effective? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(1), pp.171–201. Diaz-Lopez, C., Navarro-Galera, A., Zamorano, M. and Buendia-Carrillo, D. (2021). Identifying public policies to promote sustainable buildings: A proposal for governmental drivers based on stakeholder perceptions. Sustainability, 13, 7701, doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su13147701. Dicle, U. and Köse, A.B. (2014). The impact of organizational learning on corporate sustainability and strategy formulation with the moderating effect of industry type. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 150, pp.958–967.

496  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Do, H., Budhwar, P., Shipton, H., Nguyen, H. and Nguyen, B. (2022). Building organizational resilience, innovation through resource-based management initiatives, organisation learning and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Research, 141, pp.808–821. Dobrovolskien, E.N., Pozniak, A., Tvaronaviˇciene., M. (2021). Assessment of the sustainability of a real estate project using multi-criteria decision making. Sustainability, 13, 4352. Du Plessis, C. (2005). Action for sustainability: Preparing an African plan for sustainable building and construction. Building Research and Information, 33(5), pp.1–11. Eismman, K., Posegga, O. and Fischbach, K. (2021). Opening organisational learning in crisis: On the affordance of social media. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 30, 101692, doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​ .jsis​.2021​.101692. Eken, G., Bilgin, G., Dikmen, I. and Birgonul, M.T. (2020). A lessons-learned tool for organisational learning in construction. Automation in Construction, 110, 102977 doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.autcon​.2019​ .102977. Ekung, S. and Odesola, I. (2018). Learning models for effective propagation of sustainable construction practices in the built environment. Malaysian Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(1), pp.109–131. Ekung, S. Adewuyi, T. and Otali, M. (2019a). Factors impeding the integration of sustainability elements in built environment academic curricula. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 6(3), pp.21–31. Ekung, S., Odesola, I. and Adeniran, L. (2021a). Agenda for first cost reduction in sustainable buildings for emerging markets. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 12(2), pp.126–141. Ekung, S., Odesola, I. and Adewuyi, T. (2021b). Cost premium for attaining energy efficiency rating in Nigeria’s hot-humid residential buildings. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptations, doi.10.1108/IJBPA-01-2021-0008. Ekung, S., Odesola, I. and Oladokun, M. (2021c). Dimensions of cost misperceptions obstructing the adoption of sustainable buildings. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment. doi 10.1108/ SASBE-10-2020-0160. Ekung, S., Odesola, I. and Opoku, A. (2021d). Demystifying cost misperceptions as a challenge to green building adoption in Nigeria. Journal of Engineering Design and Technology, doi​.org/​10​.1108/​JEDT​ -01​-2021​-0049. Ekung, S., Ohama, V. and Ajiero, R. (2020). Strategies for reducing the costs of clean energy technologies in buildings in Nigeria. Clean Energy, 4(4), pp.349–259. Ekung, S., Okonkwo, E. and Odesola, I. (2014). Factors influencing construction stakeholders’ engagement outcome in Nigeria. International Letters of Natural Sciences, 20, pp.101–114. Ekung, S., Opoku, A. and Okonkwo, C. (2022). Organisational learning and sustainability of service-based firms: a canonical correlation analysis. International Journal of Construction Management, doi​.org/​ 10​.1080/​15623599​.2022​.2045863. Ekung, S., Ujene, A.O. and Otali, M. (2019b). Effect of dissemination strategies on organisational change to adopt sustainable construction practices. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 14(4), pp.174–188. El-Sayegh, S.M., Basamji, M., Ahmad, A.H. and Zarif, N., (2019). Key contractor selection criteria for green construction projects in the UAE, International Journal of Construction Management, doi:10.1 080/15623599.2019.1610545. Fan, K. and Wu, Z. (2020). Incentive mechanism design for promoting high-level green buildings. Building and Environment, 184, 107230. Fewings, S. (2009). Ethics for the Built Environment. London, Taylor, and Francis. Ghasemzadeh, P., Nazari, J.A., Farzaneh, M. and Mehralian, G. (2019). Moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between organisational learning and innovation performance. The Learning Organisation, 26(3), pp.289–303. Gilmour, D., Blackwood, D., Falconer, R., Isaacs, J. and Simpson, E. (2015). The role of sustainability assessment in sustainability management for urban redevelopment. In Raidén, A.B. and AboagyeNimo, E. (Eds) Procs 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7–9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.377–386. Gleeson, M.P. and Thomson, C.S. (2012). Investigating a suitable learning environment to advance sustainable practices among micro construction enterprises. In Smith, S.D. (Ed.) Proceedings 28th

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   497 Annual ARCOM Conference, 3–5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.1245–1255. Griffin, C., Knowles, C., Theodoropoulos, C. and Allen, J. (2010). Barriers to the implementation of sustainable structural materials in green buildings, pp.369–370. Proceedings of Structures and Architecture. First International Conference on Structures and Architecture. Goubran, S. (2019). On the role of construction in achieving the SDGs. Journal of Sustainability Research, 1, pp.1–52. doi​.org/​10​.20900/​jsr20190020 Halliday, S. (2008). Sustainable Construction. Stoneham, Mass, Butterworth-Heinemann. Heffernan E., Pan, W. and Liang, X. (2012). Delivering zero carbon homes in the UK. In Smith, S.D. (Ed.) Proceedings 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3–5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.1445–1454. James, N., and Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp.39–49. Javernick‐Will, A.N. (2009). Organizational learning during internationalization: Acquiring local institutional knowledge. Construction Management and Economics, 27(8), pp.783–797. Khan, M.A., Wang, C.C. and Lee, C.L. (2021). Framework for developing green building rating tools based on Pakistan’s Local Context. Buildings, 11, pp.202–224. doi​.org/​10​.3390/​buildings. Kibert, C.J. (2013). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. Lahane, S. and Kant, R. (2022). Investigating the sustainable development goals due to adoption of circular economy practices. Waste Management, 143, pp.1–14. Leung, B.C. (2018). Greening existing buildings [GEB] strategies. Energy Reports, 4, pp.159–206. Leung, M., Yu, J. and Liang, Q. (2013). Improving public engagement in construction development project from a stakeholder’s perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139, 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000754. Li, H., Ng, S.T. and Skitmore, M. (2018). Stakeholder impact analysis during post-occupancy evaluation of green buildings—a Chinese context. Building and Environment, 128, pp.89–95. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), pp.71–89. McDonald, R.C. (2005). The Economics of Green Building in Canada: Highlighting Seven Keys to Cost Effective Green Building. MA Thesis. University of Illonis. Mehmood, A., Haddini, J., Laia, L., Luca, F. and Sakka, G. (2022). Stakeholder engagement and SDGs: The role of social media in the European Context. EuroMed Journal of Business, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1108/​EMJB​-11​-2021​-0173. Miller, R.L., Marsh, H., Benham, C. and Hamann, M. (2020). Stakeholder engagement in the governance of marine migratory species: Barriers and building blocks. Endangered Species Research, 43, pp.1–19. Nesan, L.J. (2012). Factors influencing tacit knowledge in construction. The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 5(1), pp.48–57. Ningrum, D., Malekpour, S., Raven, R. and Moallemi, B.A. (2022). Lessons learnt from previous local sustainability efforts to inform local action for the Sustainable Development Goals. Environmental Science and Policy, 129, pp.45–55. Nonet, G.A., Gössling, T., Van Tulder, R. and Bryson, J.M. (2022). Multi-stakeholder engagement for sustainable development goals: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s10551​-022​-05192​-0. Opoku, A. and Ahmed, V. (2013). Understanding sustainability: A view from intra organisational leadership within UK construction organisations. International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 2(2), pp.133–143. Opoku, A. and Ahmed, V. (2014). Embracing sustainability practices in UK construction organizations: Challenges facing intra-organizational leadership. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 4(1), pp.90–107. Opoku, A., Deng, J., Elmualim, A., Ekung, S., Hussein, A.A. and Abdalla, S.B. (2022). Sustainable procurement in construction and the realisation of the sustainable development goal (SDG) 12. Journal of Cleaner Production, doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2022​.134294.

498  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Opoku, A. and Fortune C. (2010). Promoting organizational learning and project sustainability in the construction industry. Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6–8 September 2010, Leeds, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.957–966. Panagiotis, C., Theodoros, T. and Dimitrios, B. (2016). Embodied energy in residential buildings-towards the nearly zero energy building: A literature review. Building and Environment, 105, pp.267–282, doi​ .org/​10​.1016/​j​.buildenv​.2016​.05​.040. Pope, J., Annandale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6), pp.595–616. Qian, Q.K., Chan, E.H.W, and Xu, P. (2011). Market expectations and policy deficiencies in the promotion of building energy efficiency in China. Journal of Facilities Management, 9(4), pp.230–248, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​14725961111170653. Raiden, A. and King, A. (2021). Social value, organisational learning, and the sustainable development goals in the built environment. Resources, Conversation and Recycling, 172, p.105663, doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​j​.resconrec​.2021​.105663. Roux, D.J., Novellie, P., Smit, I.P.J., Kraker, J., Mc Culloch-Jones, S., Dziba, L.E., Freitag, S. and Pienaar, D.J. (2022). Appraising strategic adaptive management as a process of organizational learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 301(113920), pp.1–10. Salama, A. M. and Hurol, Y. (2020). Polyphonic narratives for built environment research. Open House International, 45(1), doi: 10.1108/OHI-05-2020-0026. Sherwin, D. (2006). Reducing the cost of green. Journal of Green Building, 1(1), pp.46–54. Shi, Y. and Wang, G. (2020). Changes in building climate zones over China based on high-resolution regional climate projections. Environmental Resources Letter, 15, p.114045. Sichali, M. and Banda, L.J. (2017). Awareness, attitude and perception of green building practices and principles in the Zambian construction industry. International Journal Construction Engineering Management, 6(5), pp.215–220. Silva, A.W.L., Steil, A.V. and Selig, P.M. (2013). Learning in organisations as outcome of environmental assessment processes. Ambiente and Sociedade, XVI (2), pp.129–152. Silva, S. (2021). Corporate contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals: An empirical analysis informed by legitimacy theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, p.125962, doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​ .jclepro​.2021​.125962. Tennant, S. and Fernie, S. (2013). Organisational learning in construction supply chains. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20(1), pp.83–98. Tortorella, G.L., Vergara, A.M.C., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Sawhney, R. (2020). Organisational learning paths based upon industry 4.0 adoption: An empirical study of Brazilian manufacturers. International Journal of Production Economics, 219, pp.284–294. Tu, Y. and Wu, W. (2021). How does green innovation improve enterprises’ competitive advantage? The role of organizational learning. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, pp.504–516, doi​.org/​ 10​.1016/​j​.spc​.2020​.12​.031. Turi, J.A., Sorooshian, S. and Javed, Y. (2019). Impact of the cognitive learning factors on sustainable organizational development. Heliyon, 5, doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.heliyon​.2019​.e02398. Upstill-Goddard, J., Glass, J., Dainty, A. and Nicholson, I. (2015). Developing a sustainability assessment tool to aid organisational learning in construction SMEs. In Raidén, A.B and Aboagye-Nimo, E. (Eds) Proceedings 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7–9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp.457–466. Watkins, K. and Kim, K. (2018). Status and promising directions for research on the learning organization. Human Resource Development, 29(1), pp.15–29. Werder, K. and Heckmann, C.S. (2019). Ambidexterity in information systems research: Overview of conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 20 (1), pp.2–6. Wong, P.S.P., Cheung, S.O. and Fan, K.L. (2009). Examining the relationship between organisational learning styles and project performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135, pp.497–507. Yamane, T. and Kaneko, S. (2021). Impact of raising awareness of Sustainable Development Goals: A survey experiment eliciting stakeholder preferences for corporate behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, p.125291, doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2020​.125291.

Organisational learning and stakeholder engagement in construction   499 Yan, M., Yan, Y. and Dong, X. (2016). Contributive roles of multilevel organisational learning for the evolution of organisational ambidexterity. Information Technology and People, 29(3), pp.647–667. Yap, J.B., Lim. B.L. and Skitmore, M. (2022). Capitalizing knowledge management (KM) for improving project delivery in construction. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13, p.101790, doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.asej​ .2022​.101790. Yu, J.Y. and Leung M.Y. (2015). Exploring factors for preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), pp.1124–1135. Yu, J., Leung, M. and Jiang, X. (2020). Impact of critical factors within decision-making process of public engagement and public consultation for construction project-case studies. International Journal of Construction Management, doi.10.1080/15623599.2020.1783600. Zhang, L., Wu, J. and Liu, H. (2017). Turning green into gold: A review on economics of green buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, pp.2234–2245. Zinzi, M. and Mattoni, B. (2019). Assessment of construction cost reduction of nearly zero energy dwellings: a life cycle perspective. Apply Energy, 251, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.apenergy​.2019​.113326.

28. The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals Alex Opoku, Georgios Kapogiannis, Kelvin Saddul and Dickson Osei-Asibey

INTRODUCTION Project management has been a critical tool for various industries such as construction, engineering, and military in the past (Lewin et al., 2018). However, in today’s global society, project management has evolved to become significantly more complex, and people from every sector and nation manage projects. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) introduced by the United Nations (UN) are a set of 17 goals that aim to eradicate poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Project management plays a vital role in achieving these goals as it ensures that projects are delivered efficiently, effectively, and sustainably (Dafevwakpo et al., 2023). The contribution of project management to the SDGs is a topic that has garnered attention in recent years. This chapter aims to address how project management can contribute to the achievement of the SDGs. Specifically, this chapter will examine from various literature the general concept for the use of project management in sustainable development, its benefits and challenges, and how it can be effectively applied to achieve the SDGs. In the past, project management mostly concentrated on giving top management schedules and resource data in a select few industries, such as the military and construction, but today’s project management is significantly more complex, and people from every sector of society and nation manage projects (Schwalbe, 2015). The preservation of the planet’s natural resources and the growing threat of global warming are among the most significant concerns facing humanity in the modern era (Lewin et al., 2018). The increasing degradation of ecosystems, coupled with rising temperatures and other climatic changes caused by the escalating levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, pose a grave risk to the sustainability of the planet’s delicate balance (Anukwonke et al., 2022). These issues are of critical importance, requiring immediate and sustained attention from all sectors of society, including governments, businesses, and individuals alike. Nevertheless, project management has a significant role to play in developing solutions to the multifaceted challenges associated with sustainable development (Dafevwakpo et al., 2023). More recently, the idea of sustainability has been linked to project management and how projects are crucial to the implementation of more sustainable corporate practices (Gomes Silva et al., 2022; Sabini et al., 2019; Silvius and Schipper, 2014a). On the one hand, when the subject of sustainability is brought up, management-related issues (strategies, communications, aims, integration, teamwork) are frequently brought up, but project management is infrequently specifically mentioned. This could be because of a lack of knowledge, the fact that both disciplines are still developing, a combination of the two, or some other reason; on the other hand, the majority of significant project management frameworks do not clearly or systematically take sustainability and environmental considerations into account (Marcelino-Sadaba et al., 500

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  501 2015). Over the next few years, the idea of sustainability in project management is projected to gain significance (Okland, 2015). In the previous few decades, sustainability challenges have drawn more and more attention, and businesses and industrial sectors all over the world are increasingly seeing this as a chance to capitalize on the potential market for sustainability projects (Ali et al., 2016). According to the perspective of the interests of future generations, sustainable or green project management refers to any type of management that achieves a proper balance of economic, environmental, and social repercussions both immediately and over the long term (Apenko and Klimenko, 2019).

OVERVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN RELATION TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The term ‘sustainable development’ first appeared in the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Report), which was published in 1987 and there have been numerous discussions over what sustainable development means since the publication of this report (McNeill, 2004). The Brundtland Report establishes the idea of sustainable development as the framework under which the twin requirements of environmental protection and economic development could be integrated in order to examine the major environmental problems facing the world and the appropriate responses to them (Hajian and Kashani, 2021). It was contended that the idea and practice of sustainable development (SD)— as a guiding institutional principle, as a specific policy objective, and as the subject of political conflict—remain crucial in addressing the various issues presented by this new global order, however, how SD is understood and applied critically depends on: the readiness of academics and practitioners to embrace a diversity of epistemological and normative perspectives on sustainability; the various interpretations and practices associated with the evolving concept of ‘development;’ and efforts to open up a continuum of local to global public spaces to discuss and enact a politics of sustainability (Sneddon et al., 2006). Economic, ecological, and human factors are the three main facets of human existence that are discussed in terms of the SD of society. The first element is crucial because it establishes the three facets of human existence—biological (present in interactions with the physical, natural environment), social/collective (as a member of some social groups), and rational/psychological/spiritual—as well as the purpose of social and economic activity, which is to satisfy human needs or desires (induced by internal traits, particular to one human being) (Duran et al., 2015). A set of global SDGs with 17 goals and 169 targets was suggested at the UN in New York by the Open Working Group, which was established by the UN General Assembly (Hak et al., 2016). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a global call to action for SD that addresses everything from tackling climate change and providing basic services to eradicating poverty. The 17 SDGs and their targets are ‘integrated and indivisible’ by definition, therefore any action taken to accomplish the 2030 Agenda must take into account this interdependence (Castor et al., 2020). Project intensive organizations who want to align their project investments with the SDGs encompass the responsibility to develop their traditional project delivery methods in order to successfully target their social, economic, and environmental proponents so that they can contribute to a better world by 2030. Governments are viewed as a major client who encompasses

502  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals the economic power to motivate the implementation of sustainable practices by tendering new built assets which embody sustainability (Ruparathna and Hewage, 2015). The SDGs outline a comprehensive framework for achieving SD globally. Among the SDGs, Goals 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11 are particularly relevant to the built environment. To achieve Goal 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being, sustainable health facilities or affordable housing with adequate infrastructure must be delivered. These structures should have the capacity to impact the well-being of people positively (Fei et al., 2021). Goal 6, which focuses on clean water and sanitation, can be achieved by designing, building, and operating facilities that encourage efficient water use and improve sanitation (ESCAP, 2017). Incorporating renewable energy technology, such as solar panels, into both new and refurbished buildings can support the achievement of Goal 7, which centers on affordable and clean energy (Oyedepo, 2014). A sustainable built environment is integral to the attainment of Goals 9 and 11. Goal 9 emphasizes the development of resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and fostering innovation. The procurement and entire construction process of infrastructure projects must specifically address the triple bottom line (social, environmental, and economic factors) to realize this goal. Similarly, Goal 11, which aims to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, requires the construction of sustainable and resilient buildings and infrastructure that are accessible to all (Raiden and King, 2021). Moreover, sustainable buildings, particularly those that are energy-efficient and incorporate renewable energy technologies, can contribute significantly to the reduction of GHG emissions, and support the achievement of Goal 13, which aims to combat climate change and its impacts. In addition, a sustainable built environment is critical to the achievement of several SDGs, and the delivery of sustainable infrastructure, affordable housing, and efficient buildings is vital to promote SD and improve the quality of life for all (Ruparathna and Hewage, 2015). To achieve these goals successfully, it is essential to implement sustainable project management procedures and engage construction managers who are willing to embrace the concept. Therefore, the following paragraphs will focus on providing a comprehensive understanding of project management. The project management represents a set of methods, techniques, procedures, best practices, and so on, used on a project. It is commonly based on a specific project management approach, one that defines a set of principles and guidelines which define the manner in which a project is managed (Chin et al., 2012). Due to the complexities emerging and the need for SD, there are other emerging definitions of project management. For instance, Silvius and Schipper (2014b) defined Sustainable Project Management (SPM) as ‘planning, monitoring and controlling of project delivery and support processes, with consideration of the environmental, economic and social aspects of the life-cycle of the project’s resources, processes, deliverables and effects, aimed at realizing benefits for stakeholders, and performed in a transparent, fair and ethical way that includes proactive stakeholder participation.’ In the construction industry, this means ensuring that buildings are designed and constructed in an environmentally responsible manner, minimizing the use of non-renewable resources, reducing waste, and promoting energy efficiency. There is an ongoing debate as to whether construction project management should prioritize sustainability over other project objectives, such as cost and schedule. Proponents of SD argue

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  503 that it is necessary to address the urgent environmental challenges facing the planet, such as climate change, and that construction project management has a responsibility to promote sustainable practices. Others argue that sustainability should be balanced with other project objectives, and that it is not always feasible or cost-effective to prioritize sustainability over other concerns (Hwang and Tan, 2012; Ika et al., 2022). A study by Hwang and Tan (2012) compares conventional project management with green project management and highlights the main differences between the two. The literature reviews and interviews revealed that the main dissimilarities between the two are the level of details and communication required. Conventional projects usually adopt least-cost delivery, where communication between the design and construction teams is not prioritized, while green projects require superlative communication and detailed integrated design processes. Results from the survey and interviews revealed that the high-cost premium of green building construction is the main obstacle to its successful management, as well as the lack of demand for green technologies and systems due to the absence of R&D on their benefits. Green building construction requires collaborative effort and communication between project team members to materialize successfully, which is often lacking in conventional project management. To overcome these obstacles and bring green projects to success, the study proposes widening the coverage of fiscal measures, public education on green building advantages, and adoption of communication-conducive delivery systems. Overall, the study suggests that a framework for managing green building projects should be more detailed and allow greater communication between all personnel involved, facilitating its adoption for future projects (Hwang and Tan, 2012). Another challenge facing construction project management is the need to keep pace with technological advancements. Emerging technologies, such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things (IoT), are transforming the way construction projects are planned, designed, and executed (Baghalzadeh et al., 2022). Construction project managers need to be aware of these technologies and their potential benefits and drawbacks and incorporate them into their project management strategies accordingly.

THE ROLE OF PROJECT MANAGERS IN INCORPORATING SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS IN PROJECTS One of the most significant worldwide project management trends at present is the incorporation of sustainability concepts in project management. Projects are seen as ‘a means to sustainability.’ This connection is based on the responsibility that businesses and companies bear for the effects they have on society, as well as the understanding that these changes will inevitably affect the organizations’ resources, processes, policies, and other resources as well as their products, services, and processes. A growing number of publications also highlight the role of projects in the long-term success of companies, as they are essential to achieving organizational change (Magano et al., 2021). A project manager is one of the most important stakeholders who encompasses the ability to drive sustainability within a project and can be regarded as an agent of change. It is generally accepted that a person’s competency has a big impact on how successfully he or she performs (Zhang et al., 2013). The role of the project manager is crucial since it involves many different facets of managing teams, including leadership, team building, motivation, communication,

504  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals influencing, decision-making, planning, and coaching (Shastri et al., 2021). The fact that many projects still fail, despite improvements in the field of project management, emphasizes the significance of the project manager’s job as manager. To be more precise, the project manager’s leadership is crucial for inspiring employees and fostering an efficient workplace so that the project team can handle the demands of the modern global economy (Anantatmula, 2010). The fundamental reasons for the failure of many public sector projects—namely, inadequate planning and a project manager’s incompetence—have not changed despite the exponential advancement of the world and therefore, it becomes crucial even in today’s environment to review and evaluate a model that assesses the impact of planning and the project manager’s expertise on the success of public sector initiatives (Irfan et al., 2021). According to Delnavaz (2012), SD has been centered on improving the quality of life for all residents of a community through the development of environmental, social, and economic components for decades. The construction industry is a crucial sector that needs to adopt the sustainability idea in order to achieve SD. Due to new technologies that call for some process changes and risk consideration, implementing new processes and working techniques in sustainable construction presents some difficulties. To overcome the obstacles, it is vital to learn about new duties, performers, and roles. Due to their unique position at the project level, the function of project managers demands specific consideration from the other stakeholders. Direction from top management, has a substantial role; but SD is not only the objective of the senior management. The role of the project manager in achieving objectives and goals can be seen as instrumental as they understand and control its path through to implementation. This suggests they contribute crucially to sustainable concepts. As the project manager has a duty to understand the details of everyday operations and execution, this suggests the project manager has the capacity to observe and examine socially relevant problems and circumstances that senior management would be unaware of. A project manager inhabits a systems view of the entire project lifecycle as well as directs the use of resources within a project through the promotion of a lifecycle approach into the project – from inception to handover. The responsibility of project managers is to attain certain objectives as they strategize, implement and monitor the process of developing and building new assets which suggests they can have an effect on productivity, energy consumption and ecosystem protection through the efficient accomplishment of their tasks. To sum up, project managers can play a crucial part in successfully integrating sustainability into a building project during the design and construction process (Delnavaz, 2012). The difficulties they must overcome make their function important for the process of sustainable building. Since sustainable building has specific requirements, they can assist in bringing about the adjustments needed. As a reaction to the complexity of sustainable building projects, their most significant role is in creating opportunities for improved stakeholder communication and collaboration (Delnavaz, 2012). Projects are designed to support organizations by assisting in the strategic changes that a dynamic market-place demands. The choice of project manager poses a significant challenge to organizations as it is essential to the project’s success. However, it is still difficult for organizations to choose the most suitable project manager, which is a sign of organizational maturity in project management (Vale et al., 2018). According to a study conducted by Sandhu and Sahil (2018), project managers should have strong interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, a sense of teamwork, the capacity to adapt to change, and conflict resolution skills.

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  505 However, the three different dimensions of competence defined by Project Management Institute (2017) are knowledge, performance, and personal characteristics. Competence is defined as a ‘collection of knowledge, personal attitudes, skills, and relevant experience needed to be successful in a certain function’ in the third version of the IPMA’s (International Project Management Association) ICB (International Competence Baseline). Technical competences, contextual competences, and behavioural competencies are the three groups into which the ICB divides the competencies, similar to how PMBoK does (Rocha et al., 2014). Vale et al. (2018) defined technical competency as a competence connected to the project manager’s role in that activity, behavioural competencies as that related to personal and social capacities of a project manager and contextual competences related to the context and the company’s business. Kapogiannis et al. (2021) introduced how a digitally integrated and collaborative environment could impact the development of proactive behaviour and thus impact on a project’s performance. Thus, by integrating and increasing digital awareness to the project managers, this means soft skills could be improved. It is noted that the SDGs have a strong social angle, and social engineering supports this phenomenon due to its capacity to provide a transdisciplinary approach. This approach could potentially help project managers on how they design and execute their projects but at the same time through the power of sharing data and visualizing certain information to enable them to meet SDGs. Considering, therefore, the Eye of Competence by International Project Management Association, the impact of the project manager to meet SDG could be defined better under economic, social and environmental viewpoints.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT The systemic performance of projects pertaining to SD depends on how the objectives are fulfilled in a changing environment and how the established goals are put into practice. However, it must be stressed that this type of system is affected by both internal and external upsetting events (Živković and Veljković, 2018). One of the most important global Grand Challenges currently threatening the survival of the planet is the failure of the UN’s SDGs to meet the 2030 targets. The project management community has a crucial role to play in achieving the 2030 targets—possibly the most crucial role after that of the government (Mancell et al., 2019). In order to examine existential and cognitive manifestations of injustice and inequality engaged in project-based practices delivering social good in the context of community development, it is appropriate to integrate the SDGs with projects and project management (PM) approaches. Given the autonomous nature of project activities’ tasks, developing a methodology that would set precise and quantifiable standards for PM is important in order to fulfill the SDGs (Roberto et al., 2021). The growing pressure on natural resources and increasing global trade have made sustainability issues a prime area of concern for all businesses alike. The increased focus on sustainability has impacted the way projects are conceived, planned, executed and evaluated in industries (Ali et al., 2016). Results from a series of literature reviews done by Ali et al. (2016) indicated that PM has seldom been focused upon SDs. However, Ali et al. (2016) found that various sources of literature reviewed provided insightful views on addressing various issues commonly faced in SD projects implementation.

506  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Also, SD has been identified as a value-based concept that requires organizations to align their values with those of the individuals involved in the project. Some of the key values that provide a solid foundation for SD are ethics, openness, social sensitivity, fairness, integrity, transparency, traceability, respect, efficiency, participation, respect, and learning (Garies et al., 2010). The importance of sustainability in company operations today, as well as the sustainability of natural and environmental resources, has had a significant impact on how PM activities are thought of, planned, scheduled, and carried out (Chawla et al., 2018). The descriptions of project roles must include their sustainability responsibilities. The integration of these responsibilities provides personnel orientation and helps to ensure SD principles (Garies et al., 2010).

