Shaping the Environment:
Alternate Approches
 

Developing countries today are concentrating their efforts to enable a speedy transition to ‘growth and quality of life’ as represented by developed countries. Particularly in Asia, the rapid economic boom directly translates into accelerated infrastructure. While growth and prosperity remain the unequivocal ideal, urban centres also have an environmental crisis knocking at the door, precipitated by the rate of consumption of finite natural resources, waste generation and the sheer stress of a relentless influx of people from villages to cities. With an expanding middle class with income levels to match their social aspirations, it is no surprise that almost 80% of real estate developed in India is residential space. Over the next 10 to 15 years, 80 to 90 million dwelling units will have to be constructed, a majority of them catering to middle and lower income groups.

Taking a cue from the business-as-usual scenario driven by financial viability, the response to such a massive demand will be characterised by design typologies and building systems being used irrespective of the contextual conditions. This approach not only propagates a wasteful consumption of resources but also neglects a sense of well-being that the built environment must provide. Everyone – government, private businesses, professional bodies and civil society – agrees that there are few things more urgent than the need to introduce more sustainable designs and practices for our buildings and communities. Yet very little has so far been achieved in this direction.

The first few steps towards ushering in a green building movement are visible yet isolated, such as the LEED rating system, the first Energy Conservation Building Code for India, setting up a nodal Bureau of Energy Efficiency and other environmental directives. These efforts tend to be ‘techno-centric’ and fall far short of holistically connecting the eco-system well being with human settlements. The ultimate users neither have access to information nor to service providers; hence, the demand for sustainable housing is never articulated. On the social front, the realities such as the ‘sick building syndrome’ are never reflected upon. ‘Green’ evidences are at best limited to a handful of high-profile buildings in metropolitan cities that primarily satisfy the environmental criteria.

Given the inevitable headlong dive into constructing millions of dwelling units every year, it is imperative that an alternative paradigm to shape the built environment be developed and internalised by stakeholders who directly influence the nature of buildings and settlements. The paradigm must recognise buildings as being a part of natural eco-systems and the fact that various inter-relationships between the two determine the ultimate well-being and productivity in an average citizen’s life. Urban settlements must trigger a shift in lifestyle towards minimising ecological footprints and maximising the ‘happiness quotient’. The economic parameters of built environment must be governed by the life-cycle cost in order to realise its ‘true’ cost, which simultaneously addresses economic gains and environmental quality.

Evolution of the new paradigm can be led by designers and planners who determine the physical footprint of our built environment, but it is certainly not limited to their actions. The end users of the buildings need to be much more pro-active in demanding a built environment which not only ensures their well-being but also helps them become more responsible citizens. It must have the participation of decision makers through conducive policies and regulations. It must also have a buy-in from the private sector, which is today spearheading housing delivery and can be hugely influential in mainstreaming alternative solutions. q

              Back to Contents