This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 22 September 2013, At: 21:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and EconomicsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

A strategic framework for sustainable construction indeveloping countriesChrisna Du Plessis aa Programme for Sustainable Human Settlements, CSIR Building and ConstructionTechnology, PO Box 395, Pretoria 0001, South AfricaPublished online: 12 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Chrisna Du Plessis (2007) A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries,Construction Management and Economics, 25:1, 67-76, DOI: 10.1080/01446190600601313

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190600601313

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A strategic framework for sustainable construction indeveloping countries

CHRISNA DU PLESSIS*

Programme for Sustainable Human Settlements, CSIR Building and Construction Technology, PO Box 395, Pretoria

0001, South Africa

Received 17 September 2004; accepted 9 January 2006

There is no doubt that large-scale development in the built environment and its physical infrastructure is

needed in the so-called ‘developing countries’. However, these problems need to be addressed in a way that is

socially and ecologically responsible. There is great urgency to make sustainable interventions now, while these

built environments are being created, rather than try and change things after the fact. However, there are a

number of challenges to the introduction of sustainable construction technologies and practices, and certain

enablers need to be developed to help these countries adopt a more sustainable path. The Agenda 21 for

Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries suggested a strategy for addressing some of these challenges by

developing a Research and Development Agenda, based on a matrix of immediate, medium-term and long-

term technological, institutional and value enablers. This Agenda is supported by a Stakeholder Plan for

Action. The challenge now is to find the means to implement these suggestions at a local level by developing

regional and national action plans.

Keywords: Sustainable, construction, development, developing countries, strategy

Introduction

On 18 September 2000, in its 55th session, the General

Assembly of the United Nations adopted its now

famous Millennium Declaration (United Nations,

2000). Paragraph 11 of this declaration proclaimed

the following undertaking:

We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women

and children from the abject and dehumanizing condi-

tions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of

them are currently subjected. We are committed to

making the right to development a reality for everyone

and to freeing the entire human race from want.

The Declaration then sets out a number of resolutions

that became known as the ‘Millennium Development

Goals’. These include achieving by 2020 ‘a significant

improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum

dwellers as proposed in the Cities Without Slums

initiative’ (paragraph 19), as well as the provision of

clean water and improved sanitation to half of the

world’s population who currently live without these

services.

In 2002, the UN World Summit on Sustainable

Development adopted the Johannesburg Plan of

Implementation (WSSD, 2002), which undertook, apart

from the protection of biodiversity and encouraging a

number of economic equity measures, to ‘forever

banish underdevelopment’. To achieve this goal, the

following critical areas of intervention for the global

sustainable development agenda were identified: clean

water, improved sanitation, energy, adequate shelter,

healthcare and food security. The kind of built

environment that is created in the next few years, and

the processes by which it is created, will be a

determining factor in achieving the objectives of these

priority areas.

Both the Millennium Development Goals and the

Johannesburg Plan of Implementation show an interna-

tional shift in emphasis from the mainly Green Agenda

issues of the Agenda 21 to the Brown Agenda (as

identified by the IIED, 2001). While the Green Agenda

was a response to the impact of ecologically detrimental

development, such as deforestation, climate change,

pollution, and the over-consumption of non-renewable*E-mail: cdupless@csir.co.za

Construction Management and Economics (January 2007) 25, 67–76

Construction Management and EconomicsISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2007 Taylor & Francis

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/01446190600601313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

resources, on the earth’s life-support systems, the

Brown Agenda focuses on the problems of poverty

and underdevelopment. The difference in approach

between these two Agendas is described in Table 1.

However, a Green or Brown Agenda approach alone

will not result in sustainable development. While the

Brown Agenda is the development part of the equation,

the Green Agenda is what will make this development

sustainable. The one without the other is not sustain-

able development. Without making decisions from the

long-term systemic view that characterises the Green

Agenda, the short-term focus on tangible development

delivery that characterises the Brown Agenda will only

perpetuate the negative effects of development on the

environment and eventually on people. In turn, not

addressing human well-being and meeting basic human

needs will impact negatively on long-term social and

environmental sustainability. The understanding that

sustainable development is about both meeting human

needs and the integrity of the biophysical environment

is captured in both the Well-being Index (Prescott-Allen,

2001) and the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index

(Esty et al., 2005, p. 22), which includes both human

well-being and environmental well-being indicators.