ROLES OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The process of designing, bidding, and constructing a new sustainable building is viewed as a timeline in order to investigate the potential barriers and drivers in each phase for successfully delivering a sustainable building (Garies et al., 2010). Transitioning to more sustainable business practices necessitates changes in organizational products, services, processes, policies, and resources. An organization committed to sustainable principles must include a diverse range of stakeholders and address environmental and social issues as they intersect with financial issues (Analia Sánchez and Schneider, 2014). In order to achieve SD, the construction industry is unquestionably an important sector that should embrace the concept of sustainability, as it has important direct and indirect links with the various aspects of SD: economic, social, and environmental (Delnavaz, 2012). In order to successfully integrate sustainability into a building project during the design and construction process, project managers can play a crucial role. Due to the difficulties they must overcome, they play a crucial role in the sustainable building process. They can facilitate the changes required for sustainable building due to its specific requirement (Delnavaz, 2012). Green building design can be more complicated than conventional building design because the design team is frequently required to evaluate alternative materials and systems (Silvius, 2021). In the work of Delnavaz (2012), some justifications were given as to why the PM in the built environment will be critical in advancing the world towards sustainability. It was identified that the construction industry consumes a large amount of resources and improving its quality has a significant impact on the overall sustainability of the society. Furthermore, the built environment was regarded as the context for the majority of human activity, with the potential to significantly influence the overall sustainability of society by improving residents’ health and productivity. A project manager puts a project plan into action by authorizing the execution of activities that result in project deliverables. Green technologies frequently necessitate complex techniques and construction processes. If complexities are not properly addressed, the project manager’s performance may suffer. It was also suggested that technical difficulties encountered during the construction process are one of the main challenges in green building. Similarly, due to the evaluation of alternative materials and systems, design can be more complicated than that of a conventional building (Hwang and Tan, 2012).

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  507 Addressing the challenges of climate change, population growth, and urbanization will necessitate innovative engineering and technology-based solutions (UNESCO, 2021). Engineering has been defined as the practical application of scientific and mathematical principles for practical purposes such as the design, manufacture, and operation of products and processes while accounting for economic, environmental, and other sociological constraints (Dunmade, 2016). Engineering has accelerated development in all countries and for the majority of people, resulting in more equal societies with fewer existential issues. On the other hand, it has resulted in severe environmental consequences, such as climate change, species extinction, and increased pollution. We require technical solutions that will not have long-term negative environmental consequences, thereby making human society resilient and sustainable (Glavi, 2022). Engineering activities that meet housing, energy, transportation, and other needs generate massive amounts of waste and emissions into the environment. The rate of release has been so rapid that it has outpaced the earth’s ability to absorb it. As a result of this voracious resource exploitation and massive waste release, resource depletion, biodiversity loss, deforestation, desertification, global warming, ozone layer depletion, eutrophication, birth deformities, and various diseases are occurring (Dunmade, 2016). Therefore, the paradigm for ‘sustainable engineering’ requires dynamic, holistic, integrative analyses of present and future product life cycles, complete supply chains, and the ecosystems on which truly sustainable societies are wholly dependent, as opposed to only focusing on the design or improvement of a product or process. As a result, ‘engineers of the future’ will need to be more inventive, imaginative, and actively involved in making sure that the systems, processes, and products they design and use will improve both current and future sustainable societal lifestyles (Wan Alwi et al., 2014).  Glavi (2022) identified forms of courses that emerged to address the issue of sustainable engineering. Environmental engineering has been identified to have existed from the beginning of our civilization, however, its modern approach started in the 1970s. This branch of engineering has been described as a branch to deal with the adverse environmental effects of nature and human activities on fresh water supply, water and air pollution, wastewater and waste management, energy preservation, global warming, acid rain, sanitation, and agricultural systems. Also, Cleaner Production (CP) engineering evolved. CP includes the eco-design approach which considers a product’s environmental impacts throughout its entire life cycle, from resources to the end-of-life scenario. Energy and material efficiencies, as well as renewable and/or recycled resources, are critical components of eco-design. Also, there is Industrial Ecology (IE). IE is a forerunner of the circular economy, focusing on transitioning processes from open loop (linear) to closed loop systems. Because natural systems do not recognize waste, IE is based on mimicry. To mimic natural systems, they use ‘industrial metabolism’ (material and energy flows, design for environment or eco-design), life cycle planning, eco-industrial parks (‘industrial symbiosis’), and so on. Engineering is about problem-solving knowledge and practice. Engineering, as a profession and a discipline, has evolved alongside humanity for thousands of years. Engineering has aided in the resolution of our daily problems and production requirements by utilizing scientific knowledge, technical methods, design, and management principles. Indeed, engineering, with its diverse sub-disciplines, has been a major contributor to humankind’s survival on Earth and to improving our quality of life (UNESCO, 2021).

508  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals A diverse engineering workforce including the work of engineering project managers can more effectively address the SDGs by providing creative solutions that are relevant to all, as well as ensuring that future engineering solutions avoid bias and discrimination while addressing social injustice (UNESCO, 2021).

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Within organizations, the PM office is a key player in today’s important global PM trends. Within organizations, the PM office is a leader in PM standards, methods, and practices. However, the PM Officer’s role in sustainable PM remains focused on PM standards, methods, and practices (Silvius, 2021). Integrating sustainability into projects is a critical success metric. However, the scarcity of literature and the slow pace of emerging literature has left many questions unanswered regarding the integration of sustainability in projects and project teams’ commitment to sustainability pillars (Gachie, 2021). Project managers play a crucial role in integrating sustainability into building projects during the design and construction process. Green building design is more complex than conventional design due to the evaluation of alternative materials and systems. The construction industry consumes significant resources and improving its quality can positively impact overall sustainability. The built environment has a substantial influence on human activity and can improve residents’ health and productivity. Green technologies require complex construction processes, and project managers must understand these complexities to successfully integrate sustainability. Technical difficulties encountered during the construction process are a significant challenge in green building. Therefore, project managers must address these complexities and challenges to ensure successful integration of sustainability in building projects. According to Ivanov et al. (2020), the process of incorporating SD objectives into PM should begin with the expansion of the list of indicators for project performance assessment that include SD objectives. Thus, it appears reasonable to use the scoring method when selecting projects, which is characterized by a comparison of specific project options in terms of their contribution to minimizing the discrepancy between the company’s and the region’s actual and desired level of stability. The goal of applying the most important elements of SD to PM methodology and practice is regarded as critical. Ivanov et al. (2020) identified that it is necessary to determine which theoretical provisions of PM and which stages of implementation are appropriate for applying specific SD fragments. The current PM methodological documents include the following project stages: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring, and closure. It is necessary to determine what activities must be carried out at various stages of the project in order to meet the objectives of SD. Apart from scholars making a contribution in literature, the onus for addressing ‘project sustainability’ holistically and sufficiently falls on the project teams (Gachie, 2021). In addition, PM principles can help address the goals of SD in the built environment in various ways. Some of the aspects of SD that can be addressed through PM include environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability. Sustainable PM can help reduce the environmental impact of construction projects by implementing sustainable practices, such as using renewable energy sources, reducing waste, and minimizing carbon emissions. It can also ensure that construction projects are economically viable by

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  509 Table 28.1

Elements of the methodological approach for implementing sustainable project management

№

Element of the methodological approach

1

Combining the PM and SD components

2

Review of the system of project indicators

3

Elaboration of priorities of project management Identification of the correlation and the necessary

4

resources interdependence between product and project life cycles

Description Formulation of objectives and control of their implementation during all stages of the project life cycle Extension of the project period and considering the social and environmental consequences of the project implementation Formation of methodological approaches for determination of priorities of the consumption Revaluation of the project life cycle with regard to sustainable development priorities Involvement of stakeholders and economic entities in project

5

Working with stakeholders

management, expansion of methods for management decisions making

6

7

Making higher requirements for project management participants Project performance assessment

Formulation of additional functions of managers considering the significance of behavioural competencies. Creation of a system of key indicators in the field of SD for all members of the project group Assessment of the impact of project implementation on sustainable development goals at the local, regional, country, and global levels

Source:  Ivanov et al. (2020).

managing costs, reducing waste, and optimizing resource utilization. In addition, it helps to promote social sustainability by engaging with local communities, promoting inclusive decision-making, and addressing social inequalities. However, there are some aspects of SD that may need more attention in terms of PM. For instance, some of the key areas that require more focus include integrating sustainability into project planning, stakeholder engagement, monitoring and evaluation. PM needs to ensure that sustainability principles are integrated into the planning and design phases of construction projects. This includes incorporating sustainability metrics and goals into project objectives, risk assessments, and project plans and also engage with a broad range of stakeholders, including local communities, government agencies, and industry professionals, to ensure that SDGs are effectively communicated and implemented (Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz, 2013). PM professionals need to develop effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of SD initiatives and ensure that projects meet sustainability goals (Kihuha, 2018). Further, Ivanov et al. (2020) stated that the following components should be included in the methodological approach used to implement the integration of PM and the idea of SD. At the heart of SPM is Digital Integrated Technologies in which 3D Information Models as well as Meta-Data could assist project stakeholders to form a sustainability data driven decision because of the capacity preventing social, economic, and environmental challenges, but at the same time creating a dynamic environment in which project managers could develop proactive behaviour and be more confident on how to make sustainable decisions. Table 28.1 outlines the elements of the methodological approach for integrating the principles of PM and SD. It includes combining the PM and SD components to ensure that objectives are formulated and controlled throughout the project life cycle. The review of the project indicator system involves extending the project period and considering the social and environmental

510  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Adapted from Gachie (2021).

Figure 28.1

An integrated sustainable project management framework

consequences of the project’s implementation. Priorities for PM are determined, and the correlation and interdependence between the product and project life cycles are identified. Working with stakeholders involves expanding methods for management decision-making and involving stakeholders and economic entities in PM. Higher requirements are made for PM participants, considering the significance of behavioural competencies, and a system of key indicators is created for all members of the project group in the field of SD. Finally, the impact of project implementation on SDGs at the local, regional, country, and global levels is assessed through project performance evaluation. In addition to highlighting the importance of incorporating SD principles into PM, Gachie (2021) developed the Integrated Sustainable Project Management (ISPM) framework. This framework provides a comprehensive and holistic approach to PM, ensuring that sustainability principles are integrated throughout the project lifecycle. The ISPM framework, depicted in Figure 28.1, includes both social, economic, and environmental dimensions and their internal and external metrics to long-term sustainability and profitability. These dimensions are inter-

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  511 related and have a significant impact on project outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to consider all three dimensions when developing SPM strategies. Under each dimension, the ISPM framework provides various recommendations that can lead to sustainable project implementations. For example, under the social dimension, the framework suggests the need to prioritize stakeholder engagement and to promote diversity and inclusion. Additionally, under the economic dimension, the framework highlights the importance of identifying opportunities for cost savings and revenue generation through sustainable practices. The environmental dimension, on the other hand, emphasizes the need to identify and mitigate potential environmental impacts of the project. The framework also recommends using sustainable materials and practices throughout the project lifecycle to minimize environmental impacts and promote long-term sustainability. Overall, the ISPM framework provides a useful guide for project managers to integrate sustainability principles into PM. By following the framework, project managers can ensure that sustainability is considered at every stage of the project lifecycle and that the project outcomes are both sustainable and profitable in the long term. In a study by Ali et al. (2016) a two-stage process was used. Stage 1 looked at the current state of the linkage between PM and Design for Sustainability, and stage 2 looked at the need for and potential benefits of such a linkage. A glaring gap in the relationship between PM and design for sustainability was found. The second stage revealed that the field of Design for Sustainability has a great deal to gain from a focus on PM, particularly given the latter’s emphasis on organizational parameters and human side factors. The potential connections between two subjects that have been extensively studied by the academia singularity are thus highlighted by these.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES TOWARDS THE REALIZATION OF THE SDGs For the analysis Silvius (2016) used the ‘knowledge, skills and attitudes’ definition of competence because it is the original definition of competence as it connects to the well-known Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitude), and psychomotor (skills) domains of learning and it provides a more comprehensive definition. In fact, Silvius (2016) indicated that many people believe that ‘attitude’ is the most important factor, which is why the acronym ‘KSA’ has been changed to ‘ASK’ (Attitude-Skills-Knowledge). The KSA definition of competence is sometimes also defined as ‘knowledge, skills and abilities’. And although the term ‘ability’ may be considered as a synonym of ‘competence’, making its mentioning redundant, this interpretation of competence became popular in the context of education and training, as it refers to the outcomes of learning (Silvius, 2016). Competence is generally defined as consisting of integrated pieces of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Aligned with this ‘KSA’ definition, most standards for professional competence delineate cognitive, behavioural and emotional aspects of practice, including those that may not be measurable. A framework of key competencies of sustainability that integrates the elements such as competence for perspective-taking, competence for anticipation, competence for interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition, competence for dealing with incomplete and overly complicated information, competence for cooperation, competence to deal with indi-

512  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals vidual decision-making dilemmas and competence for participation and so on, has been developed by Wiek et al. (2011). Figure 28.2 was nicknamed ‘Key Competencies for Sustainable Development’ and was developed by Wiek et al. (2011). This framework identifies five groups of competences that are necessary for individuals and organizations to effectively engage in SD as highlighted above: systems thinking competences; anticipatory competences, normative competences, strategic competences, and interpersonal competences, as identified in Figure 28.2. Systems thinking competencies: These competencies enable individuals to understand and analyze complex systems and their interconnections. This involves recognizing the multiple and interconnected factors that contribute to sustainability challenges and identifying potential leverage points for change. Anticipatory competencies: These competencies enable individuals to anticipate and plan for future sustainability challenges. This involves identifying emerging trends and potential future scenarios and developing strategies to address them. Normative competencies: These competencies enable individuals to comprehend and apply ethical principles to issues of sustainability. This entails recognizing and respecting different values and perspectives, as well as making socially and environmentally responsible decisions. Strategic competencies: Individuals with these competencies are able to develop and implement effective sustainability strategies. Setting goals, identifying and prioritizing actions, and monitoring and evaluating progress are all part of this process. Interpersonal competencies: Individuals with these competencies can collaborate effectively with others to achieve long-term development. This includes effective communication, relationship and partnership building, and involving stakeholders in decision-making processes. These competencies offer a comprehensive framework for addressing sustainability issues and promoting SD.

Source: Wiek et al. (2011).

Figure 28.2

A framework of key competences of sustainable project management

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  513 The framework views sustainability as a remedy and a departure from the status quo. This viewpoint is strikingly similar to the viewpoint of projects as transient organizations that bring about (any kind of) change to entities like businesses, products, services, procedures, policies, or assets (Silvius et al., 2012). As a result, Silvius (2016) adopted the framework of key competences of sustainability as identified by Wiek et al. (2011) as a suitable framework for consideration of sustainability competences in PM competencies. These five key competence groups serve as a reference framework for breaking down the sustainability competencies that the project manager should develop in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitude. Silvius (2016) introduced competences with system thinking to increase the project manager’s awareness and knowledge, aiming for a more sustainable approach. Moreover, anticipatory competences that comply with proactive antecedents to project managers could be integrated to develop a more collaborative culture. Nominative competences are related to integrity and professional Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct must be in place; where project managers in fact have to have these behavioural competencies (IPMA). Arguably by having also strategic and technical competences could make a project manager be able to develop a more holistic set of skills that will allow them to deliver sustainable projects, and, to meet SDG goals. The analysis by Silvius (2016) logically indicated that the project manager would need to understand more about the sustainability issues related to current business models, consumption and production patterns, and resource usage as knowledge elements. The project manager must also understand cause-and-effect relationships and the long-term consequences of short-term actions.

INTEGRATING THE SDGs INTO PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES It is timely to integrate the SDGs with project and PM methodologies in order to investigate existential and cognitive manifestations of inequalities and injustice in project-based practices delivering social good in the context of community development (Cicmil and O’Laocha, 2016). Given the autonomous nature of project activities’ tasks, it is necessary to develop a methodology that would establish clear and measurable requirements for PM in order to achieve the SDGs (Toledo et al., 2021). Chaudhary (2019) identified that project managers can use frameworks to create a Sustainability Management Plan and assess the sustainability impact. In essence, such an assessment will assist the project manager in carrying out projects in a sustainable manner. Furthermore, Chaudhary (2019) identified that the sustainability scorecard approach can be adopted to find out the sustainability score of projects. A sustainability scorecard can be created to assign a sustainability score to each project activity. This will ensure that all project components, from the project business case to final project acceptance, are sustainable. To create a detailed plan, we can create a Sustainable Impact Breakdown Structure (SBS) that is similar to or in addition to the Work Breakdown Structure. This assessment can help you gain a better understanding of key project risks related to the 3P’s, and it can also help you develop a strategic plan that considers all stakeholder impacts and engagement strategies.  In addition, the scorecard assists financial institutions in determining the viability of projects that require funding and prioritizing requests that demonstrate potentially positive impacts.

514  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 28.2

Social project management practices contributing towards achieving the SDGs through digital technologies

SDGs

Social Project Management Practices Project Manager having access to Enterprise Resource Planning system as well as other integrated Common Data Environment (CDE), as per ISO19650 request is, then it will be easier for the Project Manager to:

SDG 1

No Poverty

Offer fair living wages to project team members, which will give the PM access to the best human resources needed for the project. The recruitment of new employees should adopt a fair selection process that engages people from the local communities of operation. Utilize properly local citizens and give them work. The Project Manager, having access to accurate project data, will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to manage their health and well-being better

SDG 2

Zero Hunger

during the project. Give opportunity to local citizens to work in any type of project (building, agriculture etc.). Giving them access to affordable healthy and nutritious food made by the local community. Project should not result in food wastages. The Project Manager, having access to accurate project data, will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to manage their health and well-being better during the project.

SDG 3

Good Health and

Visualize and simulate health and safety standards.

Well-Being of

Every project should have documented, shared and make available health and safety policies, i.e.,

People

project resources should have access to affordable medical services. Link team members health and well-being by making this as criterion for success of project. Access to a CDE allow the Project Manager in case of outsource to ensure project’s resources are being paid adequately and treated fairly. A tremendous benefit of integrated and collaborative technologies is the power of simulation through gamification. This impacts on project’s quality delivery. Thus, by increasing SDG social – economic – environmental awareness then:

SDG 4

Quality Education Project Managers could possess the necessary knowledge and skills to promote sustainable development. Project Managers should be certified and trained on sustainability and sensitized about how their projects contribute to or detract from sustainable development on a local and global scale.

SDG 5

Gender Equality

By having access to projects’ data, it will be easier for the Project Manager to ensure equal opportunity for work based on skill and zero tolerance for bias based on gender. Good employment and staffing practices should be followed for project organization. Hence, access to projects’ data as well as urban and other data gives the Project Manager the opportunity to visualize useful information that will increase their knowledge. This attitude generates more Project

SDG 8

Decent Work and

Managers to have proactive behaviour antecedents that becomes the heart of a collaborative culture

Economic Growth (Kapogiannis et al., 2021). Thereafter, it will be clearer for them to implement appropriate employment conditions like healthcare, parental and leave policy, fair dismissal and ensure work-life balance of project resources. Project Manager should make suppliers accountable for similar code of conduct.

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  515 SDGs

Social Project Management Practices The Project Manager, having access to accurate project data, will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to promote cohesion and reduce inequalities

SDG 10

Reducing Inequalities

due to the continuous reporting and diverse input from the team. Considering therefore the fact that projects have policies for non-discrimination regarding nationality, caste, color, age, creed, disability, gender, sexual orientation, veteran status, pregnancy status or any other characteristic protected under applicable law then better implementation of this social parameter can occur. The Project Manager, having access to accurate project data, will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to promote cohesion and reduce inequalities due to the continuous reporting and diverse input from the team. The power of tracking and tracing tasks and activities will enable the Project Manager to help him/

SDG 16

Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

her to consider all the policies and procedures to ensure projects are complying with relevant laws and regulations of the land where project is being implemented automatically. Proper communications and reporting to stakeholders on compliance related matters (Carboni, 2014). Adopt project procurement practices that prevent bribery and corruption on projects. Project Managers should work on improving transparency and accountability, strengthen brand protection and improve risk mitigation by adhering to public policy.

Source:  Adapted from Chaudhary (2019).

Furthermore, the scorecard is intended to serve as a guide for developers in developing more sustainable projects and to encourage them to consider sustainability issues from the start. Chaudhary (2019) identified the various SDG’s and the roles of the project managers in ensuring that the SDG’s have been achieved. The SDG’s have been classified into three categories. The first category was more socially oriented, the second category was environmentally focused while the third category was geared towards sustainable consumption and production. In explaining the first category (Table 28.2), PMs and Sponsors were identified as critical in determining the project’s potential to reduce poverty by providing employment when reviewing a business case. Every project should adhere to the organization’s non-discrimination policies and practices regarding project personnel and resources. People working on the project should be paid a living wage. For the same work, men and women should be paid equally. The project should not reduce the number of jobs that pay livable wages; rather, it should create jobs that boost the economy. Since systematic thinking is in place then the involvement and integration of innovative collaborative solutions could impact on the delivery of SDG goals. Project managers have an ethical and moral responsibility to protect the environment. Project managers should consider the total lifecycle cost, including disposal costs, as part of the project’s business case and investigate options for reuse or recycling of the entire product or component materials. In view of that the second category of the SDG’s focusing on environment and the various roles of project managers are indicated below. It could be argued that aspects of social elements in engineering projects could enable project managers to elaborate and develop competences that will make them great leaders. Table 28.3 highlights the use of accurate project data and visualization tools that can help project managers ensure compliance with various SDGs such as clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, industry innovation and infrastructure, climate action, life below water, life on land, and partnerships for the goals. Access to data can help project managers define policies and procedures, check water and sanitation, reduce carbon footprint, promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, and ensure consistency with SDG strategy during

516  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Table 28.3

Highlights the importance of accurate project data and visualization tools in achieving compliance with various sustainable development goals

SDGs

Environmental Project Management Practices When the Project Manager has access to accurate project data, he/she will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to ensure that: ● Every project should have defined policies and procedures to account for water consumption.

SDG 6

Clean Water and

● Such policies should extend to distributors and vendors.

Sanitation

● Project should not pollute the water bodies and underground water. Simulation and gamification will allow a zero-risk approach to check clean water and sanitation based on accurate data. Furthermore AI, IoT, satellite, 6G etc. integration could help data collection, process, storage visualization and knowledge sharing to work towards data driven decision throughout the lifecycle. When the Project Manager has access to accurate project data, he/she will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to ensure that there is zero carbon footprint on their project and try to meet energy requirements through renewable sources.

SDG 7

Affordable and

Project Managers should also consider energy inputs of their suppliers and distributors

Clean Energy

and should consider energy inputs as crucial factors in outsourcing the work. Simulation and gamification will allow a zero-risk approach to check clean water and sanitation based on accurate data. Furthermore, AI, IoT, satellite, 6G etc. integration could help data collection, process, storage visualization and knowledge sharing to work towards data driven decision throughout the lifecycle. When the Project Manager has access to accurate project data, he/she will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to ensure that there is zero carbon footprint on their project and try to meet energy requirements

Industry, SDG 9

Innovation, and Infrastructure

through renewable sources. Collaborative culture into the society means the Project Manager could: ● Embrace approaches like Design for Environment (DoE), modular designing for upgrading the products. ● Project Managers could promote use of recycled materials. ● Project Managers should focus on biodegradable packaging and labelling. Labelling should inform the consumer about accuracy of content, disposal methods etc. When the Project Manager has access to accurate project data, he/she will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to measure the impact of the project on climate change and take necessary measures to avoid or

SDG 13

Climate Action

mitigate the impact of the project on the climate. In addition, access to GHG emission, water consumption, use of renewable energy in their projects could be better calculated because of past performance. As a result, smart algorithms could be designed to forecast whether based on projects’ requirement climate actions goals have been taken into consideration or not. When the Project Manager has access to accurate project data, he/she will be able to

SDG 14

Life Below Water

visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to minimize the negative impact of the project on water quality and habitats throughout the project cycle.

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  517 SDGs

Environmental Project Management Practices A Project Manager with access to accurate project data he/she will be able to visualize useful information that will make it easier for the project team to analyze environmental-related data to help protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt

SDG 15

Life on Land

and reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss as a result of construction project delivery. Hence, risk appraisal will be easier and thus will amplify projects capacity in terms of maximizing teams’ knowledge in relation to projects’ sustainable design, construction and delivery. In addition, shared data among stakeholders could improve decision making and impact on Key Performance Indicators for project success. A Project Manager with access to accurate project data will be able to visualize useful

SDG 17

Partnerships for the Goals

information that will make it easier for the project team to meet virtually (online) with project stakeholders (for example global partners and suppliers). During these meeting discussions further elaboration can be applied ensuring consistency on the project’s goals in relation to SDG strategy.

Source:  Adapted from Chaudhary (2019).

meetings with global partners and suppliers. Integration of AI, IoT, satellite, and 6G technologies can aid in data collection, process, storage, visualization, and knowledge sharing, promoting data-driven decision-making throughout the project lifecycle. In addition, sustainable consumption and production entails doing more and better with less while considering the environmental impacts of the projects. Recycling resources realizes a number of long-term benefits related to the project and reduces raw material mining, thereby helping to protect natural resources. Such responsible recycling, demonstrating the use of recycled materials and the efficient use of resources, provides marketing opportunities as well as cost savings by avoiding waste. Project managers should use recycled and/or responsibly sourced materials whenever possible. The various roles of project managers in the line of ensuring sustainable consumption and production are as follows. In terms of sustainable consumption in production, PM practices to achieve SDGs require clearer provision of materials and other resources. Table 28.4 discusses the role of project managers in achieving sustainable consumption and production practices for SDG 11 and SDG 12, including the focus on smart buildings and cities, procurement from local suppliers, recycling policies, use of digital communication technology, and compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements. According to this study, as the world becomes more projectified, the role of project managers should be expanded to include sustainable practices in their projects, programs, and portfolios. Project managers must be capable, skilled, and willing to drive long-term projects. Project managers must consider sustainability alongside time, cost, and scope constraints (Chaudhary, 2019).

518  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals  Table 28.4

Sustainable consumption and production practices in project management for achieving SDGs 11 and 12

SDGs

Sustainable Consumption in Production Practices of Project Management Smart Buildings and Cities is among the main targets where Project Managers have to work on and provide sustainable solutions. This aims to develop a collaborative culture that will allow us to utilize and adopt environmentally friendly technologies in project

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities and Communities

development (especially during the operation stage). Furthermore, construction projects like buildings should focus on green building concepts with a focus on materials that are energy efficient, waste minimization, waste treatment, smart solutions, renewable energy inputs, use of durable materials, use of materials with low health risk. The Project Manager should consider the processes as well as stakeholders’ involvement in those processes for successfully delivering a sustainable project. In terms of Responsible Consumption and Production the Project Manager should focus to spur practices for optimum and efficient use of resources. ● The policies and procedures should emphasize on procuring resources from local suppliers as it will support the growth of the local economy, reducing the emissions linked with transportation. Such steps will improve supplier capacity and experience. The existence of an integrated system can allow this to be achieved over a centralized/ decentralized format. ● Project Managers must adhere to recycling policies and practices regarding sourcing and use of recycled products and materials. Data bases should store data that could be retrieved and utilized during the design and construction process.

Responsible SDG 12

Consumption and Production

● It is recommended that Project Managers make best use of digital communications technology as it achieves a number of project outcomes including time and cost savings, allows the establishment of virtual project teams, reducing CO2 emissions from transportation. Policies and procedures on the transportation of goods or materials ensure that transportation and the packaging of products are as environmentally friendly as possible. ● Project Managers should also ensure that policies are in place to hold suppliers to the same level of product and services labelling standards. They should be aware of sustainable procurement standards such as ISO:20400 Sustainable Procurement Guidance (ISO, 2018) as well as ISO19650 (Information Management). ● Project Managers ought to ascertain that the project complies with all specific legislative and regulatory requirements. Project Managers should give due consideration to materials and products that do not create by-products or waste that has the potential to contaminate or pollute.

Source:  Adapted from Chaudhary (2019).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The extensive review suggests that PM can play a critical role in achieving SDGs. By adopting a holistic approach that considers social, economic, and environmental impacts, project managers can contribute to more sustainable outcomes. However, there are limitations and challenges that need to be addressed to achieve this goal. One of the challenges is the lack of awareness and understanding of sustainability among project managers. This can lead to a narrow focus on short-term objectives and a lack of consideration for long-term impacts. To

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  519 address this, project managers need to receive training on sustainable practices and be encouraged to incorporate sustainability into their decision-making processes. Another challenge is the lack of data and metrics to measure sustainability performance. This is particularly challenging for developing countries or areas where SPM is still in its infancy. To overcome this, project managers need to work with stakeholders to identify appropriate indicators and develop systems for tracking progress towards sustainability goals. To contribute more to SDGs, project managers need to start considering the full life cycle of projects, from design to decommissioning. This requires a shift from a project-centric to a systems-centric approach that considers the broader impacts of projects on society and the environment. It also requires engagement with stakeholders, including local communities and indigenous peoples, to ensure that projects are culturally appropriate and socially acceptable. In summary, PM can be a powerful tool for achieving SDGs. However, this requires a shift towards more sustainable practices and a greater awareness of sustainability among project managers. To overcome the barriers and limitations, project managers need to receive training, work with stakeholders to develop appropriate metrics, and adopt a systems-centric approach that considers the broader impacts of projects on society and the environment. By doing so, PM can contribute to a better and smarter world by 2030.

