Policy and Guidance in the Built

Environment with a Focus on

Student Name:
Student Code:
Module Code: BUIL1226
Module Leader: Dr Mohammad Sakikhales
Word Count: 2200
Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................1

Current Sustainability Policy Framework on Climate Action....................................................2

Critical Review of the Barriers to the Uptake of the Sustainability Policy to Climate Action. .3

Comparison of the Differences and Similarities of Sustainable Policy Frameworks in

Different Regions.......................................................................................................................5

Proposal for Future-Oriented Framework to Combat the Barriers to Existing Sustainable

Policies and the Lessons from Other Regions............................................................................7

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................8

References..................................................................................................................................9

ii
Introduction
Climate change brings the greatest existential threats to all life forms on Earth (Dafernos et

al., 2018). Implementing and delivering sustainable climate action approaches are effective

strategies to save the planet from an impending catastrophe. However, non-state and

subnational actors (NSA’s) differences like regions, countries and cities play individual roles

in climate change mitigation strategies (Kuramochi et al., 2020).

The report, therefore, focuses on producing a critical analysis of the current sustainable

policy frameworks on climate action while also considering specific references to delivering

a sustainable built environment for different countries and regions. The report also critically

evaluates barriers to delivering sustainable policy to climate action and compares the

differences and similarities of sustainable policy frameworks in different regions (Russel et

al., 2018). The report concludes with a proposal to combat the barriers to implementing a

sustainable policy framework for climate action.

1
Current Sustainability Policy Framework on Climate Action
The current sustainable policy framework of the United Nations on climate action is

undoubtedly positioned in a way that focuses on and addresses climate change issues

globally. A renowned policy framework on climate action is the Paris Agreement, created in

2015 by the UN and entered into force in 2016 (Hale, 2016). The Paris Agreement, a

sustainable policy framework, is an international treaty for climate action that strategically

addresses the climate change problem. The treaty strategically limits global warming below

the reported 2 degrees Celsius while also pursuing a limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees

Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement aims to help countries worldwide

adapt and improve their resilience to climate change and its impacts (Olsen et al., 2019; Fuso-

Nerini et al., 2019). In addition, the agreement also acts as an architectural pattern that shapes

the global carbon market and emissions (Olsen et al., 2019). The Paris Agreement, a

sustainability policy framework, allows countries to tender their voluntary climate action

plans towards limiting the impact of climate change. These action plans are recognised

globally as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) (Kuramochi et al., 2020). These

NDCs detail the efforts and progress of individual countries in their quest towards reducing

greenhouse gas emissions and impact and adapting to climate change (Kuramochi et al.,

2020; UN, 2015).

Furthermore, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is

another sustainability policy framework for climate action. This framework offers a provision

that serves as a foundation that fosters international cooperation between world nations. The

UNFCCC sustainability policy framework reviews the progress of nations while also

planning actions that would tackle future challenges. The UNFCCC birthed several

agreements towards climate action, for example, the Kyoto Protocol and the Marrakech

Partnership (Fuso-Nerini et al., 2019). The Kyoto Protocol focus on strategies to reduce the

2
emission of greenhouse gases. At the same time, the Marrakech Partnership fosters the

collaboration of governments alongside non-state actors to accelerate actions against climate

change (Russel et al., 2018).

Additionally, other sustainability policy frameworks on climate action include UN

Environment Programme (UNEP), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). The

UNEP is among the leading global sustainability policy framework in the UN. The UNEP

coordinates initiatives focused on climate change and supported countries in their action

plans organised towards sustainable energy and against climate change impact (Hale, 2021).

Similarly, Green Climate Fund (GCF) is another sustainability policy framework towards

climate action. This financial mechanism is one under the UNFCCC, and it supports

developing and underdeveloped nations in their efforts to limit the impact of climate change.

The GCF supports these countries financially by providing resources that aid the fight against

climate change impact (Russel et al., 2018).

