Koc, K and Okudan, O (2021) Assessment of life cycle risks of deconstruction in urban regeneration projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(10): 04021137, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Deconstruction is the eco-friendly alternative to demolition. It can help reduce the waste stream from urban regeneration projects (URPs) to landfills. The literature, however, does not provide a sufficient theoretical basis in terms of life cycle and life cycle risks of deconstruction. This lacking presents a major roadblock to its implementation in URPs. Thus, this paper introduces the deconstruction life cycle and a risk management framework to guide construction practitioners. Initially, the deconstruction life cycle, comprising 9 phases and 55 risk factors, was identified through a literature review and a focus group discussion. Then, a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was conducted to assess the impact of each risk on deliverables of deconstruction. Results showed that risk management in deconstruction should be a cyclic process and cover the entire life cycle. Risks related to inaccurate estimations, quality, health and safety issues, insufficiency of building components to reuse and recycle, unavailability of deconstruction contractors, and lack of infrastructure were among the most significant risks of deconstruction. By revealing the life cycle and life cycle risks of deconstruction, this study highly contributes to theory as well as significant managerial implications.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | deconstruction; demolition waste; fuzzy analytical hierarchy process; risk management; urban regeneration |
| Index terms: | landfill, life cycle, stream, focus group, urban regeneration, construction practitioner, risk management, demolition waste, analytical hierarchy process, recycle, literature review, health and safety issues, estimation, implementation, risk factor, building component |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, waste management, post-disaster and reconstruction, risk assessment, data analysis and analytics, occupational health and safety management, value management, decision-making and optimization, financial and cost management, architectural elements, water management, contractual arrangements, environmental hazards, professional development |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Information Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Design Practice, Cost Management, Procurement, Urban Studies, Health and Safety, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here