REFERENCES Ali, F., Boks, C. and Bey, N. (2016). Design for Sustainability and Project Management Literature A Review. Procedia CIRP, 48, pp.  28–33. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.procir​.2016​.04​.185. Analia Sánchez, M. and Schneider, D.E. (2014). Project Management, Strategic Management and Sustainable Development: A Review of the Literature. ResearchGate, 4(3). Available at: http://​www​ .revistaseletronicas​.fmu​.br/​. Anantatmula, V.S. (2010). Project Manager Leadership Role in Improving Project Performance. Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), pp. 13–22. Anukwonke, C.C., Tambe, E.B., Nwafor, D.C. and Malik, K.T. (2022). Climate Change and Interconnected Risks to Sustainable Development. In Climate Change: The Social and Scientific Construct (pp. 71–86). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Apenko, S.N. and Klimenko, O.A. (2019). Sustainable Project Management: Results of Research on Russian Enterprises. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 108, pp. 231–234. Baghalzadeh Shishehgarkhaneh, M., Keivani, A., Moehler, R.C., Jelodari, N. and Roshdi Laleh, S. (2022). Internet of Things (IoT), Building Information Modeling (BIM), and Digital Twin (DT) in Construction Industry: A Review, Bibliometric, and Network Analysis. Buildings, 12(10), p. 1503. Carmen, Z. (2010). Sustainable Agricultural Development –. Cercetări Agronomice în Moldova, XLIII(3). Castor, J., Bacha, K. and Nerini, F.F. (2020). SDGs in Action: A Novel Framework for Assessing Energy Projects Against the Sustainable Development Goals. Energy Research and Social Science, Issue 68. Chaudhary, K. and Dakshina, M.R. (2019). Sustainable Project Management and Sustainable Development Goals: Connecting the Dots. In Prof Gopinath, Prof Pati, R.K., & Prof Padhi, S. S, (Eds). Project Management in the Emerging World of Disruption. PMI India Research & Academic Conference. 28th February–2nd March 2019. Kozhikode Publishers (PMI Organization Centre Pvt. Ltd), pp. 98–116. Chen, M.T. (1997). The Modern Project Manager. Cost Engineering, 39(3), pp. 27–30. Chin, C., Spowage, A. and Yap, E. (2012). Project Management Methodologies: A Comparative Analysis. Journal for the Advancement of Performance Information and Value, 4(1), pp. 106–118. Cicmil, S. and O’Laocha, E. (2016). The Logic of Projects and the Ideal of Community Development: Social Good, Participation and the Ethics of Knowing. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(3) pp.  546–561. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​IJMPB​-09​-2015​-0092.

520  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Crawford, L. (2000). Project Management Competence for the New Millenium. In Proceedings of 15th World Congress on Project Management. London: International Project Management Association (IPMA). Dafevwakpo, O.J., Amadi, A.H. and Anka, R.B. (2023). Realization of United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): The Project Manager’s Role. DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i1-86. Delnavaz, M. (2012). Project Managers’ Role in Sustainable Building Process. Chalmers, p. 50. Available at: http://​publications​.lib​.chalmers​.se/​records/​fulltext/​161485​.pdf. Dunmade, I.S. (2016). Community Capacity Building Sustainable Engineering. Covenant University Press, 5(1). Duran, D.C., Gogan, L.M., Artene, A. and Duran, V. (2015). The Components of Sustainable Development - A Possible Approach. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, pp. 806–811. ESCAP, U. (2017). Integrated Approaches for Sustainable Development Goals Planning: The Case of Goal 6 on Water and Sanitation. European Parliament (2021). Requested by the ENVI Committee Carbon Farming Making Agriculture Fit for 2030, (November). Fei, W., Opoku, A., Agyekum, K., Oppon, J.A., Ahmed, V., Chen, C. and Lok, K.L. (2021). The Critical Role of the Construction Industry in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Delivering Projects for the Common Good. Sustainability, 13(16), p. 9112. Gachie, W. (2021). Project Sustainability Management: Risks, Problems and Perspective. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.21511/​ppm​.17(1)​.2019​.27. Gareis, R., Huemann, M., and Martinuzzi, A. (2010). Project Management and Sustainable Development Principles: A Conceptual Model. Defining the Future of Project Management, pp. 1–4. Available at: https://​www​.pmi​.org/​-/​media/​pmi/​documents/​public/​pdf/​research/​research​-summaries/​gareis​_​-pm​ -and​-sustainable​-development​.pdf. Glavič P. (2022). Updated Principles of Sustainable Engineering. Processes, 10(5), p. 870. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.3390/​pr10050870. Gomes Silva, F.J., Kirytopoulos, K., Pinto Ferreira, L., Sá, J.C., Santos, G. and Cancela Nogueira, M.C. (2022). The Three Pillars of Sustainability and Agile Project Management: How Do They Influence Each Other. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), pp. 1495–1512. GSDR 2015 Brief (2015). Planning and Implementing Action for Sustainable Agriculture, pp. 1–4. Hajian, M. and Kashani, S.J. (2021). Evolution of the Concept of Sustainability. From Brundtland Report to Sustainable Development Goals. In Sustainable Resource Management (pp. 1–24). Elsevier. Hak, T., Janouskova, S. and Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A Need for Relevant Indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, pp. 565–573. Hwang, B.G. and Tan, J.S. (2012). Green Building Project Management: Obstacles and Solutions for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 20(5), pp. 335–349. Ika, L.A. and Pinto, J.K. (2022). The ‘Re-Meaning’ of Project Success: Updating and Recalibrating for a Modern Project Management. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), pp. 835–848. Irfan, M. et al. (2021). Role of Project Planning and Project Manager Competencies on Public Sector Project Success. Sustainability, 13(3). Ivanov, I., Vlasova, T. and Orlova, L. (2020). ‘Project Management Regarded as a Driver of Sustainable Development’. Environment, Energy and Earth Sciences (E3S) Web of Conferences. Innovative Technologies in Science and Education (ITSE-2020) Vol. 210, 10005. https://​ doi​ .org/​ 10​ .1051/​ e3sconf/​202021010005. Jacobs, M. (1999). Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept. In A. Dobson (Ed). Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice (pp. 21–45). New York City: Oxford University Press. Jose, B.A.M. (2009). Sustainable Agricultural Development and Environment: Conflicts and Contradictions in the Context of the Rwandan Agriculture. National University of Rwanda Faculty of Economics and Management, (August), pp. 104–127. Kapogiannis, G., Fernando, T. and Alkhard, A.M. (2021). Impact of Proactive Behaviour Antecedents on Construction Project Managers’ Performance. Construction Innovation, 21(4), pp. 708–722. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1108/​CI​-02​-2020​-0029.

The contribution of project management to the sustainable development goals  521 Kihuha, P.E.N.I.N.A.H. (2018). Monitoring and evaluation practices and performance of global environment facility projects in Kenya: A case of United Nations Environment Programme. Unpublished master’s thesis). Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya. Lewin, H.A., Robinson, G.E., Kress, W.J., Baker, W.J., Coddington, J., Crandall, K.A., Durbin, R., Edwards, S.V., Forest, F., Gilbert, M.T.P. and Goldstein, M.M. (2018). Earth BioGenome Project: Sequencing Life for the Future of Life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(17), pp. 4325–4333. Lientz, B. and Rea, K. (2001). Project Management for the 21st Century. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Magano, J., Silviu, G., Sausa e Silva, C. and Leite, A. (2021). The Contribution of Project Management to a More Sustainable Society: Exploring the Perception of Project Managers. Project Leadership and Society, Volume 2. Mancell, P., Philbin, S.P. and Plodowski, A. (2019). Why Project Management is Critical to Achieving the SDGs and How This Can Be Achieved. Delft TU Project Management Congress 2019. Delft, The Netherlands 11–12 Apr 2019. Marcelino-Sadaba, S., Gonzalez-Jaen, L. F. and Perez-Ezcurdia, A. (2015). Using Project Management as a Way to Sustainability. From a Comprehensive Review to a Framework Definition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99, pp. 1–16. Mckinsey & Company (2020). Agriculture and Climate Change: Reducing Emissions Through Improved Farming Practices. Available at: https://​www​.mckinsey​.com/​~/​media/​mckinsey/​industries/​ agriculture/​our​%20insights/​reducing​%20agriculture​%20emissions​%20through​%20improved​ %20farming​%20practices/​agriculture​-and​-climate​-change​.pdf. (Accessed: 6 July 2021). McNeill, D. (2004). The Concept of Sustainable Development. Aalborg East: DIR and Institute for History, International and Social Studies. Okland, A. (2015). Gap Analysis for Incorporating Sustainability in Project Management. Procedia Computer Science, 64, pp. 103–109. Oyedepo, S.O. (2014). Towards Achieving Energy for Sustainable Development in Nigeria. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, pp. 255–272. Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 6th ed. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Raiden, A. and King, A. (2021). Social Value, Organisational Learning, and the Sustainable Development Goals in the Built Environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 172, p. 105663. Roberto, F.d.T. et al. (2021). Is the Incorporation of Sustainability Issues and Sustainable Development Goals in Project Management a Catalyst for Sustainable Project Delivery? International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 28(8), pp. 733–743. Rocha, Á. et al. (2014). New Perspectives in Information Systems and Technologies, Volume 1. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 275(1). Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​ -319​-05951​-8. Ruparathna, R. and Hewage, K. (2015). Sustainable Procurement in the Canadian Construction Industry: Current Practices, Drivers and Opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, pp. 305–314. Sabini, L., Muzio, D. and Alderman, N. (2019). 25 years of ‘Sustainable Projects’. What We Know and What the Literature Says. International Journal of Project Management, 37(6), pp. 820–838. Schwalbe, K. (2015). An Introduction to Project Management. Fifth ed. Minneapolis: Schwalbe Publishing. Shastri, Y., Hoda, R. and Amor, R. (2021). The Role of the Project Manager in Agile Software Development Projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 173. Shobayo, P.B. and Elumah, L.O. (2017). Evaluating the Role of Project Management on Sustainable Development. Pakistan Journal of Management Sciences, 1(1), pp. 64–69. Silvius, A.J. and Schipper, R.P. (2014a). Sustainability in Project Management: A Literature Review and Impact Analysis. Social Business, 4(1), pp. 63–96. Silvius, A.J.G. and Schipper, R.P.J. (2014b). Sustainability in Project Management Competencies: Analyzing the Competence Gap of Project Managers. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2, pp. 40–58. Silvius, G. (2016). Sustainability as a Competence of Project Managers. PM World Journal, V(IX), pp. 1–13.

522  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Silvius, G. (2021). The Role of the Project Management Office in Sustainable Project Management. Procedia Computer Science, 181(2019), pp.  1066–1076. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.procs​ .2021​.01​.302. Sneddon, C., Howarth, B.R. and Norgaad, B.R. (2006). Sustainable Development in a Post-Brundtland World. Ecological Economics, 57(2), pp. 253–268. Toledo, R.F. De et al. (2021). Is the Incorporation of Sustainability Issues and Sustainable Development Goals in Project Management a Catalyst for Sustainable Project Delivery? International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 28(8), pp. 733–743. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1080/​13504509​.2021​.1888816. UNESCO (2021). Engineering for Sustainable Development, UNESCO. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​ .18356/​9789214030089. Valdes-Vasquez, R. and Klotz, L.E. (2013). Social Sustainability Considerations During Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(1), pp. 80–89. Vale, J.W.S.P., Nunes, B. and de Carvalho, M.M. (2018). Project Managers’ Competences: What Do Job Advertisements and the Academic Literature Say? Project Management Journal, 49(3), pp. 82–97. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​8756972818770884. Wan Alwi, S.R. et al. (2014). Sustainability Engineering for the Future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 71, pp.  1–10. Available at: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2014​.03​.013. Webster, F.M. and Knutson, J. (2011). What is Project Management? Project Management Concepts and Methodologies. In C.D. Paul and C. Jeanette (Eds). The AMA Handbook of Project Management (pp. 1–10). New York: Amacom Books. Zhang, F., Zuo, J. and Zillante, G. (2013). Identification and Evaluation of the Key Social Competencies for Chinese Construction Project Managers. International Journal of Project Management, 31(5), pp. 748–759. Živković, S. and Veljković, M. (2018). Sustainable Development and Project Management. Economics of Sustainable Development, 2, pp. 13–21.

29. Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs in developing countries Samuel Ekung, Alex Opoku and Christian Asuquo

INTRODUCTION Construction has direct and indirect linkages to societal welfare, quality of life, eco-equilibrium and overall Sustainable Development (SD). Mitigating the adverse impacts of construction activities on the environment pivots on the implementation of SD strategies. However, these strategies and their reception into the industry have remained vastly non-proportional, with variable growth paths across the regions. Developing countries continue to struggle to embed SD strategies and policies as their construction approaches still rely significantly on traditional methods (Ayarkwa et al., 2022). On the other hand, advances made by the developed economies are deemed inadequate due to pockets of non-performance (Swain and Yang-Wallentin, 2020). The uptake of innovative construction methods (such as Sustainable Development Strategies in Construction [SDSC]) in developing countries continues to struggle due to inherent challenges (Iqbal et al., 2021; Pham et al., 2020; Tokbolat et al., 2020). Scholars have raised pertinent concerns about fundamental issues in the SDGs policies such as universality of its solutions, being too ambitious and inconsistent programmes (Khalid et al., 2020). Driven by these problems, current SDGs strategies in the region demand structural reforms to set targets driven by regional peculiarities. Managing the complex issues in which SDSC are targeted to improve also demands synergies of ideas, innovations and knowledge across the product’s lifecycle. The product lifecycle for construction goods begins with the extraction of resources from their natural environment, industrial processing, site assembly and production, operation in the use-phase and deconstruction; each of these phases have different carbon footprints, which SDSC must address comprehensively. Addressing these issues also demand varying strategies to tackle the constraints in terms of planning, design, procurement and production. However, numerous studies have continued to prioritise the production cycle, while other studies have promoted divergent perspectives. As the research space continues to navigate this understanding in search of consensus, a congruence continues to widen; this chapter explores regional contexts of the problem facing the implementation of SDSC. The sustainable development goals (SDGs) converge to 17 objectives and 169 targets with requisite means and measures. The targets were determined based on an assumed proportional linear relationship between inputs and targets; this thinking neglects the moderating issues notably, regional challenges that could vary the universal input-output design. Critical contextual issues, capable of moderating existing targets include administrative tools, economic, legal, political, social and technological variables (Lawrence, 2020). Whereas existing protocols assume similarity of the implementation environments, the disruption 523

524  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals in actual implementation experienced across the globe is due to inherent variations in the implementation environment (Adindu et al., 2022). Intrinsically, there is inherent inertia in SDGs’ wheel of progress, even though this position is often managed by denial of political interests. Nevertheless, stakeholders are not relenting in the efforts to resolve these problems; many developing countries are scaling heights in the implementation of SDSC strategies in construction. Over time, the challenges affecting the realisation of SDGs in construction and narrowly, the respective SDSC products (e.g., green buildings and zero-energy buildings) have been examined across domains. Many researchers have highlighted the challenges affecting the realisation of SDGs in construction in the context of developing countries (African context). For example, Opoku et al. (2019) determined the barriers to environmental sustainability; Tokbolat et al. (2020) discussed drivers and barriers; Ayarkwa et al. (2022) presented the challenges and strategies; and Imasiku (2021) provided a comparative review of challenges faced by developing and developed nations. From these studies, various understanding of the pertinent challenges influencing the implementation of SDSC exist with no consensus. The interaction between the pertinent issues and the possible trend in the issues across settings are uncertain. As a result, specific regions are grasping with peculiar challenges that need local solutions, while global strategies are widespread. Even though challenges across the regions seem interrelated in many aspects, the challenges impeding sectorial change to achieve SD and SDGs lack systematic considerations (Berg, 2020). The heterogeneous findings reported in many cases, a little over a decade ago, deserve other complementary studies. In addition, disparity is reported in research into SDSC between developed and developing countries; with the pros supporting developed countries (Mushi et al., 2022). A better time to synergise existing findings in developing countries in the quest of finding solutions to the challenges facing Africa in particular is now. This chapter answers questions related to the contemporary issues affecting the diffusion of SDSC in developing countries, their spread across domains and trend over decades of sustainability. The knowledge of these dimensions would position the industry in the region and its stakeholders to develop the pertinent strategies to accelerate SDGs in construction either as contingent solutions for the respective region or a template, which can be applied across regions. Through the evolving and current challenges, a barometer can be developed for the periodic assessment of regional readiness to advance SDGs in the construction industry. Besides expanding the literature base on the challenges inhibiting SDSC, the chapter also clarifies the pertinent contextual issues to improve in order to accelerate SD through the construction sector. The uptake of SDSC is predicated on the understanding of systemic issues, this knowledge would facilitate the development of the pertinent mitigating strategies.

SDGs IN CONSTRUCTION The overarching consensus on the meaning of SD is hinged on the premise of developing to meet current and future needs of stakeholders while preserving the means to achieving these needs into the future. The emphasis is on the relationship between society and nature, the equilibrium of which is objective to the sustainability of systems, structures and life. Besides these fundamental issues, the term has gained sectoral embedding and definition, which imperatively seeks to grow the respective industry’s relevance, practice and strategies to meeting

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs  525 SDGs. The proliferating conceptions are deemed to benefit the SDGs by accounting for the increasing recognition across sectors (Egbetokun et al., 2018). Defined using 17 goals and 169 targets, the pragmatic nature of SD underscores the various industrial strategies advanced by the different sectors of the national economies, which are interpreted using the practical term sustainability. Sustainability focally addresses the triple bottom-line (economic, social and environmental); this premise is adequate considering its networks, which embrace institutions, people, nature, environment and diversity (Ekung et al., 2022a). Sustainability parameters are embedded in the construction through the use of sustainable construction practices and strategies that embrace the triple bottom line. SDGs within the construction industry context also embrace smart cities, sustainable communities, sustainable infrastructures, provision and application of renewable energy technologies in constructed facilities among others (Opoku, 2016). Therefore, SD in construction is sustainable construction and the challenges obstructing the realisation of SDGs in the construction industry of developing countries imply the knowledge of the constraints to the effective implementation of SDSC. Opoku (2016) showed that a sustainable built environment contributes to SDGs through the development of socio-economic facets and societal well-being. Through this understanding, SDSC reflects sustainability practices implemented in the planning, design, procurement and execution of construction projects. Its perspective seeks to achieve a balance between the natural and the constructed environment (Du Plessis and Cole, 2011); however, the anticipated equilibrium is often punctuated by systemic constraints. The Economist (2019) discussing the global view and Davies et al. (2019) looking at the Nigerian context placed infrastructure development at the heart of SDGs. The trajectory of infrastructure to SDGs has an economic dimension (job opportunities, education and national economic goals), environmental (natural resources conservation and climate change impacts mitigation) and society (support quality of life through development) (Fei et al., 2021; Opoku, 2016; The Economist, 2019). The construction industry also has substantial impacts on SDGs through land development, resource uses, waste generation, carbon emission and labour practices through its products’ lifecycle, maintenance and renewal schemes. The UN Global Compact Report (2018) reported that a number of strategies are initiated in the construction sector to accelerate SDGs including, requisite corporate sustainability policies, sector specific initiatives targeting specific impact areas (e.g., sustainable construction) and deep engagement with environmental issues. Through land-use patterns, planning, design and execution practices, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are eliminated; these activities are direct correlates of SDGs 7, 11, 12 and 13. During construction, the waste generated over the lifecycle of construction projects affects the ecosystem and communities with implications on SDGs 3, 6, 11, 12 and 15. Governance issues in its activities’ lifecycle also have social, economic, political and technical implications on SDG 16. Importantly, the availability and quality of housing strongly determines quality of life (SDG 16). In addition, construction provides a roadmap for poverty alleviation and economic growth through employment opportunities, thereby aiding SDGs 1, 8, 10 and 16. Marcelline et al. (2022) established a partial correlation between green construction procurement and SDGs aided by green logistic services management. Therefore, a sustainable built environment provides operation and resources efficiency through SDSC. Goubran (2019) estimated that 17 percent and 27 percent of all SDGs are dependent directly and indirectly on the construction sector’s activities; however, the greatest contributions are explained by SDGs 6, 7 and 11 (Goubran, 2019). Fei et al. (2021) also confirmed that the impacts of the construction sector on SDGs vary but are more critical on ten SDGs (3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 15).

526  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals The relationships are reported without specifying the underlying conditions. Aggregating the SDGs in this way seems improbable without recognising the regional variations in terms of the level of development, action required and strategies. Given that these dimensions vary across the region, this chapter argues that the notion of developed and developing nations is important to the sustainable built environment-SDGs’ model. The line between the state of SD in developing and developed countries has continued to widen, however, existing literature supports the developed countries achieving a significant scale (Imasiku, 2021; Khalil et al., 2021). Swain and Yang-Wallentin (2020) affirmed that differing priorities drive the uptake of SDGs strategies in both settings; while the triple bottom-line is increasingly adopted to achieve the holistic SDGs, developed countries tend to achieve greater scale through alignment with and addressing social and environmental issues, whereas developing countries are interested in economic and social contexts. The developing countries, however, tend to marginalise potentials to optimise SDSC despite the advantages leveraged by its setting to achieve the SDGs more easily. The advantage hinges on massive infrastructure construction needs, which are imperatively new without decommissioning costs and waste management. Mahmud (2018) scaled developing countries to perform better based on their resilience to survive challenges. Khalid et al. (2018) shared the perspective of India for instance in the Asian context; Nigeria is focal in the West African context based on low ratings in economic, social, technological, legal, political and environmental indices on a global scale (Ekung, 2015). On the other hand, a section of the literature doubted the capability of SDGs policies to address real problems of nations, notably the developing countries (Khalid et al., 2020). Myriad of problems are reportedly responsible for the laggard engagement with SD and SDSC in developing countries. Stakeholders continue to promote SDGs policies in construction using designed intentions but fail to look at the results achieved in each context (Swain and Yang-Wallentin, 2020). The effectiveness of policy depends on the intentions and the outputs but the outputs are deemed more reliable. Even though the intention of SDGs is universal, regional outputs show the need to seek redefinition of inherent targets and programmes. Advancing the SDSC challenges and its policy recommendations would benefit implementation planning and strategies.

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES FOR SDGs IN CONSTRUCTION The challenges facing the realisation of SDGs in the construction sector of developing countries have ties with their social, economic, technological, environmental, political and legal contexts (Imasiku, 2021). In the general purview, poor capital budget, poor business climate, disaster risks, clashes between short termism and long-term orientation of investment in SD, poor governance quality and infrastructures, climate change, low per capita income, rapid urbanisation, low client demand, global financial crisis, and the pandemic are important to the generic SDGs (Imasiku, 2021). Khalid et al. (2020) corroborated these issues but adopted unique framings such as dearth of finances, data quality, indicators and performance criteria. Sarvajayakesavalu (2015) forecasted that five areas would pose pertinent challenges for developing countries to achieve SDGs with the emergence of SDGs policy, namely: developing metrics, infrastructure deficits, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, performance measurement and data standardisation and verification.

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs  527 Cross-country studies (Bhattacharya and Jahan, 2020) revealed that poor alignment to inherent planning processes, bad leadership and management, financing, data, partnership and stakeholders’ problems were some initial problems for Ghana, Nigeria, Bolivia, Sri Lanka, India and Peru. Specific study of barriers to SDG4 in Nigeria, showed that funding, infrastructure and enrolment must improve to accelerate construction-related SDSC in the education sector (Lawrence et al., 2020). Policy somersaults due to incompetent leadership, non-realistic goals and political interests have eroded Nigeria’s trajectory to SDGs in recent times (Ajulor, 2018). The lack of clarity on goals, collaboration, trade-offs on goals, accountability, funding, capacity building, technology and cultural problems are also prevalent in the educational sector (Filho et al., 2020). Gyadu-Asiedu et al. (2021) examined developing countries’ problems with achieving the SDGs using systemic contexts of complexity, interrelationship, culture and informality. Distilling these generic challenges, this chapter approaches the emerging challenges using the ranking factors reported in theoretical and empirical literature in the following sections. The framework of emerging challenges shows the pertinent challenges for SDSC are imperatively social. The archetypes of social issues are linked with the dearth of information and support systems such as regulatory instruments and low training and education.

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT Leading the discourse into contemporary issues for advancing SDGs in construction in the African contexts in recent times is the seminal works of Mushi et al. (2021) and Ayakwa et al. (2022) in Ghana. Prior to these studies, Ampadu-Asiamah and Ampadu-Asiamah (2013) had placed the dearth of training above other pertinent problems challenging SDSC in Ghana. Several studies revealed that the dearth of training and education and non-familiarity with sustainable features (low awareness) could explain why project management teams are laggard to integrate SDSC. Stakeholders’ level of understanding of SDSC in developing countries is low (Asare et al., 2020; Ekung et al., 2021a; Mushi et al., 2022). Achieving sustainable buildings for instance, is predicated on the provision of quality training and education related to sustainable decisions, environmental impact assessment and inspiring sustainability (Asare et al., 2020). Chan and Olawumi (2021) also affirmed that education and training is critical to implementing sustainable design through the green-BIM framework. The perspective of knowledge management also overarches; Ogunmakinde et al. (2016) showed the main issues are dearth of education, training, awareness, data and research. Other studies in the Nigerian context validating education and training-related issues include the dearth of expertise (Daniel et al., 2018), academic qualification (Amuda-Yusuf et al., 2020), the dearth of research and enforcement policy (Ifeanyichukwu et al., 2021). General sustainability literacy is likewise important to reinforcing commitment to sustainable design among professionals, however, like other developing countries, sustainability education is low in South Africa (Jacobs, 2015) and Nigeria (Toriola et al., 2021). Low knowledge and expertise likewise inhibited the adoption of sustainable construction materials in Nigeria (Akinshipe et al., 2019). In South Africa, data management and the dearth of skilled professionals lead to other issues in the requirements for the adoption of green building projects (Simpeh et al., 2021). A report from Burkina Faso also validated that low stakeholders’ awareness is a significant concern (Nikiyema, 2020). Aghimien et al. (2019) also prioritised the twin problems

528  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals of knowledge and understanding as critical barriers to the implementation of SDSC in Nigeria and South Africa. Low awareness in SDSC is linked with poorly informed construction markets in Ghana (Guribie et al., 2021). From users’ experience in Nigeria, low awareness about their benefits inhibits the decision to adopt and rent green buildings (Komolafe and Oyewole, 2018). Non-familiarity with SDSC in the region is also widespread (Ayarkwa et al., 2022; Barbosa et al., 2021; Darko et al., 2018). Low knowledge and non-familiarity affect the aspects of assessment, energy modelling and commissioning (Darko et al., 2018). The context of low awareness problem also exists as the dearth of product information (Ayarkwa et al., 2022). Information regarding extant materials, technologies and skills is an imperative requirement for effective contract and project management of sustainable projects. Also, familiarity with budding and established sustainable technologies is crucial to growing SDGs strategies in construction. Ayarkwa et al. (2022) emphasised this factor is responsible for low adoption, Darko et al. (2018) projected low awareness to inhibit the overall project performance, while Barbosa et al. (2021) discussed the implication dealing with deviation from performance targets. Ekung et al. (2020) showed that massive awareness, education and training is needed to upscale the uptake of solar PV in residential buildings in Nigeria. Deep awareness is built on massive education and when properly embedded, awareness has the capacity to grow competence, marketing, reduce labour costs and other soft costs, quality of delivery and enhance policy initiatives (Ekung et al., 2020). The forms of awareness, education and training parameters vary, namely: conferences, literature guidance, seminars, practical demonstration projects, research and development activities and market development policies. Besides their impacts on implementation decisions, improving education, training and awareness would facilitate appropriate value framing, mindsets and cost perceptions in favour of SDSC (Ekung et al., 2021b; Samari et al., 2013). Hwang et al. (2017) and Tigabu (2017) linked experience and training with lower cost premium and advancement of technological innovation needed to overcome institutional hindrances. The dearth of public awareness about the relevant metrics of SDSC are exigent issues for the developing countries (Opoku et al., 2019). In Tanzania, Phoya (2018) revealed that low level of knowledge, soft regulations and misperceptions are prior challenges to the implementation of SDSC among contractors. The level of awareness about SDSC in Libya is deemed weak in practice (Khalil et al., 2021). A report from Northern Cyprus corroborated that knowhow, low awareness and the dearth of requirements are important issues obstructing SDSC (Elmaulim and Alp, 2016). Reporting on the drivers of low integration of sustainability requirements in building design, Asare et al. (2020) also reported low sustainability education and awareness of environmental impact assessment in Ghana. Agyekum et al. (2021) linked awareness to the abilities to evaluate and understand preferences among SDSC options; through this linkage, improved awareness holds greater prospects for the SDSC implementation in emerging markets. Research on the other hand, is instructive to direct growth in technological innovations and market, product and policy development. The African region also struggles to assess SDSC knowledge, mainstream public awareness and upscale research and development. Mushi et al. (2022) tagged the research into the state of SDSC in the African context as imprecise. The interest in the causes of low education, training and sustainability knowledge development in developing countries represents another layer of research in which further studies are important. Research efforts aimed at structured training development include the works of Filho et al. (2017) and Ekung et al. (2019); both studies evaluated the challenges of integrating SDGs into higher education