Critical Review of the Barriers to the Uptake of the Sustainability Policy to

Climate change problems have led to the creation of multiple sustainability framework

policies for climate action. However, with the recognition of these environmental crises

brought by climate change and the benefits of the sustainability approach, some barriers halt

the global uptake of these sustainability policies. Research studies have shown that a

significant barrier to the uptake of the current sustainability policy to climate action is its lack

of enforceability and binding commitment (Bodansky, 2016; Hovi et al., 2013; Elum and

Momodu, 2017; Eisenack et al., 2014,). For instance, the Paris Agreement sustainability

policy framework is limited by its over-reliance on the voluntary targets of individual

3
countries worldwide (Bodansky, 2016). Ultimately, these results in a “patchwork” of

commitments which range in effectiveness and ambition since these countries differ in the

level of development.

Moreover, Bodansky (2016) asserts that the over-reliance and voluntary nature of the

agreement undercuts the collective efforts required to adequately combat the issues and

impacts of climate change on the planet. In addition, the Paris Agreement, like most

sustainability policy frameworks, is challenged by a lack of legally binding commitments.

This state makes it easy for countries to quickly backtrack on their obligations to the climate

action policies while instead focusing on meeting their country’s short-term economic goals

(Elum and Momodu, 2017).

Furthermore, addressing structural issues in the country that contribute to climate change is

another barrier to the effectiveness of current sustainability policy as regards climate action

(Hovi et al., 2013). Research has shown that countries’ small-scale attempts towards climate

action, which includes reducing carbon emissions and sponsoring renewable energy, have

little resultant long-term effect capable of causing a permanent transformation (Bodansky,

2016; Elum and Momodu, 2017). Moreover, the structure of these patterns ignores the

immediate need for an approach that ends the over-reliance on fossil fuel, rethinks the

nation’s industrial practices and promotes sustainability patterns in consumption and

production. Therefore, a change that restructures and causes a significant revamping of the

current economic and social structure is needed due to the limitations of these current

sustainability frameworks. In addition, the current sustainability policy framework on climate

change ignores vulnerable communities within and between countries (Elum and Momodu,

2017; Bodansky et al., 2016). This means citizens in developing countries with inadequate

resources and limited technological capabilities are burdened with the weight of adapting and

mitigating the impact of climate change. Similarly, this increases the existing inequalities in

4
the community while hampering these grassroots areas’ ability to contribute towards

sustainability (Eisenack et al., 2014).

Insufficient focus on innovation and research is another barrier to the uptake of sustainability

policy framework on climate action (Bodansky, 2016). Many policies promote using

renewable energy as a clean energy source. However, these policies often fail to promote

investment in research and innovative development of technological solutions that cause a

permanent transformation. Moreover, a multidimensional approach is required since climate

change problems are complicated and interconnected (Elum and Momodu, 2017). Hence,

with the introduction of research and innovation, the current sustainability policy framework

will require integration across different sectors of the economy and governance. This is

because the uptake of these policies is limited by their failure to consider the synergies that

may exist between different sectors in the country. Thus, a greater need for coordinated and

collaborative efforts from the government departments, whether local or national, is

necessary to ensure interdependencies and coherence in combative response to climate action

(Bodansky. 2016; Eisenack et al., 2014).

Comparison of the Differences and Similarities of Sustainable Policy

Sustainable policy frameworks and sustainable development are global solutions to climate

change. The sustainability frameworks have prompted countries and regions to form policies

strategically and efficiently address climate change’s social, economic and environmental

challenges (Hovi et al., 2013; Kuramochi et al., 2020). This section presents the differences

and similarities of sustainable policy frameworks in various countries and regions worldwide.

The Sustainability Policy Framework Approach of the European Union (EU)

5
The EU laid the foundation for sustainability policy frameworks while emphasising the need

for environmental protection strategies and climate change mitigation (Wallace et al., 2018).

A critical sustainability policy of the EU regarding climate change includes the European

Green Deal initiative and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By employing an

extensive approach to sustainability, the EU effectively integrates climate action plans into

various sectors by administering binding regulations like circular economy and reduction

targets (Reckien et al., 2018; Wallace et al., 2020). Based on research findings, the EU’s

strategy on collaboration and multinational agreements has ensured a progressive change in

the adaption of sustainable development measures (Reckien et al., 2018).

