BEQUEST – an International Cross-cultural Cooperation | CON 101 - Construction and Culture: A Built Environment

BEQUEST – an International Cross-cultural

Cooperation

BEQUEST (Building Environmental Quality

Evaluation for Sustainability through Time) is

an international electronic network. It exists

to provide a forum for research, training and

practical action in the quality assessment of

the urban environment in order to identify

the basis for common understanding and

implementation of more sustainable urban

development (SUD) (BEQUEST, 1998;

website: http://www.surveying.

salford.ac.uk/bqextra/). This chapter

describes a number of the activities and

findings of the network as a means of

exploring the nature and quality of the

interaction and information exchange as an

example of interna tional cooperation over

SUD. The lessons learned from establishing

cross cultural, inter-disciplinary

collaboration and building consensus form

the subject of this chapter. Importance of

SUD The essential paradox of a sustainable

society is the conflicting require ments of

providing the flows of production and

consumption needed to maintain a good

quality of life for all humankind, while

simultaneously sustaining the local and

global environment and biodiversity. These

prob lems are compounded by other factors:

• the increasing urbanisation of humankind

(e.g. two-thirds of Europeans now live in

urban areas); BEQUEST – an International

Cross-cultural Cooperation 203 • the

longevity of buildings and city infrastructure

– 60 to 100 years is not unusual for individual

buildings; • the very large quantity of

resources which existing cities contain and

which are consumed annually to

continuously develop, maintain and use

them (in the UK it has been estimated that

the construction indus try uses about 6

tonnes of building materials annually for

every member of the population); and •

urban sprawl – the ever increasing land take

of cities. If all these factors are considered

together then the built environment sector

presents one of the biggest challenges for

society. The challenge can be seen in terms

of the development of a collective aspiration

for better quality of life combined with more

sustainable patterns of living and the time it

will take put these ideas into effect. Since the

1992 Earth Summit in Rio, most local

municipalities in Europe have been develop

ing local plans for implementing Agenda 21.

As a result, developers and building

designers are increasingly faced with a local

context containing sustainability features

and criteria, and designers and constructors

are rapidly finding themselves at the

forefront of moves towards sustainable

communities. The PICABUE definition

(described in greater detail on p. 210) of sus

tainable development (Mitchell et al., 1995)

forms a ‘shorthand summary’ of the Agenda

21 recommendations: see Fig. 12.1. This

misses a number of aspects which have

subsequently been recognised, such as the

six sus tainable urban development

principles developed at the UN Habitat II

conference in Istanbul (1996): 1. The

institutional dimension of urban

development (enabling strate gies,

subsidiarity, human rights) 2. The cultural

dimension of the city’s development (the

need of post-economist culture, overcoming

of the pragmatic, computing culture, etc.) 3.

The ethical dimension of urban development

(the struggle against poverty,

unemployment) 4. The environmental

dimension (the use of natural resources,

recycling etc.) 5. The economic dimension of

urban development (eco-industry, small

enterprises/industries) 204 Buildings,

Culture and Environment Futurity: not

cheating on our children Public participation:

ability to influence decisions Environment:

preserving the eco-system Equity: equal

access to resources Fig. 12.1 PICABUE model

of sustainble development 6. The spiritual

dimension (the promotion of a different

relationship between spiritual development

and material development, linked to

questions of meaning). This provides a multi-

dimensional and multi-aspectual view of

SUD that is rarely appreciated by

professional actors in the construction

sector, let alone their clients and building

users, who still tend to refer to sustain ability

simply within a narrow environmental

protection paradigm. Background BEQUEST

arose out of a conference evaluating the

sustainability of the built environment held

in Florence in 1995 (Brandon et al., 1997).

This conference began to identify the

specific professional cultural differences in

the way urban sustainability was described,

understood and evaluated between those

operating at the building scale (architects

and engineers) and at the city scale

(planners) (Cooper, 1997). BEQUEST was

successful in securing funding to address this

and other related questions for a three-year

(1998–2001) networking project, from the

Research and Technical Development

Directorate of the European Commission

(EC) through the Fourth Framework

Programme. The EC describes networking

projects as ‘concerted actions’. This title is

particularly appropriate in terms of

BEQUEST, as the project sought to address

the lack of common understanding of

sustainability in the context of urban

(re)development between all the parties

engaged in BEQUEST – an International

Cross-cultural Cooperation 205 the planning,

design, construction and use of the built

environment. One of the key deliverables

was a prototype decision support aid, known

as the BEQUEST Toolkit (Fig. 12.2) (Hamilton

et al., 2002) pre sented at an International

Symposium on the theme held in Lisbon in

2001 (BEQUEST, 2001a) as well as other

workshops where feedback on its

functionality have been sought. The

BEQUEST Toolkit is discussed further on p.