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs  529 curricula and research generally and specifically, sustainability learning in the built environment curricula. Ekung et al. (2019) showed that policy and institutional intervention must improve to advance sustainability education in the Nigerian built environment. Industry-Related Issues Industry issues deal with the structure of the industry, its level of development, systemic factors, as well as stakeholders’ action and behaviours. A recent assessment of barriers to sustainable construction adoption in Zambia (Zulu et al., 2022) showed that regulatory and industry-related problems was one of the three principal and prevalent problems. Djokoto Dadzie and Ohemeng-Ababio (2014) validated challenges arising from client demands, low strategies, poor governmental support, poor cooperation and high risks. Aghimien et al. (2019) found that client preference was a critical barrier to SDSC in South Africa and Nigeria, while Daniel et al. (2018) also validated client demand and dearth of strategies. Sustainable construction is less prioritised in Nigeria (Toriola et al., 2021). In Asia, the resistance to innovative construction approaches is prominent (Iqbal et al., 2021; Tokbolat et al., 2020). Stakeholders (clients) resist the adoption of SDSC due to unequal expectations of comparative advantages with conventional approaches (Iqbal et al., 2021). In Ghana, the construction industry professionals are reserved to recommending green building practices due to low awareness (Agyekum et al., 2019; Guribie et al., 2021). Comparing the South African and Nigerian contexts, Aghimien et al. (2019) showed that resistance to change is a significant challenge for both countries. Related to the resistance to modify inherent practices are cultural issues; green practices are reported to conflict with cultural beliefs (Agyekum et al., 2019). Cultural resistance was reported in the Ghanaian study (Ametepey et al., 2015) and Nigeria (Toriola et al., 2021). The imbalance between social and environmental objectives in the procurement of educational buildings in Nigeria is due to the resistance to adopt innovative processes (Lawrence et al., 2020). In South Africa, construction professionals exhibited resistance to adopt SDSC through the dearth of commitment to the ideals of sustainable design (Simpeh and Smallwood, 2020). Mushi et al. (2022) argued that since other stakeholders (investors, developers and users) notably relied on professionals to advise on economic decisions, inherent resistance by the advisors translates to the apathy to demand and adopt SDSC. SDSC is also linked with high-level complexities. The understanding of complexities in construction has been defined using varying contexts, for example, number of stakeholders (Kermanshachi et al., 2022), number of projects (Chen et al., 2022), contractual relationships (Wang et al., 2018), among others. Whether in a project or programme, the number of stakeholders involved in sustainable projects outweigh alternate construction approaches due to involvement of additional professionals such as environmental managers, sustainability advisors, sustainability designers and project managers. Wu et al. (2019) discussed technical complexities from process and communication perspectives, while integration of diverse internal and external stakeholders also increases the complexity (Whyte and Davies, 2021). Project processes create complexity in terms of planning requirements, layers of technologies and sustainable features, which must be certified for use in the project by external bodies. Aberrant to the prevalent issues discussed in this work, are the roles of belief and value systems as barriers to the implementation of SDSC. Fischer et al. (2012) reported that the inertia in behavioural patterns of stakeholders, intentionality, preferences, values and worldviews are leading challenges to societal change to implement SDSC. Through this reflection,

530  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals the modification towards SD is contingent on deep values and belief systems of the stakeholders as indicators of behavioural patterns. This understanding directs attention to the need to correct inherent dearth of attention to beliefs, intentions, motives, preferences and values as some of the fundamental issues that can improve SDSC implementation. When the value and belief systems are right, the perception towards behavioural barriers is likely to be positive (Ekung et al., 2021b). Another dimension of the industry-specific issues is low development of Local Sustainable Construction Material and Technologies (LSCMT). Some notable innovations in Africa are related to timber and rammed earth walling (Agyekum et al., 2020) as well as bamboo. However, despite the rich LSCMT in this region, progression into implementation is limited by varying issues. The dearth of manufacturing competence, low local technologies and low awareness are some critical challenges facing the use of LSCMT in Nigeria and Ghana (Agyekum et al., 2020; Windapo and Ogunsanmi, 2014). Mitigating the challenges facing LSCMT development and adoption in developing countries would leverage enormous benefits to this market segment. Beyond facilitation of sustainability goals through social, cultural and environmental dimensions, LSCMT would promote cost economy, financial savings and importantly, reduce cost misperceptions. Akinshipe et al. (2019) posited that the knowledge of sustainable materials and expertise would enhance full sustainability goals in the construction industry. A growing research interest in this area however is focused on development, engineering properties and sustainability performance (e.g., Darwish et al., 2019, Egypt; Obianyo et al., 2020, Sodangi and Kazmi, 2020). Amidst research by Akinshipe (2019) in Nigeria, the interest on challenges facing their integration seems low. Cost Premium High costs significantly led to prominent issues obstructing SDSC implementation until the middle of the last decade (Ametepey et al., 2015). Cost factor re-emerges in a recent South African study by Simpeh et al. (2021). However, the challenge of ‘Costs’ was not cited among the top three problems obstructing the implementation of SDSC due to the use of exploratory factor analysis as a research validation technique. The cost issue developed into two categories, namely high initial cost of construction (Djokoto et al, 2014; Wu et al., 2019) and high capital costs (Ayarkwa et al., 2022). Toriola et al. (2021) found that there is total ignorance of the lifecycle costs and benefits in Nigeria. Despite the spread of high-cost factors across the construction industry, the factual disposition of the true cost is subject to varying misperceptions (Ekung et al., 2021a; Ekung et al., 2021b). The estimate of the extra cost also lacks consensus and agrees directly with the theory of practice (Adindu et al., 2022). With varying practices, the knowledge of the financial implications of SDSC in construction is contingent on what a given domain considers sustainable. A cost range of 1–25 percent is prevalent, however, the factual estimate of the extra cost across the domain is less than feared (Ekung et al., 2021c). The development of cost information is needed to produce the factual knowledge about the cost of SDSC in construction. Continuous reference to the extant ambiguous cost data during the decision process would continue to inhibit the industry’s path to SDGs. Wu et al. (2019) attributed the green cost premium to complex design requirements and energy modelling; however, allies of these problems are multiple challenges arising from cost management, knowledge and sustainability accounting gaps (see Adindu et al., 2022; Ekung et al., 2021a). Arguing from the complexity theory domain, misperception is at the heart of the high-cost

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs  531 debate (Ekung et al., 2021b; Phoya, 2018). Misperception creates uncertainties in the factual cost premium (Phoya, 2018), and is supported by varying industry practices (Adindu et al., 2022). Related to the cost misperception is short-termism with respect to the benefits of SDSC. Traditionally, the benefits of SDSC are long range but the decision to adopt SDSC relies on short-term factors (Wu et al., 2019). This understanding portrays investment in SDSCs with long payback periods; however, this narrative is modified based on the evidence from the simulation of energy-efficient strategies in Nigeria’s residential buildings (Ekung et al., 2021; Ekung et al., 2022b). In these studies, the payback period for the combined passive and active energy-efficient strategies and passive strategies only is one to four years. Less than feared, the cost-related issues are not the topmost issues to consider when developing SDSC implementation and mitigation strategies. However, the decision theory reinforces that perceived high-cost premium can obstruct the decision to adopt SDSC (Ekung et al., 2021b). In Tanzania, misperception does not only obstruct the implementation of SDSC, but would grow SDSC adoption when mitigated through factual cost information (Phoya, 2018). In Nigeria, a study of the determinants of sustainable construction revealed that the perceptions of professionals reinforce cost bias and hinder the design of relevant policies (Tunji-Olayeni et al., 2022). Since SDSC implementation decision interface is governed by available data, the quality of decision information determines the decision outcome. Whereas inherent decision data continues to suffer misperceptions, the implementation decision would result in rejection of SDSC by stakeholders. Since cost misperception has formed into a belief system, strong research is required to decouple its implications in the industry. In tackling this problem, Ekung et al. (2021c) showed that cost misperception thrives on three pivots, namely: cost management, knowledge and sustainability accounting gaps; therefore, high-cost mitigation strategies must first, tackle these problems. Overall, the role of high-cost and cost-related issues in the implementation of SDSC is fast declining as the critical factor. In Libya, Khalil et al. (2021) verified that capital and investment costs and cost of product, materials and technologies trailed behind knowledge, education, training, awareness and policy instrument-related issues. Related findings are also spread across diverse studies (e.g., Akinshipe et al., 2019; Simpeh et al., 2021). Policy and Regulatory Instruments The role of policy instruments in the implementation of SDSC is long established. Restriction posed by public authority’s regulation and codes influence sustainable construction behaviour among professionals (Akadiri, 2015). The success rate of engagement with SDSC would increase when stakeholders collaborate to set-up requisite legislation and policy documents as guidelines (Djokoto et al., 2014). The role of policy goes beyond the boundaries of enabling adoption to influencing benefits (Masia et al., 2020). Low integration of sustainability mechanics into built environment curricula in Nigeria are the result of policy and institutional neglect (Ekung et al., 2019). However, there are imminent gaps in between SDSC implementation and desired policy due to the lacunas in legislative requirements. Studies in South Africa (Windapo, 2014), Ghana (Agyekum et al., 2019), Nigeria (Ekung et al., 2021) and in Libya (Awaili et al., 2020), reported the dearth of effective policy for sustainable construction; due to this failure, SDSC implementation efforts are limited. Despite regulating practice with instituted comprehensive green building assessment tools, South Africa’s green building market continues to struggle due to inadequate regulatory and steering policies (Simpeh et al.,

532  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals 2021). Policy tools and regulatory instruments are vital components of the social challenges bedevilling the quality of imperative information needed to accelerate SDSC (Mushi et al., 2022). Appropriate information is needed to shape the right behaviour towards SDSC adoption and the dearth of this information constitutes a leading barrier to their implementation in developing countries (Simpeh et al., 2021). Lawrence (2020) criticised the linear structure of the framework underpinning the implementation of SDGs for pursuing means and ends. Many national governments are unable to let-off temporary political interests in adopting SDGs to define policies and programmes. In the legal perspective, there are several ineffective laws regarded as non-binding (Lawrence, 2020). The PESTLE (political, economic, social, technology, legal and environmental) variables are weak to enhance institutional change needed to accelerate SDGs (Lopez-Claros et al., 2020); hence, each region needs to overhaul extant requirements to fit their needs (Lawrence, 2020). In Nigeria, the dearth of relevant policy and guidelines is a pertinent barrier to the diffused implementation of SDSC (Tunji-Olayeni, 2022). Companies, government and community stakeholders reached a consensus that effective development plans, policies and legislations can promote SDSC in Northern Cyprus but the dearth of these requirements limit project implementation to conventional practices (Elmaulim and Alp, 2016). In Libya, weak and failed institutional dynamics (guidelines, legislation, codes and standards) needs urgent reform to support the adoption of SDSC (Khalil et al., 2021). Sustainability requirements could not be mandated in building design in Ghana due to the dearth of relevant policy tools (Asare et al., 2020). Only two countries in Africa have borne an integrated green building assessment tool (Egypt and South Africa); this portrays enormous opportunities to improve tool development through research. Ingredients of essential policy tools for the emerging markets must set specific SDGs, embed mechanisms for exemplary projects, set targets for carbon and future energy consumption reduction, outline action plans for implementation and institute relevant incentives for rewarding compliance in practice (Ekung and Opoku, 2023). The dearth of these ingredients was correlated to inhibit SDSC adoption in Nigeria (Ebekozien et al., 2021). In Bangladesh, Mahmud (2018) reported the extant policies are buy-in measures adopted to leverage time to formulate, admit and implement resilient sustainable construction programmes. SDSC policy is not an extra burden, rather, it is an appropriately conceived complementary tool for steering sustainable development. Windapo and Goulding (2015) stressed the need to ensure policy requirements correlate to site practices, and specify enforcement parameters. Among the pertinent tools in the developing market contexts are energy efficiency codes and green building tools, however, the development and institution of green building tools in the African context is very slow. Different countries grow SDSC implementation using ancillary policy tools that are either affiliates of green building standards or a part of it. The understanding shows that the implementation of SDSC relies on an integrated checklist of project requirements. Ekung et al. (2021c) advocated the exigency to adopt prescriptive assessment for the emerging green market to reduce the cost linked with performance-based assessment. Windapo et al. (2021) aligned with this thinking and noted that the removal of regulatory interventions in promoting sustainability in the building sector, would situate conventional technologies to outperform sustainable technologies based on accessibility and reduced first cost. Relying on the Egyptian experience, Bampou (2017) agreed that policy tools must enhance environmental sustainability through combining energy efficiency mandates with relevant economic and

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs  533 technical improvements over the building lifecycle. Atanda and Olukoya (2019) modified the requirements of foreign tools for adoption in a new place and recommended LEED evaluation metrics for Nigeria. SDSC policy tools must aspire beyond code due to the dearth of technical efficacies for achieving sustainability mandates (Atanda and Olukoya, 2019). However, the availability of standard green building assessment tools seems not to resolve the comprehensive policy-related problems in South Africa, as regulatory issues remain a significant problem in recent studies (Simpeh et al., 2021). Implications of Findings The framing of pertinent issues to the implementation of SDSC in developing countries includes low knowledge, training and education, cost misperceptions, dearth of policy tools and implementation frameworks and other industry-related issues. These arrays of concerns suggest the need for stakeholders in the industry to redesign implementation strategies to address, importantly, the structural problems. The future implementation framework must ensure clearer strategic vision, detailed implementation strategies and planning, outline tactical guidelines, timescale and performance measurement criteria in practice. Knowledge management and learning must also advance to promote understanding and awareness in key areas. The region also needs to transform and cultivate the right perceptions to stimulate awareness as a complementary strategy to achieving SDGs. SDGs seem non-achievable until comprehensive learning and coordination among the stakeholders in construction is initiated. The government must lead the actions needed to develop guidelines and policies. In Ghana, the level of government commitment to SDSC initiatives was important to stimulating green building certifications (Agyekum et al., 2020). The private sector and professional bodies awaiting these reforms can fund research and development underpinning the development of SDSC tools. The strategic agenda developed by Ekung et al. (2021c) offered a useful starting point towards cost-related challenges to diffused adoption of SDSC in emerging green markets. In addition to inherent strategies, Khalid et al. (2020) emphasised that tracking and monitoring of implementation strategies in project contexts, greater collaboration among stakeholders and effective coordination by experienced project managers would further improve SDSC implementation. Policymakers also need to study the market patterns and its peculiar problems, as an objective step to developing the mitigation strategies. Building capacity was also advocated for managing awareness as well as inclusive stakeholders’ engagement in policy planning (Giribabu et al., 2019; Khalid et al., 2020). One of the effective ways to achieve in-depth capacity development is compulsory education through curriculum reforms and mass education (Khalid et al., 2020). The education must be hinged on developing local strategies as bespoke solutions to contextual problems away from the current universal approaches in the literature (Khalid et al., 2020; Swain and Yang-Walletin, 2020). The emerging challenges further call for the need to recreate and prioritise SDGs with relevant theories and strategies. Extant theories underpinning the SDGs are deemed weak or lacking in most cases (Swain and Yang-Wallentin, 2020). The dearth of theory has ties with the emerging challenges in developing countries in terms of learning, education, training and knowledge management. The appropriate response to resolving these issues is to re-conceptualise the fundamental theoretical issues underlying SDG targets using clearly prioritised strategies for each region. Developing countries are also faced with the shortages of relevant resources (eco-

534  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals nomic, finance and manpower); SDG targets for this region need to enhance their potentials to upscale economic and social sustainability. Regrettably, the desire to progress these frontiers is missing in research as ongoing efforts focus on environmental issues (Li et al., 2021; Mushi et al., 2022). The United Nations (UN) should decompose the SDGs from their universal status to specific regional targets based on fitting requirements. The restriction on the use of certain resources in developing countries should be removed until such time in the future when the region has achieved a certain level of development. Swain and Yang-Wallentin (2020) advocated a short-term window for developing countries to continue with the use of restricted resources in order to strengthen their potential to achieve SDGs. In fact, advocacy exists that developing countries should extend and grow MDGs (Swain and Yang-Wallentin, 2020). This is considered the most objective way to impact positively on SDGs since inherent challenges are mainly structural (policies) and resource based (education, training and knowledge). This advocacy agrees with both theoretical and empirical standpoints (e.g., Spaiser et al. 2016; Swain and Ranganathan, 2018); however, suspending the SDGs programmes for the developing countries to extend the implementation of MDGs should not compromise the care for the environment. Regrettably, despite the continued calls to decouple the SDGs to give attention to contingent capacities of nations in research, valorising this position is very minimal. Although strategic leadership roles are expected from the government, professional bodies and professionals, clients and users must indulge training and education and awareness using relevant strategies. This region must re-prioritise setting the right fundamental issues against inherent greenwashing prevalent in the industry. Construction businesses should not only be encouraged to strengthen areas of advantage to the SDGs (Johnsson et al., 2020), apply low-cost strategies that can leverage high sustainability performance (Ekung et al., 2021) but also grow their strategies to cover wider opportunities in the SDGs.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Various issues are stopping the diffusion of SDSC in the construction industry of developing countries. Due to these challenges, SDSC poses a burden to their implementation in this market segment and industry. The spectrum of the problems is however modified from the traditional cost discourses to diverse social issues such as the dearth of structural mechanisms (policy, regulations, guidelines, tools and other industry related problems) and the dearth of resources (knowledge, training, education and cost misperceptions). There is the need to evolve a clearer strategic vision, adequate implementation strategies and planning, and robust framework towards mitigating these problems. The needed strategic plan must embed operational guidelines, timescale, and performance measurement in practice and set clear strategies to improve knowledge, understanding and awareness about the requisite issues in SDSC. Transforming these challenges to stimulate SDGs demands reconsidering SDSC (sustainable construction) as a complementary tool for achieving SDGs in construction. The findings are instructive to facilitate SDGs in construction through the development of enabling policy action plans fitting the regional needs. Despite this evolving model of recursive issues constraining SDSC, the trajectory to SDGs is not necessarily static but dynamic; while the discussion in this chapter is adequate to drive innovations imperative to managing the emerging problems, continuous engagement and research into these issues underscore the

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs  535 most objective way to accelerate sustainable development in the region through the construction industry. More importantly also, viable synergy and partnership are key to mitigating the emerging issues towards a comprehensive modelling of the role of construction in the UN Sustainable Development Agenda. The framework of challenges bedevilling SDGs agenda in developing countries focusing on the construction sector is imperatively social and economic issues in the supra systems. Developing mitigation strategies to these dynamics can leverage process models, which can be applied to assess the maturity level of the region’s construction industry development in terms of sustainable development.

REFERENCES Addy, M.N., Adinyira, E., Danku, J.C. and Dadzoe, F. (2020). Impediments to the development of the green building market in sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Ghana. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 10(2), pp. 193–207. Aghimien, D.O., Aigbavboa, C.O. and Thwala, W.D. (2019). Microscoping the challenges of sustainable construction in developing countries. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), pp.  1110–1128. Doi​.org/​10​.1108/​jedt​-01​-2019​-002 Aghimien, D.O., Oluwaseyi, A., Ayodeji, E. and Emmanuel, I. (2018). Stakeholders’ perception of sustainability in educational buildings in Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 9(1), pp. 1–13. Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E., Baiden, B., Ampratwum, G. and Duah, D. (2019). Barriers to the adoption of green certification of buildings: A thematic analysis of verbatim comments from built environment professionals. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(5), pp. 1035–1055. Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E. and Oppon, J.A. (2021). Factors limiting the adoption of hemp as an alternative sustainable material for green building delivery in Ghana. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation. doi​.org/​10​.1108/​IJBPA​-11​-2020​-0100 Agyekum, K., Kissi, E. and Danku, J.C. (2020). Professionals’ views of vernacular building materials and techniques for green building delivery in Ghana. Scientific African, 8, e00424. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​j​.sciaf​.2020​.e00424 Ajulor, O.V. (2018). The challenges of policy implementation in Africa and sustainable development goals. People. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), pp. 1497–1518. Akadiri, P.O. (2015). Understanding barriers affecting the selection of sustainable materials in building projects. Journal of Building Engineering, 4, pp. 86–93. Akinshipe, O., Oluleye, I.B. and Aigbavboa, C. (2019). Adopting sustainable construction in Nigeria: Major constraints. 1st International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructural Development, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 640, doi:10.1088/1757-899X/640/1/012020. Ametepey, O., Aigbavboa, C. and Ansah, K. (2015). Barriers to successful implementation of sustainable construction on the Ghanaian construction industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, pp. 1682–1689. Amuda-Yusuf, G., Abdulraheem, M.O., Raheem, W.M., Adebiyi, R.T., Idris, S. and Eluwa, S.E., (2020). Awareness of factors contributing to sustainable construction in Nigeria. International Journal of Real Estate Studies, 14(1), pp. 57–66. Asare, K. A. B., Ruikar, K. D., Zanni, M. and Soetanto, R. (2020). BIM-based LCA and energy analysis for optimized sustainable building design in Ghana. SN Applied Sciences, 2(11), p. 1855. Atanda, J.O. and Olukoya, O.A.P. (2019). Green building standards: Opportunities for Nigeria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, pp. 366–377. Awaili, A.M., Uzunoglu, S.S. and Özden, Ö. (2020). The analysis of barriers in green building development in Libya. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(9), pp. 15–20. Ayarkwa, J., Opoku, D.J., Antwi-Afari, P. and Li, A.Y. (2022). Sustainable building processes’ challenges and strategies: The relative important index approach. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 7, 2022, p.  100455. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.clet​.2022​.100455 Bampou, P. (2017). Green buildings for Egypt: A call for an integrated policy. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 36(10), pp. 994–1009.

536  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Barbosa, A.P.F.P.L., Salerno, M.S., de Souza Nascimento, P.T., Albala, A., Maranzato, F.P. and Tamoschus, D. (2021). Configurations of project management practices to enhance the performance of open innovation R&D projects. International Journal of Project Management, 39(2), pp. 128–138. Berardi, U. (2013). Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building. Sustainable Cities and Society, 8, pp. 72–78. Berg, C. (2020). Sustainable Action: Overcoming the Barriers. Routledge. Bhattacharya, D. and Jahan, S. (2020). Initial challenges of SDG implementation: Regional trend and country experiences. Global State of SDGs: Three Layers of Critical Actions, pp. 31–54. Available at: http://​southernvoice​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2020/​08/​Initial​-challenges​-SDGs​-Chapter​ -2​-Bhattacharya​-and​-Jahan​-2019​.pdf (Accessed: 25 March 2022). Chan, A.P.C., Darko, A., Olanipekun, A.O. and Ameyaw, E.E. (2018). Critical barriers to green building technologies in developing countries: The case of Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, pp. 1067–1079. Chen, D., Xiang, P. Jia, F. and Guo, J. (2022). A systematic review of current status and trend of mega-infrastructure project. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13, p. 101773. Daniel, E.I, Oshineye, O. and Oshodi, O. (2018). Barriers to sustainable construction practice in Nigeria. In: Gorse, C. and Neilson, C.J. (Eds) Proceeding of the 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3–5 September 2018, Belfast, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp. 149–158. Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Yang, Y., Shan, M., He, B.J. and Gou, Z. (2018). Influences of barriers, drivers, and promotion strategies on green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The Ghanaian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200, pp. 687–703. Darwish, E. A., Mansour, Y., Elmously, H. and Abdelrahman, A. (2019). Development of sustainable building components utilising date palm midribs for light wide-span multi-purpose structures for rural communities in Egypt. Journal of Building Engineering, 24, p. 100770. Davies, I.E.E., Nwankwo, C.O., Olofinnade, O.M. and Michaels, T.A. (2019). Insight review on impact of infrastructural development in driving the SDGs in developing nations: A case study of Nigeria. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 640(2019) p. 012112. Djokoto, S.D., Dadzie, J. and Ohemeng-Ababio, E. (2014). Barriers to sustainable construction in the Ghanaian construction industry: consultants’ perspectives. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(1), pp. 134–150. Du Plessis, C. and Cole, R.J. (2011). Motivating change: Shifting the paradigm. Building Research and Information, 39(5), pp. 436–449. Ebekozien, A., Ikuabe, M., Awo-Osagie, A.I., Aigbavboa, C. and Ayo-Odifiri, S.O. (2021). Model for promoting green certification of buildings in developing nations: A case study of Nigeria. Property Management. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​PM​-05​-2021​-0033 Egbetokun, S., Osabuohien, E.S. and Akinbobola, T. (2018). Feasible environmental Kuznets and institutional quality in North and Southern African sub-regions. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), pp. 104–115. Elmualim, A. and Alp, D. (2016). Perception and challenges for sustainable construction in developing countries: North Cyprus case. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 10(2016), pp. 492–500. Ekung, S. (2015). Risk and financial management practice in the construction in Nigeria: System thinking perspective. International Letters of Social Science and Humanistic Sciences, 41, pp. 165–175. Ekung, S. and Opoku, A. (2023). Policy tool for accelerating sustainable development goals in building development. In W.L. Filho (Ed), Implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals-Regional Perspectives, Springer Nature. Ekung, S., Adewuyi, T. and Otali, M. (2019). Factors impeding the integration of sustainability elements in built environment academic curricula. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 6(3), pp. 21–32. Ekung S, Ikediashi I. and Emmanuel U. (2022b). Mitigating climate change impacts in buildings using passive design strategies: Putting costs to contexts. Green Building & Construction Economics, 3(1), pp. 1–11. Ekung, S., Odesola, I. and Oladokun, M. (2021a). Dimensions of cost misperceptions obstructing the adoption of sustainable buildings. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment. DOI10.1108/ SASBE-10-2020-0160.

