Climate change, adaptation and government policy for the building sector

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1One of reasons for this is that, as Larsson (2003 Larsson, N. (2003). Adapting to climate change in Canada. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 231–239. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) pointed out, policy-makers might hesitate to implement an adaptation policy because it could be perceived as admitting that their mitigation policy is likely to be unsuccessful. 2This may be one of the factors that differentiate adaptation measures from mitigation measures, as was argued by Larsson (2003 Larsson, N. (2003). Adapting to climate change in Canada. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 231–239. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 3It is also important to note that as Larsson (2003 Larsson, N. (2003). Adapting to climate change in Canada. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 231–239. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) pointed out, adaptation will be required at different times in the future to varying extents. Lowe (2003) has also referred to the need to develop and think in terms of adaptive trajectories rather than individual, once-and-for-all adaptations. This aspect will be further examined below. 4From the viewpoint of those involved in policy design, the special issue would have been more useful if it had included a paper that attempted systematically and theoretically to analyse how government policy should be developed in this area. 5One of the methods of redistribution is to introduce a nation-wide energy tax and use some part of the tax revenue to support local governments where relatively large resources are necessary to implement adaptation policies. This might be an argument that is not limited to the building sector. 6It is noteworthy that both Lisø (2003 Lisø, K.R., Aandahl, G., Eriksen, S. and Alfsen, K.H. (2003). Preparing for climate change impacts in Norway's built environment. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 200–209. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Sanders and Philipson (2003 Sanders, C.H. and Philipson, M.C. (2003). UK adaptation strategy and technical measures: the impacts of climate change on buildings. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 210–221. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) point to evidence that non-compliance with regulation is a significant problem. 7Although this argument could not be applied to rented buildings, which are characterized by principal and agent problems (OECD, 2003b OECD (2003b) Environmentally Sustainable Buildings: Challenges and Policies OECD Paris [Google Scholar]). 8Some papers (Hertin et al., 2003 Hertin, J., Berkhout, F., Gann, D., D.M. and Barlow, J. (2003). Climate change and the UK housebuilding sector: perceptions, future impacts and adaptive capacity. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 278–290. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Mills, 2003 Mills, E. (2003). Climate change, insurance and the building sector: technological synergism between adaptation and mitigation. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 257–277. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Sanders and Philipson, 2003 Sanders, C.H. and Philipson, M.C. (2003). UK adaptation strategy and technical measures: the impacts of climate change on buildings. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 210–221. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) reminded us that climate change is just one variant of future risk, and, for decades, buildings and building activities have been flexibly adapted to a wide variety of changes in exogenous situations, such as increased use of electric products and information technologies, changing demand of consumers, etc. The experience of the building sector in the past might suggest that some adaptation could be carried out without government policies, and it may not be appropriate to assume that government intervention is always desirable. 9For some categories of impacts, the effect of externality appears likely. For instance, in the absence of sufficient modification to the building design, a hotter summer might lead to increased use of air-conditioning, which then will worsen the urban heat island effect. 10Note that the present paper attempts to discuss how adaptive policy for the building sector should be designed, assuming that the degree of future climate change is fixed. From a broader viewpoint, upgrading mitigation measures to some extent might reduce the necessity of adaptation. In this context, externality may be the big issue. 11From the viewpoint of economists, this may still not be sufficient justification for regulatory intervention because with the provision of sufficient information about the risk of flooding, possible liability to the damage, etc., few firms may attempt to start new development, as suggested by Hertin et al. (2003 Hertin, J., Berkhout, F., Gann, D., D.M. and Barlow, J. (2003). Climate change and the UK housebuilding sector: perceptions, future impacts and adaptive capacity. Building Research & Information, 31(3–4): 278–290. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), and occupants of existing buildings may move to safer areas. 12It is also argued that the choice of economic instruments would provide incentives for innovation (e.g. OECD, 1997 OECD (1997) Evaluating Economic Instruments for Environmental Policy OECD Paris [Google Scholar]). 13Because there appears to be little room for reducing the social cost for adaptation by means of economic instruments. In other words, it is difficult theoretically to presume that the total cost for achieving a certain adaptation goal is reduced by shifting from regulatory instruments to economic instruments. 14Although in some cases regulatory instruments could be accepted more easily than other instruments depending on various contextual factors. 15Note that the effects of these soft instruments could help the introduction of regulatory instruments in the future (OECD, 2003b OECD (2003b) Environmentally Sustainable Buildings: Challenges and Policies OECD Paris [Google Scholar]). 16Economic efficiency is referred to as the total cost incurred by both businesses and households/individuals of bringing about the changes in behaviour necessary to minimize the impacts that the policy aims to achieve (OECD, 2003b OECD (2003b) Environmentally Sustainable Buildings: Challenges and Policies OECD Paris [Google Scholar]). 17Such a ‘building stock issue’ was emphasized as an important target of future efforts in both the latest European Housing Ministers Conference on Sustainable Buildings and the SB2002 Conference in Oslo. 18For further discussions about the effect of longer service life, see OECD (2003c OECD (2003c) Sustainable Use of Building Stock OECD Paris [Google Scholar]).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.