The construction sector sits right at the interface

between the Brown and Green Agendas—it is both the

vehicle for improving quality of life and the actor that

will determine the environmental and social sustain-

ability of development endeavours. Thus, the challenge

for the construction sector in developing countries is

not just to respond to the development challenges of

adequate housing, rapid urbanisation and lack of

infrastructure, but to do it in a way that is socially

and ecologically responsible.

Considering the rapid rate of urbanisation experi-

enced by most developing countries, and the accelera-

tion of infrastructure development occasioned by the

Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg

Plan of Implementation, there is a real need for urgency

in introducing sustainable construction practices into

the developing world. The level of underdevelopment

in these countries provides an opportunity to avoid the

problems experienced in developed countries, but also

an imperative not to waste scarce resources by making

sure that what is being constructed now will be

sustainable in every sense of the word. This, in turn,

will require a concerted effort to ensure that the role

players within the broader construction sector have

what they need to make sure that their solutions

support sustainable development.

To facilitate the development of a strategy for

introducing sustainable construction into developing

countries, the International Council for Research and

Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), in

partnership with the United Nations Environment

Programme, commissioned the preparation of an

Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing

Countries (A21 SCDC). This document, based on input

from 22 experts from 12 different countries, was

launched at the World Summit on Sustainable

Development. The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al.,

2002) provides a common vocabulary and a basic

understanding of the issues, challenges, barriers and

opportunities related to sustainable construction in

developing countries, as well as a comprehensive

framework for a research agenda and a generic strategy

for action that now has to be populated at a regional or

national level, according to local priorities.

This paper will discuss the rationale behind the

research framework and the resultant recommenda-

tions for a research and development agenda and

stakeholder strategy for action suggested by the A21

SCDC. However, it is necessary to first clarify the

specific interpretation of the terms ‘construction’ and

‘sustainable development’ as used in this paper and the

A21 SCDC, and to provide a brief introduction to the

challenges to which the framework is responding.

The terminology of sustainable construction

‘Construction’ and ‘sustainable’ are both highly com-

plex concepts, and as a result there is an ongoing debate

about their scope and meaning. Placing these two terms

together to form a third further magnifies the inter-

pretative dilemma. It is not possible simply to define

Table 1 Difference between the Brown and Green Agendas

Brown Green

Key concern Human well-being Eco-systemic well-being

Timeframe Immediate Delayed

Scale Local Think global, act local

Concerned about Low-income groups Future generations

View of nature Manipulate and use Protect and work with

Environmental services Provide more Use less

Source: McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2000)

68 du Plessis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

‘sustainable construction’ as ‘construction that is

sustainable’ without first asking: sustainable for whom

and sustainable in what way? Construction itself also

has narrow and broad interpretations. As there are no

agreed common definitions yet, this section of the

paper sets out to explain the specific interpretations of

these concepts that informed the A21 SCDC.

Construction

Construction can be interpreted at four levels: as site

activity, as the comprehensive project cycle, as every-

thing related to the business of construction, and as the

broader process of human settlement creation (Irurah,

2001). The most common interpretation is as the site

activities that lead to the realisation of a specific

building or other construction project (e.g. road, bridge

or dam). At this simplest level construction is viewed as

a specific stage in the project cycle. However, inter-

vention at this level is limited to those aspects under the

direct control of the contractor. Broader concerns need

to be addressed at stages earlier or later in the project

cycle, leading to the second interpretation of construc-

tion as the comprehensive cycle of a construction

project, covering key stages such as feasibility, design,

building/construction, operation, decommissioning,

demolition and disposal. While interventions in the

construction life cycle as outlined above can consider-

ably reduce the impact of the construction product, it

still does not cover the full scope of activity allied to

construction. Construction by itself is a large sector of

the economy, responsible for millions of jobs and a

significant proportion of GDP in most countries. When

allied to other sectors and industries in material

production and distribution, as well as service sectors

such as transport, finance and the property market, its

impact on society and the environment and its

influence on the character of our world is tremendous.

In Latin America, the term construbusiness has been

coined to denote this broadest interpretation of the

construction sector (John et al., 2001). The fourth level

entails the broader process of creating human settle-

ments, including the planning, design and implementa-

tion processes. To capture this broad understanding of

construction, the A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002,

p. 4) proposed the following definition:

Construction is the broad process/mechanism for the

realisation of human settlements and the creation of

infrastructure that supports development. This includes

the extraction and beneficiation of raw materials, the

manufacturing of construction materials and compo-

nents, the construction project cycle from feasibility to

deconstruction, and the management and operation of

the built environment.