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs  537 Ekung, S., Odesola, I. and Lashinde, A. (2021b). Agenda for first costs reduction in sustainable buildings for emerging markets. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 12(2), pp. 126–141. Ekung, S., Odesola, I. and Adewuyi, T., (2021c). Cost premium for attaining energy-efficiency rating in Nigeria’s hot-humid residential buildings. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptations, doi 10.1108/IJBPA-01-2021-0008. Ekung, S., Ohama, V. and Ajiero, R. (2020). Strategies for reducing the costs of clean-energy technologies in buildings in Nigeria. Clean Energy, 4(4), pp. 349–259. Ekung, S., Opoku, A. and Okonkwo, C. (2022a). Organisational learning and sustainability of service-based firms: A canonical correlation analysis. International Journal of Construction Management, doi​.org/​10​.1080/​15623599​.2022​.2045863. Fei, W., Opoku, A., Agyekum, K., Oppon, J.A., Ahmed, V., Chen, C. and Lok, K.L. (2021). The critical role of the construction industry in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Delivering projects for the common good. Sustainability, 13, p. 9112.  Filho, W.L., Wolf, F., Salvia, A.L., Beynaghi, A., Shulla, K., Kovaleva, M. and Vasconcelos, C.R.P. (2020). Heading towards an unsustainable world: Some of the implications of not achieving the SDGs. Discover Sustainability, 1(2), doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s43621​-020​-00002​-x. Filho, W.L., Wu, Y.J., Brandli, L.L., Avila, L.V., Azeiteiro, U.M., Caeiro, S., Lucia Rejane, L. and Madruga, D.G. (2017). Identifying and overcoming obstacles to the implementation of sustainable development at universities. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 14(1), pp. 93–108. Fischer, J., Dyball, R., Fazey, I., Gross, C., Dovers, S., Ehrlich, P.R. and Borden, R. (2012). Human behavior and sustainability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(3), pp. 153–160. Giribabu D, Mohapatra C, Reddy CS, Prasada Rao VV. (2019). Holistic correlation of world’s largest social safety net and its outcomes with sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(2), pp. 113–128. Goubran, S. (2019). On the role of construction in achieving the SDGs. Journal of Sustainability Research, 2019(1), pp. 1–52, e190020. Gyadu-Asiedu, W., Ampadu, A. and Fokuo-Kusi, A. (2021). A framework for systemic sustainable construction industry development (SSCID). Discover Sustainability, 2(25), doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s43621​ -021​-00033​-y. Hwang, B., Zhu, L., and Wang, Y. (2017). Green building construction projects in Singapore: Cost premiums and cost performance. Project Management Journal, 48, pp. 67–79. Ifeanyichukwu, N.E., Anosike, N.M., Ikenna, A.O. and Chidiebere, U.O. (2021). Militating factors against the practice of green building as a new paradigm in construction projects. International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy, 10(1), pp. 13–18. Imasiku, K. (2021). Organisational insights, challenges and impacts on sustainable development in developing and developed nations. In Sustainable Organisations-Models, Application, and New Perspectives, doi.http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.5772/​intechopen​.93748. Iqbal, M., Ma, J., Ahmad, N., Hussain, K., Usmani, M.S. and Ahmad, M. (2021). Sustainable construction through energy management practices in developing economies: An analysis of barriers in the construction sector. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2(3), pp. 1–31. Kermanshachi, S., Nipa, T.J. and Dao, B. (2021). Development of complexity management strategies for construction projects. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, doi.10.1108/ JEDT-06-2021-0324. Khalil, A., Rathnashinghe, A.P. and Kulatunga, U. (2021). Challenges for the implementation of sustainable construction practices in Libya. Construction Economics and Buildings, 21(3), pp. 243–261. Khalid, A.M., Sharma, S. and Dubey, A.M. (2020). Concerns of developing countries and the sustainable development goals: Case for India. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. doi.1080/13504509.2020.1795744 Khalid, A.M, Sharma, S. and Dubey A.K. (2018). Developing an indicator set for measuring sustainable development in India. Natural Resources Forum, 42(3), pp. 185–200. Jacobs, E. (2015). The status quo of green-building education in South Africa: Review article. Acta Structilia, 22(2), pp. 110–133. Johnsson, F., Kalsson, I., Rootzen, J., Ahlback, A. and Gustavsson, M. (2020). The framing of sustainable development goals assessment in decarbonizing the construction industry-avoiding “greenwash-

538  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals ing”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131(2020), 11002, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.rser​ .2020​.110029. Lawrence, A.W., Ihebuozor, N. and Lawrence, D.O. (2020). Some challenges militating against developing countries achieving SDG4 on targets: Nigeria as a case study. Modern Economy, 11, pp. 1307–1328. Lawrence, R.J. (2020). Overcoming barriers to implementing sustainable development goals: Human ecology matters. Human Ecology Review, 26(1), pp. 95–115. Li, Y., Rong, Y., Ahmad, U. M., Wang, X., Zuo, J. and Mao, G. (2021). A comprehensive review on green buildings research: Bibliometric analysis during 1998–2018. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(34), pp. 46196–46214. Lopez-Claros, A., Dahl, A. and Groff, M. (2020). Global Governance and the Emergence of Global Institutions for the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press. Mahamud, A.H. (2018). Challenges of sustainable construction in developing countries. FENI University Journal, 2(1), pp. 35-47. Marcelline S.T.R., Chengang, Y., Avotra, A.A.R., Hussain, Z., Zonia, J.E. and Nawaz, A. (2022). Impact of green construction procurement on achieving sustainable economic growth influencing green logistic services management and innovation practices. Frontiers Environmental Science, 9, p. 815928. Masia, T., Kajimo-Shakantu, K. and Opawole, A. (2020). A case study on the implementation of green building construction in Gauteng province, South Africa. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(3), pp. 602–623. Mushi, F.V., Nguluma, H. and Kihila, J. (2022). A critical review of African green building research. Building Research & Information, doi.10.1080/09613218.2021.2015276. Nikyema, G.A., 2020. Barriers to the Adoption of Green Building Materials and Technologies in Developing Countries: The Case of Burkina Faso. All Dissertations. Obianyo, I.I., Anosike-Francis, E.N., Ihekweme, G.O., Geng, Y., Jin, R., Onwualu, A.P. and Soboyejo, A.B.O. (2020). Multivariate regression models for predicting the compressive strength of bone ash stabilised lateritic soil for sustainable building. Construction and Building Materials, 263, p. 120677. Ogunmakinde, O.E., Sher, W.D. and Maund, K. (2016). Obstacles to sustainable construction in developing countries. Australasian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA) Conference 2016. Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2021). Developing project evaluation models for smart sustainable practices implementation in construction projects: A comparative study between Nigeria and Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​ECAM​-11​ -2020​-0906 Opoku, A. (2016). SDG2030: A Sustainable Built Environment’s Role in Achieving the Post-2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In P.W. Chan and C.J. Neilson (Eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5–7 September (2016), Manchester, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol 2, pp. 1101–1110. Opoku, D.G.J., Ayarkwa, J., Agyekum, K. (2019). Barriers to environmental sustainability of construction projects. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 8(4), pp.  292–306. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​ SASBE​-08​-2018​-0040 Pham, H., Kim, S.Y., Luu, T.V. (2020). Managerial perceptions on barriers to sustainable construction in developing countries: Vietnam case. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22(4), pp. 2979–3003. Phoya, S. (2018). Sustainable construction sites in Tanzania: contractors’ practices and their perspectives. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 2018, 7(2), pp. 88–96. Samari, M., Ghodrati, N., Esmaeilifar, R., Olfat, P., Shafiei, M.W.M. (2013). The investigation of the barriers in developing green building in Malaysia. Modern and Applied Sciences, 7(2), pp. 1–12. Sarvajayakesavalu, S. (2015). Addressing challenges of developing countries in implementing five priorities for sustainable development goals. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 1(7), pp. 1–4. Simpeh, E.K. and Smallwood, J.J. (2020). An integrated model for predicting the probability of adoption of green building in South Africa. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 18(6), pp. 1927–1950. Simpeh, E.K., Smallwood, J.J., Ahadzie, D.K. and Mensah, H. (2021). Analytical taxonomy of challenges to the implementation of green building projects in South Africa. International Journal of Construction Management. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​15623599​.2020​.1863172

Contemporary issues in construction affecting the realisation of the SDGs  539 Sodangi, M. and Kazmi, Z.A. (2020). Integrated evaluation of the impediments to the adoption of coconut palm wood as a sustainable material for building construction. Sustainability, 12(18), pp. 7676. Spaiser, V., Ranganathan, S., Swain, R.B., Sumpter, D.J.T. (2016). The sustainable development oxymoron: Quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. International Journal Sustainable Development World Ecology, 24, pp. 457–470. Swain, R.B. and Yang-Wallentin, F. (2020). Achieving sustainable development goals: Predicaments and strategies. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(2), pp. 96–106. The Economist (2019). The critical role of infrastructure for the sustainable development goals. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit Limited 2019. Tigabu A.D. (2017). Analysing the diffusion and adoption of renewable energy technologies in Africa: The functions of innovation systems perspective. African Journal of Science and Technology, Innovation and Development, 10, pp. 615–624. Tokbolat, S., Karaca, F., Durdyev, S. and Calay, R.K. (2020). Construction professionals’ perspectives on drivers and barriers of sustainable construction. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(5), pp. 4361–4378. Toriola, L.O., Alaka, H., Bello, W.A., Ajayi, S., Adniyi, A. and Olapade, S.O. (2021). Sustainability barriers in Nigeria construction practice. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1036(2021), p. 012023. Tunji-Olayeni, P., Aigbavboa, C. and Oke, A. (2022). Asymmetry in professionals’ perceptions of sustainable construction. Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies, 68, pp. 804–812. United Nations Global Impact Report (2018). Advancing responsible business in land, construction and real estate use and investment-making the sustainable development goals a reality. Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, UK. Wang, W., Chen, Y., Zhang, S. and Wang, Y. (2018). Contractual complexity in construction projects: Conceptualization, operationalization, and validation. Project Management Journal, 49(3), pp. 46–61. Whyte, J. and Davies, A. (2021). Reframing system integration: A process perspective on projects. Project Management Journal, 52(3), pp. 327–349. Windapo, A.O. (2014). Examination of green building drivers in the South African construction industry: Economics versus ecology. Sustainability, 6(9), pp. 6088–6106. Windapo, A.O. and Goulding, J.S. (2015). Understanding the gap between green building practice and legislation requirements in South Africa. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 4(1), pp. 67–96. Windapo, A. and Ogunsanmi, O. (2014). Construction sector views of sustainable building materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, 167(2), pp. 64–75. Windapo, A., Omopariola, E.D., Olugboyega, O., and Moghayedi, A. (2021). Use and performance of conventional and sustainable building technologies in low-income housing. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, p. 102606. Wu, Z., Jiang, M., Cai, Y., Wang, H., Li, S. (2019). What hinders the development of green building? An investigation of China. International Journal of Environmental Resources and Public Health, 16(17), p. 3140. Zhang, L., Wu, J. and Liu, H. (2018). Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of green buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, pp. 2234–2245. Zulu, S., Zulu, E., Chabala, M. and Mwango, N.C. (2022). Drivers and barriers to sustainability practices in the Zambian construction industry. International Journal of Construction Management. doi.10.10 80/15623599.2022.2045425

30. The emerging trends in built environment research and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) Kenneth Otasowie, Clinton Aigbavboa and Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke

INTRODUCTION The desire for sustainable development, which the modern world is ostensibly moving away from, seems to be growing, especially on a global scale: for a safe and healthy environment, stable living and management conditions, energy, health, food security, and prosperity and a foreseeably bright future (Plonka et al., 2022). Numerous laws governing the management of certain environmental resources, such as forest, waterways, minerals, and the earth’s surface, include reference to sustainable development. Even at the constitutional level, the idea of sustainable development has influenced waste management, energy, sewage and environmental protection. However, Dacko et al. (2021) posited that the idea has been described by professionals and opinion leaders in countless different ways. This might be due to several reasons. Mensah (2019) opined the issue stems from the basic wording, which comprises the words: “development” and “sustainable.” Since each of these words may be interpreted in a variety of ways, perceptions of the overall idea can also vary. In a study published in 1987 by the United Nations World Commission for Environment and Development, the concept of sustainable development was made clearer. For this study, sustainable development means making sure that present societal requirements are met without compromising the ability to satisfy those of future generations. Due to its enormous energy and other natural resource consumption, the built environment has a considerable negative impact on the environment, society, and economy, the pillars of sustainability (Darko et al., 2017). The worldwide energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and carbon emissions from the built environment sector were 32 percent, 19 percent, and approximately 33 percent, respectively, in the year 2010 (Zhang et al., 2017). However, these statistics are not static as the sector has undergone a paradigm transformation through sustainability (Rohracher, 2011). Opoku et al. (2022) observed that sustainability has attracted the interest of professionals in the architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries. This has led to sustainable design options and attempts to use sustainable building materials (Kibert, 2016). Stakeholders in the construction industry have further extended sustainability into the project’s lifecycle. Sustainable buildings, for instance, are frequently assessed based on the material and overall energy consumption of structures over their lifespans (Rincón et al., 2014). The concept of sustainable development has resulted in sustainable construction, which includes the production and maintenance of a healthy built environment that is based on ecological principles and effective resource usage (Hart 2013; Kibert 2016). Furthermore, the criticisms the built environment has received over time due to 540

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  541 its environmental exploitation, has made research into sustainable principles and guidelines to be a continuous process over the years recently. Sustainable development is crux to the development of several concepts within the built environment. As observed from the literature, its philosophies have inspired the design of energy efficient buildings (Imani and Vale, 2020; Son et al., 2022; Varshabi et al., 2022), alternative clay bricks design (Sanga et al., 2022), design of resilient civil infrastructure systems (Zhu and Chowdhury, 2022), adaptive building envelopes (El-Rahman et al., 2020; Faragllar, 2021), 3D concrete printing (du Plessis et al., 2021), thermal performance of buildings (Hershcovich et al., 2021), cooling technologies in buildings (Fu et al., 2020), passive sustainable ventilation system (Khelil and Zemmouri, 2019), building skin adaptation (Houda and Mohamed, 2019), building materials for climate change (Zari, 2019), circular economy (Alastir et al., 2022), small scale construction, passive building design (Qu et al., 2022), utilising native vegetation (Lewis et al., 2022), biophilic architecture (Grazuleviciute-Vileniske et al., 2022), and prefabricated construction (Aghasizadeh et al., 2022). These emerging trends in built environment research aim at positioning the sector for sustainable development. For example, the energy usage of a building is considered before, during, and after construction (Imani and Vale, 2020; Son et al., 2022; Varshabi et al., 2022). This includes energy required by building services like lighting, and air conditioning. Also, there is the “net-zero energy” which describes a facility that annually generates as much energy on-site as it uses in total. In addition, beyond providing energy efficient buildings, it is important to design a structure using local building techniques, which has several advantages such as minimising transportation cost. This is a key component of vernacular design. Furthermore, there is the public space intuitive design. The key to making the buildings sustainable is to keep some open space rather than enclosing the entire land with the building. While utilising the facility, public areas serve as a breathing area. Offering a variety of parks close to developed regions contributes to the area’s reduced carbon footprint and improves quality of life, thanks to the surrounding natural environment. The concept of circular economy on the other hand, focuses on reducing, reusing, and recycling construction materials and is also witnessing expanding research attention (Alastir et al., 2022). This approach is used in architecture to minimise waste produced during building construction. All these sustainable concepts are to ensure the impacts of the built environment sector on the environment are reduced while ensuring economic development. One of the cornerstones of the 2030 agenda of the United Nations (UN), which seeks to ensure a better and wealthier future for the earth and its population, is the framework of sustainable development goals (SDGs). The collection of 17 overall goals, along with its 169 successive targets, provides a comprehensive action plan for transformation that addresses the most important issues facing today’s economic, social, and environmental aspects of society (UN, 2015). The SDGs framework has been accepted by UN member states as a roadmap to guide their development and investment strategies, as well as to monitor their progress toward reaching the objectives within the given time period of 15 years (Allen et al., 2018; OECD and Paris, 2017). However, adapting national strategies and policies to the SDGs, managing trade-offs and maximising the synergies among the goals, and securing enough resources to facilitate the shift toward more sustainable development agendas are some challenges that must be mitigated for national efforts to successfully achieve the SDGs (Messerli et al., 2019; Plag and Jules-Plag, 2019; Saito et al., 2017).

542  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals The built environment enhances the development of a nation by providing buildings required by citizens and non-citizens to live and execute their daily tasks. The focus of the sector has shifted to achieving a sustainable environment using sustainable development principles. Amongst the six societal transformations through which SDGs could be achieved according to Sachs et al. (2019), sustainable land use and sustainable cities are two critical components. This is the current focus of the built environment through the emerging research trends. The aim is for the sector to develop buildings that are adaptable and flexible, while leading the fight against climate change for a sustainable future. Hence, the focus of this study is to evaluate the emerging trends in built environment research and how these trends will aid the construction sector in meeting the SDGs.

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGs) Sustainable development has become a phrase for global marketing firms, a rallying call for environmental and development campaigners, and increasingly, a major focus of conferences and scholarly papers (Ukaga et al., 2010). However, it is still unclear what the idea means and what it stands for (Mensah, 2019). Clemente-Suárez et al. (2022) opined that the term “sustainable development” was first used in 1713 and originally solely referred to safeguarding forestry sustainability. To understand sustainable development, one must first comprehend the goals of development, which are meeting basic needs and economic growth. Therefore, it can be said that sustainable development is meeting the current basic needs of mankind without jeopardising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. To achieve sustainable development, it is important to set goals, hence the need for the UN in 2015 to set global goals. Before the creation of the SDGs, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were a historically significant and successful type of global mobilisation to accomplish a number of social goals. They convey the broad popular concern on hunger, poverty, illiteracy, illness, deteriorating environmental conditions, and gender inequity. The MDGs support political responsibility, global awareness, social feedback, enhanced measurement, and public pressure by dividing these priorities into eight specific, quantifiable goals with deadlines. During the 15 years between 2000 and 2015, the MDGs evolved into a means to gauge the battle against poverty (Briant, 2017; Sachs, 2012). Nevertheless, the SDGs were created since it was not feasible to complete all of the MDGs’ objectives. Between 2015 and 2030, a 15-year period, the SDGs are to be implemented. All spheres of society and all levels of government are to work together to incorporate the SDGs into all pertinent regional, national, and local policy processes in order to accomplish them by 2030. Policies must embody the inclusion, universality, and justice principles of the SDGs. The process of localising the SDGs involves key stakeholders adapting, implementing, and overseeing the goals at various levels of operations or situations within diverse societal and economic sectors. The goal of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, is to bring about peace and prosperity on a global scale. Developed and developing countries must take immediate action to achieve the 17 SDGs through a global cooperation (Halkos and Gkampoura, 2021). In order to meet the difficulties of global development to end poverty, safeguard the environment, and promote prosperity for everyone, the UN’s SDGs were accepted by all 193 members of the organisation in September 2015 (United Nations, 2015). Although the

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  543 Table 30.1

The United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) and targets

SDG

Target Description

Target No

1

Decrease the number of persons in danger of poverty.

7

2

Achieve food security, increase nutrition, and advance sustainable agriculture to end hunger.

8

3

Ensure everyone has a healthy life and promote well-being for all people of all ages.

13

4

Ensure fair and inclusive quality education and provide possibilities for lifelong learning for everyone. 10

5

Obtain gender parity and provide every woman and girl the capacity to thrive.

9

6

Make sure that everyone has access to water and it is managed sustainably.

8

7

Ensure that everyone has access to modern, sustainable, cheap energy.

5

8

Promote full and productive employment, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, and decent work for everyone.

9

Increase innovation, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and create resilient infrastructure.

12 8

10

Lessen the disparity between and within nations.

10

11

Ensure that cities and other human habitations are inclusive, secure, robust, and sustainable.

10

12

Ensure sustainable patterns of production and consumption.

11

13

Take immediate action to address climate change and its effects.

5

14

Keep the oceans, seas, and marine resources protected and used responsibly for sustainable development.

15

10

Protecting, restoring, and fostering sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, managing forests sustainably, battling desertification, halting and reversing land degradation, and promoting biodiversity 12 conservation.

16

Promote inclusive and peaceful societies for sustainable development, ensure that everyone has access to justice, and create inclusive institutions at all levels.

17

Boost the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development’s implementation mechanisms and reactivate it.

12 19

Source:  Author’s own.

obstacles of development vary from one nation to another, the SDGs, also known as the Global Goals, are applicable to both developed and developing countries (Corporate Citizenship, 2016). According to Table 30.1, there are 17 universal goals which are guided by 169 targets. As part of achieving the SDGs, there is a need to adopt multidisciplinary strategies. Such strategies include integrating artificial intelligence with the water-energy-food nexus that was developed, which shows the role of technology (Di Vaio et al., 2022; Vacchi et al., 2021). Ben et al. (2021) highlight the significance of eco-system innovation, how governmental agencies use sustainable approaches (Liu et al., 2021), circular thinking (Ippolito et al., 2022), adhering to the value-added and competitiveness standards (Taddei et al., 2022), ethical customer practices (Moustairas et al., 2022), and the role of culture (Duxbury et al., 2017) and tourism (Grelaud and Ziveri, 2020) are some advocated strategies to achieving SDGs in different sectors. Cucchiella et al. (2017) envisaged these strategies could cause a decrease in GHG emissions as well as employing innovative strategies such as bioeconomy and circular economy (Dwivedi and Moktadir, 2022; Morone and Imbert, 2020). A crucial role is consequently assumed by new approaches that depend on the significance of sustainable ways (Backhouse et al., 2022), the involvement of new generations through education (Eliades et al., 2022), and the function of stakeholder involvement (D’Adamo and Sassanelli, 2022). In this situation, as society is under pressure to develop a sustainable hand-based approach (D’Adamo et al., 2022), it is critical to highlight the strategic importance of human resources and how specific factors like competence, opportunity, and motivation affect performance (Li et al., 2022).

544  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Furthermore, the global Means of Implementation (MoI), the national and regional translation of the SDGs, and a “revitalised Global Partnership for Development” (UN, 2015a, p. 10), are some of the components of the 2030 agenda. To succeed, these mechanisms must foster stronger regional and international cooperation, make the global goals applicable at the national and subnational levels, and manage the interrelationships within the SDGs agenda (Waage and Yap, 2015). The term “implementation” has a broad definition. By bringing together governments, corporations, civil society, the UN, and other players, the global partnership must promote “an intensive global engagement” to aid in the implementation of the goals (UN, 2015a, p. 10). Other global MoI include financial structures, tighter tax regimes, technology transfer systems, and more difficult-to-understand resolutions to increase global commerce “in a way consistent with the [SDGs]” (UN, 2015b, p. 24). Given its impact on the economy and larger society, the construction sector has the potential to play a transformative role in the achievement of the SDGs. The built environment must create strategies that match the SDGs with its business plans in order to contribute.

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE SDGs The SDGs are relevant to many facets of society, including the built environment. The built environment sector must develop to achieve the SDGs’ definition of global sustainability. Around the world, “the building sector consumes 40 to 75% of the total value of resources mined” (Vanderley, 2011). Data from the International Resource Panel 2017 (IRP, 2017) shows that buildings also use 25 percent of the world’s water. Additionally, the building and construction sector was responsible for 36 percent of the total energy consumed in 2017 (Global Status Report, 2018 of the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction; IEA and UN, 2018). The sector was responsible for about 39 percent of emissions in 2017 (IEA and UN, 2018). Despite advancements in sustainable construction innovations, energy demand in the sector is still rising. This indicates that more reductions are required to meet SDG objectives (IEA and UN, 2018). Designing and constructing better built assets backed by proper management tools and legislative frameworks that take sustainability into account is the answer to this problem (Grierson, 2009). Contrasted with their replacement with new structures, the preservation of old cities is a successful technique for lowering CO2 emissions. In the short to medium term, new construction projects have greater detrimental effects; however, preserving an existing structure recovers the initial energy and CO2 expenditure (Lewis, 2012; Postalc and Atay, 2019). The interactions between different elements of the built environment, such as individual structures, transportation networks, urban environments, and other infrastructure, should lessen the environmental effects of energy, carbon, waste, and water through sustainable construction. In addition to making a substantial difference in social well-being, sustainable regeneration initiatives may do so as well (Wilson, 2015); creating a sustainable built environment will affect how successfully society is able to realise the SDGs. Urban regions are thought to be responsible for 70 percent of the global gross domestic product, with more than half of the world’s population now residing in cities and that figure is rising by roughly 73 million annually. In order to accomplish SDG 11 (Evans and Jones, 2008; UN, 2010), the building industry might be extremely important. In articulating the need for inclusive, secure,

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  545 resilient, and sustainable cities and communities through pertinent public policy, Goal 11 underscores the fundamental role of urbanisation in sustainable development (SDSN, 2016). For the built environment, the SDGs offer a new chance to move the focus away from sustainability’s environmental component (Goubran, 2019). The management of construction projects may be recognised as sustainable if economic, social, and environmental issues are included into the project delivery methods, standards, and practices (Silvius, 2017). Construction may be a key player in reaching the SDGs since it produces the world of the future, despite the fact that the design and constructing process has enormous economic, social, and environmental effects (Alawneh et al., 2019; BDG, 2019). For instance, there is a significant amount of waste created during construction and demolition. Implementing policies that will reduce waste produced and increase re-use is required to improve resource efficiency and diminish adverse environmental consequences (Gálvez-Martos et al., 2018). The industry would contribute significantly to the global effort to achieve sustainable development by the year 2030 by completing sustainable projects. From the perspective of construction, the 17 SDGs have been divided into the following categories: (a) basic human and national needs—goals 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; (b) what construction must-do; (c) some of the results of construction—goals 6 and 7; and (d) inputs and methods of the construction industry— goals 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Ofori, 2016). The construction industry has an impact on the SDGs throughout its life cycle through labour practices, development of land, resource consumption and waste creation (RICS and UNGC, 2018). With the aim of minimising waste to increase resource efficiency and environmental protection, sustainable built environment is an industrial strategy to attaining sustainable development and the SDGs. The built environment acts as a conduit to reduce the amount of environmental damage brought on by building operations (Pomponi and Moncaster, 2017). More specifically, the built environment enhances human well-being through the creation of infrastructure, public areas, and urban form that is designed sustainably (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2020). Gareis et al. (2010) posited that, by reducing the likelihood of project cancellation or interruption, managing the project’s complexity, and incorporating sustainability principles into project management, the overall delivery of the project may be improved.

EMERGING RESEARCH TRENDS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE SDGs The emerging research trends in the built environment can contribute to the realisation of the 17 SDGs listed above. For example, SDG 1 aims to decrease the number of persons in danger of poverty by the year 2030. In order to benefit both present and future generations, sustainability aims for a balanced integration of social inclusion, economic performance, and environmental resilience (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Changes in how businesses create value, comprehend the world, and conduct business are necessary for increased sustainability or circularity. Companies are compelled to function within a community of participants, shifting from a firm-centric to a network-centric operational philosophy. To enable a decoupling of resource usage and value creation, the current business models (BM) must be rethought (Bocken et al., 2016). Therefore, a vital capacity for businesses is business model innovation (BMI) towards sustainability and circularity. According to the EMF et al. (2015), the circular

546  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals economy business models present business actions and opportunities necessary for the implementation of circular economy principles. The research on circular economy business models in the built environment is still at the embryonic stage. However, the implementation of these models will create more job opportunities and reduce the number of persons in danger of poverty. SDG 2 seeks to achieve food security, increase nutrition, and advance sustainable agriculture to end hunger. Emerging research within the built environment can help achieve this through the provision of sustainable infrastructure that supports sustainable agriculture. For example, to provide sustainable infrastructure, the notion of “green buildings” was adopted by the built environment in industrialised nations in the late 1980s and as a result concepts and principles for resource and energy-efficient structures were then established. The Building Research Establishment in the UK created the first set of these principles in 1990 under the name BREEAM. In 1996, the French HQE system replaced it. The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) developed Green Star in 2003, while the US Green Building Council (USGBC) introduced its LEED grading system in 2000. The Abu Dhabi government introduced the Estidama Pearl Rating System in 2010. Such rating systems proliferated after 2005, largely influenced by LEED or BREEAM (Reed et al., 2009). The Middle Eastern rating system, Estidama, stands out from other rating systems with its use in building design and construction. Furthermore, although it has been a typical outcome of centuries of trial-and-error utilising materials that are readily available locally, it has offered the best options for certain areas with unique climatic conditions. The resulting vernacular architecture can be considered to have found a balance with the environment, fitting in with ease since these ancient techniques and materials frequently require minimal change and because the practically undisturbed raw materials are purchased locally. Additionally, the local population’s collaborative engagement and collaboration led to this building type, which reflects their identity in the local material culture. The majority of these structures are outstanding models of sustainability in terms of the environment, society, and culture. According to Albatici (2009), most regional climates are taken into account by vernacular architecture. The feedback mechanisms already present in the system are discovered to be able to modify and evolve this sort of structure through time in order to reflect the environmental, cultural, and historical context in which they are situated (Lau et al., 2007). Over the years, vernacular architecture has evolved a number of unique and fascinating architectural techniques (Singh et al., 2009). Vernacular architecture responds to the climate, which is a crucial aspect of sustainability (Motealleh et al., 2018). The basic idea is the fusion of cultural harmony, environmental harmony, human harmony and harmony with green innovation/technology for comfort and protection from disasters by bioclimatic architecture design strategy. This will ensure that the focus of SDG 3 is achieved, which is, everyone has a healthy life and promote well-being for all people of all ages. Ensuring fair and inclusive quality education and providing possibilities for lifelong learning for everyone is the focus of SDG 4. Quality education is not possible without sustainable facilities and infrastructure in place. Developing sustainable facilities that enhances learning is the focus of public space intuitive design. The improvement of the environmental quality of the nearby public space has developed into a crucial growth point for guiding urban development in order to transform the construction and urban development modes as well as the economic growth modes, comprehensively improve the quality of urban development, and satisfy the people’s growing needs for a better life. Planners are especially interested in numerous

