Selman, A D and Gade, A N (2020) Barriers of incorporating circular economy in building design in a Danish context. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 36th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-8 September 2020, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
The building sector has the responsibility to influence on recognizing the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By considering SDG goal 12 for responsible consumption and production, buildings in Denmark account for 35% of the total waste and 40% of the energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Circular Economy (CE) is one of the crucial concepts to reduce environmental impacts, including climate problems by reducing waste and resources. This can be achieved through the choice of alternative materials or solutions, by promoting the life cycle and circular mindset. Previous research has shown that circular design principles are not applied broadly, thus, the study aims to investigate the potential of using CE in building design to provide designers, consultants, and contractors, an insight into the various challenges, when adopting circular strategies to reduce the waste of resources and environmental impact. A qualitative method has been used in the form of literature review to provide a theoretical foundation for the empirical study, in addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six respondents involved in building design, from architectural, consulting and contracting companies with different levels of experiences in sustainable buildings, specifically in using circular concepts. The interviews were analyzed to investigate how CE is incorporated into building design, highlighting its benefits, unfolding barriers and pointing out some key factors to promote CE principles, e.g. working cultures, communication, knowledge and design strategies. The results indicate the complexity of the CE transition, as numerous aspects need to be considered. It also reveals how actors can improve their interdisciplinary interactions to use circular principles, raising their awareness as true intermediaries in progressing wider sustainability goals. Other barriers are related to a lack of circular materials passports.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular economy; design; sustainability; Sustainable Development Goals |
| Index terms: | design strategy, CO2 emissions, building design, interview, alternative material, qualitative method, design principle, circular economy, designer, strategy, mindset, literature review, life cycle, sustainable development goal, environmental impact, materials passport, energy consumption, empirical study, sustainable building, intermediary, complexity, consumption, Denmark, interaction |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, business, air quality, profession, data collection methods, value management, design methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, materials science, consumer economics, environmental impact, architectural design, energy systems, data analysis and analytics, research methods, management, sustainable construction, material science and engineering, sustainable design, Geography, systems engineering, behavioral psychology |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Design Practice |
| 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