1. Standards Setting               
  2. Designing                   
  3. Construction               
  4. Maintenance and Demolition       
  5. Financial Issue              

Note: the numbers mentioned, is the sequence, in which the issues should be addressed i.e. the higher priority should be considered first and last and the ones which are less delicate should be addressed in between.

The priorities assigned to each issue is in compliance of the difficulty to reach an agreement for it. The standard setting would be the most delicate issue for negotiation as there has not been any common standards as the basis for negotiation, and is a matter of existence for certain actors. The financial issue is also delicate as it is always a sensitive matter and would affect the core values of certain actors considerably. The least delicate issues would be the maintenance and demolition , construction and design. These are arranged in the following order because design would have some more conflicts in regard of original spatial policies and also costs. Construction would be more delicate than maintenance and demolition because it concerns with more innovation of process and materials, as compared to the application of sustainable maintenance and demolition techniques.

The table below shows the power and influence of each actor related to the issues mentioned above.

In this part, the issues that come of importance for the project is discussed. How the concern for sustainable building (SB) relates to each issue and which type of power or influence each actors have regarding them is discussed. Further elaborated are the reasons for the analysis above:
In the maintenance and demolition issue, the concern for SB would be mainly how much demolition will take place and how the sustainable facilities within a building would be better applied among the users. This would be mainly supported by the municipalities, demolition contractors and the environmental agencies as the core values for each of them would comply with this. The opposite position for these actors would be the end-users as their core values would be an easy-to-use building thus they certainly would not want their lives complicated by the delicate issue of maintenance, not to mention the costs for it. It is argued that the service providers, who would most likely be involved during the maintenance part, would have an observing position as they would want to see how the discussion would affect them during the process.

In the construction stage, the issue that comes of concern for SB is the efficiency in the construction process and use of the materials. Municipalities and the environmental agencies would be most supportive of this concern, while the developers and the professionals, in this case the building contractors, would be somewhat against as this would mean more investment. The material supply companies, which would be affected by the force of demand and supply, would have an observing position. They would see how the negotiation on this matter influence their interests and core value.

On the urban and construction design, the concern would be how the buildings location and design would be arranged to meet sustainable requirements. This would mean that there might be some conflict with the developers, as they would need to invest more to comply with this concern. However, it will be supported by the environmental agencies, end-users and the professionals (architects and urban planners) because the environmental agencies and end-users would want to have a better environment (living environment in particular for the end-users) while the professionals have already made some considerable developments in this regard so they would also support it. The Ministry of Finance and municipalities would change stands in the sense that their support or opposition would depend on how much financial resources would be needed (for the Ministry of Finance) and how much the design would be in conflict with the original spatial policy (for the municipality, as this policy might have resulted from an earlier  fierce negotiation).

In order to be advantageous sustainable building should require the least cost possible for its implementation. The Ministry of Finance would only consider the most cost-effective sustainable building project proposal, as also the financiers and end-users would want this. The material supply companies and the developers would in a sense oppose this view as their budgets would be affected by the SB implementation as they would be required to innovate their products (for the material supply companies) and also invest more in maintenance (for the developers).

In the standard-setting stage, the sustainable building doctrine requires procedures (construction procedures) and building materials to have the least burden for the environment. Actors who have already expressed their supports are the municipalities and the environmental agencies. Those who oppose, as they would be negatively affected, are the material supply companies, as they run the risk of having their products banned, the building contractors (more investment for innovation needed), developers (also more investment) and the service providers (also more investment required).







 | Close