Cruz Rios, F (2018) Beyond recycling: Design for disassembly, reuse, and circular economy in the built environment. PhD thesis, Arizona State University, USA.
Abstract
Today, we use resources faster than they can be replaced. Construction consumes more resources than any other industry and has one of the largest waste streams. Resource consumption and waste generation are expected to grow as the global population increases. The circular economy (CE) is based on the concept of a closed-loop cycle (CLC) and proposes a solution that, in theory, can eliminate the environmental impacts caused by construction and demolition (C&D) waste and increase the efficiency of resources' use. In a CLC, building materials are reused, remanufactured, recycled, and reintegrated into other buildings (or into other sectors) without creating any waste. Designing out waste is the core principle of the CE. Design for disassembly or design for deconstruction (DfD) is the practice of planning the future deconstruction of a building and the reuse of its materials. Concepts like DfD, CE, and product-service systems (PSS) can work together to promote CLC in the built environment. PSS are business models based on stewardship instead of ownership. CE combines DfD, PSS, materials' durability, and materials' reuse in multiple life cycles to promote a low-carbon, regenerative economy. CE prioritizes reuse over recycling. Dealing with resource scarcity demands us to think beyond the incremental changes from recycling waste; it demands an urgent, systemic, and radical change in the way we design, build, and procure construction materials. This dissertation aims to answer three research questions: 1) How can researchers estimate the environmental benefits of reusing building components, 2) What variables are susceptible to affect the environmental impact assessment of reuse, and 3) What are the barriers and opportunities for DfD and materials' reuse in the current design practice in the United States. The first part of this study investigated how different life cycle assessment (LCA) methods (i.e. , hybrid LCA and process-based LCA), assumptions (e.g., reuse rates, transportation distances, number of reuses), and LCA timelines can affect the results of a closed-loop LCA. The second part of this study built on interviews with architects in the United States to understand why DfD is not part of the current design practice in the country.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Grau, D and Chong, O |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; business model; circular economy; design practice; durability; environmental impact; life cycle; population; recycling; reuse; architects; owner; efficiency; ownership; interview; environmental impact assessment; United States |
| Index terms: | business model, building material, built environment, ownership, architect, construction material, design for disassembly, estimate, resource consumption, dissertation, efficiency, design practice, circular economy, recycling, owner, life cycle, durability, waste generation, environmental impact assessment, environmental impact, population, stream, building component, United States, interview, construction and demolition, life cycle assessment |
| Subjects: | architectural elements, Geography, sustainable design, design process, demography, research dissemination and communication, waste management, environmental impact, environmental resource management, economics, performance management, water management, sociology, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, profession, business, value management, building materials, sustainability and energy, financial and cost management, material degradation and durability |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Project Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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