Abstract:Recently, considerable focus, e.g., in the fifth IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report (2014) has been trained on why adaptation and mitigation have not been developed more than at present, with relatively few local government actions taken compared with, for example, more discursive policy agreement on the importance of the issue of climate change. Going beyond a focus on general limits and barriers, this comment suggests that one important issue is that climate change has not yet been sufficiently integrated into the state regulative structure of legislation and policy-making. A comparison between three cases suggests that local developments that are not supported in particular by binding regulation are unlikely to achieve the same general level of implementation as issues for which such regulative demands (and thereby also requirements for prioritization) exist. This constitutes an important consideration for the development of adaptation and mitigation as policy areas, including on the local level.Keywords: climate change; adaptation; mitigation; local government; municipality; Finland; Norway; Denmark Challenges of Climate PolicyWhile increasing focus is placed on policy development in relation to climate change, it is yet unclear as to how successful or efficient these efforts developed so far are in terms of tackling climate change, both mitigation and adaptation. In reviewing the progress of adaptation, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that implementation has so far been relatively limited [1] and discusses multiple potential limitations and barriers to this. With regard to mitigation, the need for further development within international commitments, as well as national and sub-national development, is highlighted. To a large extent, then, the social complexity of implementation and gaining political will for the development in the face of multiple stressors may be regarded as limiting progress towards managing climate change [2][3][4]. This limitation means that there is a need to problematize the structure of implementation further.

No abstract

No abstract

The digital shift has arrived in the construction industry, with the aim of increasing the efficiency. However, how should the industry implement digital tools? And how should a human-technology relationship work? The purpose of this paper is to illuminate how the construction industry can close the gap between the potential benefits and the harvested benefits of implementation of AI. This paper presents research based on a comprehensive literature review, a case study of a construction project in Norway, and three external interviews. The case study consists of a document study and seventeen semi-structured interviews.The experiences established through this research indicate that it is possible to gain experience from the implementation of basic digital tools when implementing advanced technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI). When come at AI, the human-AI trust will be the most decisive factor for a successful implementation. This paper constitutes a piece of pioneer work, as it investigates the implementation of AI, and how humans and technology should work together.This research is limited down to one case study as well as three digital tools. To extend the research it is recommended to discuss the adaption of AI on premise of the users, collect more empirical data and look into experiences done by other industries. Technology (NTNU), Trondheim Norway, +47 917 43 561, hakon.fyhn@ntnu.no 4 Associate professor, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway +47 911 89 938, ola.ladre@ntnu.no EMPIRICAL DATA Case StudyDue to the lack of published research regarding implementation of AI, was case study chosen as a suitable method. The chosen case is Bispevika, a building project in Oslo, Norway. The project consists of approximately 7 years of construction and NOK 4-5

Abstract:Recently, considerable focus, e.g., in the fifth IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report (2014) has been trained on why adaptation and mitigation have not been developed more than at present, with relatively few local government actions taken compared with, for example, more discursive policy agreement on the importance of the issue of climate change. Going beyond a focus on general limits and barriers, this comment suggests that one important issue is that climate change has not yet been sufficiently integrated into the state regulative structure of legislation and policy-making. A comparison between three cases suggests that local developments that are not supported in particular by binding regulation are unlikely to achieve the same general level of implementation as issues for which such regulative demands (and thereby also requirements for prioritization) exist. This constitutes an important consideration for the development of adaptation and mitigation as policy areas, including on the local level.Keywords: climate change; adaptation; mitigation; local government; municipality; Finland; Norway; Denmark Challenges of Climate PolicyWhile increasing focus is placed on policy development in relation to climate change, it is yet unclear as to how successful or efficient these efforts developed so far are in terms of tackling climate change, both mitigation and adaptation. In reviewing the progress of adaptation, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that implementation has so far been relatively limited [1] and discusses multiple potential limitations and barriers to this. With regard to mitigation, the need for further development within international commitments, as well as national and sub-national development, is highlighted. To a large extent, then, the social complexity of implementation and gaining political will for the development in the face of multiple stressors may be regarded as limiting progress towards managing climate change [2][3][4]. This limitation means that there is a need to problematize the structure of implementation further.