Innovations in Technical Education to Advance Sustainability
Building Deconstruction: an Innovative Approach to Integrating Sustainability into Construction
Paul Crovella – State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Abstract – The development of a course on building deconstruction is presented as a model for
creating courses which use a framework of sustainability for inquiry-based instruction. A
model course structure is presented which integrates economic, social and environmental
considerations with a problem-based course design. The student-centered approach of
using a problem as the basis for student inquiry into deconstruction is described. The paper
details the how the course addresses the technological aspects of construction, the
economic issues of building materials and processes, and the environmental aspects of
cradle-to-cradle material use and proper handling of materials of concern. The resultant
course structure provides one model for how courses and curricula can be restructured to
provide appropriate problems for inquiry-based course design, based on principles of
sustainability.
Introduction – Concepts of Sustainability and Inquiry-based Learning
The interest in integrating sustainability in academic programs has prompted educators to include
aspects of sustainability into existing coursework. A simultaneous interest in moving
traditional teacher-centered instruction toward student-centered approaches has many
educators looking to develop appropriate problems and projects. Basic principles of
sustainability provide a solid framework for developing effective problems and projects.
This paper discusses the usefulness of this approach for a construction management course,
and by extension, curriculum.
As construction educators work to “balance technical solutions with social, cultural, environmental,
economic, and sustainability concerns, in an environment that features multidisciplinary
peer interaction and mentoring” (Fiori and Songer, 2009), two distinct challenges arise.
One is the need to provide a course content that integrates aspects not covered in
traditional content areas. Much of the traditional coursework in construction and
construction management has focused on helping the students understand the means and
methods of construction, the critical resources and processes that need to be managed,
based on a strictly economic model. Courses on Quantity Take Off, Estimating, Materials and
Methods of Construction, Construction Safety, and Project Managements are typically taught
with narrowly focused problems, unlike the broader considerations required by sustainable
approaches. A very basic definition of sustainability can be used a central point about
which to coalesce problems for course development. Using the “the triple bottom line”, a
definition of sustainability adopted in many industry sectors, coursework can be greatly
expanded to expose the students to aspects besides strictly financial concerns. The use of
social and environmental considerations in conjunction with economic concerns allows
course problems to be greatly expanded, and students to become more holistic thinkers.
Working with the paradigm of “people, planet, and profits” requires the students to take on
multi-faceted problems. Problems of this type are recognized as being more representative
of the challenges which arise in a future based on sustainability. (Holt, et al., 2012)
The second challenge is the need to create a student-centered, as opposed to teacher-centered,
experience for the students. Using the focus of developing a solution to a problem as the
central organizing theme for the course moves the role of the student from receptor of
teacher-delivered information, to active applier of self-acquired knowledge, methods, and
thought processes. While “design thinking”, resolving ambiguous, multi-faceted problems
has long been central to architectural design education, the application to the field of
engineering education (Clouston, 2006) is more recent, and is still developing in other areas
of construction education (construction management, construction technology)(Holt, et al.
2012). One of the central challenges to this approach is to successfully reformulate a course
approach around a thought-process for problem resolution (Monson, 2011). Generic
structures to reformulate a course have been proposed, and one such approach is shown in
Figure 1 (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). The structure shown in Figure 1 is basis for the course
formulation that follows.
Figure 1 - Problem-based learning formulation
(adapted from Monson, 2011)
Application of Concepts to Construction
In the realm of construction, one of the basic
concerns is how “sustainable” an industry can
be if it is based on consumption of limited
resources. Much of the effort to build a more
sustainable model for construction has
focused on how the impact on the
environment due to the production of
construction materials can be reduced. The
US Green Building Council LEED® rating system has long recognized “Materials and
Resources” to be one of the principle areas for evaluating the environmental impact of
buildings. Be it fly ash in concrete, or recycled content in structural steel, many industries
have tried to respond to this concern by looking at the current waste/recycling stream and
using it to reduce their environmental “footprint”. However these changes beg the question
of the construction process itself: Where do our construction materials come from, and
where do they go at the end of their life? Groups associated with the construction industry
(e.g. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute) have tried to take a more integrated, holistic
approach to the construction process to close the materials loop, and the LEED® BD+C
system is revising its approach to include Life Cycle Assessment (USGBC 2012). Given that
approximately 36% of landfill volume in Massachusetts came from construction and
demolition (C&D) waste in 2002 (EPA, 2006), responsible materials management suggests
connecting the existing materials in the buildings to be removed with the new materials in
buildings to be constructed. A corollary to Carl Elefante’s “the greenest building is the one
that is already built” might be proposed as: “the greenest building is the one built from
those already built”. Building deconstruction (as opposed to demolition) and material reuse
follow logically from a closed-loop, or “cradle-to-cradle” approach to materials
(McDonough, 2002).