214. The main outputs of the project have

been disseminated in a special edition of

Building Research and Information (see

Cooper, 2002) as well as in the Italian

planning journal Urbanistica (Lombardi,

2002). Some of the findings, particularly the

framework (Fig. 12.3) that underpins the

Toolkit and aspects of the networking

methodology, have been directly or

indirectly used in other EU research projects,

e.g., CRISP (CRISP, 2001) and the European

Green Building Forum (EGBF, 2001).

Subsequently BEQUEST has: • hosted a

second conference on Building Sustainable

Cities: towards the measurement and

understanding of SUD, held in Venice in April

2002 (proceedings in preparation); and with

others Fig. 12.2 BEQUEST Toolkit • received

funding from the EC Fifth Framework

Information Society Technologies (IST)

programme for a one-year project (2002–

2003), INTELCITY, aimed at developing a

research roadmap for the intelli gent use of

information and communication

technologies (ICTs) to support more

sustainable cities. Working methods The

international cooperation in BEQUEST over

the complex and intractable problem of

what constitutes SUD, how to move towards

it in existing cities and how the sustainability

of (re)development proposals can be

assessed and evaluated, constitutes seven

years of networking activity. This has

involved discussion between a core team (24

researchers from 14 206 Buildings, Culture

and Environment BEQUEST Framework 6

Development activity Planning Local

Strategic Public Private Design Urban

Buildings Components Construction New

build Refurbishment Demolition Operation

Use Facilities m'gt Maintenance Property

development Environmental Environmental

& societal issues Nat'l resources Env'l

pollution Land use Biodiversity Economic

Production Building stock Social Finance

Access Community Institutional Global

National City District Urban region

Neighbourhood Estate Building Compon’t &

materials Time scale Spatial level Health &

well-being Governance Justice Ethical

systems Transit + utilities Safety + security

Long-term > 20yrs Mid-term 5–20yrs Short-

term < 5yrs Fig. 12.3 The BEQUEST

Framework (version 6) partner organisations

in 6 EU countries – see Table 12.1) and

around 120 representatives of all actors and

a wide number of disciplines represent ing

both the demand and supply sides of the

property and infrastructure industries. The

network members are drawn mainly from

European coun tries, but also include a

significant proportion from a wide range of

other nations across all continents – see

Table 12.2. This indicates the broad cross-

cultural nature of the extranet. During the

EU project the extranet was created to

enabled the project to engage with a wider

range of stake holder interest in the urban

environment including all those engaged in

strategic planning through to local planning,

design, construction, facili ties management

and use. A key objective of BEQUEST has

been to seek a consensus view of SUD across

all stakeholders though an iterative,

interactive discussion process, where

knowledge and experience are pooled

together, and this has BEQUEST – an

International Cross-cultural Cooperation 207

Table 12.1 BEQUEST Partners University of

Venice, Italy University College London, UK

Polytechnic of Turin, Italy LTConsultants,

Helsinki, Finland VTT Espoo, Finland BRE

Watford, UK University of Florence. Italy IVV

Technical University of Vienna, Austria

University of Leeds, UK University of Salford,

UK Table 12.2 Extranet membership ATEQUE

The pole of The pole of The pole The pole of

The pole classification collective operational

of design project of use interest decision

carry making through Extranet 98/12 5

14/12 5 88/12 5 27/1 25 51/12 5 members

Countries Can, F, Fr, G, F, Hgy, It, Au, Can, F

Au, F, Fr, G, Au, F, Fr, G, of origin Hgy, It, Leb,

UK, USA China, Fr, It, NI, Sw, Hgy, It, NI, NI,

Pol, G, Hgy, It, Sp, UK, UK, USA Rom, Sw, Jap,

Leb, USA. Sing, SA, NI, Pol, Sp, Swis, Pgl, Rom,

UK, USA. Sw, Sing, SA, Sp, Swis, UK, USA 208

Buildings, Culture and Environment provided

the basis of the concepts and consensus that

will be elaborated below. Electronic

networking using ICTs between the project

team at the core and the extranet members

continues to be an essential tool for

BEQUEST. The iterative process interlinks

face-to-face meetings, essen tial for team

building, developing trust and goodwill

(three international conferences and ten

interactive workshops to date) with

structured elec tronic networking through

the BEQUEST extranet (Fig. 12.4). Web pages

have been established and are maintained as

a means of supporting the networking

activities, and the main outcomes and

emerging policy issues addressed have been

reported in information papers available on

the Web (BEQUEST 1998 (1,2); 1999 (1,2);

2000, and 2001). In this way, additional

interactive dialogue over the various

proposals and the BEQUEST deci sion

support guidance incorporated in the Toolkit

represents a broader BEQUEST FAMEWORK

as an INTERFACE FRAMEWORK BEQUEST

CORE Assessment methods, Procurement

Protocol, Data Base EXTRANET INDIRECT

USERS FRAMEWORK – providing an

INTERFACE with EXTRANET

COMMUNICATION with INDIRECT USERS

that provides Meaning, Cultural Coherence

& Translation Fig. 12.4 The BEQUEST

extranet – method of working BEQUEST – an

International Cross-cultural Cooperation 209

cross-cultural consensus than could have

been achieved through the research

partners alone. Thus, BEQUEST has engaged

in a more structured discussion of sustain

ability issues and assessment methodologies

with a broader range of actors across a wider

range of interests involved in the urban

environment than has been seen to date.

