Icibaci, L M (2019) Re-use of building products in the Netherlands: The development of a metabolism based assessment approach. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.
Abstract
This research departs from the desire to understand the practice of reuse of building products from a systemic standpoint, representing a network of multiple factors influencing the process of reusing. Through the Industrial Ecology theoretical framework, these relations are dynamic and contextually bounded defining the commercial feasibility of products. This holistic approach generates an overview of how dynamics in the building stock (housing stock as supply of potential reusable products) and socioeconomic, and technological factors, influence what is harvested for reuse in practice. The representation of these dynamic relations composes a conceptual model of the metabolism of building product reuse in the Netherlands. This "map" offers a way to improve the visualization and the understanding of how trajectories of flows of products are reused as well as the motivations, conditions and limitations behind them.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | reuse; building products; industrial ecology; circular economy; material flow analysis; building stock; netherlands |
| Index terms: | motivation, material flow analysis, visualization, housing stock, building stock, ecology, holistic approach, dynamics, circular economy, re-use, Netherlands |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, systems engineering, asset management, sustainable design, environmental science, health safety and environment, design practice, material science and engineering, Geography, psychology, business |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Geographical Context, Human Resources, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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