For many years, harvesting valuable demolition materials (e.g. copper, steel, aluminum) and
architectural items (e.g. stained glass windows, ornamental ironwork, carved wood
mantels) has been the norm. The rest of the demolition materials were considered waste,
and the final disposition was burning, burying, or delivery to a landfill. In most construction
projects on a previously developed site, this is one of the first steps. As communities focus
redevelopment in urban cores where existing structures are inadequate for future needs,
the materials in the buildings must be considered as a resource for future construction. A
study to integrate deconstruction as part of the overall construction process was the basis
for the course designed at SUNY-ESF.
Course Development and Implementation
The first step in the course development defines the “Project Scenario”. The campus of the State
University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry is campus is located
in an urban area of
Syracuse NY (Map 1). As
the college prepared for
Block 2
two large building
projects, it purchased two
blocks of homes adjacent
to the existing campus.
Block one was a group 18
ESF Campus
homes purchased to make
way for a dormitory.
Before dormitory
construction began, a
Block 1
study was performed to
determine the feasibility
of deconstructing the
homes. Due to schedule and budget uncertainties, as well as a lack of perceived benefit in
LEED certification, it was decided that deconstruction would not be used. The student body
was deeply disappointed that an institution dedicated to “promote the leadership necessary
for the stewardship of both the natural and designed environments.” (ESF mission
statement, 2012) sent more than 1000 tons of demolition materials to the landfill in order
to build a “green” residence hall.
Figure 2- Campus Map with Building Locations
In response, the Department of Sustainable Construction Management launched a project-based
course to study alternatives for the next campus project. Block two were 11 homes
purchased to make way for a new academic research building. The course was an attempt
to proactively address the challenges and develop solutions to allow deconstruction to be
used as part of the overall construction process. This course was offered in the Fall of 2010.
The second step in the course development is to “Identify Facts”. The role of the teacher is not to
deliver all of the technical information to the students, but rather to provide structure and
support for the student’s effort to educate themselves to the issues. This puts the teacher
more in the role of mentor and consultant. The instructor of record did not deliver a single
lecture for this course, but rather began by bringing in subject matter experts to help the
students understand the critical issues. The selection of speakers was based on an equal
treatment of social, environmental, and economic issues. Speakers specializing in the work
of deconstruction (local Habitat deconstruction coordinator), the environmental
considerations (local ecological builder), and marketing considerations (local design-web
marketing entrepreneurs) gave presentations on the relevant aspects of their work. . The
local Habitat deconstruction manager described the number of buildings available ( they
only accept 1 of 5 offered), the items of value to the store (architectural salvage, millwork
and flooring sell quickly to community members), and some of the regulatory impediments
(high quality old-growth 2x12s which the code would not allowed to be used for loadbearing in new construction). The ecological builder shared their experience of viewing the
materials of construction as part of a closed loop, that required the builder to understand
and appreciate both where the materials came from as well as where they would be
disposed of, and considerations to the social and ecological communities. The industrial
designer helped the students to understand how value could be added to harvested
components by telling the “backstory” or history of the goods. By locating QR tags on
salvaged items, and then linking to the items history (like ancestry.com) or unique
repurposing (like etsy.com) the designers had created a web-based tool that allowed the
locally harvested materials to be marketed with value-added in a truly global manner.