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  547 aspects of life that affect people’s well-being (Carmona and Sieh, 2004). A good living and learning environment, a well-designed urban form, fully connected public spaces, and simple access to life services frequently serve as the foundation for quality of life (Jin et al., 2017). Being outdoors and being exposed to natural factors like greenery, fresh air, and natural noises can help people in urban areas maintain their overall physical and mental health, which is important given the high amount of stress present in today’s society. From the perspective of social sustainability, open public spaces are a critical component of urban environments since they are essential to socialising, enjoyment, and public life which enhances learning. The key to making buildings sustainable is to keep some open space rather than enclosing the entire land with the building. While utilising the facility for educational purposes, public areas serve as a breathing area. Offering a variety of parks close to developed regions contributes to the area’s reduced carbon footprint and improves quality of life thanks to the surrounding natural environment. Furthermore, although women are disadvantaged in the built environment sector due to the labour-intensive nature of the sector, the current emerging research focus in the sector which aims for sustainability does not require physical strength but mental. Hence, women can compete favourably with their male counterparts and thrive. This exactly is the aim of SDG 5, obtaining gender parity and providing every woman and girl the capacity to thrive. In addition, SDG 6’s aim is to make sure that everyone has access to water and sanitation that is managed sustainably. The focus of circular economy research in the built environment is to ensure waste and pollution of the environment is reduced and this includes the water bodies. The circular economy is a term used to describe an economy based on the principles of keeping products and materials in use, reducing waste and pollution, and renewing natural systems. Its aims are to increase product, component, and material use and utility through recycling (Rossi et al., 2020). Figure 30.1 below shows the summary of several emerging trends in built environment research. SDG 7 is to ensure that everyone has access to modern, sustainable, and cheap energy. The Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs) has been adopted for energy efficiency in buildings to ensure sustainable and cheap energy. NZEBs produce as much energy as is needed over the course of a year by combining renewable energy sources and improvements to energy efficiency. NZEBs have minimal operating and maintenance costs, contribute to the environment, and have greater resilience during power outages because of onsite energy generation from renewable sources (Rupal et al., 2016). Although the initial cost of such NZEBs may be greater, it is offset within a short period of time by the energy savings (Singh et al., 2021). This includes energy required by building services like air conditioning, lighting, and so on. Furthermore, urban areas are expected to become warmer in the future due to unrelenting urban development and population growth combined with global climate change (Santamouris, 2014). This will have an impact on the sustainability of society and the welfare of people (Santamouris et al., 2020). As a result, the optimisation of passive building design has been the focus within the built environment research field. This aim is to enhance energy efficiency and interior comfort in response to growing energy consumption and environmental problems. In contrast to the conventional “trial-and-error” method, building performance optimisation (BPO), parametric modelling, and building performance simulation are helpful tools for designers and engineers to research design choices based on user-defined performance indicators. Due to the possibility of increasing indoor comfort and energy performance, research on the BPO for passive building design has recently accelerated (Manz et al., 2018;

548  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 30.1

Emerging trends in built environment research helping to achieve SDGs

Zhou et al., 2021). Its capacity for enabling designers to explore large problem spaces has been demonstrated in both newly built and retrofit projects (Hashempour et al., 2020; Lin, et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2018). Promoting full and productive employment, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, and decent work for everyone is the focus of SDG 8. Again, productive employment for sustainable growth for everyone is the aim of circular economy business models. The circular economy business models present business actions and opportunities necessary for the implementation of CE principles. The research on circular economy business models in the built environment and the implementation will help the built environment sector with the achievement of SDG 8. Goal 9 of the SDGs is to increase innovation, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and create resilient infrastructure. It is important to note that future sustainability requires creative and new approaches to the built environment in general and to current structures in particular. Hence, adaptive reuse of buildings in urban environments is a nexus issue that necessitates cross-disciplinary analysis. Here, a transdisciplinary strategy is used to tackle a shared, multifaceted problem by utilising information from other fields (a nexus issue). The advantages of adaptively reusing buildings for the environment have been established by recent studies. Studies on specific buildings and meta-analyses reveal considerable decreases in energy usage, as well as in the use of materials, fossil fuels, fresh water use, and emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHG. The environmental benefits of adaptively reusing old structures have been supported by several studies (Assefa and Ambler, 2017; Baker et al., 2017; Bullen and Love, 2010; Elefante, 2007; Kubbinga et al., 2017; Munarim and Ghisi, 2016; Thornton, 2011). Adaptive reuse is the process of locating, purchasing, refurbishing, and reusing a building or other comparable structure for a use other than the one for

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  549 which it was first intended. The process, which is also referred to as “repurposing,” frequently focuses on giving abandoned buildings in various stages of decay new life. This contributes significantly to increasing innovation, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and resilient infrastructure, which is the focus of SDG 9. In addition, the aim of adaptive reuse contributes to the realisation of SDG 10, which focuses on lessening the disparity between and within nations. SDG 11 is on ensuring that cities and other human habitations are inclusive, secure, robust, and sustainable. The built environment through emerging research focuses on making cities sustainable. This is done through several research concepts like the biophilic design in architecture. An increasing obsession with rediscovering “nature” has evolved in the past ten years, motivated by a curiosity and desire for “nature” as well as the goals of enhancing health, wellness, circularity, and resilience. However, the term “nature” is ambiguous, illusive, and contentious, and the usage of “nature” in architecture frequently sparks disagreements and objections. How to conceptualise the idea of “nature” is one of the most important issues since “nature itself is not nature: it is a concept, a standard, a recall, a utopia, or an alternative plan” (Beck, 1999, p. 21). It is also important to think critically about literal greening as a marketing tactic that has little effect on solving social, economic, and environmental problems. Modern architecture uses a wider variety of techniques to investigate coexisting with nature. The coexistence with nature is also reflected in several notable modern building projects. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the word “biophilia” was coined and utilised in the area of architecture to emphasise the emotional component of people’s wishes for connections with the natural world inside of buildings. In order to meet this need for “nature” in architecture, biophilic design has been advocated (Almusaed, 2011; Cramer and Browning, 2008; Joye and Loocke, 2007; Kellert, 2008; Ryan et al., 2014; Wilson, 2008). According to Berkebile et al. (2008), in terms of their relationship to nature, certain constructions are seen to perform better than others, which is explained by biophilic design. Biophilic design is consequently claimed to support sustainability, particularly goal 11 of the SDGs by overcoming a lack of awareness of the environment and effectively managing natural resources (Hidalgo, 2014; Jiang et al., 2020; Kayhan, 2018; McMahan and Estes, 2015). SDG 12 is on ensuring sustainable patterns of production and consumption. The pressure on the planet’s finite natural resources is always rising as the human population grows gradually and consumption rises rapidly. People’s increased consumption led to an increase in waste, which has an impact on all aspects of the environment, including global warming and contamination of the land, seas, and rivers. Planet earth is likened to a single spaceship with finite resources that, once used up, cannot be replaced unless other options are thought of and put into practice, such as using the finished goods (outputs) of some entities as the raw materials (inputs) for other entities. The idea of a closed loop economy, which was first proposed towards the end of the 1980s (Pearce and Turner, 1991; Stahel and Reday-Mulvey, 1981), served as the model for the circular economy. In the 2010s, according to Blomsma and Brennan (2017), as interest in sustainability gained traction with governments, investors, businesses, and civil society (Hestad, 2021), the overarching notion of the circular economy arose. The only model that considered the environment as a waste reservoir was a linear (open ended) economy (Su et al., 2013). According to Geissdoerfer et al. (2017), the existing open system is erosive to the earth’s interacting ecosystems and has caused and is still causing irreparable alterations to nature’s fundamental ability to support life. The primary goal of the circular economy, according to Murray et al. (2017), is to accomplish the decoupling of economic expansion

550  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals from the depletion of natural resources and environmental damage. Therefore, the goal of the circular economy is to maximise the duration of the use of extracted natural resources and increase the value of goods through reuse and recovery measures (Hoffmann, 2019). There is agreement, according to Merli (2018), that the circular economy may reorganise the present “take-make-dispose” economic system. The circular economy is a term used to describe an economy based on the principles of keeping products and materials in use, reducing waste and pollution, and renewing natural systems. Its aims are to increase product, component, and material use and utility through recycling (Rossi et al., 2020). Goal 13 of the SDGs is on taking immediate action to address climate change and its effects. As part of efforts to contribute to this SDG, emerging research in the built environment such as vernacular architecture puts climate change into consideration during design. Most regional climates are taken into account by vernacular architecture. The feedback mechanisms already present in the system are discovered to be able to modify and evolve this sort of structure through time in order to reflect the cultural, environmental, and historical context in which they are situated. Over the years, vernacular architecture has evolved a number of unique and fascinating architectural techniques (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). Vernacular architecture responds to the climate, which is a crucial aspect of sustainability (Hestad, 2021). SDG 14 is on keeping the oceans, seas, and marine resources protected and used responsibly for sustainable development. The built environment research contributing to achieving this SDG goal is the circular economy, as it ensures all aspects of the environment are protected, including the land, seas, and rivers. The primary goal of the circular economy as described above, is to accomplish the decoupling of economic expansion from the depletion of natural resources and environmental damage. Protecting, restoring, and fostering sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, managing forests sustainably, battling desertification, halting and reversing land degradation, and promoting biodiversity conservation is SDG 15. There are several emerging methods within the built environment with the aim of achieving this SDG. First, biophilic design and architecture which aims to connect buildings with the environment and ensure natural resources are properly managed. Then, the circular economy which aims to protect the ecosystem by reducing the pressure on earth’s finite resources. It is important to note that emerging research within the built environment like green building, utilising native vegetation and so on, is actually focusing on protecting, restoring and managing forests sustainably while promoting biodiversity. In addition, these emerging research trends seek to promote inclusive and peaceful societies for sustainable development, ensure that everyone has access to justice, and create inclusive institutions that foster collaboration at all levels which is the focus of SDG 16. Finally, the successful implementation of the various identified research trends within the built environment requires collaboration across the life span of a building that is from design stage to the end-of-life management of the building. Collaboration and partnership between service providers, suppliers, end users and every stakeholder in the built environment is paramount to the successful implementation of the various concepts under research (Bocken et al., 2016). This is the focus of SDG 17, which is to boost the global partnership for sustainable development’s implementation mechanisms and reactivate it.

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  551

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The desire for sustainable development, which the modern world is ostensibly moving away from, is the focus of the SDGs and it seeks to ensure a better and wealthier future for the earth and its population. The collection of goals provide a comprehensive transformative action plan addressing pressing issues relevant to the social, environmental, and economic elements of contemporary society. The SDGs are relevant to many facets of society, including the built environment. The emerging trends in the built environment research can contribute significantly to the SDGs’ definition of global sustainability by creating sustainable communities and smart cities, using eco-friendly design and building methods, and installing renewable energy systems atop built assets. The emerging trends in the built environment research can help achieve the SDGs by the year 2030 through the sustainable infrastructural development in different nations. This it could achieve by presenting business actions and opportunities necessary for the implementation of sustainability principles which will create more job opportunities and reduce the number of persons in danger of poverty. However, the SDGs were created due to the fact that it was no longer feasible to completely implement all of the MDGs’ objectives. Hence, it is vital to draw lessons from the successes and challenges to the implementation of the MDGs so as to reap the full benefits of the set goals. Furthermore, the SDGs can be successful if governments across the world can collaborate with all stakeholders to develop the needed policies for successful implementation. The built environment sector being the sector championing the urbanisation of nations can be used to drive the implementation of the SDGs through partnership for sustainable development. Thus, the need for collaboration among professionals in the sector where necessary and in some instances, the development of new roles for the successful implementation of these concepts.

REFERENCES Aghasizadeh, S., Tabadkani, A, Hajirasouli, A. and Banihashemi, S. (2022). Environmental and economic performance of prefabricated construction: A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 97, 106897 Alastair T.M. Marsh, Anne P.M. and Velenturf, S.A. (2022). Circular economy strategies for concrete: Implementation and integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132486 Alawneh, R., Ghazali, F., Ali, H. and Sadullah, A.F. (2019). A novel framework for integrating United Nations Sustainable Development Goals into sustainable non-residential building assessment and management in Jordan. Sustainable Cities and Societies, 49, 101612. Albatici, R. (2009). Elements and strategies for sustainable intervention in the residential building sector: A case study. Indoor and Built Environment, 18(5), 447–453. Allen, C, Metternicht, G. and Wiedmann, T. (2018). Initial progress in implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries. Sustainable Science, 13(5), 1453–1467. Almusaed, A. (2011). Biophilic and Bioclimatic Architecture: Analytical Therapy for the Next Generation of Passive Sustainable Architecture. Springer Science & Business Media. Assefa, G. and Ambler, C. (2017). To demolish or not to demolish: Life cycle consideration of repurposing buildings. Sustainable Cities and Societies 28, 146–153. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2020). Built environment and health [online]. Accessed 22 August 2022. https://​www​.aihw​.gov​.au/​reports/​australias​-health/​built​-environment​-and​-health.

552  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Backhouse, M., Lühmann, M. and Tittor, A. (2022). Global inequalities in the bioeconomy: Thinking continuity and change in view of the global soy complex. Sustainability, 14, 5481. Baker, H., Moncaster, A. and Al-Tabbaa, A. (2017). Decision-making for the demolition or adaptation of buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Forensic Engineering, 170(3), 144–156. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1680/​jfoen​.16​.00026 BDG (2019). Build a Better Future with the Sustainable Development Goals: A Practical Guide for Construction and Property Companies. Bioregional Development Group (BDG): Oxford, UK. Beck, U. (1999). World risk society as cosmopolitan society? Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties. In: World Risk Society. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 19e23. Ben Amara, D. and Chen, H. (2021). Evidence for the mediating effects of eco-innovation and the impact of driving factors on sustainable business growth of agribusiness. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 22, 251–266. Berkebile, B., Fox, B. and Hartley, A. (2008). Reflections on implementing biophilic design. In: Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 347e356. Blomsma, F. and Brennan, G. (2017). The emergence of circular economy: A new framing around prolonging resource productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21, 603–614. Bocken, N.M.P. and Short, S.W. (2016). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and opportunities, environmental innovation and societal. Transitions, 18, 41–61. Briant, J. (2017). Unheard voices: A critical discourse analysis of the Millennium Development Goals’ evolution into the Sustainable Development Goals. Third World Quarterly, 38, 16–41. Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E.D. (2010). The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition: Views from the field. Cities 27(4), 215–224. Carmona, M. and Sieh, L. (2004). Measuring Quality in Planning. 1st Edition. London, UK. Clemente-Suárez, V.J., Rodriguez-Besteiro, S., Cabello-Eras, J.J., Bustamante-Sanchez, A., Navarro-Jiménez, E., Donoso-Gonzalez, M., Beltrán-Velasco, A.I. and Tornero-Aguilera, J.F. (2022). Sustainable Development Goals in the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review. Sustainability, 14, 7726. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su14137726 Corporate Citizenship (2016). Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals: Business Action and Millennials’ Views. Corporate Citizenship, London. Cramer, J.S. and Browning, W.D. (2008). Transforming building practices through biophilic design. In: Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 335e346. Cucchiella, F., Gastaldi, M. and Miliacca, M. (2017). The management of greenhouse gas emissions and its effects on firm performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1387–1400. Dacko, M., Płonka, A., Satoła, L. and Dacko, A. (2021). Sustainable development according to the opinions of Polish experts. Energies, 14, 5325. D’Adamo, I. and Sassanelli, C. (2022). Biomethane community: A research agenda towards sustainability. Sustainability, 14, 4735. D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., Morone, P., Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Settembre-Blundo, D. and Shen, Y. (2022). Bioeconomy of sustainability: Drivers, opportunities and policy implications. Sustainability, 14, 200. Darko A., Chan A.P.C., Gyamfi S., Olanipekun A.O. and He B-J, Yu Y. (2017). Driving forces for green building technologies adoption in the construction industry: Ghanaian perspective. Building and Environment, 125(1), 206–215. Di Vaio, A., Varriale, L., Di Gregorio, A. and Adomako, S. (2022). Corporate social performance and non-financial reporting in the cruise industry: Paving the way towards UN Agenda 2030. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. In press. Du Plessis A., Babafemi A.J., Paul S.C., Panda B., Tran J.P. and Broeckhoven C. (2021). Biomimicry for 3D concrete printing: A review and perspective. Additive Manufacturing, 38(1). Dwivedi, A., Moktadir, M.A., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. and de Carvalho, D.E. (2022). Integrating the circular economy and industry 4.0 for sustainable development: Implications for responsible footwear production in a big data-driven world. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121335. Elefante, C. (2007). The greenest building is… one that is already built. Forum Journal National Trust Historic Preservation, 26.

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  553 Eliades, F., Doula, M.K., Papamichael, I., Vardopoulos, I., Voukkali, I. and Zorpas, A.A. (2022). Carving out a niche in the sustainability confluence for environmental education centers in Cyprus and Greece. Sustainability, 14, 8368. El-Rahman S.M.A., Esmail S.I., Khalil H.B. and El-Razaz Z. (2020). Biomimicry inspired adaptive building envelope in hot climate. Journal of Engineering Research, 166. EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation), SUN, and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment (2015). Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation; www​.elle​nmacarthur​foundation​.org. Evans, J. and Jones, P. (2008). Rethinking sustainable urban regeneration: Ambiguity, creativity, and the shared territory. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Pace, 40, 1416–1434. Faragllah R.N. (2021). Biomimetic approaches for adaptive building envelopes: Applications and design considerations. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 9(7), 2464–2475. Fu S.C., Zhong X.L., Zhang Y., Lai T.W., Chan K.C., Lee K.Y. and Chao C.Y.H. (2020). Bio-inspired cooling technologies and the applications in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 225(110313), 18. Gálvez-Martos, J.-L., Styles, D.D., Schoenberger, H. and Zeschmar-Lahl, D. (2018). Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 166–178. Gareis, R., Heumann, M. and Martinuzzi, A. (2010). Relating sustainable development and project management: A conceptual model. In Proceedings of the PMI Research and Education Conference; Project Management Institute: Washington, DC, USA. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P. and Hultink, E.J. (2017). The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. Goubran, S. (2019). On the role of construction in achieving the SDGs. Journal of Sustainability Research, 1, e190020. Grazuleviciute-Vileniske, I., Daugelaite, A. and Viliunas, G. (2022). Classification of biophilic buildings as sustainable environments. Buildings, 12, 1542. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​buildings12101542 Grelaud, M. and Ziveri, P. (2020). The generation of marine litter in Mediterranean island beaches as an effect of tourism and its mitigation. Scientific Reports, 10, 20326. Grierson, D. (2009). Towards a sustainable built environment. CIC Start Online Innovation, Rev. 1, 70–77. Halkos, G. and Gkampoura, E.-C. (2021). Where do we stand on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals? An overview on progress. Economic Analysis and Policy, 70, 94–122. Hart R. A. (2013). Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. London: Routledge. Hashempour, N., Taherkhani, R. and Mahdikhani, M. (2020). Energy performance optimization of existing buildings: A literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54(1) 101967, 10.1016/j. scs.2019.101967. Hershcovich C., van Hout R., Rinsky V., Laufer M. and Grobman Y.J. (2021). Thermal performance of sculptured tiles for building envelopes. Building and Environment, 197(1). Hestad, D. (2021). The evolution of private sector action in sustainable development. IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin. Available online: https://​www​.iisd​.org/​system/​files/​2021​-02/​still​-one​-earth​ -private​-sector​.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2022). Hidalgo, A.K. (2014). Biophilic design, restorative environments and well-being. In: 9th International Conference Design Emotions 2014 Color. Care, pp. 535e544. Hoffmann, F. (2019). Circular business models: Business approach as a driver and obstructer of sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, 361–374. Houda, A.N.E. and Mohamed, D. (2019). Advanced Building Skins Inspired from Plants Adaptation Strategies to Environmental Stimuli: A Review. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Applied Smart Systems, ICASS 2018. Imani, N. and Vale, B. (2020). A framework for finding inspiration in nature: Biomimetic energy efficient building design. Energy and Buildings, 225(110296), 9. International Energy Agency and the United Nations Environment Programme (2018). Global status report: Towards a zero emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. International Resource Panel IRP (2017). Assessing global resource use: A systems approach to resource efficiency and pollution reduction, P. Jensen et al. (Ed.) (Nairobi: UNEP).

554  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Ippolito, N.M., Amato, A., Innocenzi, V., Ferella, F., Zueva, S., Beolchini, F. and Vegliò, F. (2022). Integrating life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of fluorescent spent lamps recycling by hydrometallurgical processes aimed at the rare earth’s recovery. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 10, 107064. Jiang, B., Song, Y., Li, H.X., Lau, S.S.Y. and Lei, Q. (2020). Incorporating biophilic criteria into green building rating tools: Case study of Green Mark and LEED. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 82. Jin, X., Long, Y., Sun, W., Lu, Y., Yang, X. and Tang, J., (2017). Evaluating cities’ vitality and identifying ghost cities in China with emerging geographical data. Cities, 63, 98–109. Joye, Y. (2007). A tentative argument for the inclusion of nature-based forms in architecture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Kayıhan, K.S. (2018). Examination of biophilia phenomenon in the context of sustainable architecture. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 6, 80e101. Kellert, S.R. (2008). Dimensions, elements, and attributes of biophilic design. In: Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 3e19. Khelil S. and Zemmouri N. (2019). Biomimetic: A new strategy for a passive sustainable ventilation system design in hot and arid regions. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16(6). Kibert C.J. (2016). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kubbinga, B., Fischer, A., Achterberg, E., Ramkumar, S., de Wit, M., van Heel, P., van Amerongen, B., Buijs, M. and Brekelmans, H. (2017). A Future Proof Built Environment. Circle Economy and ABN AMRO. Netherlands. Lau, C.C.S., Lam, J.C. and Yang, L. (2007). Climate classification and passive solar design implications in China. Energy Conversion and Management, 48(7), 2006–2015. Lewis, J.O. (2012). Renovate or Demolish/Rebuild: What are the Drivers? EuroACE, Brussels, Renovate Europe Day, 11 October (2012). Available online: http://​www​.renovateeurope​.eu/​uploads/​ REDay2012​%20ppts/​REDay2012​_Workshop​_O wen_Lewis.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2022). Lewis, K., de V. Barros, F., Cure, M.B. et al. (2022). Mapping native and non-native vegetation in the Brazilian Cerrado using freely available satellite products. Scientific Reports, 12, 1588. Li, S., Jia, R., Seufert, J.H., Hu, W. and Luo, J. (2022). The impact of ability-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing strategic human resource management on performance: The mediating roles of emotional capability and intellectual capital. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60, 453–478. Lin, B., Chen, H., Liu, Y., He, Q. and Li, Z. (2021). A preference-based multi-objective building performance optimization method for early design stage Building Simulation, 14(3), 477–494, 10.1007/ s12273-020-0673-7. Liu, J., Ma, Y., Appolloni, A. and Cheng, W. (2021). How external stakeholders drive the green public procurement practice? An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Public Procurement, 21, 138–166. Manz, H., Micallef, D., Borg, S.P. and Buhagiar, V. (2018). A parametric building energy simulation case study on the potential and limitations of passive design in the Mediterranean climate of Malta. Sustainable Building, 3, 4, 10.1051/sbuild/2018004. McMahan, E.A. and Estes, D. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 507e519. Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5, 1653531. Merli, R., Preziosi, M. and Acampora, A. (2018). How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 703–722. Messerli, E.M., Kim, W., Lutz, J.-P., Moatti, K., Richardson, M., Saidam, D., Smith, P., Eloundou-Enyegue, E., Foli, A. Glassman, et al. (2019). Expansion of sustainability science needed for the SDGs. Nature Sustainability, 2(10), 892–894. Morone, P. and Imbert, E. (2020). Food waste and social acceptance of a circular bioeconomy: The role of stakeholders. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 23, 55–60. Motealleh, P., Zolfaghari, M. and Parsaee, M. (2018). Investigating climate responsive solutions in vernacular architecture of Bushehr city. HBRC Journal, 14(2), 215–223.

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  555 Moustairas, I., Vardopoulos, I., Kavouras, S., Salvati, L. and Zorpas, A.A. (2022). Exploring factors that affect public acceptance of establishing an urban environmental education and recycling center. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 25, 100605. Munarim, U. and Ghisi, E. (2016). Environmental feasibility of heritage buildings rehabilitation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 235–249. Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140, 369. Available online: https://​link​.springer​.com/​article/​10​.1007​%2Fs10551​-015​-2693​-2 (accessed on 29 September 2022). OECD (2017). Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets: An Assessment of Where OECD Countries Stand. OECD Publishing, Paris. Ofori, G. (2016). Construction in developing countries: Current imperatives and potential. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress (2016), Tampere, Finland, 30 May–3 June 2016; Kähkönen, K., Keinänen, M., Eds.; Department of Civil Engineering, Construction Management and Economics, Tampere University of Technology: Tampere, Finland, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 39–52. Opoku, D., Agyekum, K. and Ayarkwa, J. (2022). Drivers of environmental sustainability of construction projects: A thematic analysis of verbatim comments from built environment consultants. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(6), 1033–1041, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1678865. Pearce, D.W. and Turner, R. (1991). Economics of natural resources and the environment. Agricultural System, 37, 100–101. Plag, H. and Jules-Plag, S. (2019). A goal-based approach to the identification of essential transformation variables in support of the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. International Journal of Digital Earth, 13, 166–187. Płonka, A., Dacko, M., Satoła, Ł. and Dacko, A. (2022). The idea of sustainable development and the possibilities of its interpretation and implementation. Energies, 15, 5394. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ en15155394 Pomponi, F. and Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710–718. Postalcı, İ.E. and Atay, G.F. (2019). Rethinking on cultural sustainability in architecture: Projects of Behruz Çinici. Sustainability, 11, 1069. Qu K., Zhang, H., Zhou, X, Zhao, L. and Sun, B. (2022). Comparison analysis on simplification methods of building performance optimization for passive building design. Building and Environment, 216. Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. and Schulte, K. (2009). International comparison of sustainable rating tools. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 1–22. RICS and UNGC (2018). Advancing Responsible Business in Land, Construction and Real Estate Use and Investment–Making the Sustainable Development Goals a Reality; United Nations Global Compact (UNGC): London, UK. Rincón L., Coma J., Pérez G., Castell A., Boer D. and Cabeza L.F. (2014). Environmental performance of recycled rubber as drainage layer in extensive green roofs. A comparative life cycle assessment. Building and Environment, 74(1), 22–30. Rohracher H. (2011). Managing the technological transition to sustainable construction of buildings: A socio-technical perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(1), 137–150. Rossi, E., Bertassini, A.N. and dos Santos Ferreira Ometto, A.R. (2020). Circular economy indicators for organisation considering sustainability and business models: Plastics, textile, and electro-electronic cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 119–137. Rupal A., Syal P. and Sharma S.K. (2016). Energy conservation opportunities in institutional buildings A case study in India. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Power and Renewable Energy (ICPRE), 664–668. Ryan, C.O., Browning, W.D., Clancy, J.O., Andrews, S.L. and Kallianpurkar, N.B. (2014). Biophilic design patterns: Emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. Archnet-IJAR 8, 62e76. Sachs, J.D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet, 379, 2206–2211. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N. and Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​s41893​-019​-0352.

556  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Saito, O., Managi, S., Kanie, N., Kauffman, J. and Takeuchi, K. (2017). Sustainability science and implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustainable Science, 12(6), 907–910. Sanga, R., Kilumile M., and Mohamed F. (2022). Alternative clay bricks inspired from termite mound biomimicry. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 16. Santamouris, M. (2014). On the energy impact of urban heat island and global warming on buildings. Energy and Buildings, 82, 100–113. Santamouris, M., Paolini, R., Haddad. S., et al. (2020). Heat mitigation technologies can improve sustainability in cities. A holistic experimental and numerical impact assessment of urban overheating and related heat mitigation strategies on energy consumption, indoor comfort, vulnerability and heat-related mortality and morbidity in cities. Energy and Buildings, 217, 110002. SDSN (2016). Getting Started with the SDGs in Cities: A Guide for Stakeholders. U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN): New York, NY, USA. Silvius, G. (2017). Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1479–1493. Singh B., Sharma S.K. and Syal, P. (2021). Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB) design. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 102(1), 237–247. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s40030​-020​ -00500​-1 Singh, M.K., Mahapatra, S. and Atreya, S.K. (2009). Bioclimatism and vernacular architecture of North-East India. Building and Environment, 44(5), 878–888. Son J.J., Kim S.-K. and Syal M.G.M. (2022). Biomimicry in the built environment: Energy-saving assessment of a novel biomimetic window system. Open House International, DOI 10.1108/ OHI-01-2022-0008. Stahel, W.R. and Reday-Mulvey, G. (1981). Jobs for Tomorrow: The Potential for Substituting Manpower for Energy. 1st ed.; Vantage Press: New York, NY, USA. Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y. and Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42, 215–227. Taddei, E., Sassanelli, C., Rosa, P. and Terzi, S. (2022). Circular supply chains in the era of Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 170, 108268. Thornton, B.J. (2011). The greenest building (is the one that you don’t build!): effective techniques for sustainable adaptive reuse/renovation. Journal of Green Building, 6(1), 1–7. Tian, Z., Zhang, X., Jin, X., Zhou, X., Si, B. and Shi, X. (2018). Towards adoption of building energy simulation and optimization for passive building design: A survey and a review. Energy and Buildings, 158, 1306–1316, 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.022. Ukaga, O., Maser, C. and Reichenbach, M. (2010). Sustainable Development: Principles, Frameworks, and Case Studies. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA. United Nations (2010). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/ RES/70/1; Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development; First Session, 17–19 May 2010; United Nations General Assembly: New York, NY, USA. UN (2015a). Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Division for Sustainable Development Goals, New York, NY, USA https://​www​.un​.org/​ga/​search/​view​_doc​.asp​ ?symbol​=​A/​RES/​70/​1​&​Lang​=​E UN (2015b). Outcome Document of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development: Addis Ababa Action Agenda. New York, NY: United Nations. Vacchi, M., Siligardi, C., Demaria, F., Cedillo-González, E.I., González-Sánchez, R. and Settembre-​ Blundo, D. (2021). Technological sustainability or sustainable technology? A multidimensional vision of sustainability in manufacturing. Sustainability, 13, 9942. Vanderley M.J. (2011). Sustainable Construction, Innovation and Durability: Trends and Research Needs ed Peixoto de Freitas V et al. (Porto: XII DBMC International Conference. on Durability of Building Materials and Components 12–15 April 2011). Varshabi, N., Selçuk, S. and Avinç, G. (2022). Biomimicry for energy-efficient building design: A bibliometric analysis. Biomimetics, 7, 21. Waage, J., Yap, C., Bell S., Levy, C., Mace, G., Pegram, T., et al. (2015). Governing the UN sustainable development goals: Interactions, infrastructures, and institutions. Lancet Global Health 3, e251–e252, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​S2214​-109X(15)70112​-9.