Sustainable construction

While the terms ‘green building’, ‘ecological building’

and ‘sustainable architecture’ have been in use for some

time, the first definition of sustainable construction was

proposed by Charles Kibert during the First

International Conference on Sustainable Construc-

tion in Tampa, 1994: ‘Sustainable construction is

the creation and responsible management of a

healthy built environment based on resource efficient

and ecological principles’ (cited in Bourdeau, 1999,

p. 41).

Other definitions include: ‘Sustainable construction,

in its own processes and products during their service

life, aims at minimizing the use of energy and emissions

that are harmful for environment and health, and

produces relevant information to customers for their

decision making’ (Huovila and Richter, 1997, cited in

Huovila, 1998, p. 7); or as ‘ a way of building which

aims at reducing (negative) health and environmental

impacts caused by the construction process or by

buildings or by the built environment’ (Lanting, 1998,

p. 6).

The International Council for Research and

Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) defined

sustainable construction as ‘the sustainable production,

use, maintenance, demolition, and reuse of buildings

and constructions or their components’, while sustain-

able buildings and built environments are seen as ‘the

contributions by buildings and the built environment to

achieving—components of—sustainable development’

(CIB, 2004, p. 02)

The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002, p. 8)

defined sustainable construction as ‘a holistic process

aiming to restore and maintain harmony between the

natural and the built environments, and create settle-

ments that affirm human dignity and encourage

economic equity’. This definition takes sustainability

further than just reducing negative impact, as implied

in the earlier definitions, by introducing the idea of

restoring the environment, as well as highlighting the

social and economic aspects of sustainability, explicitly

defining what the goals for these aspects are.

None of these definitions is wholly satisfactory, but

they do serve to outline three aspects of sustainable

construction:

(1) It requires a broad interpretation of construction

as a cradle to grave process, involving many

more role players than just those traditionally

identified as making up the construction

industry.

(2) It emphasises both environmental protection

and value addition to the quality of life of

individuals and communities.

Sustainable construction in developing countries 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(3) It embraces not just technological responses, but

also the non-technical aspects related to social

and economic sustainability.

Underlying these (and other) definitions is the

assumption of a common understanding of what terms

such as ‘sustainable’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable

development’ mean. However, despite a large body of

literature and countless conferences, the interpretation

of these terms is still contentious.

Sustainability and sustainable development

It is now more than 30 years since the 1972 UN

Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm

suggested that the post-war economic development

model based on continuous growth in consumption,

and fuelled in part by the drive to ‘develop’ the so-

called ‘developing countries’, may exceed certain basic

environmental limits, and in the process upset the

delicate balance of the ecosystem on which the human

species depends for its survival. From this under-

standing grew the gradual formulation of a new model

for development that: ‘meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations

to meet their own needs’, as defined by the World

Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED, 1987).

In essence sustainable development is about mana-

ging the relationship between the needs of humans and

their environment (biophysical and social) in such a

way that critical environmental limits are not exceeded

and modern ideals of social equity and basic human

rights (including the ‘right to development’) are not

obstructed. The purpose is to avoid environmental and/

or social meltdown, thus ‘sustaining’ the existence of

not only modern society, but the future of the human

species.

The relationship between humans and their environ-

ment is determined by a number of factors. The first is

the interpretation of ‘quality of life’ held by a particular

society. This is the main determinant of the needs that

have to be met. The second factor is the choices made

in terms of the technological, political, economic and

other systems adopted by mainstream society. These

two factors are informed by the particular value system

a society subscribes to. This value system not only

determines the relationship between people within that

society, but also how a society responds to its

biophysical environment. The biophysical, in turn,

influences these choices through the limitations of its

source and sink capacities. Within this complex

relationship (described in Figure 1) a number of

responses are possible, some wiser than others.

Sustainable development tries to identify and promote

the responses that will allow the continued existence of

the community (or species) at the best possible quality

of life.