The next step in the course development process was to “Generate a Hypothesis”. The students
proposed that if presented with a clear representation of the externalities (environmental
and social impacts) as well as a well defined cost and schedule for deconstruction, the
administration would select deconstruction over demolition for the block two homes. The
development of the hypothesis was guided by hearing the process used to decide to
demolish the first set of homes, and hearing from the administration regarding what would
be the decision process for the next set of homes. The speaker from the local construction
firm that recommended against deconstructing the block one homes described his method
of analysis. The students heard about the method of inventory (e.g. separating architectural
components from bulk construction materials), evaluating various methods (soft skim, hard
skim, hybrid, full deconstruction), as well as construction considerations (e.g. schedule, risk,
and cost for a method untested at this scale). Next the students heard from the Vice
President for Administration regarding the decision making process that would be used to
decide whether deconstruction would be used for the next block of houses. The Vice
President stressed the fact that many “green” features would be considered for the project,
and deconstruction would only be one of them. The decision would be made based on the
relative benefit of the deconstruction as opposed to other options. How could the
environmental benefits of deconstruction be quantified in a manner that would allow
comparison to other options that would compete for limited resources?
The fourth step in the course development process was to “Research Knowledge Deficiencies”. The
students recognized that both the unknown composition of the extant houses, as well as the
potential markets for harvested materials would have to be defined. The students struggled
to define the metrics that could be used for environmental and social considerations.
Figure 3 - Sample spreadsheet with both Architectural and Bulk Materials
This phase of the course was divided into three components: First the students performed an
inventory on the materials in the homes. They worked to develop a spreadsheet to quantify
materials according to standard construction industry units, and then converted those units
into both weights and volumes. The students recognized that although the cost of
demolition was determined in part by the weight of materials sent to the landfill (Figure 4),
the landfill lifespan was determined by the volume of material sent (Figure 5). Both of these
had to be determined to be able to make determined to understand economic and
environmental impacts. Likewise the students recognized that architectural items that
could salvaged separately from the bulk building materials had to be tracked separately.
The quantity take-off skills of traditional construction management curriculum were used
without plans, but with students taking measurements on site.
Figure 4 – Material percentage by weight
Figure 5 - Material percentage by volume
Next the students had to develop approaches for means and methods of (de)construction, based on
the speakers presentations and their research. The students immediately recognized that a
number of options, rather than a single solution would have to be proposed. The students
quantified materials that could be diverted by taking the easily accessible materials in the
floor and roof assemblies. They also determined the materials available and extra labor
required to remove studs encased in plaster and siding. The final four options considered
included: soft skim – architectural and finish materials that could be removed with a
minimum of effort, hard skim – additional hardwood flooring that could be removed
without disturbing the building structure, hybrid deconstruction separating and
disassembling the floor and roof assemblies, but not the walls, and full deconstruction,
separating the wall studs from the walls, as well as the floor and roof materials, including
the disruption of lead-based materials.
Figure 6- Percent of lumber in floors vs. walls
Next the students studied the potential
sources for marketing the diverted materials.
One of the critical decisions here was
whether the “diversion” of the materials from
the landfill to the local waste-to-energy
facility constituted a valid use for the
harvested material. The students developed
a flowchart of options for wood materials
based on the remaining value in the
materials, and used it to rank the potential options. For each of the materials, students
studied three options: Reuse, recycling, and disposal, and each group discussed the
environmental hazard associated with the material. Pricing options for determining reuse
values included students posting pictures on Ebay and Craigslist to determine values and
market. Policy issues such as exposure and reuse of materials with lead based paint, DOT
specifications for use of asphalt shingles in paving, and health effects from the burning of
plastics were all areas that students researched. The students determined values for each
of the materials studied.