The Sustainability Policy Framework Approach of the United States

the government’s decentralised nature (McCright et al., 2016). For instance, several states in

the US set ambitious goals for renewable energy adoption and greenhouse gas emissions

reduction. However, the results and progress reported so far have been inconsistent with a

lack of collaborative climate action efforts. Regardless of this state, by shifting to a more

robust sustainability approach at the federal level and rejoining the global Paris Agreement,

the US would see more progress at the national level in the coming years (McCright et al.,

2016).

The Sustainability Policy Framework Approach of China

is focused on a full transition to a low-carbon economy (Wang et al., 2018). Moreover, it is

reported that China has ambitious sustainable targets towards clean and renewable energy

technologies and pilot carbon trading schemes (Wang et al., 2018). Unlike the United States,

China has a centralised government which allows efficient implementation of sustainable

6
policies. However, the enforcement of these policies is impeded by regional disparities,

which are commonplace in the country (Fang et al., 2018).

The Sustainability Policy Framework Approach of Developing Countries

competing priorities and limited resources. For instance, most developing countries focus on

poverty alleviation, basic amenities and biodiversity preservation instead of adopting

sustainable approaches towards climate action. Moreover, due to the sophistication of

sustainable development technologies, financial constraints and capacity gaps are major

hindrances to the implementation process (Swart and Raes, 2015).

Critical Comparison of the Sustainability Policy Framework of the Discussed

The European Union uses a comprehensive approach to integrating sustainability into various

sectors of the country. However, unlike the EU, the United States and several other

developing countries lack an extensive framework because of competing priorities or a

decentralised government structure (Wallace et al., 2020; Reckien et al., 2018). Furthermore,

regarding ambition and sustainable targets, the EU have greater and clearer targets regarding

climate action and resource efficiency. Conversely, despite China’s commendable efforts and

progress towards climate action, more regulations must be enforced to make plans more

effective (Wang et al., 2018). Similarly, the United States has shown commendable

commitments towards climate action. However, a lack of a unified federal approach means

inconsistent progress made regarding climate action.

Additionally, the EU have a greater investment in promoting international cooperation and

multinational agreements regarding climate action sustainability frameworks, for instance,

the Paris Agreement (Olsen et al., 2019). On the other hand, despite the US rejoining

international agreements, its level of commitment is mixed and questionable. Similarly,

7
developing countries are limited since they fully rely on financial support and technology

transfer assistance to fast-track sustainable development (Fang et al., 2018; McCright et al.,

2016).

Proposal for Future-Oriented Framework to Combat the Barriers to

The proposal for a future-oriented framework focuses on overcoming the limitations and

barriers related to current sustainable policy and creating a more adaptable and robust

strategy for sustainability. The proposal outlines critical points, which include enhanced

international collaboration, technological innovation, strengthening policy integration and

addressing regional disparities (Seddon et al., 2020).

Enhanced International Collaboration

successfully implementing sustainable policies. Therefore, the government of countries

affected by these challenges are to prioritise international collaboration and knowledge-

sharing practices to foster innovative climate action approaches (Kabisch et al., 2016; Seddon

et al., 2020).

Strengthen Policy Integration

sustainability must strive for a policy framework that efficiently integrates sustainability

measures across all sectors, including transportation, urban planning, agriculture, waste

management and energy (Kabisch et al., 2016).

Address Regional Disparities

more efficient and equitable implementation of sustainable policies. Therefore, for this to

8
work, sustainable policies must be accurately tailored to regional contexts while also

supporting these regions with the resources (Seddon et al., 2020).

Conclusion
The current sustainability policy framework on climate action presents some critical action

points. However, these current frameworks are hindered by some barriers. Among these are a

lack of enforceability, failure to address structural issues and a lack of innovative focus.