The requirements that a sustainable development

path will place on the relationship between humans and

their biophysical environment and with each other has

been well defined in documents such as the Agenda 21

(UNCED, 1992), the Habitat Agenda (UNCHS,

1996) and the Earth Charter (Earth Charter

Commission, 2001). However, while there is reason-

able consensus on the drivers and the requirements of

sustainable development, the details of how they can,

and should, be achieved differs between the ‘developed’

and the ‘developing’ sectors of society. Understanding

the important role of value systems in determining

quality of life and the nature of relationships, and that

these value systems may differ from culture to culture,

is key to understanding why, for instance, sustainable

development as interpreted by the business sector in

capitalist countries will be very different from how a

community-based organisation in a developing country

will interpret it. How exactly these interpretations differ

is a different debate that falls outside the scope of this

particular paper. However, the acceptance that these

differences do exist was one of the main motivators for

formulating a sustainable construction strategy aimed

specifically at developing countries.

The challenge of sustainable construction in

developing countries

There are a number of systemic problems facing

developing countries, such as rapid rates of urbanisa-

tion, deep poverty, social inequity, low skills levels,

institutional incapacity, weak governance, an

uncertain economic environment and environmental

Figure 1 A relational model of sustainable development

70 du Plessis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

degradation, which by themselves create a challenging

environment within which to work. The sheer enormity

of this developmental challenge often results in confu-

sion between what are developmental interventions and

what are interventions that aim to ensure that the

development that needs to happen will follow the

principles of sustainable development. The result is

delivery wish lists based on a specific cultural inter-

pretation of development and acceptable economic

models, and underpinned by powerful commercial and

political interests (e.g. the Johannesburg Plan of

Implementation) masquerading as sustainable develop-

ment plans and strategies.

One of the reasons why these Plans confuse ‘devel-

opment’ with ‘sustainable development’ is the frame-

work used to guide their formulation. In 1987,

economist Ed Barbier published a model of sustainable

development that has formed the basis of almost every

subsequent framework (Barbier, 1987). He postulated

that sustainable development rests on three pillars or

spheres of development—social, economic and envir-

onmental. While subsequent thinkers have added

pillars such as technical, political or institutional pillars

(see for example Hill and Bowen, 1997), the three pillar

idea stuck and still continues to inform interventions

from the triple bottom line of sustainability reporting to

building assessment tools.

However, it can be argued that sustainability lies not

in actions within each of these spheres, but in the

relationships between them. A sustainable development

strategy that creates jobs at the expense of the

environment, or a renewable energy project that ignores

its environmental and social impact and displaces

thousands of people and reduces biodiversity, defeats

its own purpose. Thus, while the three pillars (Barbier,

1987) model has been useful to highlight that a

multifaceted approach is required, this model itself

does not encourage the holistic thinking necessary to

deal with what is, in essence, a systems problem. The

notion that sustainable development should be seen as

a holistic solution (the whole being more than the sum

of its parts) to the complex systems problems of the

interconnected and interdependent relationships that

determine the interactions between humans, their

society, economy and technology, and the biosphere,

is well supported in the literature (Capra, 2002;

Girardet, 1996; Hawken et al., 1999; McDonough

and Braungart, 1999; Rees, 1999; etc.)

The biggest challenge for the construction sector in

developing countries thus lies in finding a holistic

approach to making sure that its contribution to the

physical, economic and human development of these

countries meets the requirements of sustainable devel-

opment as defined by locally identified needs and value

systems (which may differ from the needs and values of

the economic elite in these countries). The objective of

the A21 SCDC was to create a framework for such a

holistic approach.

Enabling sustainable construction

For developing countries to embark on a path of

sustainable development and construction a two-

pronged approach is required: it is first necessary to

create a capable and viable local construction sector;

second, it is necessary to ensure that the sector is able

to respond to the demands sustainable development

places on its activities. This can only be possible if all

the different stakeholders cooperate in the implementa-

tion of a clear strategy that involves specific supportive

actions by all role players and the development of a set

of enablers. The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002,

p. 45) identified three types of interdependent and

multi-dimensional enablers: technological, institutional

and enablers related to value systems (both how things

are valued and the social, spiritual or moral values that

guide decisions).

These enablers are informed by local development

needs (human needs) and both local and global

environmental considerations (environmental limits).

These needs and limits drive the development of value

systems that determine the preferred way of addressing

the relationship between meeting human needs and

protecting the integrity of the biosphere. The value

system enablers drive stakeholder action, and guide the

development of the technological and institutional

enablers. The technological enablers provide the

necessary knowledge base and technical capacity for

stakeholder action and the development of institutional

enablers, while the institutional enablers enable and

encourage both stakeholder action and the adoption of

the technological enablers. Figure 2 describes this

relationship.