The methodological aspects of the network

have been described as ‘exemplary in many

respects’ (Kohler, 2002) and as an early

example of the ‘new production of

knowledge’ through ‘e-working’ (Cooper,

2002). Establishing consensus – BEQUEST’s

challenge BEQUEST had a clear objective of

developing common understanding of SUD

across the differing cultural contexts and

across the wide range of stakeholder

interests involved in urban (re)development.

Human under standing of sustainable

development continues to evolve, remains

fiercely contested and ‘...has become the

catchword of our decade, used and misused

in many contexts. Yet it has been notoriously

difficult to define the term, let alone

translate it into other languages.’ (Dahl,

1997, p. 69, quoted in Cooper, 2002) Given

this lack of agreement, BEQUEST’s objective

of a common or con sensus view was

extremely ambitious when it was formulated

in 1996. It was a conscious objective to

attempt to transcend the difficulties pre

sented by the vast scope of the subject and

to move forward on a wide multi disciplinary,

multi-aspectual front accepting the risk of

little or no progress. This was necessary in

order to begin fully to understand the

differences in approach, language,

objectives, and means of sustainability

evaluation of the various professional actors

that had become apparent in the mid-1990s

and the potentially disabling problem this

presents for genuine collabora tive inter-

professional and international cross-cultural

action. Key characteristics of cross-cultural

groups A number of BEQUEST’s key

characteristics are also common to most

cross-cultural groups working in this area,

whether transnational, transcontinental or

trans-disciplinary: 210 Buildings, Culture and

Environment • focused on application-based

problem solving • engaged with emerging

understandings and/or conceptual frame

work(s) • composed of a transient, problem-

defined team (or loose association) •

consensual or normative, involving

negotiated knowledge production •

innovative through the reconfiguring of

existing knowledge held in dis parate or

geographically separated groups • electronic

communication over the internet •

disseminated through partners and

networks. BEQUEST’s vision of sustainable

urban development Scope BEQUEST began

by attempting to define the scope of the SUD

problem in terms of space, time and the

range of actors involved, as well as the range

of conceptual sustainable development (SD)

that have emerged in the post Brundtland

era. These dimensions, plotted in terms of a

concep tual matrix indicating the differing

scales of response to SD in the urban

environment, are shown in Fig. 12.5. This

indicates the increasing level of engagement

and commitment with SD with increasing

spatial scale, timeframes and need for cross-

sectorial cooperation as one moves from

addressing sustainable construction to

global SD. It graphically illustrates the

principle of interconnectedness between

sustainable construction, sustainable

community issues and the cross-cultural

nature of the global sustainable

development agenda. Conceptual ideas for

SD A ‘four sided’ model of SD, known as

PICABUE (Fig. 12.1) (ERC, 1996), was a key

building block of the BEQUEST vision.

PICABUE is based on the 27 principles of SD

agreed at the first Earth Summit in Rio

together with a review of the literature on

SD (Mitchell et al., 1995). Although the

Agenda 21 principles agreed in Rio were

well-meaning, the hindsight of 10 years since

their formulation reveals an indiscriminate

mix of envi ronmental, social, economic and

institutional factors in almost every clause.

This undermines common understanding

(Bentivegna, et al., 2002) and provides

potential for only partial understanding or

even misinter pretation. Therefore, the

simplification of the concepts underlying SD

in PICABUE was important to the

development of BEQUEST. It formed an

acceptable working ‘shorthand’ benchmark

definition, used in the early stages of the

project to help explore common

understanding and terminology for SD across

the network (Cooper, 2002) and to test other

models and concepts with a view to

developing consensus over a conceptual

model of SUD. The review embraced a wide

range of SD concepts from government, non-

governmental organisations (NGOs),

industry and research, including the OECD

Pressure State Response Indicator Model

(OECD, 1994), the Pentagon Model (Nijkamp

1998), BEQUEST – an International Cross-

cultural Cooperation 211 Global sustainable

Sustainable communities Sustainable built

environment Sustainable construction

industry Increasing complexity Increasing

cross-sectoral collaboration and integration

Increasing spatialboundary Increasing time

frames Increasing number of actors Level A

Level B Level C Level D Increasing scope

Engagement Commitment Fig. 12.5 Levels of

response to sustainable development open

to the construction and property sectors 212

Buildings, Culture and Environment and the

Quantifiable City Model (May et al., 1997).