The emerging trends in built environment research and the SDGs  557 Wilson, A. (2008). Biophilia in practice: Buildings that connect people with nature. In: Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp.325e333. Wilson, A. (2015). Sustainable Development Goal 11: Make Cities Safe and Sustainable. Available online: https://​www​.greenbiz​.com/​article/​sustainable​-development​-goal​-11​-make​-cities​-and​-human​ -settlements​-inclusive​-safe​-and (accessed on 25 October 2022). Zari, M.P. (2007). Biomimetic Approaches to Architectural Design for Increased Sustainability. SB07 Auckland, New Zealand. Zhang Y., Wang J., Hu F. and Wang Y. (2017). Comparison of evaluation standards for green building in China, Britain, United States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68(1), 262–271. Zhou, X., Ren, J., An, J., Yan, D., Shi, X. and Jin, X. (2021). Predicting open-plan office window operating behavior using the random forest algorithm. Journal of Building Engineering, 42(March), 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102514. Zhu J. and Chowdhury S. (2022). Building resilience in civil infrastructure systems: System-level biomimicry to address complex managerial challenges. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 28(1).

Index

Aboelata, M. J. 48 absorption capacity 489 acoustic environment 152 adaptive/adaptation 325 building 541 reuse 548–9 adequate food 33, 107 adequate funding 188 adopting energy efficiency 203 adverse climate changes 319–20 aeroponics systems 108 affordable and clean energy 198–9 Africa/African African Development Bank 160, 412 economic potential 413 sustainable infrastructure in 413 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2030 32, 63, 158, 280–81, 330, 332, 471, 501 Aghimien, D. O. 527–9 aging infrastructure 396, 474 agriculture/agricultural facilities 110 production 124, 127, 408 sustainability 122 Aguiar, D. R. da C. 183 Agyabeng-Mensah, Y. 485 Agyekum, K. 528 Ahmed, A. 465 Ahmed, V. 95, 179, 490 air pollution 47, 52, 73, 112, 138, 148–9, 233 Air Resources Board (ARB) 149 Akenroye, T. O. 282 Akinshipe, O. 530 Akotia, J. 90 Albatici, R. 546 Ali, F. 505, 511 Al-Jebouri, M. F. A. 490 Al-Kodmany, K. 107–8, 112 Almahmoud, E. 287 Alvarez, L. 379 Amaratunga, D. 49 American Development Bank (IDB) Group 405 American Planning Association (APA) 111 Amiri, A. 322 Ampratwum, G. 48 Anaman, K. A. 285 anchor city strategies 365 Andelin, M. 486 Andújar-Montoya, M. D. 297

animals habitats 339–40 physiology 341 waste 335 Ansah, R. H. 299 anticipatory competencies 182, 512 Apprenticeship Group Training Schemes 382 Arcadis index 356 architectural/architecture 393–5 biophilic 541 industry/construction 4.0 technologies 393–5 residential 433–4 techniques 546 vernacular 550 architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries 540 architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector 398 Arizona Procurement Code 280 Arreola, K. S. B. 335 artificial intelligence (AI) 388, 444, 503 artificial lighting 109 Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) 445 AR/VR simulations 392 Asare, K. A. B. 528 Asma, S. L. 139 Atanda, J. O. 533 Augmented Reality (AR) 388 Awuzie, B. 379 Ayarkwa, J. 524, 528 Aziz, R. F. 297, 302 Badami, M. G. 112 Bakker, I. 447 Ballard, G. 296 Bampou, P. 532–3 Barbosa, A. P. F. P. L. 528 Barnard, S. 170 Barnett, G. 338 Barraket, J. 286, 377, 381–2 Basheka, B. C. 280 Bazilian, M. 412 BE see built environment (BE) Behm, M. 282 Benis, K. 109, 113 Benites, H. S. 237 Bernal, R., 282 BEST index 254 Bhattacharya, A. 34, 413

558

Index  559 bibliometrics 420 Big Data (BD) 392 BIM see Building Information Modelling (BIM) biodegradable waste 132 biodiversity built environment drivers of 341 climate change and 242 human interactions with 342–3 implications before development 344 local and national 340–41 loss 336, 343, 344 planning infrastructure networks with 344 policies and regulatory frameworks for protecting 346 biodiversity conservation biodiversity through sustainable built environment 342–6 and built environment 337–8 integrated 339–40 urban development and 338–9 construction industry activities on 340–42 description of 330–32 sustainable development goals and 332 achieving 332–3 affordable and clean energy 335 clean water and sanitation 335 climate action 336 decent work and economic growth 335 gender equality 334 good health and well-being 334 industry, innovation and infrastructure 335 life below water 336 life on land 336–7 linkage between 333 no poverty 333 partnership for goals 337 peace, justice and strong institution 337 quality education 334 reduced inequalities 335–6 responsible consumption and production 336 sustainable cities and communities 336 zero hunger 334 biomimicry 237 biophilic architecture 541 biophilic design 549 Bioregional Development Group (BDG) 35 Boadu, E. F. 285 Boeger, N. 288 Boglárka R. N. 113 Boston Consulting Group 36 BOT project 461 Boukattaya, S. 159 Brackertz, N. 448–9

Bradley, S. 447 Brandon, P. S. 346 Bratt, C. 282 Brauch, M. D. 405–6 Brazilian manufacturing sector 487–8 BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) 409 Brilhante, O. 104 Bristol Sustainable Development Goals Alliance 363 Bristol, UK 362–3 Brombin, A. 105 Brookings Institution 362 Brooks, T. 383 Browne, K. E. 324 Brundtland Commission Report 58, 253, 265–6, 354, 421, 464–5, 481, 501 Building Information Modelling (BIM) 297, 388, 394, 397, 399, 503 methodology 399 in quantity surveying profession 397 technology 240 building performance optimisation (BPO) 547 Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) 48 Building Research Establishment in UK 546 buildings automation 445 capacity 533 design, flexible and multi-functional 239 development, processes of 206 electricity consumption of 212–13 energy retrofit 323 energy score of 212 industries, transformations in 143 materials 218–19, 298 physical and functional characteristics of 394 projects, types of 342 residential and non-residential categories 204 sites, endangered species on 340 sustainable maintenance of 443 see also built environment build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects 460 built environment (BE) 3, 44, 140, 148, 179, 188–9, 197–8, 233, 265–6, 332, 337, 341–2, 378, 461–2, 508, 542, 545, 550 adverse environmental effects 235 challenges of 463–4 in construction work 381–3 contribution to biodiversity 342 criticisms 540–41 definition of 47, 197 description of 1–3, 44–5, 48–50 drivers for 462–3 elements of 138–9, 544

560  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals frameworks for addressing global challenges 45–7 gender diversity in 158 and global challenges 50–52 impact on climate change 342 in infrastructure projects 379–81 international frameworks and agreements 51 key targets relevant to 372–4 New Urban Agenda 52–3 Paris Agreement 52–3 placemaking 378–9 projects in 141–2 relation to 501–3 research trends in 545 SDGs 52–3, 198–202, 394, 467–72, 526 Sendai framework 52–3 space 188 and strategies 219 sustainability in 271 transition to net-zero 3–5 built structures 126–7 Burke, C. 284 Burkett, I. 286 business administration building, electricity consumption of 211 business model innovation (BMI) 545–6 business models (BM) 545–6 Callway, R. 138–9 Camargo-Cruz, P. E. A. 183 Campus Service Center 211–13 Candel, M. 379 Cape Town, Republic of South Africa 365–6 Caplow, T. 113 carbon emissions 44–5, 472 footprints 493 pricing 324 Cartigny, T. 288, 377 Casse, C. 166 CDW market see construction and demolition waste (CDW) market CE see circular economy (CE) Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB) 395–6 Chan, A. P. 464 Chan, D. W. M. 527 Chang, M. 89 Chatterjee, A. 109 Chaudhary, K. 513, 515 Chen, J. 407 Chen, Z. 257 Chou, S. 210 Chua, K. 210 circular economy (CE) 53 application of 323

in built environment 237 business models 548 categorization system for 233, 234 circularity 234–6 and decarbonization 238–40 economy practices towards decarbonization 240–42 enablers and barriers to 236–8 SDG 12 and 243–5 concept of 232–4, 541 description of 231–2 design 2 development of 236 enablers 238 implementation 237 model for 549 physical environment to 4–5 primary goal of 549–50 principles of 5, 232–3, 236, 242, 244, 546 research 547 significant contributions to 233 strategies 233–4 as tool achieving SDGs 242–3 circularity and decarbonization 238–42 enablers and barriers to 236–8 SDG 12 and 243–5 types of loops 233 cities, complexity and unpredictability of 356 CITYKeys 356 city visioning 357 civil engineering 395–6 digital twins in 396 Civil Engineering Environmental Quality (CEEQUAL) 406 civil infrastructure systems 541 civil society partnerships 382 clean cooking systems 68–9 cleaner energy options 345–6 Cleaner Production (CP) engineering 507 clean water and sanitation 4 Clemente-Suárez, V. J. 542 Clements-Croome, D. 447 climate action 202 climate change 58, 114–15, 336 adaptation and mitigation 315–16, 325 and biodiversity 242 building energy retrofit 323 carbon neutrality of construction industry 320 challenges of 507 on civil infrastructure 319 climate finance 323–4 consequences of 341 COVID and 365

Index  561 description of 315 effects of 181 global temperature and precipitation 316–18 green building 322 and impacts 223 and infrastructure 318–20, 325 mitigations 224, 493–4 practice recycling 322–3 reduce energy consumption in operation stage 321 socio-economic encumbrances in 84 on urban environment 51 utilizing sustainable building materials 321–2 Climate Change Education (CCE) 180 climate finance 323–4 development of 324 climate-resilient development (CRD) 2–3, 413 climatic belts 493 closed loop operations 260 coastal biodiversity 336 coastal ecosystem 274 ‘code red’ warning 223 Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct 513 Cody, D. W. 52 CO2 emission 213 climate change impact 214 of CSC building 214 Coenen, C. 447 collaborative/collaboration competency 183 parity 170 partnership 441 working environment 399 Collins, D. 440 commercial buildings 204, 209 Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) 333 communicable diseases 145 communication conducive delivery systems 503 strategies 268 community development 513 farming 130 gardening 106–7 gardens 106 competences/competencies 182 definition of 511 dimensions of 505 project management 511–13 of sustainable project management 512 technical, operational and resource 488 complexity theory 296 compliance

with SDGs 515 with various sustainable development goals 516–17 compost waste 445 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) 106, 294 Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) 48–9 concurrent engineering 302–3 illustration of 303 Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm 29 construction business 251, 323–4 contracts 376–7 industries, transformations in 143 management 399, 482 materials 269, 321 organisations 486 project managers 503 projects 300, 301, 303 sustainability agenda in 297 value chain 234–5 waste 267, 342 works, public procurement of 282–3 construction and demolition waste (CDW) market 239, 267–8, 298–9 graphical depiction of 267, 268 management practices 271, 274–5 materials 271 minimization 271 construction industry 4, 24, 36, 158, 217, 266–8, 273, 285–6, 297, 299, 315, 323–4, 506 activities on 340–42 attributes of 482 carbon neutrality of 320 environmental performance of 184 productivity 297 stakeholders in 540 sustainability in 306–7, 422 in sustainable development 266, 270 Construction Management and Economics 38 construction process 390, 504 environmental challenges of 268–9 improvement in 298 construction procurement and sustainable development goals (SDGs) 285–6 description of 280–81 policy implication of 289 public procurement of construction works 282–3 SDGs and public procurement 283–6 socially responsible procurement/social procurement 286–8

562  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals construction waste management (CWM) 266, 271–6, 306 categories of 298, 299 importance of 266 practices 272–3, 276 consumer demand 472 of energy 251–2 tariffs 461 contamination 51, 76, 95, 149, 274, 337–8, 406, 549 contemporary issues in construction description of 523–4 education, training and knowledge development 527–9 cost premium 530–31 implications of findings 533–4 industry-related issues 529–30 policy and regulatory instruments 531–3 SDGs in 524–6 contemporary challenges for 526–7 context, definition of 431 conventional building 207, 210, 506 conventional buildings, transformation of 321 conventional project management 503 conventional “trial-and-error” method 547 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions 432 cooling technologies in buildings 221, 541 Corburn, J. 147 corporate groups 421 corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) 159–60 corporate social responsibility (CSR) 159–60, 284 corporate strategies 295 cost–benefit analysis (CBA) 380 cost premium 530–31 cradle-to-cradle thought process 253 Creagh, M. 112 Crews and Rumsey 114–15 critical infrastructure projects, investment in 461–2 critical pedagogy, components of 185–6 critical stakeholders 96–7, 482 critical thinking competency 183 cross-country studies 527 cross-disciplinary analysis 548 Cruz Rios, F. 236 Cucchiella, F. 543 Cui, Y. Y. 447 cultural beliefs 529 cultural diversity 189 cultural heritage, protection of 433 cultural resistance 529 CWM see construction waste management (CWM)

Dacko, M. 540 Dadzie, J. 529 daily huddle meetings 303–4 typical structure of 304 Dainty, A. 170 Dalrymple, J. 282, 284 Daly, D. 319 Dang, N. 396 Daniel, E. I, 529 Darko, A. 528 data availability 139–43 David, S. 256–7 Davies, I. E. E. 525 dearth of theory 533 decarbonisation 4 decision-making 159, 503–4 De Jong, E. 29 Delamonica, E. 26 Delnavaz, M. 504, 506 Denny-Smith, G. 382 Denoncourt, J. 377 Denton, F. 413 “DesignBuilder” software 208 design-build-operate (DBO) projects 460 de Sousa, S. 379 De Troyer, M. 166 Dicle, U. 486 digital/digitalization communication 392 industrialization 389–90 technology 445 transformation 392 Dimitrijeviæ, B. 47 disaggregation 140, 142 dissemination, definition of 489–90 Djokoto, S. D. 529 Doloi, H. K. 287 domestic violence 95, 381 Donovan, R. G. 342–3 drinking water 24–5, 28, 33, 66–7, 123, 127, 396, 404, 461 Drucker, P. F. 254 Dumitriu, P. 465 dynamic market-place demands 504 Eadie, R. 286 earth temperature 59 Eberhardt, L. C. M. 412 eco-design strategy 234–5 ecological/ecology crisis 354 modernisation 355 economic/economy development 24, 259–60 prosperity 190

Index  563 sustainability 307–8, 406 well-being 180 Economist Intelligence Unit 405, 422 ecosystems 1, 331 availability and consumption of 338 benefits 339 biodiversity and 334, 336 degradation of 500 distribution of 338 provision of 335 sensitive 337–8 trade-offs between 339 edible city 104 educational systems 334 education for sustainable development (ESD) definition of 178, 180 delivering 181–2 description of 178–81 educators 183–4 enabler for SDGs 187 framework 185–6 goals 186–7 integration of 187 pedagogies for 185–6 primary and secondary levels 179 role of educational institutions in achieving SDGs 190–91 sustainability literacy skills and competencies 182–5 sustainable built environment 179–80 targets and indicators 188–9 teaching 186 education, training and knowledge development 527–9 cost premium 530–31 implications of findings 533–4 industry-related issues 529–30 policy and regulatory instruments 531–3 effective learning 26, 183 effective market penetration 492 efficient waste management 260 Eigenbrod, F. 338 Ekung, S. 482, 485, 488–9, 491, 528–9, 531–3 electricity production 408 electric lighting 150 El-Gohary, N. 398 Ellen MacArthur Foundation 231–2, 241 Elmualim, A. 441–2 emerging countries, international assistance for 467 emerging technologies 503 emerging trends in built environment description of 540–41 research trends in 545–50

sustainable development goals (SDGs) 542–5 emotional intelligence 504 empirical-statistical downscaling models (ESDM) 318 employee’s performance 256–7 EMS see environmental management systems (EMS) energy 203 consumption 321 for different systems 209 dynamic nature and magnitude of 196 efficiency 210–13, 240–43 measures 205 efficient buildings 205 infrastructure 407 Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) 225 Engels, Frederich 93 Engineering Sustainability Journal 379–80 engineers/engineering activities 507 building 211 electricity consumption of 211 concepts 297 definition of 507 of future 507 professionals 387 workforce 508 environmental/environmentalism/environments 107, 213–14 awareness 90, 255–6 community 152–3 contaminants 146 degradation 28, 44, 147–8, 337 digitalization and automation of 387 education 181 engineering 507 ethology 138 integrity 181 environmental management systems (EMS) 251 description of 250–51, 253–8 Earth’s finite resources 251–2 sustainable development goals (SDGs) 253 waste 253 environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors 159 environmental sustainability 84, 128, 165, 307–9, 405–6, 472, 524, 532–3 urban and regional 360 envisioning change 184 equitable productive urban green spaces 123–5, 129–32 description of 121–2 existing landfills/open dumps 127–8

564  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals neighbourhood based productive green space planning 128 private land and built structures 126–7 public unused open spaces 126 sources of 125–6 sustainable development goals 122–3 equitable quality education 9, 178–9, 190, 273 equity 22, 122, 147, 172, 361, 364, 459–60 ESD see education for sustainable development (ESD) esteem value 372, 374 Etinay, N. 44 EU Green Capital in 2015 363 European Commission (EC) 93 European construction industry federation 390 European “G7 Health” summit 148 European Innovation Council 93 European Union (EU) Research Innovation programme 93 standards 491 Sustainable Finance Strategy 225 European Women on Boards (EWOB) 167 Evans, J. 281 Ewart, I. J. 378 e-waste management programs 233 Eye of Competence by International Project Management Association 505 Fabbri, K. 319 facility management (FM) 439 in achieving SDGs 442 business strategies and operations 442 community 450 digitalized development of 449 key performance indicators (KPIs) 440 managers 398, 441, 445, 448 outsourcing services 446 performance measurement practices 446 practices and processes 439 practitioners 449 profession 443 sector 444 strategic sustainable 440–41 and sustainable development in 440–41, 448 technical committee 439–40 Faremo, G. 280 Farhangi, H. M. 108 farming ocean transports for 109 systems, high-tech 108 Farrelly, M. A. 49 Fei, W. 35, 65, 281, 283–4, 289, 525 feminist criticisms 171 Fenner, A. E. 321–2 fertilisers 107, 111

Fewings, S. 483 Filho, W. L. 528 financial institutions 513 financial market 236–7 financing deficit 414 Findhorn project in 1962 354 Fisher, B. 34 Fitton, S. 380 Fladvad, M. 320 FM see facility management (FM) food production 123, 335 security 114, 272, 334, 546 dimensions of 121 hunger and 121 self-sufficiency 106–7 shortages 44 sufficiency 105 supplies, quality and quantity of 105 system development 105 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 104, 337 Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) 342 Formal Daily Huddle Meeting (FDHM) 303 fossil fuels 4, 68, 75–7, 112, 196, 199, 219, 232, 236, 240–41, 321, 325 Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) 377 Fowler, K. M. 446 Fredman, S. 161 Freelove, S. 380 Fuentes-Bargues, J. L. 283 Fujiwara, D. 380 Fukuda-Parr, S. 26 Furneaux, C. 286 futurism 356 Gachie, W. 510 Galamba, K. R. 441 gardening space 107 Geissdoerfer, M. 549 gender balance 159, 167–70 advancement 158 society 161 gender diversity 159 gender equality 158–61, 164–5, 170, 273 description of 158–9 future of 170–72 gender balance at board level 167–70 impact on realisation of SDGs 164–5 intersectionality as research paradigm 172 legal and institutional arrangements on 170 promoting 165–6 status of women in construction sector 166–7 sustainable development goal 5 (gender equality) in focus 160–64

Index  565 in workplace 159–60 gender inequality 158, 334 general circulation models (GCM) 316–18 geothermal heat pumps 240 Ghaffarianhoseini, A. 149 Ghana/Ghanaian environmental impact assessment in 528 study 529 GHGs emissions see greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions Glaviè P. 507 Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAHP) 269 global annual emissions 60 global biodiversity framework 331 global carbon emissions 197–8 Global City Index 356 global climate change 316–18 Global Compact Network Canada 243 global construction industry 160 global development 190, 542–3 global disasters 2 global economic instability 473 global food security 112 global fundamental infrastructure 461 Global Gender Report 160 global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 2 global organizations 324 global socio-economic transformation 432 global sustainability, SDGs definition of 544 Global Vision-Urban Action (GVUA) platform 364 global warming 58, 196–7, 507, 549 Gluch, P. 284, 381–2 Godschalk, D. R. 49 Goetz, A. 171 Gokool-Ramdoo, S. 185 Golušin, M. 203 good governance 358 Goubran, S. 254, 258–9, 281–2, 420, 525 Goulding, J. S. 532 Govindan, K. 253 Gramatki, I. 380 green-BIM framework 527 Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) 238, 546 green building development (GBD) carbon emission reduction effects of 322 green buildings 220, 322, 528, 546, 550 assessment 532 certification assessment guidelines 322 design 188, 506 projects 527–8 Green Cities, development of 104 green communities 105

green construction practices 207–8 green densification 106 greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions 44, 50, 105, 137, 197–8, 217, 223, 235, 267, 315, 324, 342, 364, 408, 441, 500, 502, 525 anthropogenic emissions of 316 concentration of 316 energy consumption and 198 monetary values 324 green jobs 260 green markets 489–90, 492, 532–3 green open spaces 129 Green, S. D. 374 green spaces 146–7, 339–40 forms of 131 productivity of 129–30 green urban spaces 337 multipurpose strategies for 106 Greer, C. 149 gross domestic product (GDP) 84, 412 gross national income (GNI) 65–6 groundwater 146, 335 Gürol, B. 171 Guterres, A. 63 Gyadu-Asiedu, W. 527 Habitat III conference in Quito 89 Hafez, S. M. 297, 302 Hansen, G. 151 Hansford, P. 282 Haq, Mahbub ul 65 Hatleskog, E. 379 Haugen, T. 447 hazardous solid waste 231 health and well-being in built environment acoustic environment 152 cities sustainable towards SDGs 147–8 description of 137–8, 143–6 designing for 148 health-related SDG data availability 140–43 impacts of home lighting on 150 implication for policy and research 152–3 indoor air quality and 148–9 planning to promote 147 principles of 144 sick building syndrome 149 sustainable 138–40 thermal comfort 150–51 urban green space and 146–7 Heath, G. A. 446–7 heating technology 221 Henley, J. 111 Heras-Saizarbitoria and Boiral 258 Hewage, K. 286 Higgon, D. 285

566  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Higher Education Academy (HEA) 182 higher education institutions 185, 190 homogenisation of culture 432 Hopwood, B. 59 Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HEFP) 93 Horry, R. 258–9 Hou, H. 445 housing, availability and quality of 525 Howell, G. 296 Huaman-Orosco, C. 304 Hulme, D. 26 Human Development Index (HDI) 65–6 human/humanity 330 engineered solutions 346 friendly building methods 206 health 334 needs, ecological footprint of 337 resources 543–4 settlements 222–3 well-being 164–5 hunger 23, 28–9, 44, 121–2, 334 Huovila, P. 281 Hwang, B. G. 503, 528 hydroponics 108, 109 Hyogo framework 49 ICOMOS Charter of Built Vernacular Heritage 432 Ijigah, E. A. 24 Imasiku, K. 524 inadequate urban land 97 inclusivity 100, 171, 183, 422 income inequality 8, 100, 335–6 Independent Research Forum 26 Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) 431 individual city visions 358 indoor air quality 140–41, 148–9 Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) 446–7 Industrial Ecology (IE) 507 industrial/industrialization 409 innovation, and infrastructure 199–200 metabolism 507 related issues 529–30 strategy 545 symbiosis 239 industry/construction 4.0 technologies architecture 393–5 civil engineering 395–6 construction management 399 description of 387–8 incorporation 393 quantity surveying 397–8 real estate 398 sustainable development goal 9 389–90

technologies 390, 392–3 and usage 390–92 inequality eradicate 170 gender 158, 334 income 8, 100, 335–6 social 406 societal 283 infectious disease 147 informal urban settlement 88 information technology (IT) infrastructure 387 infrastructure 406–7, 462 definition of 407 development 411–12, 414 energy 407 finance 472 investment 461 projects 457, 463–4, 471 sustainability assessment of 396 sustainable and resilient 410–11 sustainable project delivery 405–6 targets and indicators 409–10 telecommunication 407 transportation 407 water supply and sanitation 408–9 Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) 406 innovative construction methods 523 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) 269 Institute for Human Rights and Business 3–4 institutional capacity 5 Integrated Development Plan (IDP) 365 integrated problem-solving competency 183 Integrated Sustainable Project Management (ISPM) framework 510–11 interdisciplinary stakeholders 46 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2, 50, 333 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 333 international community 340 International Energy Agency 197, 412 International Facility Management Expert Centre (IFMEC) 442 International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) 58 International Labour Organization (ILO) 166–7 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 97 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 250 international organizations 142 International Renewable Energy Agency 197 International Resource Panel 2017 (IRP, 2017) 544

Index  567 International Social Science Council 31 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) 265 Internet of Things (IoT) 388, 503 interpersonal competencies 512 interpersonal skills 504 interpreted project goals 483 intersectionality as research paradigm 172 Intervale Farm in Burlington 126 ISO 14001 255–6, 256, 258, 442, 443, 448–9 ISO/TC 267 technical committee 439–40 ISPM framework 511 ITACA (Italian Institute for Innovation and Transparency in Procurement and Environmental Compatibility) 409 Ivanov, I. 508–9 Iyer-Raniga, U. 281 Jabbour, C. J. C. 258 Jansen, B. W. 233 Jennings I. 357 Jia-Fang 256 Jones, D. T. 299 Jones, P. 44, 281, 396 Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing strategy 294 Jylhä, K. 319 Kadefors, A. 284, 286 Kaika, M. 53 Kaluarachchi, Y. 447 Kanapinskas, V. 282–3 Kang, M. 439–41 Kapogiannis, G. 505 Kasper, L. 282 Kaushik, A. 151 Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP) 93–4 Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP) 93–4 key performance indicators (KPIs) 446 financial qualitative aspects of 446 for strategic decision-making 445 Khalid, A. M. 526, 533 King, A. 284 King A. 374, 383 Klaas, J. 104 Kleszcz, J. 110 knowledge biological and pathological 138 oriented leadership 487 Konstantinou, T. 47 Köse, A. B. 486 Koskela, L. 295, 298 Kotamarthi, R. 318 KPMG 4

Kuitert, L. 377 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) 47 Kwawu, W. 441–2 Labrincha, J. A. 24 Lambon-Quayefio, M. P. 284–5 Lampropoulos, I. 45, 47 land availability of 125 tenure system 123 use planning 125 value 124 landfills/open dumps 127–8 Lang’ata public housing site 94 Last Planner System (LPS) 300–302 Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region 95 Lavy, S. 446–7 Lawrence, A. W. 532 LC see lean construction (LC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 48 leadership, role of 491 lean business models 296 lean construction (LC) application of 296 as catalyst for SDGs 307–9 concurrent engineering 302–3 culture of continuous improvement and performance 297–8 daily huddle meetings 303–4 definitions of 295 description of 294 drivers and barriers to 304–5 five-step thought process 299, 300 future success and development of 304 implementation of 304 Last Planner System (LPS) 300–302 management 297–8 methodology 305, 306 principles of 298–300 and sustainability 305–7 tools 300 Lean Construction Institute (LCI) 295, 298 Lean Enterprise Institute 299 lean philosophy, concept of 295–6 lean project delivery system (LPDS) creation 296 learning dissemination 489–90 process 150 theories 482 types of 180 LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) 409, 422 grading system 546

