Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of green roofs for commercial real estate building owners/occupiers in a UK city and consider how these might affect the chances of their adoption.

Two sets of semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected respondents, 10 with and 25 without green roofs, to compare and contrast differing perspectives. A grounded theory approach was taken to data analysis, allowing themes to emerge directly from the data.

Low awareness and understanding were observed amongst those without green roofs, which positively affected perceived costs whilst negatively affecting perceived benefits. Green roof owners gave weight to wider societal and ecosystem services benefits, whilst those without focussed much more upon building-level benefits and costs.

Because of the restricted sample size, the findings in themselves are not generalizable; rather, themes are drawn from the research for reflection.

Findings point to steps that might be required of regional and national government to increase green roof uptake. This could involve initiating conversations to raise awareness, shift discourse and perceived norms and best practice; offering incentives, education and training; and presenting high-profile exemplar projects of green roofing to begin to mainstream the technology and get it onto the radar of building owners.

Bringing together social research around cohorts with and without green roofs, the paper throws into sharp relief discussions around costs and benefits and points towards potentially more productive directions for action to encourage consideration and take-up of green roofs by building owners.

This chapter analyzes the campaign against race norming in the 2013 National Football League (NFL) concussion settlement that caregivers of retired players designed, and it considers how their collective action throws new light on activism in sport. While there is a substantial literature on how individual athletes engage in protest, less work has focused on how families – partners, children, siblings, and parents – of athletes organize as a group to answer back to anti-Black racism in professional sport. I argue that a group of spouses used their position as caregivers to shame the NFL, the presiding judge of the settlement, Class Counsel, and even the Department of Justice into acknowledging not only individual suffering from traumatic brain injury but also of the distribution of that suffering across households. Specifically, the wives group expanded definitions of risk and damage to include not only individual illness but also family and group suffering and demanded inclusion of gendered and racialized aspects of social care. Through their campaign, the group recast what is considered protest in the world of sport and who has the ability to access an activist subjectivity.