Developing these enablers requires an approach that

operates simultaneously at different scales, as well as

different time horizons. In terms of scale, enablers need

to cover a range of needs from an urban level to

materials and components. The kinds of enablers that

have to be developed also respond to different time

scales, with certain immediate enablers to be developed

to provide a sound basis from which to work.

Concurrently with these immediate enablers, a set of

medium- and long-term enablers would also have to be

developed. The immediate enablers relate to the

creation of an enabling environment and the collection

and sharing of information for benchmarking and

assessment. The medium-term enablers relate to the

mitigation of impact and actual implementation of

Sustainable construction in developing countries 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

sustainable construction, while the long-term enablers

relate to the creation of a totally new and more

sustainable built environment paradigm (Du Plessis

et al., 2002, p. 45). This enabler framework is outlined

in Table 2.

A specific problem such as rapid urbanisation, self-

help housing or energy efficiency is then mapped on to

the matrix, ensuring that all the necessary enablers to

support sustainable solutions to the specific problem

are developed.

A number of key areas for R&D have been identified

as part of the A21 SCDC document, and are briefly

discussed below. However, this list is neither exhaustive

nor prioritised and is open for further development at a

regional, national or local level.

The technology enablers

Technology enablers fall into three areas:

N Hard technology related to equipment and

materials, industrial processes, and physical

infrastructure solutions.

N Soft technology such as systems, mental models

and those tools (ICT-based or otherwise) that

support decision making, monitoring and evalua-

tion.

N Knowledge and information (e.g. databases,

benchmarks, guidelines and manuals, hand-

books, indigenous knowledge systems).

Some of the key R&D areas for the development of

technology enablers identified in the A21 SCDC are

captured in Table 3.

Institutional enablers

Technology by itself is useless, unless supported by

processes for technology transfer and functioning

institutions to facilitate the uptake of new technologies.

To create an enabling environment for sustainable

construction, it is necessary that institutions such as the

different levels of government, development agencies,

academic and research institutions, professional asso-

ciations and non-governmental organisations adopt

sustainable development and its principles as a seminal

aspect of their operations and develop their own

capacity to support sustainable construction and use

the associated technology. To assist them with this, the

following key areas (described in Table 4) were

Figure 2 A strategy for enabling sustainable construction

Table 2 Framework of enablers for the A21SCDC R&D Agenda

Time Technological Institutional Values

Immediate N Benchmarking & Assessment N Clarified roles and

responsibilities

N Mapping the route to change

N Knowledge systems &

data-capturing

N Education N Understanding the drivers

N Advocacy & awareness N Re-evaluating heritage

N Cooperation and

partnership

Medium N Technologies to

mitigate impact

N Linking research to

implementation

N Develop a new way of measuring

value and reward

N Develop regulatory

mechanisms

N Develop codes of conduct

Long term N Technologies of the future N Strengthening

implementing

mechanisms

N Corporate social responsibility

reporting

N Changing the

construction process

N Using institutions

as drivers

N Regional centres

of excellence

72 du Plessis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

identified where institutional enablers need to be

developed.

Value system enablers

Even when the technology is available and an enabling

institutional environment has been created, people still

have to choose to adopt the technologies and make use

of the opportunities created. Whether society as a

whole will move towards a more sustainable approach

to development will be determined by the decisions

individuals and groups make regarding their own

behaviour. Sustainable development requires attitudi-

nal and behaviour changes that will only come about

through personal commitment to what is, in the end, a

moral choice informed by a personal value system.

However, value systems are also a product of broader

social interactions and the construction industry can

assist with the redefinition of its current value system

through the development of new ways of measuring

value and reward, developing shared codes of conduct,

and instituting corporate social responsibility reporting

for the construction sector. Here, government can play

a critical role by showing leadership through example,

ensuring that departmental operations, management

practices, policies and programmes follow a vision that

supports sustainable development and is evaluated

against the achievement of objectives that support this

vision. Some of the enablers identified are captured in

Table 5.

A strategy for action

The development of specific enablers is, however, only

one part of the strategy. To ensure the development

and uptake of these enablers all the different stake-

holders in the creation of the built environment need to

take specific actions to create a supportive environ-

ment. These actions are centred on the following

elements:

N Capacity building (internally and externally).