568  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals Lee, G. 233 Lee, J. Y. 439–42 Lehmann, S. 335 Lehman, S. 45 Leire, C. 286 Leite, S. 180 Lekan, A. 388 León, J. 49–50 Leung, B. C. 484, 493 Liao, B. 322 Libya, SDSC in 528 Li, L. 322 Li, M. 204 linear economy (LE) 231 Liu, A. M. M. 374 Liu, J. 112 Lizarralde, G. 45 Lloyd, R. E. 280 Lloyd-Walker, B. M. 286 Local Agenda 21 (LA21) in urban areas 355 localisation, process of 359 Local Sustainable Construction Material and Technologies (LSCMT) 530 Loh, S. 44 Lok, K. L. 445 Lomazzi, M. 21–2, 27 Longhurst, J. W. S. 180 Loosemore, M. 284–7, 288–9, 377, 381–2 Lopes, J. 24 López, C. S. G. 335 Lord, W. E. 288, 377 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) 410–11 low-carbon buildings 3 Lundholm, J. T. 330 Lü, X. 321 Lynch, A. J. 254 macroeconomic stability 472–4 Malalgoda, C. 45 Malaysia Economic Planning Unit 32 SDGs and national development 33 malnutrition 44, 46, 121–2, 245 management decision-making 510 theory 296 Manila City Government project 114 Manning, R. 26 Manu, E. 322 manufacturing growth 71–2 manufacturing value added (MVA) 412 Marcelline S. T. R. 525 marine biodiversity 336 marine ecosystems 333

Marlow, E. C. 49–50 Marrone, P. 219 Martin-Ortega, O. 280–81 Marx, K. 93 mass media 36 materials efficiency 241 recycling 239 and waste management 243 Mauree, D. 319 Mavridou, T. 306–7 McCrudden, C. 282, 287 McCue, C. P. 280 McDermott, P. 282 McKinsey Institute 36, 413 McLennan, J. F. 431 MDGs see Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Means of Implementation (MoI) 544 Megahed, N. A. 110–11 Mendell, M. J. 446–7 Mensah, J. 540 mental well-being 137–8 Merli, R. 550 metropolitan centres 342, 365 Mews, G. H. 46 microeconomic environments 464 Middle Eastern rating system 546 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 20, 28, 58–9, 85, 139, 161, 178, 218, 231, 251, 266–7, 358–9, 407, 471, 481, 542 attainment of 24 construction and 24–6 criticism of 22 declaration and 20–21 development paradigm 23 implementation of 23, 534 inadequacies of 22 post-2015 agenda 26–7 programme 26–7 role of construction 25 Mir, M. S. 109–10 misperception 490–91 Mistra Urban Futures Project 365 mitigation 4, 325 modern global economy 504 Modern Leadership Report 167 Moncaster, A. 380 Mont, O. 286 Mosbah, S. M. 254 Mulholland, C. 383 multiple international organizations 406 multi-stakeholder partnerships 465 multi-story buildings 110–11 municipal solid waste (MSW) 73–4, 274

Index  569 Murphy, M. 286, 289 Murray, A. 549–50 Murtagh, S. R. 383 Mushi, F. V. 527, 529 music 152 Mycoo, M. A. 46 Naidoo, R. 34 Nasir, O. 394 National Food Strategy 113–14 National Themes Outcomes and Measures (TOMs) framework 378 native vegetation 541 natural construction materials 345 natural disasters 45, 345 natural ecosystems as infrastructure 346 natural environments 105, 179 natural habitat 340–41 natural resources 336 conflicts over 337 natural surfaces 146 nature-based solutions (NBS) 53 Naylor, G. 382 neighbourhood 131 definition of 128 development 129 productive spaces in 128 Neilsen, J. 49 Nelkin, J. 113 Net Plus Energy Building (NPEB) 208 net zero carbon opportunities 260 Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs) 206–8, 445, 491, 541, 547 built environment 197–8 sustainable development goals and 198–202 concept of 207 description of 196–7, 206–10 design considerations 206–7 efficiency and performance of 209 evaluating performance of 210 energy efficiency 210–13 environment 213–14 performance and quality of 210 and SDGs 208 significance and effectiveness of 210 sustainable classification of buildings 203–5 energy efficient buildings 205 environmentally friendly buildings 205–6 sustainable buildings/net zero energy buildings 206 sustainable practices 203 Newman P., 357 New Urban Agenda (NUA) 1, 45, 85–6

declaration 46 pillars and principles of 47 New York, USA 363–4 Nhema, A. 22 Nielsen, S. B. 441, 448 Nigeria 66, 67, 138 LEED evaluation metrics for 533 residential buildings 531 residential buildings in 528 sustainable construction materials in 527 Niggli, P. 31 Nikakhtar, A. 299 nominative competences 513 non-availability of land 125–6 non-buildable open spaces 133 non-communicable diseases 145, 147 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 414, 460 non-renewable resources 36, 179, 207, 232, 251, 502 normative competencies 183, 512 NZEBs see Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs) O’Brien, C. M. 280–81 occupational health 61 O’Farrell, P. J. 335 official development assistance (ODA) 467 Ofori, G. 24, 38, 285 Ogden, L. E. 341 Ogunmakinde, O. E. 527 Ohemeng-Ababio, E. 529 Olanrewaju, O. I. 388 Olawumi, T. O. 527 Old Urban Agenda 46 Olukoya, O. A. P. 533 Omri, A. 159 Open Working group 27 Opoku, A. 35, 48, 90, 113, 179, 281, 283–4, 289, 343, 420, 439–42, 490, 525, 540 organic farming 125 organic waste 126–7, 130 management 129–30 urban 128 organisational gender-based research 172 organisational learning (OL) and stakeholder engagement absorption capacity 489 assessing SDGs in construction 492 climate change mitigations 493–4 dealing with misperceptions 490–91 description of 481–2, 485–8 detection and correction of errors 485 engagement and sustainable development 484–5 knowledge mining and processing tool 487 learning dissemination 489–90

570  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals methodological gaps 492–3 regionalisation of policies and learning 491–2 regulatory policy 490 roles in sustainable construction projects 483–4 SDGs in construction 488–9 sustainable construction projects 482–3 towards achieving sustainable development 488 organisational performance 167–8 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations 464 organoponics 125 Orsini, F. 219 Osei-Amponsah, C. 285 Osei-Kyei, R. 464 Osmond, P. 237 O’Sullivan, F. 53 Owoo, N. S. 284–5 Owusu-Manu, D.-G. 412 Özparlak, G. 171 Pacheco-Torgal, F. 24 Pakistan 66, 67 parametric modelling 547 Paris Agreement 45–7, 50–52, 84, 223, 408 Parkin, S. 180 Parra-Martínez, J. 167, 171 partial decarbonization 241 partnerships 225 pedagogy strategies 185 transformation of 184 peer learning 185 performance evaluation process 446 Peric, A. 52 pesticides 111 Peter, A. 45 Petersen, D. 284 Phelan, A. 333 photovoltaics (PVs) 219, 236 Phoya, S. 528 physical risk 323–4 physical well-being 137–8 Pinch, L. 295 Pitt, M. 447 placemaking 13, 372, 378–9 Plowden, M. 379 PM see project management (PM) Pocock, J. 422 policy instruments 224 Pollard, K. 381 pollution 145, 272–3 poverty 1, 26, 28, 84–5, 123, 284, 412–13, 542–3

alleviation 133, 525 alleviation of 406 degree of 88 reducing 164 P patch community program 128 PPPs see public-private partnerships (PPPs) practice recycling 322–3 Prakash, P. 446 predictable funding 188 Predictive Mean Vote 151 Pregnolato, M. 395–6 Private Finance Initiative (PFI) 459 private investments 123 private land 126–7 private participation in infrastructure (PPI) 462, 473 procurement/social procurement 286–8 production transformation process 447 productive urban green spaces 121, 128, 131 cost of 132 profitability, sustainability and 510–11 profit sharing 462 project delivery process 332 project implementation 483 project management (PM) community 505 competencies 511–13 description of 500–501 frameworks 500–501 methodological documents 508 organizational maturity in 504 principles of 509–10 project managers in incorporating sustainability concepts in projects 503–5 in relation to built environment 501–3 stakeholders and economic entities in 510 strategies 295, 513–18 sustainable consumption and production practices in 518 sustainable development and 505–11 Project Management Institute 505 project managers 508, 515 in incorporating sustainability concepts in projects 503–5 roles of 517 public awareness 185, 191, 225, 238, 528 public expenditure 283 public health 48, 121, 144–8, 266, 473–4 public institutions 224–5 public investment 123, 414 public-private partnerships (PPPs) 225, 414 agenda and essential role of 466 agreements, spectrum of 460 arrangements 459

Index  571 for built environment 461–2, 465, 475 challenges of 463–4 drivers for 462–3 sustainable 472–4 for sustainable development goals 467–72 concept of 458 costs and risks 475 definition for 458 description of 457–8 developing countries to adopt 459 economic sustainability of 471 implementation 462, 464 infrastructure services 472 initiating and supporting 473 interest in 473 models 460–61 in New Zealand 462–3 notion of 458 pervasive constraints in 472–3 potential of 474 primary partners 460 risk-reduction tactics for 464 several drivers for 464 sustainable development and sustainable development goals (SDGs) 464–7 types of 458 use of 463 public procurement magnitude and importance of 283 social policies in 287 public relations (PR) tool 254 public services 462–3 public unused open spaces 126 public utility 461 Puddephatt, A. 282 Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. 340 Qiao, Y. 320 ‘quadruple helix’ partnership 357 quality education 546 infrastructure 412 of life 339 quantity surveying 397–8 Raiden, A. 372, 374, 381–3 Ramankutty, N. 112 RE see renewable energy (RE) real estate sector 167–70, 398 realisation of sustainable development goals building sector and 218–20 and construction industry 266–8 construction waste management 269–76 description of 217–18, 265–6

environmental challenges of construction process and activities 268–9 pathways to sustainable future 218 retrofitting and contribution 220–21 affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy 222 cities and human settlements 222–3 combat climate change and its impacts 223 contributions from building retrofits 221 of water and sanitation 221–2 way forward 224–6 recycling industries 268 of materials 239 resources 517 responsible 517 reduced material footprints 260 regional climate models (RCM) 318 regionalisation of policies and learning 491–2 Reid, S. 285–6, 288 renewable energy (RE) 205, 208, 219, 240–43, 413 production 260, 345 sources 235–6, 508–9 renewable resources 205–6 Renovation Wave strategy 217 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 316 Resende, F. G. 183 residential architecture 433–4 residential structures 204 resilience 411 concepts of 50 definition of 49 infrastructure 49 resilient infrastructure 274, 389, 410–11 resource-based management initiative 487 resource management 240–41 resource utilization 508–9 responsible consumption 201 retrofit/retrofitting 240 of buildings 225 projects 222 strategies 221 return on assets (ROA) 167–8 percentage of female directors 169 vs. percentage of female directors 169 return on equity (ROE) 167 vs. percentage of female directors 168 return on invested capital (ROIC) 167 Revit Architecture 394 Rey-Hernández, J. M. 208 right of ways (ROW) 126 Rio “Earth Summit” 332

572  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals risk reduction measures 202 roadway pavements 319–20 Robert, K. W. 253 Roberts, P. 89–90 Rockefeller Foundation program 137 rooftop greenhouses 110 Ross, A. 89 Rowe, D. 181 Rowlison, S. 282 Rumjaun, A. B. 185 Ruparathna, R. 286 Sachs, J. 33, 113 safe drinking water 28 Saghir, J. 406 Salford Social Value Alliance 376 Salontis, K. 305 Samuel, F. 379 Sandbu, M. 23 Sand, J. 172 sanitation 28 infrastructure 408–9 sustainable management of 221–2, 273 Sani, Y. 113 Sarter, E. K. 283 Sarvajayakesavalu, S. 526 Satterthwaite, D. 52–3 Saunders, W. S. A. 49, 52 Sawalha, I. H. S. 49 SBE see sustainable built environment (SBE) SC see sustainable construction (SC) scheduling concurrent activities 302 Scherz, M. 45–6 Schipper, R. P. 502 Schneider, N. 31 Scholz, M. 113 scientific production over time 420, 421 statistics of 420, 421 SD see sustainable development (SD) SDG see sustainable development goals (SDG) SDSC see Sustainable Development Strategies in Construction (SDSC) Sedighi, M. 299, 307 self-awareness competency 183 Semple, A. 286 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 45–6, 52 establishment of 50 Senhadji, A. 97 senior management 504 services, access to 245 sex, discrimination based on 166 Shahda, M. M. 110–11 shared social reality 374

Shim, C. S. 396 ship-building industry 487 sick building syndrome (SBS) 149 Siemens Green City Index 356 Sijakovic, M. 52 Silva, A. W. L. 485 Silvius, A. J. 502 Silvius, G. 511, 513 skills development 188, 288 slash energy costs 235–6 slums settlements, complexities of 96 upgrading theories 92 smart and sustainable cities 353–6 buildings 221 definition of 355 technologies 399 thinking 353 Smith, A. 447 social economy 407 social inclusion 545 social inequality 406 social injustice 508 social insecurity 337 social justice, debated issues of 190 Socially Responsible Public Procurement (SRPP) 287–8 or social procurement practices 287, 288 social procurement 285–8, 377 social project management, practices 514–15 Social Return on Investment (SROI) model 378 social sustainability 59, 64, 295–6, 309, 547 social value (SV) assessing and measuring 380 background and connection SDGs 372–5 and built environment 378 in construction work 381–3 in infrastructure projects 379–81 key targets relevant to 372–4 placemaking 378–9 definition of 375–8 description of 372 framework for unlocking 378 monetisation of 372 policies 285 principles of 375–6 Social Value International 375 social well-being 96, 137, 139, 180, 237, 281, 406, 544 societal decision-making 170 societal inequality 283 socio-technical system 297 soft power 358 soil contaminants 335 Solaimani, S. 299, 307

Index  573 solid waste 125 SP see sustainable projects (SP) Spangenberg, J. H. 250–51 Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) 460 SSA see Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future (SFSF) 408–9 stakeholders 529 array of 482–3 benefits for 502 competencies of 483 in construction 484–5, 540 engagement 483–6, 519 groups 483–4 involvement 543–4 learning needs 489 relations, management of 380 in sustainable construction projects 482–4 synergy among 486 standard of living 411 Staples, W. 282, 284 state-owned enterprise (SOE) 461 Stocchero, A. 321 strategic competencies 183, 512 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 330–31, 338 students learning 186 Styhre, A. 379 Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) 217, 224 description of 404–5 financing infrastructure projects for SDGs 413–15 infrastructure and sustainable development goals 406–7 energy infrastructure 407 targets and indicators 409–10 telecommunication infrastructure 407 transportation infrastructure 407 water supply and sanitation infrastructure 408–9 realization of SDGs 411–13 sustainable and resilient infrastructure 410–11 sustainable infrastructure project delivery 405–6 Suchman, M. C. 259 supply chain, environmental strategies and performance improvement in 489 sustainability 48, 203, 462, 503, 525 accounting gaps 530–31 advisors 529 among project managers 518–19 assessment 492 broader concept of 243 into building projects 508 competencies of 185, 511

concepts of 50, 506 crucial aspect of 546, 550 definition of 48 environmental 532–3, 545 facilities management 444 focuses on 202 framework 513 goals 530 idea of 500 impacts on 258–9 integrating 508 knowledge on 257 leadership and 180 lean construction (LC) and 305–7 learning 488 literacy 181–2, 191 long-term debt 466 models of 546 oriented innovation 307 performance 519, 530, 534 pillars of 190–91, 540 practices 445 prevalence of 422 principles 509 and profitability 510–11 in project management 500–501 projects 180 promotion of 161 realization of 59 reporting 260 responsibilities 506 of systems 524–5 temological and normative perspectives on 501 sustainable building research centre (SBRC) 209 sustainable buildings 179, 206, 540 design 235 knowledge for 179 sustainable built environment (SBE) 346, 472–4, 502 education for sustainable development 179–80 interdependence of 435 public-private partnerships (PPPs) 472–4 SDGs and 421–4 traditional architectural knowledge systems and 425–31 sustainable business practices 346, 506 sustainable cities 46, 355 and communities 200–201, 359 sustainable classification of buildings 203–5 energy efficient buildings 205 environmentally friendly buildings 205–6 sustainable buildings/net zero energy buildings 206

574  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals sustainable construction (SC) 138, 295 conceptualisation of 481 innovations 544 materials 321 practices, implementation of 180 processes, synergies between 491 sustainable development (SD) 28, 53, 87, 164, 186, 199, 203, 217, 232, 250, 377–8, 481, 488, 540–41, 545 agenda 34 challenges of 181 component of 336 concept of 358–9 dealing with misperceptions 490–91 definition of 198, 354 developing absorption capacity 489 in developing countries 526 features of 422 gender mainstreaming for 164 global partnership for 275–6 goals for 161, 189 idea and practice of 501 implementation mechanisms 550 importance of 59 integration into curriculum 490 investment in 526 learning dissemination 489–90 objectives 338, 440 pillars of 421 planning and regulations 490 practices 202 pragmatic nature of 525 principles of 509–10 programmes 32 and project management 505–11 projects implementation 505 regionalisation of policies and learning 491–2 regulatory policy 490 requirements of 339–40 SDGs in construction 488–9 skills for 181–2 societies for 275 strategies and policies 523 and sustainable development goals (SDGs) 464–7 sustainable development goals (SDG) 20, 27, 34, 45, 58–9, 62–5, 84, 121, 137, 178, 196, 217, 219, 254, 266, 280, 307, 315, 330, 353, 359–60, 388, 404, 421–4, 439, 442, 447, 457–8, 481, 488, 500, 523–5, 530, 534, 542–5 achievement of 3, 500, 544 agenda 466 2030 agenda for development 27–9

aggregating 526 attainment of 32–3, 332–3 built environment 60–61 catalyst for 307–9 comparing MDGs to 29–30 competencies towards realization of 511–13 complexity and scope of 467 compliance of 197 in construction 35–8, 488–9, 491–2, 524–6 climate change mitigations 493–4 methodological gaps 492–3 in contemporary challenges 526–7 contributions from building retrofits 223 counterproductive to 271 criticism of 30–31 data availability 141 defence of 32 definition of global sustainability 544 description of 1–3, 58–60 development of 449 environmental ecosystem 449 for equitable distribution of infrastructure 413 experience in services on 449 five “Ps” of 6, 65 formal monitoring programmes of 360 framework of 243, 381, 541 frontiers of 482 gendered engagement for 171 goal 6 (clean water and sanitation) 66–7 Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) 68 Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) 68–71 Goal 9 (Industry Innovation and Infrastructure) 71–2 Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) 72–4 Goal 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) 74–6 health-related indicators 140–42 into higher education 528–9 impact of 142 implementation of 158–9, 171, 408–9, 448 inception of 280–81 index/rank countries and progress 114 index score over time 63 indicators 139, 410 information on 467, 484 infrastructure and 409, 525 inherent structural issues in 171 integration of 490–91 interconnection among 64 interdependence of 435 and international human rights 4 and key targets 411

Index  575 localisation 365 monitoring and evaluation of 170 monitoring framework 152 national reporting of 365–6 Nigeria’s trajectory to 527 performance 485 policies 170, 526 principles of 439–40, 542 programmes 534 progress of 65–6, 458 and public procurement 283–6 realisation of 104, 217, 411–13, 526–7 results of 33–4 role of construction 37–8 SFM and implementation of 450 skills, awareness, and policy formulation for 489 social context of 172 standards 443 strategies for 488, 490–91 in Sub-Saharan Africa 411–13 substantial impacts on 525 sustainability assessments of 408 sustainable development and 464–7, 545 targets of 410, 422 understanding and integration of 413 United Nations (UN) 543, 543 wheel of progress 524 Sustainable Development Goals Fund 21 sustainable development indicators (SDI) 232 Sustainable Development Strategies in Construction (SDSC) 523, 529 adoption 532 in African context 528 awareness in 528 benefits of 531 challenges 526 construction-related 527 in developing countries 524, 526 effective implementation of 525 engagement with 531 financial implications of 530 implementation of 523–4, 528–33 in Libya 528 in Nigeria 529 non-familiarity with 528 options 528 pertinent challenges for 527 products 524 relevant metrics of 528 in South Africa 529 strategies in construction 524 sustainability practices 525 tools 533 sustainable diversity 481

sustainable economic growth 382 sustainable energy buildings 204–5 Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) in business decisions 439, 441–2 effectiveness and efficiency of 445 effective use of 440 sustainable facility management practices in achieving SDGs 450 description of 439 FM key performance indicators to 445–6 financial aspects 447 measurement of 446 non-financial qualitative aspects 446–7 productivity 447 and SDGs 440–45 SDGs in FM sector 448 financial perspective 448 functional perspective 449 physical perspective 448–9 user satisfaction perspective 449 sustainable farming methods 123 sustainable global development 388 sustainable growth 548 Sustainable Impact Breakdown Structure (SBS) 513 sustainable inclusive growth 159 sustainable infrastructure 410–11, 413, 457, 546 concept of 405 description of 405 finance for 414–15 project delivery 405–6 Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System (SIRSDEC) 406 sustainable lifestyles 189 sustainable project management (SPM) 502 methodological approach for implementing 509 sustainable projects (SP) 482 adoption 492 benefits of 492–3 cost premium in 491 implementation 491 rating tools 492 stakeholder engagement in 484 sustainable regeneration initiatives 544 Sustainable Transportation Appraisal Rating System framework (STARS) 406 sustainable transportation infrastructure 407 sustainable ventilation system 541 Sutherland, V. 287 SV see social value (SV) Swain, R. B. 526, 534 systems thinking competencies 182, 512 Tablada, A. 111

576  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals “take-make-dispose” economic system 550 ‘take-make-waste’ culture 231 TAKS see traditional architectural knowledge systems (TAKS) Talab Camp community 95 Tallon, A. 90 Tan, J. S. 503 technical competency 505 technological innovation 377–8, 487–8 Teixeira, P. 295 telecommunication infrastructure 407 terrestrial ecosystems 333, 336–7, 515, 550 Testa, F. 257–8 The Hunger Project (THP) 29 the International Labour Organisation and Community Road Empowerment of Japan 26 thermal comfort 150–51 thermal performance of buildings 541 3R principle (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) 273–4 Thurbon, E. 287 Tigabu A. D. 528 Tille, F. 473 Tokbolat, S. 524 top management 500, 504 Topple, C. 253 Torcellini, P. 209–10 Toriola, L. O. 530 total energy demand 323 total global emissions 45 total shareholder return (TSR) 167, 169 traditional architectural knowledge systems (TAKS) 420, 433 description of 420–21 development of 431 dvantages of 435 in Indian context 433–5 indicators identified from 435 SDGs 421–4, 426–30 and sustainability 432 in international context 431–3 and sustainable built environment (SBE) 425–31 traditional craftsmanship 425 traditional economic models 171 traditional knowledge (TK), definition of 431 traditional knowledge systems (TKS) 420, 425 traditional soil systems 108 transformative pedagogy 184 transition risk 324 transportation access to 245 infrastructure 407 ‘triple bottom line’ approach 354 Triple Bottom Line (TBL) economy 408

TRNSYS software 204 Troje, D. 284, 286, 381–2 Tsigkas, A. 306–7 Tsinopoulos, C. 305 Tucker, M. 441, 447 Tuhkanen, H. 145 Turner, M. 167 Tyson, J. 31 UK

Biodiversity 2020 strategy 338 Green Building Council 375–6 National Union of Students (NUS) 182 Social Value (Public Service) Act 287 UN see United Nations (UN) underutilized spaces 126 Underwood, S. 320 United Nations (UN) 84, 500, 534 Biodiversity Conference 1, 47, 331 City Prosperity Initiative 356 Climate Change Conference of the Parties 51 Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 32, 413 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 185, 330 Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 185 custodian agencies 143 Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development 86, 431 Development Agenda 21 Development Programme (UNDP) 166 Environment Programme 3, 51 Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 185 General Assembly 1, 45, 196 Global Compact Report 161, 525 Habitat 358, 360 Human Development Reports 65–6 Human Settlement Programme 355 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1–2, 316 New Urban Agenda (NUA) 145 policy document 481 sustainability development goals (SDGs) 62, 63, 250, 372, 439, 457, 543, 543 Sustainable Development Summit 86, 280–81 targets and indicators of 468–70 UNESCO 431–2 World Commission for Environment and Development 250, 540 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity 431–2 universal primary education 23

Index  577 urban agriculture 124–5, 129 disadvantage of 132–3 extensive benefits of 132–3 urban equilibrium (UE) 321 urban futures case studies Bristol, UK 362–3 Cape Town, Republic of South Africa 365–6 New York, USA 363–4 cities and human settlements 360–61 description of 353 SDGs, urban sustainability and localisation 358–62 smart and sustainable cities 353–6 thinking 356–8 urban green spaces 107, 121, 146–7 abandoned buildings for vertical farming purposes 109 description of 104–6 food sufficiency and realisation of SDGs 113–15 green design in food self-sufficiency 106–9 reduction in imported food through 111–13 vertical farming in existing buildings 109–11 vertical farming in design of new buildings 111 Urban Health Rome Declaration 148 Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction (UPPR) 93 urban planning concept of 92 context of 357 urban regeneration 90, 93 concept 89 definition of 90 evolution of 91 features of 90 policy 92 urban slums for sustainable development goals 93 2030 85–8 description of 84–5 impact of 94–6 initiatives 93–4, 96–7 regenerating 88–93 way forward 97–100 urban/urbanisation 124, 338–9 biodiversity preservation 340 crisis 354 development 28, 179, 546 environment 111, 165 farms 106, 111–13, 115 on food production 121 food security 105

green belts 335 infrastructure 198 innovation 358 landscape 123 neighbourhood 130 organic waste 128 paradox 354–5 planners 147, 343 policy 90 population 107 processes 235 shrinkage 89–90 slum-settlers 88 solid waste 127 space 127 sprawl 345 sustainability 235, 353 through social improvements 94–5 Ürge-Vorsetz, D. 321–3 U. S. Climate Resilience Toolkit (USCRT) 318 Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 273 Green Building Council (USGBC) 546 Vale, J. W. S. P. 505 Valencia, S. C. 46 value in exchange 372 propositions 379 in use 372 value for money (VfM) goals 458, 463 Vandemoortele, J. 22, 26 Van der Voordt, T. J. 447 Van Tulder, R. 34, 388 van Zanten, J. A. 34 Vastu literature of architectural proper 434 Vastu Shastra 434 Venezuela 66, 67 Venkataraman, B. 186 vernacular architecture 550 Verrier, B. 295 vertical farming 107 acquiring abandoned buildings for 109 in design of new buildings 111 in existing buildings 109–11 representation of 110 Vertical Harvest 111 Vijge, M. J. 29 Viljoen, A. 124 virtual environment 396 virtual reality (VR) 388 visionary thinking 356 visioning processes 357 VLRs see voluntary local reviews (VLRs)

578  The Elgar companion to the built environment and the sustainable development goals voluntary local reviews (VLRs) 353 case studies 362 reviewed progress 363 Waldron, D. 111 Wandahl, S. 305 Wang, L. 44, 48 waste 205 creation 545 generation 270, 274 hierarchy 252, 253 management legislation 250 strategies 271 in urban areas 133 production 138 reduction 242 segregation of 127 water treatment 123–4 waste-to-energy initiatives 232–3 water conservation 242 efficient management of 443–4 management 243 supply and sanitation infrastructure 408–9 sustainable management of 221–2, 273 water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) 93 Watts, G. 380 weather conditions on health 151 Weiss, L. 287 Weissman, J. 286 Wei, W. 45, 49, 52 Whitehead, M. 354 Whitmore, D. 377 Widegren, K. 172 Wiek, A. 512–13 Wijerathne, M. D. I. R. 307 Windapo, A. O. 532 Wolch, R. J. 146 Womack, J. P. 299 women

in construction sector 166–7 economic engagement 164 empowerment of 161 equal employment of 164 equality, diversity, and inclusion of 166 gender equality 162–3 rights 164–5 underrepresentation of 165–6 Women’s Major Group (WMG) 165 World Bank 411 World Bank Group 411–12 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 265 World Economic Forum 36, 160, 421–2 World Green Building Council (WGBC) 143 World Health Organization (WHO) 137 World Intellectual Property Organisation 431 World Urban Forum on Sustainable Development 431 World Watch Institute 340 Wright, T. 185 Wu, Z. 530 Xu, X. 321 Yanamandra, S. 405 Yang-Wallentin, F. 526, 534 Ye, C. 396 Younger, M. 48 Zaman, A. U. 45 Zambia sustainable construction adoption in 529 Zari, M. P. 341, 344 zero-carbon energy systems 241 zero-carbon environment 203 Zero Energy Buildings (ZEBs) 196–7 Zhao, L. 388 Zhongming, Z. 115