Other building blocks included the Natural

Step and the Service Economy concept

(Giarini and Stahel, 1996), the Charter of

European Cities and Towns towards Sus

tainability, known as the Aalborg Charter

1994 (ICLEI, 2002), and the United Nations’

HABITAT 2 conference held in Istanbul in

1996 (UN, 1996). The latter two conferences

emphasised the human dimensions in terms

of cultural continuity and participation in

decision making. From this work and from a

number of the case studies explored in

BEQUEST workshops, it is clear that none of

these models provided an adequate

representation of sustainable urban

development. Never theless, a number of

common, underlying factors emerged from

the analysis: • SD is a relative rather than an

absolute concept, i.e., humankind will only

be able to recognise progress towards the

goal of SD in relation to where we are now. •

SD is a process, not a product or fixed

destination. It is difficult to identify SD

precisely in terms of some (Utopian?) ideal

society and/or physical form, and therefore

easier to see it in process terms. • SD is

concerned with very long timeframes. The

built environment can be very long-lived so

decisions taken today create very long-term

implications. The lifestyle enjoyed in

European cities today was largely formed by

development decisions taken 30 to 100 years

ago. In some cases this can be traced back

centuries. • SD is an ethical construct.

Underpinning SD thinking is the concern for

the wellbeing of present and future

generations, which is ethically laden. • SD

must be culturally grounded. Villages, towns

and cities are the physical container of urban

life and one of the main manifestations of

culture. Much ill-considered modern urban

(re)development has and is undermining

cultural continuity. The overall conclusion is

that in order to address progress towards sus

tainability questions adequately

development must integrate economic,

environmental, social and institutional

factors (Bentivegna et al., 2002). These

points represent additional principles, which

have been used to develop the PICABUE

concept to form a consensus view of SD upon

which the BEQUEST vision of SUD is based,

which in turn has been used to configure the

BEQUEST Framework for SUD. BEQUEST – an

International Cross-cultural Cooperation 213

The BEQUEST Framework for SUD The

Framework is important because it

represents the cross-disciplinary, cross-

cultural consensus over the nature and

scope of SUD developed by the network and

provides the underlying structure behind the

Toolkit. The Framework relates four main

dimensions of urban develop ment:

Development Activity, Environmental and

Social Issues, Spatial Level and Timescale

(see Fig. 12.3), which are explored further

below. Development activity As identified

earlier, SUD is a process. Therefore, good

practice guidance on SUD and on the use and

procurement of assessment methods needs

to be integrated with the urban

(re)development processes from strategic

planning on the one hand to utilisation of the

resulting built environment on the other.

The main activities, their sub-activities with

their associ ated actors, i.e., planning

(strategic and local), property development

(public and private interests), design (urban,

building and components), construction

(new build, refurbishment and demolition)

and operation (use, facilities management

and maintenance), represent separate

processes. Within each of these processes,

more SUD thinking, good prac tice and

assessment have to be applied.

Environmental and social issues Various

human activities are created by, or are

consequences of, sources of environmental,

economic and social stress. Environmental

stresses include depletion of natural

resources, pollution, and excessive land take

with consequent loss of biodiversity.

Economic stress is often a cause and effect of

loss of production, decaying building stock,

and/or inadequate f inance or incentives.

Transport and utilities are important

industrial sectors that affect and are affected

by other economic sectors. Social stress may

include lack of access to facilities,

inadequate safety and security, poor health

or general loss of wellbeing, which is often

associated with poor sense of community.

Good governance is necessary to create

equal ity of access to resources along with

social participation, and judicial means of

redress are all part of the institutional

framework necessary to support SD. All

these aspects, and the spiritual dimensions

of life, are ethical constructs. 214 Buildings,

Culture and Environment Spatial levels

Urban development occurs at various spatial

levels, from the scale of the whole city, to

neighbourhoods, to the individual building

and its material components. Equally, the

environmental effects, or other socio-

economic implications, can be felt from local

to global levels. A planning proposal can lead

on to various new industrial and commercial

consequences for the environment,

economy and society from the level of the

whole city down to the neighbourhood scale.

The provision of new buildings can affect the

extraction of raw materials and the

manufacture of components, which in turn

can create emissions that can have effects on

the environ ment from the local to global

scale and so on. Timescale The importance of

long-term thinking to SUD has been

mentioned above. The timescale used by

BEQUEST represents the normal scale used

in eco nomic and strategic planning, i.e.,

short-term (0–5 years), medium-term (5–20

years) and long-term (more than 20 years).