N Developing sustainable and accessible funding

streams and methods for accessing these.

N Establishing partnerships and other vehicles for

cooperation across sectoral and national borders.

N Internal housekeeping to bring organisational

practices in line with sustainability principles.

N Developing programmes and mechanisms to

encourage and support implementation.

N Developing and using appropriate mechanisms

and tools for monitoring and evaluating organi-

sational and industry performance.

The specific actions under each of these categories

will differ for research and education, the private sector,

service providers, governments and regulatory stake-

holders and civil society. In developing countries,

where the business case for sustainable construction is

still weak, and civil society is focused on the satisfaction

of immediate, survival needs, government will have to

play a decisive role in setting such a strategy in motion.

Table 3 Key R&D areas for technology enablers

Benchmarking and

assessment (immediate)

N Establish the impact of the construction industry in developing countries

N Establish the impact of the built environment in developing countries

N Establish the capacity of the broader construction industry

N Develop an expanded life cycle analysis for existing technologies that uses local conditions/

benchmarks

N Develop a vulnerability index

Knowledge sharing

(immediate)

N A global database of relevant developing country studies

N An inventory of design and assessment tools appropriate to developing countries

N The collection and publication of best practices from developing countries (buildings,

processes, capacity building, etc.)

Technologies to mitigate

impact (medium term)

N Identify and adapt existing technologies and practices appropriate for developing country

conditions

N Promote technology transfer between developing countries

N Identify remaining technology gaps

Future technologies

(long term)

N Ecosystemic/biomimetic buildings and infrastructure

N Renewables (energy and materials)

N Biotechnology

N Recycling as a resource

N Rethinking traditional technologies

Changing the

construction process

(long term)

N Develop processes and tools that encourage integration and a synergistic and ecologically

responsible approach to delivery

N Develop construction and deconstruction processes that minimise environmental impact

while maximising job creation and local prosperity

Sustainable construction in developing countries 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Table 4 Key R&D areas for institutional enablers

Clarification of roles and responsibilities N Institutional power relationships and how these will drive change

N Roles of players within the construction process

N Role of traditional governance systems

Education N Revise curricula and training programmes

N New methods of teaching to reflect new complexity and integration of

processes

N Identify gaps in learning for role players and stakeholders

N Continued professional education training programmes

N Methods of rating and auditing curricula, as well as institutions

Advocacy & awareness N Pilot projects

N Best practices databases

N Monitoring and evaluation tools and systems

Cooperation & partnerships N Establish research networks

N Partnerships between developing country institutions

Linking research to implementers N Partnerships between research and industry or other non-research

partners

Develop regulatory mechanisms N Update existing regulations to enable sustainable construction

N Develop regulatory tools (e.g. financial incentives) to encourage

sustainable construction

N Identify enforcement problems and develop more effective enforcement

mechanisms

N Develop more progressive standards

Strengthening implementing mechanisms N Determine gaps incapacity and skills levels and develop a strategy to

address these

N Financial mechanisms (including incentives and disincentives) to

encourage and enable innovation and sustainable construction

N Rating schemes to assess projects and practitioners

N Rethink professional fee structures

Using institutions as drivers N Systems and tools to enable and monitor the use of institutional

procurement as a sustainability driver

N Mechanisms for auditing and accreditation of institutions and

practitioners

Regional centres of excellence N Establish regional centres for training, technical support, information

capturing and knowledge sharing

Table 5 Key R&D areas for value enablers

Mapping the route

and landmarks of change

N Mapping the pace of growth/change of threats and negative impacts (climate change,

pollution, etc.)

N Mapping the successes achieved

Re-evaluating heritage

and tradition

N Identify where heritage and tradition hinder or help sustainability

N Identify the contribution traditional and cultural heritage in developing countries can make to

the development of enablers

N Restore respect for and value of heritage and traditions

Understanding what drive

current value systems

N Identify the drivers of value systems both in the construction sector and in broader society

N Identify more sustainable options to satisfy these drivers

New ways of measuring

value and reward

N A process for identifying a common set of values and shared ethics

N Different systems for professional reward

N Different ways of measuring intrinsic (non-economic) value

Develop codes of conduct

based on shared ethic

N Develop a shared vision and ethical statement for the construction sector

N Develop internal codes of conduct for professional organisations and industry sectors based on

this shared vision

Corporate social

responsibility reporting

N Develop common CSR reporting mechanisms for the construction sector

74 du Plessis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

While it can be argued that in developing countries

government itself is often weak, it does have the ability

to create the necessary institutional enablers to improve

the business case and build the capacity and skills levels

of the industry through its own procurement practices,

incentive programmes and taxation.

