Ortlepp, R; Gruhler, K and Schiller, G (2016) Material stocks in Germany's non-domestic buildings: A new quantification method. Building Research & Information, 44(8), pp. 840-862. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The building sector consumes large quantities of resources and generates high levels of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. From an 'urban mining' perspective, the building stock can be seen as a repository of natural resources. In order to manage this repository, evidence is needed on its quantity and dynamics. Although data exist for domestic buildings, little evidence exists for non-domestic buildings. A new method is presented to quantify the material stock of non-domestic buildings - based on the German building stock. The quantification process involves three steps: (1) material composition indicators (MCIs) are calculated with respect to various building types; (2) the country's total floor space is estimated and disaggregated; and (3) the total material stock is calculated. The main results are MCIs and the floor space for both domestic and non-domestic stocks, as well as the material mass in total. In Germany the total material mass of non-domestic buildings is approximately 6.8 billion tonnes, accounting for 44% of the entire building stock. The method can be adapted and validated for use in other countries. These results will assist both policy-makers and the construction industry to understand the potential for moving toward a more circular economy.;The building sector consumes large quantities of resources and generates high levels of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. From an 'urban mining' perspective, the building stock can be seen as a repository of natural resources. In order to manage this repository, evidence is needed on its quantity and dynamics. Although data exist for domestic buildings, little evidence exists for non-domestic buildings. A new method is presented to quantify the material stock of non-domestic buildings - based on the German building stock. The quantification process involves three steps: (1) material composition indicators (MCIs) are calculated with respect to various building types; (2) the country's total floor space is estimated and disaggregated; and (3) the total material stock is calculated. The main results are MCIs and the floor space for both domestic and non-domestic stocks, as well as the material mass in total. In Germany the total material mass of non-domestic buildings is approximately 6.8 billion tonnes, accounting for 44% of the entire building stock. The method can be adapted and validated for use in other countries. These results will assist both policy-makers and the construction industry to understand the potential for moving toward a more circular economy.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fixed assets; resource efficiency; material composition indicators; material flow; building stock; non-domestic buildings; urban mining; buildings; energy efficiency |
| Index terms: | quantification, energy efficiency, domestic building, circular economy, natural resource, non-domestic building, building stock, construction and demolition, Germany, material composition indicator, fixed assets, evidence, resource efficiency, dynamics, mining, accounting, construction industry |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, systems engineering, asset management, geotechnical engineering, measurement and scaling, Geography, sustainable design, management, environmental science, economic analysis, sustainability and energy, environmental resource management, waste management, construction type, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Sustainability, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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