BEQUEST Toolkit The main features and use

of the Toolkit are shown in Fig. 12.2, but the

full extent of the features are best

appreciated via the World Wide Web,

accessible through the BEQUEST homepage

at http://www.

surveying.salford.ac.uk/bqextra. The Toolkit

evolved over the three-year period of the EU

funding. Proposals were subject to

numerous revisions as the partners

developed their common understanding of

SUD, and the requirements of an integrated

decision support system for urban sustain

ability. Work was carried out in task groups,

and this led naturally into a modular

structure. Modular structure The Toolkit is

subdivided into four main modules (see Fig.

12.2): • The Protocol includes checklists of

actions that urban actors should consider as

well as case studies of good practice in order

to make their development more

sustainable, collectively addressing

economic, social, environmental and

institutional objectives. BEQUEST – an

International Cross-cultural Cooperation 215

• Theassessment methods directory: this is a

compilation of 25 assess ment methods,

ranging from well established to

experimental, that have been, or could be

applied in the sustainability assessment of

urban development, with hypertext links to

other lists and descriptions, such as that

created by the International Energy Agency

Annex 31 group. Each method is described in

common format: name, description, data

requirements, status, relationship to

framework elements, and sources of further

information, including references and cases

studies. An overview and evaluation of these

methods with respect to assessing SUD is

provided by Deakin et al. (2002). • The

advisers directory: this module contains

details of advisers and consultants with

experience in assessment methods and

expert knowl edge on individual steps

identified in the protocol. • The glossary

explains various SUD and environmental

protection terms used in the Toolkit, as

collectively understood by the BEQUEST

network members. In operation, the Toolkit

allows direct access to each module, via a

menu system and search engines. In this way

suggested actions for more SUD, potential

assessment methods and evaluation

techniques, terminology and advisors

together with respect to the activity-issues-

scales domains are inter-linked by the

BEQUEST framework. End users A key task

that the team addressed at an early stage

was question of the potential users of the

Toolkit. As described above, the Framework

recog nises a wide range of users from

planning, development, design, con

struction and use. However, the final

prototype available on the web is designed

with three broad end user groups in mind: •

Professional users (architects, planners,

engineers, etc.), whose primary need is to

access the best available information on

appropriate assess ment methods and ‘how

to make development more sustainable’

good practice protocols • Mediators, who

are able to interpret the information on

behalf of non experts such as politicians and

the general public. Mediators will be

particularly interested in the checklists of

good practice and the case studies of

previous urban interventions. They may be

drawn from NGOs, pressure and community

groups, or from the professional and

research communities 216 Buildings, Culture

and Environment • Researchers, whose

principal interest is in exploiting the richness

of the information (methods, case studies,

good practice protocols, rela tionships

between system elements) to gain new

insights into sus tainability problems. The

needs of these groups are not mutually

exclusive, as an individual may belong to all

three groups, so the Toolkit is designed so

that information needs can be satisfied

generally. The reasons for this are twofold:

lack of a common language, and lack of

common understanding of what constitutes

SUD that could bridge both professional and

cultural divides. Common understanding The

contested nature of SD and the additional

difficulties created by the complex multi-

disciplinary problems presented by SUD

have been explored earlier. These problems

are a consequence of humankind’s lack of

understanding of what these terms really

represent. At the current stage of the

development of knowledge, research

provides some directions. To complement

this, BEQUEST sought to explore case studies

of good prac tice in the EU. However, most

of these showed only partial approaches,

concentrating mainly on economic and

environmental protection and usually

neglecting social and heritage issues. The

timeframe of analysis in all of the cases was

very short, i.e. exploring or projecting

around five years into the future, effectively

ignoring the intergenerational equity

question (BEQUEST 1999-1; Bentivegna et

al., 2002). This indicates not only a serious

lack of rigorous multi-aspectual SD analysis,

but more fun damentally an almost

complete absence of important dimensions

of SD thinking in urban (re)development

practice. In turn, this is reflected in the

content of the BEQUEST protocol in that the

advice offered in the eco nomic and

environmental protection areas is much

more extensive than in the social and

institutional. Common language In this

context the difficulties of creating the

BEQUEST information framework have

already been explained. However, at the

beginning of the project it proved relatively

easy to agree on common definitions of

terms for the glossary, as a basis for a

common ‘English’ language for SUD. This is

probably due to the fact that the research

partners accepted the terms used by the

British members of the team. There were

exceptions. One BEQUEST – an International

Cross-cultural Cooperation 217 important

example of this was the term ‘procurement’.

