Understanding sustainable policy paths and their influence on the built environment

Sustainable development is an international problem as it affects everyone everywhere.Up until recently, it has been pursued on a national scale leading from a confused understanding of sustainability from the international community. The various international summits and meetings on the topic have allowed establishment of general guidelines and attitudes that need to be taken by national policy writers. Because of the lack of understanding on the topic, as it encompasses many aspects of social, economic and environmental behaviours, there has been a general individual interpretation of these ideas that has then shaped national policies. These policies differ in nature and therefore must be analysed to identify these differences and their implications on the built environment. The Melbourne 2030 plan and the London plan are two of the leading and highly mentioned policies stemming from the advanced nature of the respective economies. These nations’ polices have implications that trickle down to the very core of building design and lead stakeholders in certain directions as opposed to others. The research attempts to highlight the paths taken by these different nations and what influence this has had on the overall state of sustainable development in the localised communities respectively. Analysing the state of sustainable development ideas from the international, to the national and down to the local policy strategies will give a clear picture of the state of policy direction in the localised context. Looking then at two buildings in these contexts identifies how policy can play a major role in shaping sustainable design related outcomes. The research finds that the UK and London plan is well-structured and pays close attention to the built environment while there is much less evidence of this in the Australia and Melbourne policy plans. This can be seen in the overall outcome of the chosen building case studies where the chosen London building shows more promise in its sophisticated use of technologies to achieve a highly sustainable building as compared to the chosen Melbourne building. It has been suggested that because of the differences in rating tools and their applications, there may be problems in successfully comparing two buildings in different contexts. This gives rise to the question of global sustainability where it is understood that sustainability is a global problem and cannot be tackled on a fragmented basis. This then may suggest that the international stage of sustainable understanding should be holistic in that it should be tackled at a global stage instead of the current fragmented national stage.