Therefore, these issues call for a comprehensive approach that improves the level of

efficiency or effectiveness of the frameworks. Furthermore, comparing the differences and

similarities of sustainable policy frameworks in different regions shows the level of progress

and failure regarding climate action. In addition, the reported proposals or recommendations

for combating future barriers to implementing a sustainable policy framework for climate

action are critical steps in the right direction.

9
References

Bodansky, D. (2016). The legal character of the Paris Agreement. Review of European,

Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25(2), pp.142-150.

Eisenack, K., Moser, S.C., Hoffmann, E., Klein, R.J., Oberlack, C., Pechan, A., Rotter, M.

and Termeer, C.J. (2014). Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change

adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), pp.867-872.

Elum, Z.A. and Momodu, A.S. (2017). Climate change mitigation and renewable energy for

sustainable development in Nigeria: A discourse approach. Renewable and Sustainable

Energy Reviews, 76, pp.72-80.

Fang, J., Yu, G., Liu, L., Hu, S. and Chapin III, FS (2018). Climate change, human impacts,

and carbon sequestration in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 115(16), pp.4015-4020.

Fuso-Nerini, F., Sovacool, B., Hughes, N., Cozzi, L., Cosgrave, E., Howells, M., Tavoni, M.,

Tomei, J., Zerriffi, H. and Milligan, B. (2019). Connecting climate action with other

Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(8), pp.674-680.

Hale, T. (2016). “All hands-on deck”: The Paris Agreement and non-state climate action.

Global environmental politics, 16(3), pp.12-22.

Hovi, J., Skodvin, T. and Aakre, S. (2013). Can climate change negotiations succeed? Politics

and Governance, 1(2), pp.138-150.

Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., Haase, D.,

Knapp, S., Korn, H., Stadler, J. and Zaunberger, K. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate

10
change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps,

barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2).

Kuramochi, T., Roelfsema, M., Hsu, A., Lui, S., Weinfurter, A., Chan, S., Hale, T., Clapper,

A., Chang, A. and Höhne, N. (2020). Beyond national climate action: the impact of region,

city, and business commitments on global greenhouse gas emissions. Climate Policy, 20(3),

pp.275-291.

McCright, A.M., Marquart-Pyatt, S.T., Shwom, R.L., Brechin, SR and Allen, S. (2016).

Ideology, capitalism, and climate: Explaining public views about climate change in the

United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 21, pp.180-189.

Olsen, K.H., Bakhtiari, F., Duggal, V.K. and Fenhann, J.V. (2019). Sustainability labelling as

a tool for reporting the sustainable development impacts of climate actions relevant to Article

6 of the Paris Agreement. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and

Economics, 19, pp.225-251.

Reckien, D., Salvia, M., Heidrich, O., Church, J.M., Pietrapertosa, F., De Gregorio-Hurtado,

S., D'alonzo, V., Foley, A., Simoes, S.G., Lorencová, E.K. and Orru, H. (2018). How are

cities planning to respond to climate change? Assessment of local climate plans from 885

cities in the EU-28. Journal of cleaner production, 191, pp.207-219.

Russel, D., Beck, S., Campos, I., Capriolo, A., Castellari, S., den Uyl, R.M., Gebhardt, O.,

Hildén, M., Jensen, A., Karali, E. and Mäkinen, K. (2018). Analysing the policy framework

for climate change adaptation. In Adapting to climate change in Europe, (pp. 273-313).

Elsevier.

Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C.A., Smith, A. and Turner, B. (2020).

Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other

11
global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1794),

p.20190120.

Swart, R.O.B. and Raes, F. (2015). Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work:

mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? In Integrating climate change actions

into local development (pp. 288-303). Routledge.

UN. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The

resolution was adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. In: ASSEMBLY, U.

N. G. (ed.)

Wallace, H., Pollack, M.A., Roederer-Rynning, C. and Young, A.R. eds. (2020). Policy-

making in the European Union. Oxford University Press, USA.

Wang, B., Wang, Q., Wei, Y.M. and Li, Z.P. (2018). Role of renewable energy in China’s

energy security and climate change mitigation: An index decomposition analysis. Renewable

and sustainable energy reviews, 90, pp.187-194.

12