The way forward

The evidence is mounting up that developmental

activity is exceeding the environmental limits of the

planet and may be endangering a large percentage of

the world’s population. The seriousness of the situation

is highlighted in a report prepared by the Pentagon

(Schwartz and Randall, 2003, pp. 19, 22) on the risks

of abrupt climate change as a result of human activity:

Ocean, land, and atmosphere scientists at some of the

world’s most prestigious organizations have uncovered

new evidence over the past decade suggesting that the

plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher

than most of the scientific community and perhaps all of

the political community is prepared for … And

paleoclimatic evidence suggests that such an abrupt

climate change could begin in the near future … it

seems that the questions to ask are: When will this

happen? What will the impacts be? And, how can we best

prepare for it? Rather than: Will this really happen?

Apart from the dire predictions of climate change

related disaster, the recently completed Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment Report (Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, 2005) found that human activity has had a

detrimental impact on the ability of the biophysical

environment to deliver necessary life-support services

to the human species.

The construction sector is a significant contributor to

global climate change and a number of other environ-

mental threats, and few would argue that the sector

needs to make a radical shift in its practices if we are to

mitigate the impact of these threats.

Yet, as Milford (2004) rightly pointed out, we are not

seeing enough demands from civil society or govern-

ments for changes in the construction sector, nor is the

sector held accountable for its social and environmental

impact. There are no street protests against unsustain-

able construction in Pretoria, Sao Paulo or Shanghai,

no international e-mail campaigns against multina-

tional construction companies or materials manufac-

turers. The voices calling for a better world have little to

say about the way the built environment is being

created. It is therefore up to the construction sector

itself to do the responsible thing and recognise that it is

no longer about choices—fundamental change in the

construction sector has become a moral imperative.

As developing countries will increasingly become

the arena for infrastructural and industrial deve-

lopment, the construction sector in these countries

has a critical role to play in responding to this

imperative. The currently low levels of physical devel-

opment provide a (limited) window of opportunity in

which to steer construction on to a more sustainable

path. To fully capitalise on this opportunity, a clear

and coordinated response is required as a matter of

urgency.

The strategy developed by the A21 SCDC provides a

broad framework to guide the development of such a

response. It has identified a number of tasks for

immediate action that respond to the most critical

obstacles that are holding back the shift to more

sustainable construction: capacity building, raising

awareness, finding access to funding, building networks

and partnerships, and providing benchmark informa-

tion relevant to developing countries.

However, numerous sustainable development and

construction strategies have been developed, yet we are

seeing very little impact of these strategies for a number

of reasons (Milford, 2004). Chief among these reasons

are a lack of integration with mainstream decision-

making systems, few links between policy and on-the-

ground realities, a very narrow base of participation,

and the fact that many strategies are little more than

wish lists, lacking clear priorities or achievable targets

(see Bass and Dalal-Clayton, 2002 and Dalal-Clayton,

2003).

From this understanding, it is clear that a meaningful

strategy for sustainable construction in developing

countries cannot be formulated by a small group of

experts cloistered in a conference room. It can only

come from a dialogue between the different levels of

government, the broader construction industry, uni-

versities and research centres and civil society at

national, regional and international levels. Such a

strategy will require a consultation process similar to

that used in the formulation of the Earth Charter to

determine global and regional strategy, as well as a

process at national level that situates the global strategy

in a local context and responds to local needs and

priorities.

The first steps at regional and international coordi-

nation are being taken through a series of regional

conferences on sustainable building and construction

took place in 2004 and the early part of 2005. One

of the aims of this conference series is to recommend

a stakeholder plan of action for each region that can

act as a starting point for identification and

prioritisation of the enablers that need to be developed.

The results of these conferences were presented for

further discussion at the World Sustainable Building

Conference in September 2005 in Tokyo.

Sustainable construction in developing countries 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

References

Barbier, E.B. (1987) The concept of sustainable economic

development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101–10.

Bass, S. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (2002) Bridging the Knowledge

Gap in SD strategies: Research Partnerships for Sustainable

Development, IIED Opinion Paper, available at http://www.

iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/11037IIED.pdf (accessed 10 April

2006).