In the Anglo-Saxon speaking zone, in

addition to the general meaning ‘securing

goods and services’, it is also accepted as a

term for the process for securing the design

and construction of buildings and city

infrastructure. This second meaning is not

understood in most of the other regions of

the EU. In the Protocol, BEQUEST sought to

bring together and rationalise the current

research and good practice information on

SUD in a structured manner (hence the

framework previously described). For the

reasons suggested above, agreement on the

various good practice advice clauses was

difficult but possible to achieve when issues

were addressed at a generic level. For

example, in urban design it was possible to

agree on the recommendation ‘provide high

occupational density with mixed use of

dwelling, industry and retail’ as there is a

clear balance of professional opinion that

this will lead to lower urban transport

demand. However, as there is no clear

research evidence to support this proposal,

and as the application of this advice is so

location-specific, it was not possible to agree

a clear density and/or mixed use target

figure. Thus, detail was much more difficult,

partially due to lack of knowledge but mainly

due to the need to respond to local needs in

any specific urban area or city. Lessons to be

learned from BEQUEST Lessons from the

Framework and Toolkit development The full

potential of the BEQUEST Framework (and

Toolkit) is still being investigated. Large parts

of 5265 separate domains in the framework

(13 development activities, 15

environmental and social issues, 9 spatial

and 3 temporal axes) remain unfilled. This is

due partly to resource limita tions, but

primarily it represents two main areas of

deficiency: • lack of current knowledge on

what constitutes SUD or on how to evaluate

it • lack of consensus across cultural divides

(national and/or professional) over what

action should be taken. This is particularly

acute in terms of the social and institutional

dimen sions, where ‘gaps’ in understanding,

consensus and assessment of SUD include:

218 Buildings, Culture and Environment •

what constitutes good quality of life •

common agreement over resource reduction

or efficiency targets (factor, 4, 10 or 20?) •

lack of transparency in the decision-making

process for all stakeholders • means of

conflict resolution, particularly between the

public and private interests • lack of faith in

local participative democracy in general

(BEQUEST, 1999-2). These problems have

always existed in the planning process, but

the pursuit of SUD emphasises them,

particularly in the sense of powerless ness

not just in ordinary citizens, but also in the

professional actors. This feeling in

professionals can be summarised as

‘whatever I do, it won’t improve matters’.

The inability to address these problems effec

tively in modern society is one of the real

disabling factors in moving to much more

SUD in the short to medium term, and forms

a key policy imperative. The extent to which

pan national, pan cultural solutions can be

found for such problems is an interesting

question. There are good examples in

Europe. The ‘Polder system’ of local

democracy in the Netherlands seems, from

an outsider’s perspective, to offer many

advantages in terms of pro viding greater

inclusivity in decision making together with a

strengthened sense of individual

responsibility necessary for community

action. The role of the ‘evaluator’ in the

Tuscan planning process offers a more effec

tive means of reconciling or mediating

between public and private inter ests in

urban (re)development. The process is less

adversarial than that in many jurisdictions so

that development control is potentially

much less wasteful in terms of time and

human resources. However, these examples

sit within quite local cultural confines, and so

their transfer elsewhere is problematic. Yet

the use of the new techniques emerging in

the so called ‘information society’ is seen as

offering great potential for new, more effi

cient solutions to these structural disabilities

in urban decision-making processes. The

intelligent use of ICTs could empower

stakeholders, and generally improve the

planning process from an SUD perspective.

This is the subject of a new EU research

roadmap project: INTELCITY (2002), which is

to build on the work of BEQUEST. Therefore

the provided advice had to be very generic to

be generally appli cable. As a consequence,

users must interpret this generic content for

their particular cultural, geographical and

climatic context, sphere of activity BEQUEST

– an International Cross-cultural

Cooperation 219 and stakeholder groups.

The generic nature of the content was and

con tinues to be a point of criticism.

Although the framework provides a logical

structure for the necessary discussions

involved in developing consensus, the

evidence of a number of interactive Toolkit

testing sessions held towards the end of the

project (in Helsinki, Edinburgh and Lisbon)

suggests that most professional users were

uncomfortable or dis satisfied with the

generic level information provided. These

users felt the need for more detailed advice

targeted to specific groups and localities, e.g.

in relation to local planning or building

regulations. Thus although the advice was

useful in identifying the main actions that

could or should be considered it was not

enough to enable the complete and detailed

trans lation of good practice advice or

knowledge from one cultural context to

another. SUD guidance The wide range of

guidance in the Protocol can be summarised

into five main actions. • Use fewer resources

– do not build unless it is necessary;

rehabilitate, reuse, recycle. • Place the

(re)development in the continuum of history

in terms of the cultural context and where it

is appropriate, ensuring longevity through

durability and flexibility. • Minimise damage

to the environment: air, water, land, energy,

plants and animals. • Persuading your clients

that they care – buying goods and services

locally to strengthen the local economy and

community. • Ensure public participation in

the process. Although this is a gross

simplification of the richness available, in

this context the BEQUEST Toolkit (and its

underlying information Frame work) is

intended to help make ‘better’ decisions

along the way. In order to achieve the

objective of development proposals that are

more sustain able, it is necessary to

benchmark the current situation, to identify

a range of possible best practice policy and

physical development options, and to select

the optimum for the situation under

consideration. In all cases there is a clear

need for assessment and evaluation

techniques that enable objective

sustainability assessment and provide sound

infor mation both for decision makers and

for the wide range of other stake 220

Buildings, Culture and Environment holders.

