Lisø PhD Dissertation Manuscript - NTNU

LisÖ
Many different levels of politicians, authorities and
actors in the construction industry are involved in the
control of a safe and robust built environment by
means of regulation, building codes, guidelines and
operational procedures. Rasmussen’s (1997) description
of the socio-technical system involved in the
control of safety provides an excellent illustration of
the complexity of risk management in a dynamic
society, with a very fast pace of change of information
and communication technology, and increasing
demands for profit and shorter construction periods.
Rasmussen concludes:
risk management must be modelled by cross-disciplinary
studies, considering risk management to
be a control problem and serving to represent the
control structure involving all levels of society
for each particular hazard category. (p. 183)
Cross-disciplinary studies are to be separated from
multidisciplinary studies, as in this context it is necessary
to ensure cooperation along vertical decisionmaking
lines, i.e. from government regulatory bodies
via local regulatory bodies and inhabitants, research
communities and company management to the craftsmen
on site. The importance of horizontal cooperation
on all these levels must, of course, still be highly
emphasized.
Discursive strategy
The challenge of adapting to global climate change is
especially important for the built environment,
having an expected lifetime from 60 to more than
100 years (and far more for cultural heritage buildings).
The possible impacts of climate change on the
building stock being built over the next few decades
must therefore be addressed today. However, present
design standards, codes of practice and operational
procedures do not take potential climate change
impacts into account. A sustainable built environment
depends on these questions being sufficiently addressed
by all actors in the construction industry. This can only
be done if the challenge of climate change is acknowledged
amongst the users of the built environment. At
present this is not the case (Lisø et al., 2003). A lack
of awareness of climate change impacts calls for a
third management strategy to be introduced: the discursive
strategy. This strategy is both appropriate and
necessary where the potential for wide-ranging
damage is ignored due to a delay effect as, for
example, the impacts of future climate change, i.e.
the risk is not being taken seriously because of the
delay between the initial event and the damage
impact (Klinke and Renn, 2001). Discursive management
strategies, however obvious they may appear,
are necessary when building awareness and confidence,
strengthening regulatory bodies and initiating collective
efforts by institutions to take responsibility
6
(the dictionary definition of the word ‘discursive’ is
‘proceeding to a conclusion by reason or argument
rather than intuition’).
Application of precautionary and discursive
risk-management strategies
In the above sections, climate vulnerability, adaptation
measures and established risk-management strategies
were presented in general. In the following sections,
the application of precautionary and discursive riskmanagement
strategies as a means to increase the
robustness of the built environment is discussed in
more detail.
The building stock some time into the future consists of
the building stock of today and of new construction.
Parts of the present building stock in the future will
be adapted to changes in the environment, while
parts are kept as is. Analysis of how the building
stock is affected by the risks of future climate change
should handle this diversity (Nordvik and Lisø,
2004). A successful implementation of the precautionary
principle calls for an understanding and awareness
of the potential future risks and a decision model that
ensures interaction between all actors in the construction
industry, from regulatory bodies at government
level to the different actors on the construction site.
The task of preparing the construction industry for the
unknown risks associated with future climate change
impacts is complex. While some adaptation measures
can be undertaken by actors within the industry
alone, the importance of addressing the underlying
causes and constraints of both sensitivity and coping
capacity means these measures must be supplemented
by ones that go far beyond the construction industry
(Lisø et al., 2003). Today, no holistic or conscious
strategy or policy for addressing these ‘wider-thansector’
issues exists in Norway. Natural disasters
caused by extreme weather events, avalanches, storm
surges or landslides are obvious challenges. However,
variations over normal everyday impact from different
climate parameters in a country with extremely varied
climate conditions are also a significant challenge.
Climatic impact causes extensive degradation and
damage to the built environment every year, e.g. refer
to the earlier example on building defects in Norway.
The design of building envelopes should be expected to
be the result of choices based on optimally utilized
information and knowledge on both building technology
and the different impacts to which the buildings
are exposed (Nordvik and Lisø, 2004). Several
sources of uncertainties exist related to both scenarios
for global climate change, and to the effects of global
warming on regional- and local-level climate in different
parts of the country. However, an increased focus