The fifth step in the course development was for the students to “Apply new knowledge”. Through
the process of inquiry, they had developed expertise in many of the problem aspects. The
students developed a presentation for the college administration and community regarding
the feasibility of using deconstruction for block two. The students met and created a story
board for the message of the presentation. They developed slides and practiced the
presentation, with an emphasis on the clarity and effectiveness of the message. Spirited
discussions arose over the style and forcefulness of the presentation. Students had clearly
become very passionate about applying their knowledge. They argued energetically about
how best to create a dialogue to maintain focus on their proposal. Students requested and
received resolutions of support from student governance bodies, and contacted media
outlets to ensure publicity for the presentation. The students offered examples of how
materials from the buildings could be used in the new construction, showed how carbon
capture from deconstruction compared to solar photovoltaic carbon avoidance. They asked
the administration to forego paying for LEED certification, and to invest the money in
deconstruction. Ultimately their efforts were successful in having the administration
Figure 7 - Example of diversion options for wood
identify deconstruction as a top priority for the building design process.
The final step in course development is “Abstraction”. In the case of this one semester – one credit
course, the students did not immediately apply their knowledge to other more general
problems . None the less, nationally standards have been developed by the Building
Materials Reuse Association for deconstruction training, and various community colleges
have been testing the materials. This training is designed to ensure that the participants
develop the core competencies through both classroom and worksite training. (BMRA
2012) Topics included as part of the training are: certification in lead renovation, lead
abatement, asbestos abatement, and OSHA 30hr certification. Markets for reused buildings
materials and code recognition of reuse applications are topics recognized by the students
for further research. While prices for reused materials have fluctuated, overall they have
tracked with the increase in costs for virgin materials.
Conclusions
The course allowed the students to be challenged in a number of traditional construction
management responsibilities: Quantity Take Off and Estimating, Mean and Methods of
Construction, Environmental Safety and Health Planning, as well as a number of
responsibilities in other areas social and economic concern. The use of a inquiry based
approach led to nuanced discussions of Trade-offs such as waste-to-energy vs. other landfill
diversion, and increased lead exposure vs. increased material diversion. These discussions
were recognized as being more typical of real-world management challenges. The students
studied potential markets for deconstructed materials, and proposed levels of efficiency for
handling and transferring materials, quantified and compared environmental benefits from
various construction techniques, and presented results to community and administration
groups. The students’ interest in the project and their ability to visualize and quantify the
impacts convinced the administration to pursue deconstruction with the professional
design team for the project. Student evaluation of the course was very positive, and the
department members continue to research opportunities to use an inquiry-based approach
with well developed problems from sustainability to adapt their course delivery.
Using a problem for a single (1 credit) elective course is step toward adapting a curriculum for
inquiry-based instruction. Adapting a complete curriculum (shallow vs. deep
constructivism (Monson, 2011)) would require a much more intense effort at integrating
other skills and content areas. The use of BIM to help non-construction audiences better
under the proposal was decided against due to time constraints. Aspects of construction
contracts were not addressed, but have proved to be very challenging as the project has
moved forward. The time between proposal and execution exceeded two years, a timespan
that precluded having the students benefit from the project management issues that arose
during execution. Never the less, the framework proposed could be extended across the
curriculum to address each of these other areas of learning.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____________________ Building Materials Reuse Association. Deconstruction core competencies
http://www.bmra.org/media/decon11/Training/BMRA%20Training%20Core%20Competencies2011March23-Public.pdf Accessed 4/15/12
Cradle to Cradle : remaking the way we make things. McDonough and Braungart. New York. North
Point Press, 2002. 193 p.
Clouston P. 2008. “Pedagogic Strategies for Wood Engineering in an Interdisciplinary Setting”. ASCE
Structures Congress, Vancouver, Canada
____________________ Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1.
http://www.epa.gov/region1/solidwaste/cnd/ Accessed 4/20/12.
____________________ ESF Mission Statement. http://www.esf.edu/welcome/mission.htm
Accessed 4/15/12
Fiori, C. M., & Songer, A. D. (2009). Enhancing Construction Education with Contextual Service
Learning, Seattle, Washington.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational
Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.
Holt, Eric A, et al. (2012) Students Involvement in the Solar Decathlon Competition: Giving Context to
the Classroom Experience. 48th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings
Monson , Christopher (2011) Concepts of inquiry, constructivist learning, and the potentials of studio in
construction education. 47th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings
_____________________ USGBC proposed 2012 BD+C Rating System
https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=18936 accessed 5-15-12.