Through the logic of the Framework,

BEQUEST provides a unique integrated

representation of the scope and extent of

SUD. This links socio economic and technical

dimensions as well as planning, property,

design and construction interests, in time

and space which: • provides a ‘model’ of SUD

that adequately represents, but simplifies,

the breadth and complexities of the problem

as already explored • forms the basis for

common understanding between a wide

range of stakeholders • enables the

classification of assessment and evaluation

methods (Deakin et al., 2001, 2002) that

assists in understanding their relevance to

various decision makers and urban

(re)development problems as well as a

means of identifying current gaps in

sustainability assessment • forms a means of

structuring current good practice guidance

so that it is relevant to various decision

makers and urban (re)development problem

situations. However, following BEQUEST

guidance cannot, on its own, overcome a

number of wider social and political

impediments. These impediments tend to

slow or constrain implementation of more

integrated approaches to SUD. They include:

• the overall lack of demand in some

countries/cultures for more sustainable

solutions • inadequate participation and

empowerment in urban (re)development

decision making and loss of citizens’ faith in

governance in general • lack of clarity and

agreement about what sustainability targets

should be set and upon the indicators of

progress towards a more sustainable built

environment. Final success (or failure) in any

particular (re)development situation will be

dependent on two essentials. (1) A closer

dialogue is required between all

stakeholders from the point of view that

sustainability is an essential requirement for

human settlements in future. Open,

accessible and accountable negotiation is

necessary over what each stakeholder is

trying to achieve. BEQUEST offers a more

defined and constructive language for SUD

enabling insight into wider problems, and

the framing of more con structive

negotiations. BEQUEST – an International

Cross-cultural Cooperation 221 (2) Greater

integration is needed across various urban

decision-making and professional

disciplines. The BEQUEST vision for SUD

supplies a framework for this integration.

The really positive news from BEQUEST is

that complete agreement on all aspects is

not necessary in order to make progress.

Identifying the common ground and building

on this has long been understood in

diplomatic circles, and so conflict resolution

becomes a vital skill. In this context, urban

policy makers, planners, property

developers, designers (architects and

engineers) and constructors need to see

themselves as change managers seeking

innovative solutions to adapt and re

generate the built environment so that it can

support more sustainable regenerated city

life. The strategies that should be employed

should be based not on a fixed target or

blueprint, but on an integrated and flex ible

approach that adjusts to local conditions and

the local community requirements.

Implications for other cross-disciplinary,

cross-cultural ‘virtual’ groups Managing

‘virtually’ is very difficult and requires more

time, effort and resources than face-to-face

encounters, especially as electronic commu

nication is much less effective and less ‘rich’.

It is very important for research policy

makers to be aware that the latter is still

necessary until we have developed ways of

establishing rapport and trust necessary to

building consensus and resolving conflicts

remotely. Experience in the EU with various

networking projects such as BEQUEST, and

with international collaboration over

standards (e.g. the Environ mental Impact

Assessment, and other initiatives such as the

Green Build ing Challenge), shows that as yet

there is no common model or agreement

about how to conduct inter-disciplinary,

cross-cultural working most effectively.

BEQUEST has illustrated some techniques for

developing a shared perspective, e.g.

through a common conceptual framework

and using self assessment techniques to

draw out and identify areas of com monality

and areas of difference between members

both of the research team and of the wider

network. Working methods used in BEQUEST

were central to the success of the

networking. It is not possible to assume that

all are familiar with all aspects of the ICT

revolution. In agreeing baseline inclusive

standards for e-mail, and other IT-related

communications, it may be necessary to use

less technically advanced formats or

software to ensure that all can take part. 222

Buildings, Culture and Environment Working

virtually can extend lead time in the

decision-making process. An effective

technique used by others and applied

successfully in BEQUEST is the discussion

paper. This starts with an outline in which

parts are gradually added over several days

or weeks by team members based on their

own area of expertise. By the end,

reasonable consensus can be reached. A

project leader and task group leaders with

diplomatic skills are important in these

circumstances. The author, as director, was

able to ‘manage’ most disputes; however, it

is not always possible to have the time to

‘talk out’ issues and so means of conflict

resolution are necessary. In BEQUEST one

individual attended most of the workshops,

but was not allocated to any specific task

group. He was accepted as an ‘honest

broker’ acting as mediator when agreement

was lacking but decisions had to be made.