Bourdeau, L. (ed.) (1999) Agenda 21 on Sustainable

Construction, CIB Report Publication 237, CIB, Rotterdam.

Capra, F. (2002) The Hidden Connections, HarperCollins

Publishers, London.

CIB (2004) 50 Years of International Cooperation to Build a

Better World, CIB, Rotterdam.

Dalal-Clayton, B. (2003) The MDGs and sustainable

development. The need for a strategic approach, in

Satterthwaite, D. (ed.) The Millennium Development Goals

and Local Processes: Hitting the target or missing the point?,

IIED, London, available at http://www.iied.org/Gov/mdgs/

documents/MDG-ch5-pdf (accessed 10 April 2006).

Du Plessis, C., et al. (2002) Agenda 21 for Sustainable

Construction in Developing Countries, CSIR Report BOU/

E0204, CSIR, CIB & UNEP-IETC, Pretoria.

Earth Charter Commission (2001) The Earth Charter,

available at http://www.earthcharter.org (accessed 10

April 2006).

Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. and De Sherbinin, A.

(2005) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index:

Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship, Yale

Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, New Haven.

Girardet, H. (1996) The Gaia Atlas of Cities, Gaia Books,

London.

Hawken, P., Lovins, A. and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural

Capitalism, Back Bay Books, New York.

Hill, R.C. Bowen, P.A. (1997) Sustainable construction:

principles and a framework for attainment. Construction

Management and Economics, 15(3), 223–39.

Huovila, P. (1998) Sustainable construction in Finland in

2010, Report 2 in CIB, Sustainable Development and the

Future of Construction. A Comparison of Visions from Various

Countries, CIB Report Publication 225, CIB, Rotterdam.

Huovila, P. and Richter, C. (1997) Life cycle building design

in 2010, in Proceedings of the 11th International

Conference on Engineering Design ICED 97. Tampere

University of Technology, 19–21 August, Vol. 2,

pp. 635–43.

IIED (2001) Reconciling the ‘Green’ and ‘Brown’ Agendas

for urban environmental improvement, Briefing Paper 6 in

Urban Environmental Improvement and Poverty Reduction,

IIED Human Settlements Programme, London.

Irurah, D.K. (2001) Agenda for Sustainable Construction in

Africa. An Invited Contribution to CIB’s Agenda for Sustainable

Construction in the Developing World and Agenda 21 on

Sustainable Construction, available at http://www.sustainable-

settlement.co.za/policy (accessed 10 April 2006).

John, V.M., Agopyan, V. and Sjostrom, C. (2001) An Agenda

21 for Latin American and Caribbean Construbusiness. A

Perspective from Brazil, available at http://www.sustainable-

settlement.co.za/policy (accessed 10 April 2006).

Lanting, R. (1998) Sustainable construction in the

Netherlands, Report 9 in CIB Sustainable Development

and the Future of Construction. A Comparison of Visions from

Various Countries, CIB Report Publication 225, CIB,

Rotterdam.

McGranahan, G. and Satterthwaite, D. (2000)

Environmental health and ecological sustainability: recon-

ciling the Brown and Green Agendas in urban develop-

ment, in Pugh, C. (ed.) Sustainable Cities in Developing

Countries, Earthscan, London.

McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle,

North Point Press, New York.

Milford, R. (2004) Re-valuing sustainable construction.

Paper for CIB World Congress 2004, Toronto, Canada,

4 May.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Living Beyond our

Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being, Island Press,

Washington, DC.

Prescott-Allen, R. (2001) The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-

by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment,

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Rees, W.E. (1999) Achieving sustainability: reform

or transformation?, in Satterthwaite, D. The Earthstar

Reader in Sustainable Cities, Earthscan, London.

Schwartz, P. and Randall, D. (2003) An Abrupt Climate

Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States

National Security, Pentagon Research Unit, Washington,

DC.

United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration,

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/2, 18

September 2000, United Nations, New York.

UNCED (1992) Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of

Action from Rio, available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/

documents/agenda21/index.htm (accessed 10 April 2006).

UNCHS (1996) The Habitat Agenda, available at http://

unchs.org/unchs/english/hagenda/index.htm (accessed 10

April 2006).

WCED (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

WSSD (2002) The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation,

available at www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/

summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm (accessed 10 April 2006).

76 du Plessis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

11 2

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013