-
Broadly speaking, the majority of tools examined within this study tend to be either predictive or performance-based. None of the tools examined had the capacity to comprehensively measure both predicted and operational performance – and very few had been developed specifically to link with other existing tools, especially as part of an integrated, systems-based framework for measuring climate adaptation response in relation to broader sustainability outcomes.
-
Of the 54 different tools examined, most were developed by either private construction industry interest groups or government agencies involved in research, planning and/or development within the built environment.
-
Many industry-developed tools focus on measuring aspects of sustainability which are deemed to confer the greatest ‘market advantage’ in terms of incentives for take-up.
-
Economic analysis of benefits therefore takes precedence in tool design, with targets and indicator sets reflecting sustainability criteria which are most easily quantified as conferring financial advantage to developers, investors and owners – e.g. measures for reducing energy and water use - taking preference over criteria which reflect more complex social and community responsibilities – such as measures for improving social equity, building community capacity and enhancing quality of life within the urban realm, for example. Such criteria are currently significantly under-represented within the range of available tools developed by the private construction industry sector.
-
There is the need for science, design practice and industry to work much more closely together to test methods for evaluating the effectiveness of a range of climate adaptation responses in relation to improving broader sustainability outcomes.
-
Scientific research & development would benefit from linking more closely to market and design practice reality, and practice and industry would benefit from linking with more robust and comprehensive research understanding, including improved access to information gathering & data management techniques.
-
Internationally, collaborative multi-sector coalitions of industry, research science and design practice have led the development of best-practice tools.
-
In general, tools have been developed in relation to the area of interest of the tool developer – e.g. government agencies produce tools related to planning and strategic decision-making at regional and metropolitan scales, while industry-based groups tend to produce tools for measuring outcomes relating to precinct or neighbourhood-scale developments.
-
Tools developed by the construction industry sector are more likely to be rating-type tools – as this is the form which fits those particular sectoral interests best – e.g. by reducing costs, improving efficiency and creating market advantage.
-
Rating tools have significant limitations – they usually only pertain to specific development types, are often applied too late in the development assessment process to maximize potential overall sustainability gains, and rarely cover the spectrum of sustainability issues in a comprehensive manner.
-
Scientists and urban design professionals focus on developing regional, metropolitan and/or neighbourhood-scale decision-making tools – as decisions made around strategic planning in the built environment occur across scales where science and design can contribute most effectively towards enabling significant sustainability gains – and thus such tools best fit the broader objectives of those particular sectors.
-
Tools at the planning end of the spectrum tend to be more likely to link with other tools, as they operate at a broader strategic level – whereas tools at the precinct–scale tend to function more independently as there are very few examples of integrated legislative and planning frameworks within which these tools are developed or applied.
-
Component factors and measures of urban sustainability listed within the tools include: Energy, Water, Materials , Waste, Environment/urban landscape, Social aspects
-
Only a small number of tools demonstrated either the capacity or intention to extend the boundaries of current industry practice by incorporating integrated systems thinking in their development or application.
-
There remains the potential for best-practice system thinking tools and research to unlock capacity for improved built environment sustainability in the future - particularly in relation to adapting to climate change – and mechanisms for activating this potential should be the focus of government efforts at local, state and national level.
-
Existing barriers to the provision of more comprehensive, integrated coverage of sustainability components within the range of available tools include issues relating to research and development timeframes, user accessibility, access to information, cost, commercial market realities and legislative frameworks for application and implementation (currently non-existent in Australia).
-
A significant area of concern which has emerged from this analysis is the general lack of robust indices for measuring urban environmental quality or ‘green infrastructure’ performance as a key component of overall urban sustainability. There has been a great deal of research and design effort over the past few decades focussed on highlighting the significance of this aspect of the built environment - especially in relation to climate adaptation response.
-
The report has identified that the fundamentals exist for a unique & cost-effective opportunity for government, research and industry to explore the potential for green infrastructure strategies to influence sustainability outcomes within an Australian context via collaboratively designed pilot projects or case-study approaches.
-
Decision-support tools encourage community engagement in strategic planning processes at neighbourhood or metropolitan level and have the potential to significantly enhance existing built environment sustainability outcomes, especially when applied at the strategic planning/ pre-design stage of project development.
-
Tools which are developed within a systems-thinking, integrated assessment framework accommodate and encourage collaboration from multiple stakeholders as an integral component of their design and development.
-
Tools which are designed to accommodate a comprehensive range of sustainability criteria and/or the customisation of indicator sets to specific local needs have the capacity to adapt to differing local environmental contexts, and the potential for much greater reach in terms of application/implementation.
-
There is a urgent need to proactively forge opportunities for greater collaboration and creative partnerships between government agencies, science researchers and urban design professionals, to devise models for broader application of existing tools to address common objectives across multiple sectors.
-
The development of a national sustainability assessment framework is a necessary step for addressing such inconsistencies. Until such a mechanism is in place, climate adaptation and sustainability assessment tools will continue to be designed to serve arbitrarily defined goals, responding to uncoordinated sectoral interests, and without reference to any consistent implementation pathway for broader national objectives.
-
A national sustainability assessment framework would provide a guiding process for identifying, reviewing and addressing many current barriers to innovation in built environment sustainability, including the influence of governance and regulatory processes, financial mechanisms, access to knowledge and education, spatial & temporal constraints and self-interest.
-
A key aspect of effective management of climate change and broader sustainability issues is the incorporation of integrated, adaptive management processes – including enhanced capacity for ongoing review and evaluation mechanisms.
-
The majority of the tools examined within this study – especially the simpler rating/checklist types for assessment at neighbourhood scale – do not address the need for ongoing monitoring and reporting of projects beyond the initial assessment phase – or when they do, there are significant accompanying costs and resourcing implications for both users and administrators of those tools.
-
Many of the tools themselves do not contain clear mechanisms for ongoing development and revision of their own structures and methods.
The term ‘green infrastructure’ describes the network of natural landscape assets which underpin the economic, socio-cultural and environmental functionality of our cities and towns – i.e. the green spaces and water systems which intersperse, connect and provide vital life support for humans and other species within our urban environments.
Green infrastructure is fundamentally different from other aspects of built (‘grey’) infrastructure in that it has the unique, inherent capacity to enhance and regenerate natural resources, rather than simply minimize the damage to environmental systems. In this respect it performs a valuable function in climate adaptation strategies – with the ability to ‘pay-back’ and ‘value-add’ rather than merely limit draw down of resources.