However, there had to be sufficient face-to-

face contact, in BEQUEST’s case three three-

day workshops per annum, for sufficient

trust to be established for such mediation to

be effective. Taken together these

techniques have created the BEQUEST

method, which enabled the team to

transcend discipline boundaries, and build a

‘common space’ necessary for effective

collaboration. Conclusions Cultural diversity

is a major policy objective in the EU. This has

led the Council of Europe (in December

2000) to revise the Brundtland definition of

SD from the perspective of cultural diversity:

‘Sustainable development as defined in

relation to cultural diversity, assumes that

technological and other developments,

which occur to meet the needs of the

present, will not compromise the ability of

future generations to meet their needs with

respect to the production, provi sion and

exchange of culturally diverse services,

products and practices.’ Information Society

Technologies, 2002 Thus the importance of

maintaining cultural diversity as a dimension

of sustainable development, as a

counterbalance to globalisation and

homogenisation, should not be overlooked.

This chapter indicates the potential for group

work and consensus building across many

disparate cultures and disciplines. It

illustrates how it is possible to work together

to create and define common ground

despite cultural and language differ ences. In

this case, commonality and agreement have

been established on the definition of

sustainable urban development and on

advice and guid ance over SUD that is

relevant to a range of European cultural

contexts. BEQUEST – an International Cross-

cultural Cooperation 223 It is important to

note that complete agreement over what

constitutes all aspects of SUD was not

necessary in order to make progress.

BEQUEST was a three-year project. This

length of time was important as it enabled

the gradual building of knowledge, transfer

of capabilities and cross fertilisation of ideas

between different disciplines and cultures.

The example of BEQUEST provides a

successful model for addressing the

challenges of cross-cultural networking

where these dangers and limita tions of

cultural exchange have been recognised and

addressed. In cross cultural exchange, it is

important to recognise the elements that are

common and which can be usefully

standardised, but equally to recognise those

items that are important in each individual

cultural context. The major lesson is that

successful cross-cultural exchange is based

not on the transfer of products, technologies

or designs, but in providing a common

understanding of the sustainable urban

development process, a language to explore

the question and a framework for analysis

which assists in understanding those things

that are generic and can be commonly

addressed and those that are local and

specific to the climatic and cultural context.

Successful cross-cultural exchange needs to

recognise these important points and should

avoid simple transfer of case study findings

in an uncritical, uncomprehending manner.

Loss of the specifics of context is dangerous

because it leads to undesirable and

unnecessary homogenisation. BEQUEST has

demonstrated the need to make explicit

what often is implicit, through an agreed

terminology, agreed objectives, criteria and

a transparent decision process to evaluate

different approaches and to facilitate a clear

dialogue between participants. These factors

are impor tant to any project, but working

across cultures, be they national or pro

fessional, emphasises the need for inclusivity

and transparency in decision making. In the

context of this book the interest in BEQUEST

lies in two areas: 1. The development of an

agenda, framework and evaluation tools for

SUD that has been explored in this paper. 2.

The development of a method and language

for, as well as demon strating the

possibilities of, working across cultures at

the generic scale. Although BEQUEST is not

unique, the methods adopted provide an

example by a particular research community

that may, given time and development,

provide some useful lessons for practi

tioners and others who continue to make the

mistake of unsympa thetic ‘instant’ stylistic

and/or technology transfer. 224 Buildings,

Culture and Environment Therefore the

wider lesson for the academic and

practitioner communi ties is that the cross-

cultural exchange of ‘information’ (technical

data, practices, case studies or technologies)

is best done at a generic (abstract) level and

that this involves a range of skills/capabilities

that have tradi tionally not formed part of

the ‘armoury’ of construction professionals.

This will enable them to engage in a fuller

inter-disciplinary and cross cultural process

of evaluation. It is necessary to recognise the

limitations of case study examples due to the

difficulties of fully understanding the context

behind them. The author’s experience with a

pan European higher education programme

(in the area of the evaluation of SUD)

provides addi tional reinforcement of these

points and raises significant, parallel impli

cations for addressing these problems in

higher education and the media.

Acknowledgements The author

acknowledges the contribution of all

members of the BEQUEST Network. The

BEQUEST project was funded by the

Research Directorate of the European

Commission under the 4th Framework

Programme, contract number ENV4-CT97-

0607 The outputs and wider implications of

the BEQUEST project were explored in a

Building Research & Information special

issue, ‘Sustainable urban development:

BEQUEST’ (30 (2), March/April 2002).

References BEQUEST (1998-1) Information

paper1: