The Circular House
Designing timber-centric construction systems that facilitate viable structural
and water-resistant material circularity in residential scale buildings.
Research Proposal
Candidate: Gerard Finch
Supervisors: Dr Antony Pelosi, Dr Morten Gjerde and Guy Marriage
February 19th 2019
Document body word count: 9886
Abstract
Construction practices today prohibit viable building material reuse. Building
systems are instead designed to prioritise rapid assembly, adopting singleuse fixings that both contaminate and permanently damage the materials
they incorporate. Consequently, the building and construction industry is the
single largest producer of waste globally. This resource consumption model is
incompatible with the long-term carrying capacity of our planet. In recognition of
this concern, a new type of construction is needed to make deconstruction and
material reuse a more attractive option.
Emerging to address the issue of waste through material reuse is the
framework of a Circular Economy. Through complementary concepts, such as
Designing for Deconstruction and Cradle to Cradle, the Circular Economy model
establishes a series of theoretical necessities for achieving effective material
reuse. Yet, the systems that most of us choose to build with have trended
away from circularity, towards assemblies that are more challenging and more
costly to reuse. Specifically, the structural solutions and water-resistant barrier
systems that we commonly implement today in timber-based construction are
prone to producing large quantities of waste at the end of their useful lives.
Literature suggests that cost and practical application are key barriers limiting
the successful implementation of design features that enable circularity. Thus,
although the theoretical framework for achieving material reuse exists, there
remains few tangible and viable methods for achieving circularity. The proposed
research therefore asks: how can the structure and water-resistant systems of
residential scale timber-framed buildings in New Zealand be designed to better
facilitate viable material circularity?
To create viable Circular Economy based building solutions the proposed
research will use an action research methodology centred around the
construction and quantitative evaluation of digital models, scale models and
full-scale prototypes. The research will adopt an existing method for quantifying
material reuse that is coupled with an industry standard approach for assessing
functional performance and conventional cost analysis techniques. Collectively
these measures will generate the information needed to holistically assess the
performance of proposed reusable construction solutions. Reflecting on existing
systems, the proposed research integrates the most successful characteristics
of these established ideas into new experimental solutions. The proposed
‘experimental’ solutions are then explored in a research process that cycles
between synthesising findings into a rationalised solution (physical prototyping)
and experimental assessment. Quantifiable measures of cost, functionality and
circularity performance are followed by qualitative assessments of the holistic
performance of each proposal. This subjective critique aims to ensure that
the research considers the inherent tensions between designing for building
material reuse, architectural flexibility and cost. The most successful building
system developed by the research will be identified and recommended.
Embodying the contribution to knowledge of this research, the new building
system will form a structural and water-resistant building envelope assembly that
is optimised for circularity, validated by both empirical and qualitative evidence.
2
Contents­
1.0
Abstract
1
Background
5
1.1 The need to reduce building waste
1.2 Building waste quantities, sources and composition
1.3 The cause of C&D waste
1.4 Challenges in reducing building waste
2.0 Theoretical Context
9
2.1 Pre-eminent ideological paradigms in building material reuse
2.2 The contributions of research to encourage material reuse
2.3 Existing research aiming to encourage material reuse
2.4 Failures of existing research
2.5 The gap that this research will fill
2.6 Proposed building systems to be developed
3.0 Research Question
17
4.0 Research Methodology
18
4.1 Research methodology emerging from theoretical context
4.2 Action design research methodology
4.3 Research design
4.4 Measuring the circularity performance of solutions
4.5 Measuring the economic performance of solutions
4.6 How data is going to be produced; prototyping
4.7 Managing scope and identifying completion
4.8 Preliminary experimentation
4.9 Challenges and limitations
5.0 Research Administration
31
5.1 Special resources
5.2 Human ethical considerations
5.3 Intellectual property
5.4 Statement of impediments
5.5 Projected timelines
References
5.1 Key references for design and the circular economy
5.2 Key references for the research method
5.3 Other references used in this proposal
3
33
R E S E A R C H QU E STION
How can the structure
and water-resistant
systems of residential
scale timber-framed
buildings in New
Zealand be designed
to facilitate viable
material circularity?
G LOSSA RY
4
1.0
Background
1.1 T HE N EED TO R E D UC E B U IL D IN G WAST E
The construction industry’s contribution to global waste
is a complex, often unsorted, amalgamation of both
inert natural materials and toxic engineered composite
products. Collectively these disposed materials represent
more than 40% of global waste (EPA, 2016). Reducing
this vast volume of waste materials prevents a spiral
of environmentally harmful human behaviour (Ajayi et
al, 2015; MfE, 1997; Kennedy, 2007; Braungart and
McDonough, 2009; Baker-Brown, 2017; Inglis, 2007).
Ensuring that building materials normally sent to landfill are
instead either reused or reprocessed reduces the demand
for new materials (Allwood et al, 2011; Broadbent, 2016).
This leads to significantly reduced carbon emissions, as
materials already processed into useful products often
require less energy to re-process into another useful
product (Russell, 1983; Schmidheiny and Stigson, 2000;
Hopewell et al, 2009). Furthermore, a weaker demand
for raw materials leads to less ecologically destructive biproducts that come from material extraction. These include
habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, dust pollution, soil
erosion, soil nutrient deficiency, sulphur dioxide pollution
production, eutrophication and soil subsidence (Figure 1)
(Wood et al, 2000; Saviour, 2012; Lawrence and Vandecar,
2015; Carvalho, 2017). Such negative environmental
changes also occur at the point where waste building
materials are deposited (Rabl et al, 2008; Maheshwari et
al, 2015). Collectively, the environmental side-effects of
unmitigated material extraction and landfilling impact the
food supply, security, health and diversity of our people
and natural ecosystems (Easterling et al, 2007; Sun et al,
2017). Addressing the issue of building waste is therefore
an essential step in reducing the impact of modern
construction practices on the environment and ensuring
ongoing prosperity for our global communities.
1. 2 B U I LD I N G WAST E QUA N TITIE S ,
SOU RC ES AN D COMP OS ITION
Making up between 60% and 80% of all the building
sectors’ discarded materials, demolition is the largest
contributor to the waste problem (EPA, 1998; Kibert and
Chini, 2000, Kibert et al, 2001). Demolition includes
all materials from demolished structures for any reason,
including buildings damaged or demolished due to natural
disasters. The next largest source of building waste is
5
Figure 1. Impact of building materials and construction waste over
their lifepsan.
1.0 B a ck g ro u nd
generated during instances of renovation, estimated to
make up between 10% and 20% of all building waste (EPA,
1998). Modifications to commercial buildings, including
office renovations and retail fitouts are major contributors
to this category. Two other key sources of waste are during
construction and at the time of material fabrication. These
two sources make up less than 10% of all waste the building
industry produces (EPA, 1998). These four waste sources
are collectively referred to as Construction and Demolition
(C&D) waste. Internationally, concrete, timber and
plasterboard are the most common C&D waste materials.
However, the exact proportional composition of these
materials in the waste stream varies significantly by region,
often depending on popular construction methods and
available materials (Figure 2). Due to this regional variation
there is no universal standard for the categorisation or
measurement of C&D waste materials. Subsequently, the
largely unmanaged and unregulated C&D waste stream
continues to grow.
Figure 2. Global C&D waste generation statistics.
Kibert and Chini, 2000; JESC, 2014; FDEP, 2015; REBRI, 1999; Paterson, 1997; Inglis, 2007;
Teheyis et al, 2013; Nakajima and Russell, 2014).
6
1.0 B a ck g ro u nd
1 .3 T HE CAU SE O F C& D WAST E
Experts attribute the cause of C&D waste to four factors
(Guy and Ciarimboli, 2007; Boehm, 2012; Akinade et al,
2016):
1. the way in which buildings are designed,
2. the materials that we choose to construct
buildings from,
3. the construction systems that we employ,
4. the economic framework that we operate within
(or human-related factors).
These causes are all delicately interconnected by factor
four: the economic framework that we operate within. For
example, the cost of work dictates the connection methods
used between materials, the willingness to dismantle
buildings rather than demolish them and our willingness
to use recycled materials versus those obtained from virgin
sources (Nakajima and Russell, 2014; Guy and Shell, 2006;
Storey et al, 2005). The consequence of these economic
drivers are construction methods “... that see the assembly
of materials and components as a unidirectional practice”
(Crowther, 2005, n.p). Hence it is not uncommon for
one material to be fixed ‘dependently’ to another using
a destructive, irreversible and potentially contaminating
method as a result of the prioritisation of construction
speed and reduced upfront costs (Figure 3) (Storey et
al, 2005). Furthermore, because of the costs associated
with separating these elements at the end of their first life,
often the actual lifespan of materials and assemblies are
significantly shorter than then the potential technical life
span of those materials (Durmisevic and Linthorst, 2000).
Thus, in order for C&D waste to be effectively reduced
there is a need to address the economic challenges of
material circularity through changes to the technical
characteristics of construction itself.
Figure 3: Existing systems that contribute to C&D waste production.
Nakajima and Koga, 2009; Nakajima and Russell, 2014
7
1.0 B a ck g ro u nd
1. 4 C HALLEN G ES IN R E D U C IN G B U IL D IN G WAST E
As the primary cause of C&D waste, economic constraints
are also the fundamental barrier to the widespread
adoption of reusable construction practices. The economic
issues are particularly pronounced in residential buildings
in which “it can take three times longer to dismantle the
building in such a manner to preserve the components
and to segregate the waste products” – versus commercial
buildings (Nakajima and Russell, 2014, p. 11). Likewise, in
many cases the materials reclaimed from buildings have
no end market due to a “lack of trust in the quality of C&D
recycled materials” (European Commission, 2016, p. 18).
Additionally, the now widespread use of adhesives and
the growing popularity of composite products are making
it more “difficult to deconstruct and difficult to selectively
dismantle the waste products” (Nakajima and Russell,
2014, p. 11, supported by: Jean-Yves et al, 2015; European
Commission, 2016; Storey and Pederson, 2014; Nakajima
and Russell, 2014). A further challenge is the dependency
of material reuse and recycling on supporting systems such
as sorting, retrieval and reprocessing; “… if a company
has not deployed reverse logistics, the production system
cannot be considered compatible with an idea of a circular
economy” (Nuñez-Cacho et al, 2017, p. 5). As such, any
potential technical solutions to facilitate material reuse must
be developed in reference to external systems and their
associated economic imperatives.
SPR AY- O N I NSU LAT I O N
Internal open and closed cell insulation retrofitted to timber frames
creates a contaminating bond between materials and obscures
connection points – making material recovery not economically viable.
ST R U CT U R AL ADHESI VES
Expanding foam, petrochemical based adhesives and insulation seals
contaminate materials through irreversible bonds. These joints can
be so strong that the components joined by the materials become
damaged when separation is attempted.
CO M PO SI T E M ASO NRY ASSEM B LI ES
Underfloor insulation and heating systems embedded in self-levelling
masonry systems often leave both materials with no end-of-life reuse or
high-value recycling pathways.
Figure 3 cont.: Existing systems that contribute to C&D waste
production.
Nakajima and Koga, 2009; Nakajima and Russell, 2014
8
2.0
Theoretical Context
Through a review of salient literature, the following section identifies and
discusses the theoretical framework of circularity that informs this research. The
lineage of circularity as a theoretical concept is explored and key aspects relating
directly to the issue of material reuse in buildings are discussed. This process
aims to precisely locate the proposed research in existing literature.
2.1 P RE-EM I N EN T ID E OLOG IC A L PA R A D IG M S
IN B U I LD I N G M AT E R IA L R E US E
Circularity (the Circular Economy): The literature review
finds that the overarching theoretical framework for
managing materials in a sustainable manner, and thus
reducing building waste, is the Circular Economy (CE). The
CE is not a new concept or a specific solution in its own
right, instead the CE can be considered a package – or
‘umbrella’ – of fundamental sustainable development (SD)
concepts as documented in Figure 4 (overleaf) (Cheshire,
2016; Winans, 2017; Charter, 2018).
The Circular Economy framework collects these
disparate rules of ‘environmental best-practice’ and
packages them into a single vision – with the core aim of
“decoupling economic activity from the consumption
of finite resources” (EMF, 2015, n.p.). To bring all of
these ideas together the Ellen MacArthur Foundation
has taken on the role of formally defining circularity and
has consequentially developed the widely adopted
“butterfly circular economy model” (Saidani et al, 2017).
MacArthur’s model ranks “designing out waste” and
“keep[ing] products and materials in use” as two of the
primary objectives to achieve a CE (EMF, 2015, n.p.). In
the context of C&D waste a CE model would see worthless
materials eliminated by designing systems and components
to be reused. Coupled with the significant support behind
circularity from business, governments, non-governmental
organisations and academics, the Circular Economy is a
theoretical framework directly applicable to the challenge
of eliminating waste through designing for reuse (Sauve et
al, 2016; Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey and
Company, 2014).
9
2 .0 T he o re t i ca l Co nt ex t
Figure 4: Sustainable development concepts that fall within the umbrella of a Circular Economy.
Chertow et al, 2004; CIRAIG, 2014; Stahel, 2013; WRAP, 2016; Wijkman and Skånberg, 2015; Bastein
et al., 2013; Ghisellini et al, 2015; Kalmykova et al, 2018
10
2 .0 T he o re t i ca l Co nt ex t
Design for Deconstruction:
As evidenced, the CE is the established holistic theoretical
framework in which the majority of research that works to
address waste can be situated. Within this wider CE canon
is another tier of concepts that relate specifically to the
problem of building waste. Although these are not always
presented in direct association with the CE, the underlying
motivations are the same. Design for Deconstruction
(DfD), for example, is a concept that advocates designers
to detail buildings in a way that facilitates disassembly
or deconstruction – with the main aim of “... increased
diversion rate[s] of demolition waste from landfills; [and
the] potential reuse of building components” (Kibert et al,
2001, p. 138). These core aims are directly compatible with
the aims of the CE: “deconstruction has been identified
as an essential means for promoting a closed-loop system
for building components” (qoute: Jaillon and Poon,
2014, p. 196; supported by: Storey et al, 2005; Tingley,
2012; Cruz Rios et al, 2015; Kibert et al, 2001; Pomponi
and Moncaster, 2017; CEW, 2018; Dijk et al, 2014). This
research therefore locates DfD as a significant theoretical
concept in the realisation of CE ideas in the building sector.
Cradle to Cradle:
Cradle to Cradle (C2C) is another concept that forms
part of the Circular Economy umbrella and has direct
implications for building waste production (Beaulieu
et al, 2015; Van Ewijk and Stegemann, 2016). Like the
overarching themes of the CE, Cradle to Cradle prioritises
“... a closed system of resource flows approached from
a product-life cycle perspective” (Stahel et al, 1981, p.
34). This closed system effectively leads to the elimination
of waste through product design (EMF, n.d, Kalmykova,
2018). These priorities of retaining value through use cycles
are also in direct alignment with the ambitions of DfD
(Figure 5). In fact, DfD will often be included as a necessary
criteria for the successful implementation of C2C concepts
in buildings (van de Westerlo et al, 2012). However, C2C
should not simply be seen as rearticulating DfD ideas.
Instead C2C incorporates higher level categorisation of
materials based on their ability to fit within technical or
biological processing cycles, or no cycle at all (Braungart
and McDonough, 2002). These material categorisations,
if followed, distinguish a second layer of assurance
against the production of waste. If a building component
cannot be directly reused, then ensuring the component
was fabricated following either technical or biological
metabolism criteria will allow high-value recycling to take
place (Nuñez-Cacho, 2017). These aspects highlight the
value of both C2C and DfD approaches in respect to the
CE framework and effective material reuse.
Figure 5: Core principles of DfD and C2C theoretical concepts and how they fit within the main
preoccupations of the overarching Circular Economy theoretical framework.
11
2 .0 T he o re t i ca l Co nt ex t
2. 2 T H E CO N T RI B U T ION S OF R E S E A R C H TO
EN CO U RAG E M ATE R IA L R E US E
The foundational theoretical framework (circularity) of
this study is typically the cause of three different kinds of
knowledge contributions through research. These can be
categorised as:
1. ‘reporting on the state of affairs today’,
2. proposing ‘design guidelines’ for implementing
new solutions, or,
3. developing ‘assessment frameworks’ to measure
the performance of new/existing solutions.
These are all ultimately tools for designers and policy
makers to assist them in the creation and evaluation of
solutions that aim to reuse materials and consequently
reduce building waste. Research that examines the
state of affairs today outlines the foundational barriers
restricting the implementation of circularity and suggests
general requirements for change (i.e. Nakajima and
Russell, 2014; Abdol, 2005; Kibert et al, 2001; Jaillon and
Poon, 2014; Kilbert and Chini, 2000; Storey et al, 2005;
Van Dijk et al, 2014). Research that produces ‘design
guides’ varies from comprehensive frameworks for the
requirements of specific jointing conditions to generalist
recommendations (i.e. Webster and Costello, 2005;
Storey et al, 2005; van de Westerlo et al, 2012; Beurskens
et al, 2016; Crowther, 1997–05). ‘Assessment frameworks’
are often developed through an analysis of existing
research and through expert consultation (as in Saidani
et al, 2017), and set out a (sometimes comprehensive)
list of evaluation criteria (as in Papakyriakou, 2012; Ellen
MacArthur and Granra Design, 2015; Cayzer et al,
2017; Saidani et al, 2017; Elia et al, 2017). These three
groupings of research contributions represent the sum of
all efforts by the community of researchers to encourage
building material circularity.
2. 3 EX I ST I N G RE S E A R C H A IMIN G
TO EN CO U RAG E MATE R IA L R E US E
A unanimous sentiment in existing research is that circularity
in the construction sector can be achieved through design
(Schut et al, 2015; European Commission, 2016; Månsson,
2015; Hradil et al, 2014; Nakajima and Russell, 2014;
Jean-Yves et al, 2015; Morgan, 2005). In eight separate
national reports collated into an International Council for
Building (CIB) publication, design (for Deconstruction) was
frequently ranked as the number one strategy to effectively
reduce building waste (Nakajima and Russell, 2014). The
aforementioned ‘design guidelines’ (2.2) can therefore
be seen as a response to this call for better design. They
outline specific actions a designer must follow to ensure
that their product/building will not produce waste or
low-value recycled materials. Common actions suggested
by these guidelines are discussed in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, and
additional important strategies are summarised in Figure 6.
12
2.3.1 Building as Layers
The most common translation of CE concepts into an
applied solution is the consideration of a building as
temporal layers to facilitate high-value material reuse (found
in Duffy, 1990; Brand, 1994; Habraken, 1998; Durmisevic
and Brouwer, 2002). Stuart Brand, author of Whole Earth
Catalogue and pre-eminent environmentalist, formalised
the idea of a building as layers. Brand determined that a
building should be divided into six independent groupings
of materials, these being: “... site, structure, skin, services,
space and stuff” (Brand, 1994, p. 13). The rationale
given was that the ‘stuff’ inside of a building, the space
finishes, the services and aspects of the spatial linings are
all replaced/repaired/relocated far more often than the
enclosing structural elements (Habraken, 1998). Thus,
the layers changed most often should be the easiest to
deconstruct and do so in a way that does not damage other
discrete layers. This model of Brand’s continues to be the
basis of the ‘temporal layers’ concept in construction for
the purposes of facilitating material recovery (Crowther,
2001; Guy and Shell, 2001; Graham, 2005; van de
Westerlo et al, 2012). The occurrence of this idea across
DfD, C2C and CE literature suggests it has a key role in
enabling material circularity. However, even with broad
theoretical backing, the implementation of this ‘layers’
concept is not well evidenced. If implemented successfully
we would have expected to see a direct change in the way
‘skin’ layers are fixed to a building’s structure. Given that
the idea was first proposed in the 1990s these changes
should be apparent in new building physical characteristics.
Instead, we have seen an increase in the use of permanently
fixed layers, e.g. in-slab polystyrene insulation was found in
26% of new construction in 2007, and is now found in over
60% of new construction (Rosevear and Curtis, 2015) and
layers that are fixed in ways that cause irreversible damage,
e.g. plasterboard use in Europe has increased from 25%
to 76% between 1983 and 2008 (Brunsdon and Magan,
2017; MTP, 2008). The growth of construction solutions
that are at odds to Brand’s layering approach indicate a
preoccupation with energy efficiency and economics,
without thought given to material recovery (McIntosh and
Harrington, 2007; Mullens and Arif, 2006; Meis, 2015).
2.3.2 Standardisation
As with the concept of building in layers, it is widely agreed
in literature that “standardisation of building elements
in terms of sizes (such as length, height and depth)”,
and the “standardisation of the connections between
elements” is essential to create an attractive market for
recovered materials (Jaillon and Poon, 2014, p. 196–197;
supported by: Dorsthorst and Kowalczyk, 2005; Webster
and Costello, 2005; Crowther, 2005; Chini, 2005;
Durmisevic, 2006; Guy and Ciarimboli, 2007; Boehm,
2012; Cruz Rios et al, 2015; Machado et al, 2018). The
key motivation for standardisation is declared as financial:
2 .0 T he o re t i ca l Co nt ex t
“standardisation will help to provide the financial incentives
required in order to encourage deconstruction and reuse”
(Chini, 2005, p. 317–318). In practice, standardisation of
components makes the implementation of CE strategies
economically beneficial for two reasons. The first is that
“... standardisation of connectors makes disassembly
quicker and require fewer types of tools“ (Chini, 2005,
p. 47). This has a flow-on effect to the decreased cost
of recycled materials and the increased attractiveness of
deconstruction over demolition. Secondly, standardisation
means that more similarly shaped and sized components
become available, increasing the attractiveness of these
materials to potential buyers (Machado et al, 2018).
Effectively, standardisation resolves the key financial
restrictions that are often stated as being fundamental
barriers to achieving building waste reduction through
circularity (Chini, 2005; Storey et al, 2005).
Figure 6. Translation of CE, DfD and C2C theoretical concepts into tangible processes and
specific design modifcations to buildings – with extracts from key texts.
13
2 .0 T he o re t i ca l Co nt ex t
2. 4 FAI LU RES O F E X IST IN G R E S E A R C H
2.5 T HE GAP T HAT T HI S R ESEAR CH WI LL F I L L
Although circularity ideas have been translated into applied
principles (2.3), the impact of these ideas on mainstream
construction is practically non-existent. In fact, as discussed
earlier, construction practices have typically moved in the
opposite direction towards more dependent assemblies
and more composite products (Rosevear and Curtis, 2015;
Brunsdon and Magan, 2017; Nuñez-Cacho et al, 2018).
This negative trend is observed by Storey et al who states
simply that “older buildings often contain more desirable
and durable materials and are easier to deconstruct“ (2005,
p. 15). Moreover, where CE ideas have been implemented
they have often failed to translate into economically
sensible solutions. One CE housing proposal, for example,
uses a structural frame that is estimated to be ten times
more expensive than traditional construction (Finch,
2018). Likewise, there is inadequate evidence of the time
savings required at the deconstruction stage to make
this solution viable (Finch, 2018). The implementation of
CE and DfD ideas have also faced challenges due to the
perceived success of recycling practices. For example, the
Netherlands has a building waste recovery rate of more
than 93% – suggesting that minimal change is required
(Deloitte, 2015; Schut et al, 2015). However, the true level
of circularity within this sector is more likely to be 23%,
given that two thirds of the Netherlands C&D waste is
concrete, bricks and blocks – all of which are downcycled
and crushed into aggregate (Dorsthorst et al, 2005; 2002;
Akhtar and Sarmah, 2018, p. 263). This downcycling
process ensures a continued demand for cement products
and thus a negligible reduction in CO2 production (Figure
7) (Morrison Hershfield Engineering; Athena Life Cycle
Assessment). Therefore, while there have been substantial
developments in recycling technologies and some notable
cases of very successful ’one-off’ building material reuse,
the mainstream construction sector continues to build in
a manner that is prone to producing waste (REBRI, 2018;
Kieran and Timberlake, 2008; Webster and Costello,
2005).
‘Designing things not theories’
The lack of transition towards circular building practices
demonstrates that executing circularity in the construction
sector is fraught with economic, legislative and technical
complications. In acknowledging the complexity of
this issue Kibert claims that “closing material loops in
construction remains the most challenging green building
concept to implement” (Kibert, 2001 in Jaillon and Poon,
2014, p. 195). It is suggested that this difficulty of putting
ideas into practice may be due to the inherent complexity
of building projects and the general intangibility of
circularity ideas (2.3) (Van Dijk et al, 2014). Likewise, in
academic circles, Saidani et al when summarising Lieder
and Rashid note that “the circular economy level of
discussion is often decorrelated from product consideration
and circulation, that is to say, from the core of circular
economy implementation” (2016, p. 82–83; 2017). In an
effort to circumvent such issues, this research proposes an
alternative approach by providing developed CE solutions
for practitioners in the form of systems and products.
These systems can be delivered to the market as highly
optimised reusable components that are cost competitive
and backed by end producer responsibility business
models (Dewhursrt, 1993). The author believes that this
novel approach has significant potential to invigorate
the mainstream adoption of CE practices, translating
the requirements of circular design into approachable,
tangible, product options.
This research therefore sets out to design, build
and evaluate construction systems that will facilitate
circularity in the building industry. A need for design
and physical assembly is evidenced by calls in academic
publications for “in-depth pilot studies” to be conducted
to ‘demonstrate the concepts of deconstruction’ (Babbitt
et al, 2018; Anggadjaja in Nakajima and Russell, 2014;
Storey et al, 2005). As noted by Van Dijk et al, it appears to
be the challenges around the practical implementation
Figure 7. Failure to change; recycling strategies that are often reported as significant waste
reducing strategies do not address the fundamental issues.
14
2 .0 T he o re t i ca l Co nt ex t
of CE ideas into the construction industry that current
publications see as fundamental barriers to effective
circularity (2014). This opinion is further supported by
Jean-Yves et al who suggest that “... the design and
installation of [less complex systems] could be a driver
towards the spread out of deconstruction practices” (2015,
p. 45). Specifically, this is a call for applied ideas, not
the development of a theoretical approach, but tangible
experimentation culminating in real world ‘systems’. It is
at this tangible building level where the complexities and
challenges of implementing CE based building solutions
ultimately arise (Babbitt et al, 2018).
Approaching CE implementation from a physical system
development perspective also meets the suggestion in
literature that the critical point of intervention should be in
the design phase. Schut et al and Storey et al back up this
viewpoint through interviews with key industry stakeholders
(2015; 2005). Demolition companies reported that they
would prefer to deconstruct a building rather than demolish
it, and stated that the main reason for not undertaking
deconstruction was that “the demolition and recycling
phase of buildings [...] was hardly taken into account
when the buildings were designed” (Schut et al, 2015, p.
32–33 and supported by Nakajima and Russell, 2014; van
de Westerlo, 2012; Storey et al, 2005). Furthermore, a
practical design approach also ensures that the economic
issues of deconstruction that are outlined in literature can
be addressed directly. Schut et al connects design and
economics in respect to the CE: “... by investing more in
design [...] of materials and building products, the costs
of the construction process itself can be reduced” (2015,
p. 40). Consequently, there is a need for the design of
economically sensible and highly resolved solutions that
facilitate material reuse (circularity) in the building industry.
A useful side-effect of this applied approach aiming
to realise CE ideas in construction is the opportunity to
use already established concepts within the theoretical
framework and test their effectiveness under real-world
design, fabrication, handling and human constraints
(Minunno et al, 2018). For example, the feasibility of
Brand’s concept of a building as layers can be assessed
from a technical and economic point of view. Similarly,
the concept of prioritising parallel assembly for greater
independence of building layers (within the context of
Stewart Brand’s five building layers) can be critiqued
(Crowther, 2005; Durmisevic and Linthorst, 2015). Such
an approach to achieving circularity may be deemed
impractical given the functional requirements of a waterresistant building envelope or be proven essential in
ensuring cost effective deconstruction rates (Gorgolewski,
2017). The research does not plan to exhaustively critique
existing circularity design approaches, but will identify
successful ideas and relate them back to their theoretical
basis as appropriate.
15
2 .0 T he o re t i ca l Co nt ex t
2. 6 P RO P O SED BU IL D IN G SYST E M S
TO B E D EV ELO P E D
From circularity, the core overarching theoretical framework
of this research and the major themes within this framework
(C2C, DfD), there needs to be a further consolidation of
ideas to frame exactly what it is to be researched/designed
(Figure 8). This is where the research becomes focused
on a specific aspect of construction. The proposal has
already established that there is a need for a contribution
of knowledge through tangible system and productbased solutions, but has not defined which systems in
particular should be addressed. Although it could be said
that circularity calls for the redesign of almost all building
components, Brand’s study of the building as layers and
the associated literature surrounding this suggest the
structural frame as a key area of interest (Brand, 1994).
Durmisevic and Brouwer cement this claim and advocate
for the frame “as the core of enabling independence
and exchangeability of auxiliary elements” (2002, p. 15).
Although this aspect is not as explicitly reinforced in recent
publications, Brand’s layer theory is referenced and its
role in allowing “the replacement of layers with shorter life
cycles without interfering with other layers“ continues to be
highlighted (Machado et al, 2018, p. 8). For these reasons
the research proposes to focus on enabling circularity in the
structural members of a building.
Figure 8. Possible circular economy research areas in the
building sector (focus area underlined).
16
However, it should be noted that it is not only the
structural members that are key to deconstruction. The
way in which the frame interfaces with other elements
of a building is also significant for facilitating circularity
(Nakajima, 2014; Anggadjaja, 2014). Thus, although
conceiving a superior frame/structural product has the
potential to decrease waste by facilitating circularity,
developed independently, the system would have a
negligible contribution to knowledge. A more significant
contribution would come through the development of two
(or more) layers in tandem. This ensures that the work is
always evaluated under the pretence of how the layers of a
building must come together (Brand et al, 1994). Working
between elements and in systems is widely promoted
in CE literature, with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation
listing ‘thinking in systems’ as one of ‘five fundamental
characteristics’ of their CE model (EMF, 2012; and
articulated in specific reference to buildings in Saidani et al,
2017). Based on this foundation, the research will set out to
develop a system-based CE solution for the structural frame
and water-resistant barrier/cladding. The water-resistant
barrier/cladding layer has been selected based on the
complexity of the interface between itself and the structure,
and the layer’s common reliance on materials that do not
fit within a CE framework (refer to 2.3 and McIntosh and
Harrington, 2007; Mullens and Arif, 2006; Meis, 2015).
3.0
Research Question
This research proposal has found that building waste continues to be a
widespread issue with acknowledged negative environmental implications. As
the pre-eminent theoretical framework to address the wasteful use of physical
resources, the Circular Economy has been identified as the most appropriate
theoretical basis for situating such research and addressing the problem. Within
the CE context, Design for Deconstruction and Cradle to Cradle are key ideas
recognised by industry experts as having the potential to combat building
waste. Together these theoretical concepts call for the adoption of building
systems that facilitate the high-value reuse of building materials. However,
these approaches have not yet been found to result in mainstream change,
often due to prohibitive economic conditions. As a result, there is a call for
further studies to be carried out that develop viable “… advanced construction
methods of waste reuse...” (Yuan and Shen, 2011, p. 677; supported by
Saghafi and Teshnizi, 2011). Literature suggests that this development needs
to be undertaken through design in a practical applied manner as ‘generalist’
approaches often fail to address key circularity issues (Månsson, 2015; Lieder
and Rashid, 2016). In order to make a valuable research contribution, any
design should be developed as a system and be critically engaged with
the interface between elements. Thus, as a basis for the research, two key
interfacing elements have been selected for development: the structural frame
and the water-resistant layer. Together these aspects have been collated into a
developed research question capturing the intent, scope and ambition of the
proposed research:
Research Question:
How can the structure and water-resistant systems of residential scale
timber-framed buildings in New Zealand be designed to facilitate viable
material circularity?
Aim:
The creation of construction systems that make viable the reuse of structural and
water-resistant cladding materials of a timber-framed building.
Objectives:
1.
To identify, based on literature, an appropriate method for evaluating
the effective circularity of building systems (complete).
2. To compare existing cases of material reuse and recovery in construction
and carry out a series of evaluations at system and product levels.
3. To develop (through iterations) a series of physical product
prototypes for a building structure and lining that respond to the
established framework.
4. To analyse the practical and economic appropriateness of proposed
circular building solutions.
17
4.0
Research Methodology
Section four details the research methodology to be used in the proposed
study. A background is given to the selected research methodology, action
design research, and the relationship of this method to the problem at hand is
discussed. Three key stages of research are outlined that align with the action
design research methodology. Finally, processes to measure the circular,
functional and economic performance of outcomes are selected and justified.
4.1 RESEARC H M E TH OD OLOGY E M E R G IN G
FRO M T HEO RET IC A L CON T E X T
The call in literature for the design and implementation
of ‘viable circular construction solutions’ directly
implies the need to adopt a design-based research
methodology. This is due to the nature of the problem itself.
Deploying circularity can be characterised as a ‘complex
environmental challenge with no perfect final solution’ –
commonly described in literature as a ‘wicked problem’
– that is a problem with “no immediate or ultimate test for
solutions” (Peters, 2017, p. 388; supported by Buchanan,
1992; Roggema, 2016). There will always be a trade-off
between the cost of the systems, their durability, and their
architectural design qualities (Nakajima and Russell, 2014).
Design as a research tactic can manage these competing
issues as it is a “... holistic endeavor that involves the
synthesis of numerous different concerns ...” finding “... a
reasonable balance among competing interests and
values” (Faste and Faste, 2012, p. 44; Roggema, 2016,
n.p; concept also supported by Birkeland, 2002; Fischer,
2015). The proposed study therefore intends to conduct
research through the process of design to produce
solutions that improve the building industry’s circularity. To
give a concrete methodical foundation to the evaluation of
proposed solutions and this design process, the specific
research methodology adopted is action research through
design (Swann, 2002; Price et al, 2014). For the purposes
of this study, the research methodology will be referred to
as action design research.
4. 2 AC T I O N D ES IG N R E S E A R C H M E TH OD OLO GY
To embrace the inherent complexities of evaluating a
series of experiments against conflicting criteria, and the
need to create new solutions, this research adopts an
‘action design research’ methodology. This is a blending
18
of the systematic cyclic ‘planning, designing, observing
and reflecting’ pathway of action research and the flexible
explorative and holistic basis of a research through
design (RtD) methodology (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992; Swann,
2002; Stappers et al, 2014). Action research calls for
the researcher to implement a concept in a real-world
situation and observe the implications of doing so (Tripp,
2005). The formula of action research and its effective use
to support an iterative RtD project is well documented in
literature: “action research provides a ready-made scaffold
for a systematic research method that could be easily [...]
adopted by designers" (Swann, 2002, p. 61; supported
by: Groat and Wang, 2002; Stapleton, 2005; Hauberg,
2012; Herr, 2015). In this research the methodical
scaffold of action design research manifests in discrete
functional, circularity and economic efficiency performance
assessments. These measures quantify and allow direct
comparison between the performance of different design
iterations for a limited number of salient characteristics.
However, as significant as these measures are, the final
selection of the most viable proposed structure and waterresistant solution for circularity will remain qualitative. That
is, although some aspects of the performance can be easily
quantified, many important aspects cannot be measured,
nor can the measurements be fairly collapsed into a single
ranking score. An action design research framework
ensures a robust and structured ideation process to support
this more intangible and qualitative assessment of system
performance.
Action design research provides a platform to
conceptualise and mature the circular construction
systems proposed in this study (Figure 9 – overleaf). The
designing aspect of this process will synthesise all available
information into a solution that aims to facilitate viable
end-of-life material recovery. This proposed solution will
then need to be realised (built) and tested to determine
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
Figure 9. Action design research process diagram, based on Swann, 2002.
if it performs as intended. Methodically, this process
reflects a traditional RtD approach where the process
“consists of the development of a prototype (or artifact)
[...] that plays a central role in the knowledge-generating
process” (Stappers and Giaccarda, 2017, n.p; supported
by Zimmerman et al, 2010). The process of this study
is such that knowledge will be ‘extracted’ from each
prototype in a series of tests reflecting the constraints
of the research: functional, circularity and economic
performance. Measuring this performance will enable a
comparison between each proposed solution, highlight
specific issues, and be a basis for evaluation against existing
solutions. These performance metrics are, however, not
the knowledge contribution of the study. Instead, the final
prototype/product embodies the findings of the research
through its physical characteristics (Höök et al; 2015). And
so while it is possible for some prototypes to be conceived
and evaluated exclusively in digital space, this research
prioritises physical prototypes based on the researcher's
discipline and intended knowledge contributions.
4. 3 RESEARC H D E S IG N
The research has been planned in stages that directly
reflect the core components of action design research.
This process begins with a review of existing products
that is then used to inform iterative design activities. These
designs are then evaluated through the lens of the circular
economy theoretical framework. Each component of this
process is detailed in the following section.
19
4.3.1 Review of existing products
To design new CE based building solutions it is first
necessary to further review the capacity for circularity
of existing construction systems. Such reflections are
particularly useful in determining the research scope
and point of difference (Goldschmidt, 1998; Augustin
and Coleman, 2012; Boling, 2010; Lawson, 2006). This
reflection process has already commenced and has been
used to inform the development of functional, economic
and circularity assessment techniques (see 4.4 and 4.5).
The research has examined well publicised modular
steel circular solutions such as the ICEHouse and its
WonderFrameTM structural frame (McDonough, 2016).
Reviews of non-circular construction methods have also
been carried out to provide a basis for evaluation. Included
in this assessment is the most popular low and medium
density construction solution in New Zealand: platform
timber framing (Figure 10 – overleaf) (Rosevear and Curtis,
2015). The precedent study is undertaken concurrently with
the literature review as it has potential to impact the way in
which the core design research is carried out.
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
Figure 10. Visual summary of preliminary review of existing products – showing a review of
conventional construction – using the fully developed assessment methods (see 4.4 and 4.5).
20
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
4.3.2 Iterative Design
An iterative design process immediately follows the review
of precedents, cycling between designing and evaluating
(4.3.3) (Roggema, 2016; Dalsgaard, 2010). The design
process will take lessons from the theoretical framework of
a Circular Economy, the review of existing products against
this framework (4.3.1) and/or earlier author-proposed
ideas and create new, superior solutions (Roggema, 2007;
Muratovski, 2016). At any given stage in the development
of a solution the author can assess its performance
against established measures (4.3.3). Depending on the
performance identified in the assessment, the author will
then make informed physical changes. Such assessments,
however, may not necessarily state what exact physical
modifications need to be made – these are instead
driven by the Circular Economy theoretical framework
(Stappers, 2014). Within this theoretical framework are the
aforementioned popular themes and outcomes of existing
research that aimed to encourage material reuse – concepts
such as Brand’s Building as Layers, Standardisation and
Interface Design (see 2.3). The process of assessing and
designing is cyclic (as per the action design research
methodology), iterative and performed repeatedly, even
before a prototype at hand is ‘complete’ (Zimmerman et
al, 2010; Burry and Burry, 2016). Specific design methods,
such as drawing, sketching and scale modelling will be
used to capture initial ideas prior to accurate prototyping
and testing (Figure 11). The effect is a series of coordinated
attempts to address circularity and economic concerns –
each more well informed than the last.
4.3.3 Design Evaluation
Design outputs are to be evaluated under the conditions
of ‘viable circularity’. Based on the literature review this
refers to functional, economic and circularity performance
indicators. The functional component of this evaluation
refers to the need to validate that a proposed solution
meets or surpasses the requirements of the relevant New
Zealand building code clause. This is a pass/fail evaluation
of the solution's structural, permeability and durability
integrity. In conjunction with this is an assessment of the
level of circularity that a given solution achieves. The study
proposes to adopt a quantifiable circular performance
Figure 11. Translating the action design research methodology into processes
related to the specific research problem.
21
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
assessment technique alongside a subjective analysis of
circularity. Further empirical data will also be generated
in the economic analysis of proposed solutions (design
outcomes). Together the three assessments of functional,
economic and circularity performance are judged and used
to inform the next design explorations (Figure 11 – previous
page). These measurable criteria, in parallel with qualitative
observations, add objectivity, repeatability and a clear
chain of evidence to the study (Susman , 1978; Gasparski,
1990; Binder and Redstrom, 2006). The basis for the
measurement of circular and economic performance are
outlined in sections 4.4 and 4.5 respectively.
4.4 M EASU R I NG T HE CI R CU LAR I T Y
PER FO R M ANCE O F SO LU T I O NS
There is “... no standardized or well-established method
for measuring circularity at the micro [product] level”
in use today (Linder et al, 2017, p. 545; and supported
by Franklin-Johnson et al, 2016). Consequently, there
is no widely regarded circularity assessment method
for buildings or construction systems. The majority of
existing assessment methods for circularity are seen to
neglect important assessments such as “... modularity,
upgradability, connectivity, easy disassembly or design for
preventive maintenance …” (Saidani et al, 2017, p. 10).
Even in the better established circularity assessment tools,
such as the ‘Material Circularity Indicator’, down-cycling
(a loss of material quality when materials are ‘recovered’) is
not assessed (Linder et al, 2017; Cayzer et al, 2017).
Therefore, in formulating how to efficiently assess
circularity for this study, the most popular CE design
guidelines and assessment tools were examined and
adapted (including Crowther, 2005; van de Westerlo,
2012; EMF, 2015, Saidani, 2017) (Figure 12 – page
24). From this process emerged a set of common
measurements that can be essentially ‘designed out’
– reducing the complexity and number of empirical
measurements required to be undertaken by this study
(Table 1 – overleaf). For example, rather than measuring or
estimating the quantity of recyclable and recycled materials
used in a proposed solution, the study will instead ensure
that only recyclable materials are adopted. The same
approach can be taken for a range of key circularity design
attributes found in literature (Table 1 - overleaf). To further
narrow the focus of the study, secondary circularity factors
such as biomass production, air and climate quality, water
quality, renewable energy and biodiversity, are not going
to be examined (van de Westerlo, 2012; Braungart and
McDonough, 2002). After such refinements one core
measure for circularity emerges: the ratio of materials
that can be recovered in a directly reusable state at the
end of the building's useful life. This ratio is recognised
as a core indicator of CE success (Parchomenko, 2018;
European Commission, 2015). Moreover, it is a pragmatic
22
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
indicator that represents the true technical potential of the
proposed solution to be reused. This is not a common
circularity measure as assessments are typically made
at a generalised abstract level, without the concrete
performance information required to state explicitly how
many materials have the potential to be reused (Lieder and
Rashid, 2016; Saidani, 2017). In this study the data required
to obtain this ratio will be gathered by deconstructing the
physical prototype of a given proposed solution (see 4.6).
Table 1. Organisation of circularity assessment measures for proposal
evaluations.
(with reference to Moffatt and Russell, 2001; Durmisevic and Brouwer, 2002;
Guy and Ciarimboli, 2007; Hassanain et al, 1997; Crowther, 2005; van de
Westerlo et al, 2012; Nuñez-Cacho et al, 2018).
4.4.1 External Applicability Assessment
A significant aspect of circularity that cannot be directly
measured but must be examined is the potential usefulness
of materials and components at the end of each use
cycle. Henceforth referred to as an ‘External Applicability
Assessment’, this is a critical second measure of circularity
success; if there is no demand for the recovered materials,
circularity cannot be achieved (Cochran, 2006; Zou et
23
al, 2015; Hobbs and Adams, 2017; Nuñez-Cacho et al,
2018) (Figure 12 – overleaf). Due to the timeframe of the
research it will not be possible to determine if there is a true
real-world demand for a given system’s components at the
end of its first life. It will be possible, however, to receive
qualitative feedback from industry stakeholders regarding
the proposed solutions' applicability. Applicability will
be qualitatively determined by asking stakeholders to
comment on aspects that would prevent, or make them
reluctant to use the pre-used components in a project.
Such feedback can then be interpreted and used to inform
further experimentation. Proposed real-world installations
of solutions in their first life will also expose a systems
adaptable potential (see 4.6). Additionally, as a way to
quickly compare circulatory performance, the study plans
to adopt Saidani’s product Circular Performance Indicator
(CPI) (2017). The decision to adopt this technique is a
consequence of the way in which Saidani formulated the
CPI based on his own comprehensive recent review of
different circularity measures and the categorised breakdown it offers. Again, however, note that the CPI will not be
used as an absolute measure of performance. In the action
design research methodology the CPI will be used to guide
the iterative development of ideas based on aspects of a
given solution that are underperforming.
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
Figure 12. Logic behind the selection of the CPI tool and an outline of the two other major
circularity assessment processes in the proposed research.
24
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
4. 5 M EASU RI N G T H E E CON OM IC
PE RFO RM AN C E OF S OLUT ION S
4.6 HOW DATA I S GO I NG TO BE
PR O DU CED; PR OTOT Y PI NG
As part of ensuring that the design contributions of this
research are viable, an economic evaluation will be
undertaken for each proposal. In the literature review
economic issues were noted as emerging from a range of
causes including the time taken to deconstruct and recover
materials and the cost of the raw materials themselves
(Storey et al, 2005; Dantata et al, 2005; Saghafi and
Teshnizi, 2011; 2014; Cruz-Rios et al, 2015; Ghisellini
et al, 2018). Consequently, the study will record and
compare expenses related to each proposed product in
the context of a CE. This information will then be able to be
compared with existing conventional and CE construction
approaches. Results of this analysis can be used to inform
further design decisions or act to confirm or discredit a
proposal (VCL and EITB, n.d.). A thorough understanding
of the associated costs enables the design contribution
to be value engineered, resulting in a more viable and
valuable research output. Based on the processes involved
in material recovery, four different points of cost need to be
calculated. These include (further details in Figure 13):
The primary method proposed for data production in
this study is physical prototyping. Literature reinforces
the validity of prototyping as an appropriate method for
this research question by suggesting that prototyping
can simultaneously explore a problem, refine solutions to
that problem, contribute to the production of empirical
information and communicate the knowledge created
by the research itself (Camburn et al, 2017; Anderl et al,
2007; Buchenau and Suri 2000; Lennings et al, 2000;
Brand et al, 2011; Burry and Burry, 2016). Without physically
recreating structural and water-resistant barrier details in
the real world, it will not be possible to accurately quantify
economic or circular economy performance (Figure 14 –
overleaf). Furthermore, prototyping as a research method
actively targets the shortfalls of existing research in this area,
as noted in literature: a lack of implementation and/or
real-world examples.
The nature of the prototypes to be developed varies
depending on the project opportunities that become
available to the candidate. At an absolute minimum,
the intention is to build between four and six integrated
physical prototypes of different wall structure and water
resistant/cladding proposals measuring approximately one
metre in width and three metres in height. This does not
include the construction (and subsequent deconstruction)
of existing solutions for testing purposes. Four to six
prototypes allows approximately three months per major
design iteration with eight months remaining for the
preparation of a synthesised discussion in the dissertation.
A three-month design refinement, fabrication and testing
window is based on the author's previous experience with
research of this nature (Finch, 2018). The target number
of prototypes to be developed aims to avoid stagnation
and keep the research progressing towards new ideas
-----
the cost of the materials, including raw materials,
fixings and any off-site fabrication,
the cost of assembly (labour) per unit of system,
the cost of disassembly (labour) per unit of system,
the cost of repair or remediation to materials
before they can be used again (if any).
These four costs can track the ‘economic performance’ of a
given proposed solution at all key life-cycle stages. The data
to provide this cost information is again to be extracted
from the built physical prototypes using standardised
labour rates and conditions.
Figure 13. Economic performance measures.
25
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
(Elverum et al, 2017). Note also that the target number
is not in any way for the purposes of scientific statistical
integrity. Beyond the minimum intentions the candidate
has already confirmed three real-world implementations
of different design iterations, with secured external
funding, and start dates of 2019 and 2020 respectively.
These are ideal prototyping opportunities as they more
accurately test the real-world limitations of a given design
proposal. They will also provide accurate data regarding
the material and labour expenses per unit of wall. It is likely
that the final collection of prototypes will range from the
smaller minimum requirement versions to full scale ‘semipermanent’ deployments.
Figure 14. Visual summary of the proposed research design from the review of existing systems
to the use of prototyping to produce data for assessment.
26
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
4.7 M AN AG I N G S COP E A N D
IDEN T I F Y I N G CO M P L E TION
4.7.1 Type of buildings and materials
For reasons of practicality, this research will focus on
timber framed technologies, appropriate to low and
medium density building typologies. These practical
constraints are based on the use of prototyping as a data
collection tool, expertise, and financial constraints of the
research. The key reason for a timber centric approach is
that more than 90% of all new homes in New Zealand use
locally grown and sustainably managed timber framing
or mass timber in their construction (Rosevear and Curtis,
2005). Timber is therefore an established material, relevant
to the New Zealand construction situations, and already
performing highly in terms of environmental sustainability.
Furthermore, the use of timber sets this study apart from
similar existing international research which has relied on a
material palette consisting of aluminium and/or steel (see
ICEHouse, Loblolly House and CE House).
4.7.2 Quantity of prototyping experiments
The research is being asked to address a problem
that will inherently have an imperfect answer, and has
therefore been designed to enable multiple attempts at
solving the problem (Buchanan, 1992). A consequence
of this is that while a ‘good’ solution may come close
to addressing the problem in its entirety, there is almost
always potential for ongoing incremental improvements.
This type of research design can therefore be categorised
as ‘sequential sampling’ – referring to the fact that the
sample size (number of tests) will vary depending on the
number of iterative developments carried out in the study
(Nallaperumal, 2013). Therefore, to control the scope of
the research, a time limit of 18 months will be placed upon
27
the design experimentation phase, leaving a minimum
of six to eight months to complete further analysis and
documentation.
4.8 PR ELI M I NARY EXPER I M ENTAT I O N
To test the viability of the proposed research, a series of
preliminary design experiments were undertaken. The basis
of these preliminary tests was the adaptation of an existing
circularity optimised structural system into a cost-effectively
fabricated low-carbon, low cost, timber system. As per the
proposed prototyping research methodology (Figure 14)
the new design was fabricated, assembled and ‘observed’
(Figure 15 – overleaf). This process produced accurate
data for cost and assembly time duration necessary to
evaluate the overall performance of the design proposal.
The prototype was then disassembled and reassembled to
check, superficially, for performance degradation/damage
through use cycles (Figure 16 – page 29). Finally, the
prototype was destructively tested for functional structural
integrity in a four-point bending test. The observed
performance of this preliminary proposal indicated that
material recovery is possible and that a key challenge
to overcome will be keeping the proposals simple and
cost-effective. Technical drawings detailing how a unique
water-resistant barrier would reversibly adhere to this
structure were also produced (Figure 17 – page 30). Further
to this, the preliminary experimentation directed the final
form of the research design. Importantly, early experiments
highlighted the need for an explicit assessment process
and a major refinement of what circular performance
attributes are appropriate to measure. Collectively, the
observations from preliminary experimentation have been
used to refine the methodology and scope outlined in this
research proposal.
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
Figure 15. Preliminary experimentation timeline highlighting key steps
and contributions of the theoretical framework.
28
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
Figure 16. Preliminary experimentation performance summary.
29
4.0 R e s e a rch Me t ho d o log y
Figure 17. Preliminary experimentation for a water-resistant barrier
design (section drawing – 3DX Wall Detail).
4.9 CHALLENGES AND LI M I TAT I O NS
Designing and assessing reusable construction solutions
is a complex process subject to a wide range of variables
(Alcorn, 2010; Cayzer et al, 2017). One factor that the
current research design will struggle to understand is the
impact of weathering and extended exposure on a given
solution. Based on the performance of existing construction
systems it is understood that certain climatic conditions
can cause functional and visual deterioration to building
materials (Jones, 2007). Depending on the impact of
this deterioration, direct reuse of specific materials or
components may be constrained (Storey et al, 2005).
For example, aesthetic deterioration is perceived to be a
significant issue as it makes the consumer less trusting and
therefore less willing to purchase the recovered materials.
Such deterioration characteristics are not something easily
identified in the proposed study due to the three-year
timeline (Chini, 2005; Nakajima and Russell, 2014). To
address this concern, reported weathering characteristics
of selected materials will be a secondary consideration
within the design process.
30
5.0
Research Administration
5.1 SP EC I AL RES OU R C E S
5.4 STAT EM ENT O F I M PEDI M ENTS
This research proposes the design, fabrication and
construction of full-scale prototypes of wall sections that
include the structural frame and water-resistant barrier/
cladding. Consequently there are additional resource
requirements in terms of required materials, tools and
storage space. Specifically, the candidate requires:
The candidate notes that there are no foreseeable cultural,
social or legal impediments to the successful completion
and/or publication of the research, including deposit to
the library.
---
a small amount of easily accessible storage space
to be made available,
periodic access to the Ergonomic Lighting Lab
(or similar) for video recording of deconstruction
testing.
The candidate has worked to ensure that all required
materials will be either sponsored through existing
contacts, or paid for by the candidate using scholarship
money provided by a monthly stipend. Additional
fabrication costs will also be covered by the candidate. If
testing is required that exceeds the university's capacity the
candidate will negotiate with the external funding partner.
Note that this is not required to fufill the aims of
the research.
5. 2 HU M AN ET H IC A L CON S ID E R AT ION S
It is anticipated that Human Ethics approval is required
for this study due to the nature of external assessment
by industry stakeholders. The identities of these
stakeholders, and those who are involved in fabrication,
physical experimentation and on-site building will remain
anonymous. All efforts will be made to ensure that images
containing people and records of locations are deidentified. For on-site building projects none of the site or
client information will be disclosed as it is not relevant to
the research outputs.
5. 3 I N T ELLEC T UA L P R OP E R TY
The research has the potential to produce intellectual
property in the form of construction and building products.
The candidate wishes to share this knowledge under a
Creative Commons Licence. The candidate has notified
the external scholarship partner for the research regarding
this decision. The candidate notes that due to the Creative
Commons Licence intellectual property arising from the
research will not prevent the completed dissertation from
being deposited in the library.
31
5.5 PR O JECT ED T I M ELI NES
Preliminary goals for the next six months (Figure 18 – two
year timeline – overleaf):
--
--
--
--
design, submit and get approved ethics
application to allow for external applicability
assessments,
progress with further assessments of existing
solutions identifying salient and effective features
that can be reinterpreted into design test cycles.
The majority of this should be complete by August
2019,
complete Test Cycle 1, including real-world
deployment, and undertake a detailed review of
the performance of this deployment. Use findings
from this test to inform the design of both Test
Cycle 2 and 3,
begin Test Cycles 2 and 3, carry out 1:1 scale tests
of these designs and either complete or be ready
to complete a real-world deployment of these
solutions.
5.0 R e s e a rch Ad m i ni s t rat i o n
Figure 18. Proposed research timeline.
32
6.0
References
6.1 KEY REF EREN C E S FOR D E S IG N
A N D T H E C I RC U L A R E CON OM Y
Akinade, Olugbenga O., Lukumon O. Oyedele, Saheed
O. Ajayi, Muhammad Bilal, Hafiz A. Alaka, Hakeem A.
Owolabi, Sururah A. Bello, Babatunde E. Jaiyeoba, and
Kabir O. Kadiri. 2017. “Design for Deconstruction (DfD):
Critical Success Factors for Diverting End-of-Life Waste
from Landfills.” Waste Management 60 (February): 3–13.
Baker-Brown, Duncan. 2017. The Re-Use Atlas: A
Designer’s Guide towards a Circular Economy. RIBA
Publishing. London.
Brand, Stewart. 1994. How Buildings Learn: What
Happens after They’re Built. New York, NY: Viking.
Braungart, Michael, and William McDonough. 2002.
Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.
1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Dijk, Suzanne van, Martin Tenpierik, and Andy van den
Dobbelsteen. 2014. “Continuing the Building’s Cycles:
A Literature Review and Analysis of Current Systems
Theories in Comparison with the Theory of Cradle to
Cradle.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82
(January): 21–34.
Durmisevic, Elma, and Jan Brouwer. 2002. “Design
Aspects of Decomposable Building Structures.” In TG39
- Deconstruction: Report of the 11th Rinker International
Conference on Deconstruction and Materials Reuse, May
2003, 24.
EMF. 2015. “Growth within: A Circular Economy Vision
for a Competitive Europe.” Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Jaillon, Lara, and C.S. Poon. 2014. “Life Cycle Design
and Prefabrication in Buildings: A Review and Case Studies
in Hong Kong.” Automation in Construction 39 (April):
195–202.
Cayzer, Steve, Percy Griffiths, and Valentina Beghetto.
2017. “Design of Indicators for Measuring Product
Performance in the Circular Economy.” International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering 10 (4–5): 289–98.
McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. 2013.
The Upcycle. First edition. New York: North Point Press, a
division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Charter, Martin, ed. 2018. Designing for the Circular
Economy. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Minunno, Roberto, Timothy O’Grady, Gregory Morrison,
Richard Gruner, and Michael Colling. 2018. “Strategies
for Applying the Circular Economy to Prefabricated
Buildings.” Buildings 8 (9): 125.
Cheshire, Dave. 2016. Building Revolutions: Applying
the Circular Economy to the Built Environment. 1st ed.
Newcastle: RIBA Publishing.
Chini, Abdol R. 2005. “Deconstruction and Materials
Reuse – an International Overview.” CIB Publication 300.
Final Report of Task Group 39 on Deconstruction. Florida:
CIB, International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building Construction.
Crowther, Philip. 2003. “Design for Disassembly:
An Architectural Strategy for Sustainability.” Doctoral,
Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
Cruz-Rios, Fernanda, Wai K. Chong, and David Grau.
2015. “Design for Disassembly and Deconstruction Challenges and Opportunities.” Procedia Engineering
118: 1296–1304.
33
Morgan, Chris, and Fionn Stevenson. 2005. “Design
and Detailing for Deconstruction.” 1. Design Guides
for Scotland. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Executive and the
Scottish Ecological Design Association.
Nakajima, Shiro, and Mark Russell, eds. 2014. Barriers
for Deconstruction and Reuse/Recycling of Construction
Materials. Working Commission W115 Construction
Materials Stewardship 397. International Council for
Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB).
Saidani, Michael, Bernard Yannou, Yann Leroy, François
Cluzel, and Alissa Kendall. 2019. “A Taxonomy of Circular
Economy Indicators.” Journal of Cleaner Production 207
(January): 542–59.
6.0 R e ferenc es
Schut, Evert, Machiel Crielaard, and Miranda Mesman.
2015. “Circular Economy in the Dutch Construction
Sector: A Perspective for the Market and Government.”
Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the
Environment.
Storey, John B, Morten Gjerde, Andrew Charleson, and
Maibritt Pedersen. 2005. “The State of Deconstruction
in New Zealand.” In Deconstruction and Materials Reuse
- an International Overview, 93. Rotterdam (Netherlands):
International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building and Construction (CIB).
Webster, Mark, and Daniel Costello. 2005. “Designing
Structural Systems for Deconstruction: How to Extend
a New Building’s Useful Life and Prevent It from Going
to Waste When the End Finally Comes.” In Proceedinsg
of the 2005 Greenbuild Conference. United States of
America.
Winans, K., A. Kendall, and H. Deng. 2017. “The
History and Current Applications of the Circular Economy
Concept.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68
(February): 825–33.
5. 2 K EY REF EREN C E S FOR T H E R E S E A R C H
ME T H O D
Augustin, Sally, and Cindy Coleman. 2012. The
Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying
Knowledge in Practice for Design Excellence. Hoboken,
N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Goldschmidt. 1998. “Creative Architectural Design:
Reference Versus Precedence.” Journal of Architectural and
Planning Research 15 (3): 258–70.
Groat, Linda N, and David Wang. 2013. Architectural
Research Methods. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons,.
Herr, Christiane M. 2015. “Action Research as a
Research Method in Architecture and Design.” ISSS
Journal 1 (1): 3.
Stappers, P, F Sleewijk Visser, and A Keller. 2014. “The
Role of Prototypes and Frameworks for Structuring
Explorations by Research through Design.” In The
Routledge Companion to Design Research, 163–74. New
York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Swann, Cal. 2002. “Action Research and the Practice
of Design.” Design Issues 18 (1): 49–61.
Zimmerman, John, Erik Stolterman, and Jodi Forlizzi.
2010. “An Analysis and Critique of Research through
34
Design: Towards a Formalization of a Research
Approach.” In Proceedings of the Conference on
Designing Interactive Systems, 10. Denmark.
5.3 ADDI T I O NAL R EF ER ENCES
Akhtar, Ali, and Ajit K. Sarmah. 2018. “Construction and
Demolition Waste Generation and Properties of Recycled
Aggregate Concrete: A Global Perspective.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 186 (June): 262–81.
Alcorn, Andrew. 2010. “Global Sustainability and
the New Zealand House.” PhD Dissertation, Wellington:
Victoria University of Wellington.
Ali, Mohammed I, Feng Fan, and Peter N Khakina.
2013. “Cost-Effective Design of Space Structures
Joints: A Review”. International Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering. 7 (1): 5.
Allwood, Julian M., Michael F. Ashby, Timothy G.
Gutowski, and Ernst Worrell. 2011. “Material Efficiency: A
White Paper.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55
(3): 362–81.
Anderl, Reiner, K. Mecke, and L. Klug. 2007. “Advanced
Prototyping With Parametric Prototypes.” Edited by Pedro
Filipe Cunha and Paul G. Maropoulos. Digital Enterprise
Technology, 503–10.
Athena. 2018. “Athena Sustainable Materials Institute
LCA tool.” Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. 2018.
Availible at: www.athenasmi.org/. Accessed 01/12/18.
Babbitt, Callie W., Gabrielle Gaustad, Angela Fisher,
Wei-Qiang Chen, and Gang Liu. 2018. “Closing the Loop
on Circular Economy Research: From Theory to Practice
and Back Again.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling
135 (August): 1–2.
BAMB, 2018. “Prototyping and Feedback Report:
Testing BAMB Results through Prototyping and Pilot
Projects.” D13. Buildings As Material Banks (BAMB).
Horizon 2020. Availible at: www.bamb2020.com.
Accessed 18/11/18.
Beaulieu, Luce, Gabrielle van Durme, and Marie-Luc
Arpin. 2015. “Circular Economy: A Critical Literature
Review of Concepts.” Canada: International Reference
Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and
Services (CIRAIG).
Bell, P. 2009. “Kiwi Prefab: Prefabricated Housing in
New Zealand; An Historical and Contemporary Overview
6.0 R e ferenc es
with Recommendations for the Future.” Masters Thesis,
Victoria University of Wellington.
Methods: State of the Art in Strategies, Techniques, and
Guidelines.” Design Science. Vol. 3, e13.
Beurskens, Pieter, Elma Durmisevic, Michiel Ritzen,
and Jos Lichtenberg. 2016. “A Morphological Design
and Evaluation Model for the Development of Circular
Facades.” In . Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Carvalho, Fernando P. 2017. “Mining Industry and
Sustainable Development: Time for Change.” Food and
Energy Security 6 (2): 61–77.
Binder, T, and J Redström. 2006. “Exemplary Design
Research,” 13. Design Research Society International
Conference in Libson.
Birkeland, Janis. 2002. Design for Sustainability; A
Sourcebook of Integrated Ecological Solutions. 1st ed.
London: Routledge.
Boehm, Nadine Indira. 2012. “Taking Action on
Construction Waste: An Analysis of Construction Waste
Minimisation Practices and Their Barriers.” In Proceedings
of the 2nd Conference: People and Buildings, 6. London:
Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings.
Boling, Elizabeth. 2010. “The Need for Design Cases:
Disseminating Design Knowledge.” International Journal of
Designs for Learning 1 (1).
Broadbent, Clare. 2016. “Steel’s Recyclability:
Demonstrating the Benefits of Recycling Steel to Achieve
a Circular Economy.” The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 21 (11): 1658–65.
Brunsdon, Nick, and Caleb Magan. 2017. “SR396
Physical Characteristics of New Houses 2017.” Study
Report. Wellington: Building Research New Zealand.
Buchanan, Richard. 1992. “Wicked Problems in Design
Thinking.” Design Issues 8 (2): 5.
Buchenau, Marion, and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000.
“Experience Prototyping.” In Proceedings of the
Conference on Designing Interactive Systems Processes,
Practices, Methods, and Techniques - DIS ’00, 424–33.
New York City, New York, United States: ACM Press.
Buckett, Nikki. 2014. “House Building Guide 3rd
Edition.” Study Report. New Zealand: Building Research
New Zealand.
Burry, Mark, and Jane Burry. 2016. Prototyping for
Architects. London: Thames & Hudson.
Camburn, Bradley, Vimal Viswanathan, Julie Linsey,
David Anderson, Daniel Jensen, Richard Crawford, Kevin
Otto, and Kristin Wood. 2017. “Design Prototyping
35
CEW. 2018. “Circular Economy: Opportunity for the
Welsh Built Environment.” Closing the Circle. Wales:
Constructing Excellence in Wales. Welsh Goverment.
Charter, Martin, and Casper Gray. 2008.
“Remanufacturing and Product Design.” International
Journal of Product Development 6 (3/4): 375.
Chertow, Marian, Weslynne Ashton, and Radha Kuppalli.
2004. “The Industrial Symbiosis Research Symposium at
Yale: Advancing the Study of Industry and Environment.”
Environmental Studies, 46.
Cochran, Kimberly. 2006. “Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling: Methods, Markets, and
Policy.” Flordia, United States of America: University of
Florida.
Crowther, Philip. 1999. “Design for Disassembly: An
Architectural Strategy.” In Proceedings of the 1998 QUT
Winter Colloquium, 6.
Crowther, Philip. 2000. “Developing Guidelines for
Designing for Deconstruction,” 11. BRE Global Limited.
England.
Crowther, Philip. 2005. “Design for Disassembly Themes and Principles.” RAIA/BDP Environment Design
Guide.
Crowther, Philip. 2014. “Investigating Design for
Disassembly through Creative Practice.” Intersections
International Symposium, Prs 9. Florence, Italy.
Dalsgaard, Peter. 2010. “Research in and through
Design: An Interaction Design Research Approach.” In
Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the ComputerHuman Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on
Computer-Human Interaction - OZCHI ’10, 200. Brisbane,
Australia: ACM Press.
Dantata, Nasiru, Ali Touran, and James Wang. 2005.
“An Analysis of Cost and Duration for Deconstruction and
Demolition of Residential Buildings in Massachusetts.”
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (1): 1–15.
6.0 R e ferenc es
Deloitte. 2015. “Screening Template for Construction
and Demolition Waste Management in The Netherlands
(V2 – September 2015).” 2. The Netherlands: Deloitte
International.
EPA. 1998. “Characterization of Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Debris in the United
States.” United States of America. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Dewhurst, Peter. 1993. “Product Design for
Manufacture: Design for Disassembly.” Industrial
Engineering, 25: 26–28.
EPA. 2016. “Advancing Sustainable Materials
Management: 2014 Fact Sheet.” United States of
America.: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Erkman, S. 1997a. “Industrial Ecology: An Historical
View.” Journal of Cleaner Production 5 (1–2): 1–10.
Dorsthorst, B, and T Kowalczyk. 2005. “State of
Deconstruction in the Netherlands, Deconstruction and
Materials Reuse - An International Overview.” Report 5.
Netherlands: CIB, International Council for Research and
Innovation in Building Construction.
Doyle, F. 1994. “Design for Deconstruction.”
Architectural Review Australia, 86–90.
Durmisevic, E, J Halman, and J Nijs. 2011. “Interface
Design for Open Systems Building.” Open House
International 36 (1): 35–43.
Durmisevic Elma. 2006. “Transformable Building
Structures. Design for Dissassembly as a Way to
Introduce Sustainable Engineering to Building Design &
Construction.” PhD Dissertation, Bosnia and Herzegovina:
Universiteit Sarajevo.
Easterling, William, Pramod Aggarwal, Punsalmaa
Batima, Keith Brander, Lin Erda, Mark Howden, Andrei
Kirilenko, et al. 2007. “Food, Fibre and Forest Products.”
In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 42. Cambridge University Press.
Elia, V, M Gnoni, and F Tornese. 2017. “Measuring
Circular Economy Strategies through Index Methods: A
Critical Analysis.” Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (4):
2741–51.
EMF. 2012. “Towards The Circular Economy:
Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated
Transition.” Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Availible atL
http://circularfoundation.org/sites/default/files/tce_
report1_2012.pdf. Accessed 01/08/2018.
EMF. 2014. “Towards the Circilar Economy;
Accelerating the Scale-up across Global Supply Chains.”
Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
EMF. 2015. “Circularity Indicators: An Approach
to Measuring Circularity (Methodology).” Circularity
Indicators. England: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
36
Erkman, S. 1997b. “Industrial Ecology: An Historical
View.” Journal of Cleaner Production 5 (1–2): 1–10.
European Commission. 2010. “Guidance on the
Interpretation of the Term Backfilling.” Unit E-3.
Environment and Forestry.
Faste, Trygve, and Haakon Faste. 2012. “Demystifying
‘Design Research’:” In Proceedings of the IDSA (2012), 8.
FDEP. 2015. “C&D Debris Recycling Study: Final Report
- Recycling - Solid & Hazardous Waste - Florida DEP [CD Report 5-8].” State Goverment 5, 6, 7 and 8. Flordia:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Finch, Gerard. 2018. “Defab: Architecture for a
Circular Economy.” Masters Thesis, Wellington: Victoria
University of Wellington.
Finch, Gerard, and Guy Marriage. 2019. “Eliminating
Building and Construction Waste with Computer-Aided
Manufacturing and Prefabrication.” In Advances in
Informatics and Computing in Civil and Construction
Engineering, edited by Ivan Mutis and Timo Hartmann,
805–14. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Fischer, Matthias. 2015. “Design It! Solving
Sustainability Problems by Applying Design Thinking.”
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 24
(3): 174–78.
Franklin-Johnson, Elizabeth, Frank Figge, and Louise
Canning. 2016. “Resource Duration as a Managerial
Indicator for Circular Economy Performance.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 133 (October): 589–98.
Gasparski, W. 1990. “On the General Theory
(Praxiology) of Design.” Design Methods and Theories 24
(2): 1195–1215.
Ghisellini, Patrizia, Catia Cialani, and Sergio Ulgiati.
2016. “A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected
Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and
Economic Systems.” Journal of Cleaner Production 114
(February): 11–32.
6.0 R e ferenc es
Ghisellini, Patrizia, Maddalena Ripa, and Sergio Ulgiati.
2018. “Exploring Environmental and Economic Costs
and Benefits of a Circular Economy Approach to the
Construction and Demolition Sector. A Literature Review.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 178 (March): 618–43.
Giddens, Cathy. 2011. Rawlinsons New Zealand
Construction Handbook. 26th ed. Auckland: Rawlinsons
Media Limited. Rawlinsons Group Quantity Surveyors
Construction Consultants Cost Engineers.
Management.” 15. Urban Development Series.
Washington, DC 20433 USA: The World Bank.
Hopewell, Jefferson, Robert Dvorak, and Edward
Kosior. 2009. “Plastics Recycling: Challenges and
Opportunities.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1526): 2115–26.
Gorgolewski, Mark. 2017. Resource Salvation: The
Architecture of Reuse. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Horváth, Imre. 2007. “Comparison of Three
Methodological Approaches of Design Research.”
In Proccedings of the International Conference on
Engineering Design, (ICED' 07). Cité Des Sciences Et De
L’industrie, Paris, France, 11.
Graham, Peter. 2005. “Design for Adaptability — an
Introduction to the Principles and Basic Strategies.”
Environment Design Guide. Royal Australian Institute of
Architects.
Hosseini, M Reza, Raufdeen Rameezdeen, Nicholas
Chileshe, and Steffen Lehmann. 2015. “Reverse Logistics
in the Construction Industry.” Waste Management &
Research 33 (6): 499–514.
Guy, B, N Ciarimboli, and Hamer Center for Community
Design. 2007. “Design for Disassembly in the Built
Environment: A Guide to Closed-Loop Design and
Building.” City of Seattle Design Guide. Pennsylvania State
University.
Hradil, Petr, Asko Talja, Margareta Wahlström, Satu
Huuhka, Jukka Lahdensivu, and Jussa Pikkuvirta. 2014.
“Re-Use of Structural Elements.” Finland: VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland.
Guy, Bradley, and Scott Shell. 2006. “Design for
Deconstruction and Materials Reuse.” In Proceedings of
the CIB Task Group, 2006, 20.
Hafner, Annette, Stephan Ott, Eva Bodemer, and Stefan
Winter. 2014. “A Case Study for End of Life Reuse and
Recycling Survey Methodologies: The Höllentalanger
Cottage.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 8
(10): 1211–20.
Hassanain, Mohammad A., and Edward L. Harkness.
1997. “Systems Replaceablility Ensures Sustainability.”
Architectural Science Review 40 (4): 139–46.
Hauberg, Jørgen. 2012. “Research by Design–a
Research Strategy.” Revista Lusófona de Arquitectura e
Educação, no. 5: 46–56.
Hobbs, G, and K Adams. 2017. “Reuse of Building
Products and Materials – Barriers and Opportunities.”
In Proceedings of the International HISER Conference on
Advances in Recycling and Management of Construction
and Demolition Waste. The Netherlands.
Höök, Kristina, Anna Ståhl, Martin Jonsson, Johanna
Mercurio, Anna Karlsson, and Eva-Carin Banka Johnson.
2015. “Somaesthetic Design.” Interactions, June 25, 2015.
Hoornweg, Daniel, and Perinaz Bhada-Tata. 2012.
“What a Waste; A Global Review of Solid Waste
37
Iivari, Juhani, and John R Venable. 2009. “Action
Research and Design Science Research - Seemingly
Similar but Decisively Dissimilar.” In ECIS 2009
Proceedings, 13.
Inglis, M. 2007. Construction and Demolition Waste –
Best Practice and Cost Saving. Proceedings of the New
Zealand Sustainable Building Conference. Ministry for the
Environment. New Zealand.
Chen, P. 2014. 'Innovation of 1.5-Layer Space Frames'
Architecture Research, 4(1), pp. 1-9.
JESC. 2014. “History and Current State of Waste
Management in Japan.” Japan Environmental Sanitation
Center. History and Current State of Waste Management
in Japan. Office of Sound Material-Cycle Society, Policy
Planning Division, Ministry of the Environment.
Jean-Yves, B, C Gwénaëlle, D Guzman Ana, GN
Justo, J Ana, N Silvia, and RQ Marta. 2015. “GTOG:
From Production to Recycling: A Circular Economy for
the European Gypsum Industry with the Demolition
and Recycling Industry: European Handbook on
Best Practices In Deconstruction Techniques.” The
Netherlands: European Commission.
Jones, Mark. 2007. “Accelerated Weathering and
Durablilty.” BRANZ Build Magazine, 2007. 66.
6.0 R e ferenc es
Kalmykova, Yuliya, Madumita Sadagopan, and
Leonardo Rosado. 2018. “Circular Economy – From
Review of Theories and Practices to Development of
Implementation Tools.” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 135 (August): 190–201.
Kendall, Stephen, and Jonathan Teicher. 2000.
Residential Open Building. New York: E&FNSpon.
Kennedy, Greg. 2007. An Ontology of Trash: The
Disposable and Its Problematic Nature. State University of
New York Press.
Kibert, Charles, and Abdol R Chini. 2000. “Overview
of Deconstruction in Selected Countries.” CIB Report
252. Task Group 39: Deconstruction. University of Florida:
CIB, International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building Construction.
Kibert, Charles J, Abdol R Chini, and Jennifer Languell.
2001. “Deconstruction as an Essential Component
of Sustainable Construction.” In CIB World Building
Congress, 11. Wellington.
Kieran, Stephen, and James Timberlake. 2008. Loblolly
House: Elements of a New Architecture. 1st ed. New York:
Princeton Architectural Press.
Kim, M. 2013. “Efficiency and Feasibility of the
Disassembly Process for Curtain Wall Systems.” Masters
Thesis, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Kock, Ned. 2013. “Action Research.” In The
Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.,
2nd ed. Availible at: https://www.interaction-design.org/
literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computerinteraction-2nd-ed/research-through-design. First
accessed: 10/08/2018.
Kolarevic, B. 2001. “Designing and Manufacturing
Architecture in the Digital Age, Architectural Information
Management.” In 19th ECAADe Conference Proceedings,
117-123. Helsinki, Finland.
Kühlen, Anna. 2016. “State of the Art of Demolition
and Reuse and Recycling of Construction Materials.” In
Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2016, 16.
Tampere, Finland.
Lan, Tien T. 1999. “Space Frame Structures.” In
Structural Engineering Handbook, 59. CRC Press LLC.
Lawson, Bryan. 2006. How Designers Think: The
Design Process Demystified. 4. ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier/
Architectural Press.
38
Lawrence, Deborah, and Karen Vandecar. 2015. “Effects
of Tropical Deforestation on Climate and Agriculture.”
Nature Climate Change 5 (1): 27–36.
Lennings, A F, J J Broek, I Horváth, W Sleijffers, and A de
Smit. 2005. “Editable Physical Models for Conceptual
Design.” In Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium TMCE 2000, 11. Netherlands.
Lieder, Michael, and Amir Rashid. 2016. “Towards
Circular Economy Implementation: A Comprehensive
Review in Context of Manufacturing Industry.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 115 (March): 36–51.
Linder, Marcus, Steven Sarasini, and Patricia van Loon.
2017. “A Metric for Quantifying Product-Level Circularity:
Product-Level Circularity Metric.” Journal of Industrial
Ecology 21 (3): 545–58.
Machado, Roberta, Henor Artur de Souza, and Gustavo
de Souza Veríssimo. 2018. “Analysis of Guidelines
and Identification of Characteristics Influencing the
Deconstruction Potential of Buildings.” Sustainability 10
(8): 2604.
McIntosh, J, and M Harrington. 2007. “Bio-SIPs: A
Deeper Shade of Green?” In Proceedings of the 2007
New Zealand Sustainable Building Conference. Auckland.
Maheshwari, R, S Gupta, and K Das. 2015. “Impact of
Landfill Waste on Health: An Overview.” IOSR Journal of
Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology
1 (4).
Månsson, Ola. “Resource and Waste Guidelines
during Construction and Demolition: Kretsloppsrådet’s
Guidelines.” 2015. Sweeden: Swedish Recycling Council.
Marriage, Guy. 2016. “Experimental Construction in a
Timber House.” In Proceedings of the 50th International
Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2016.
McDonough, William. 2016. “ICEHouse and
WonderFrame.” William McDonough & Partners. 2016.
Meis, Adam. 2015. “The True Cost of SIPs: A
Comprehensive Tool for Comparing the Price of
Residential Structural Insulated Panel and Stick Frame
Construction.” Undergraduate Honors Theses, Boulder,
Colorado: University of Colorado Boulder.
MfE. 1997. “The State of New Zealand’s Environment
1997.” New Zealand: The Ministry for the Environment.
6.0 R e ferenc es
Moffatt, Sebastian, and Peter Russell. 2001. “EnergyRelated Environmental Impact of Buildings.” IEA Annex 31
Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings. Annex
31.
Morrison Hershfield Engineering. 2014. “Life Cycle
Assessment of Precast Concrete Commercial Buildings.”
Cradle to Grave Assessment 1. Canada.
MTP. 2008. “Plasterboard - Industry, Product and
Market Overview.” (BNPB1). Market Transformation
Programme. United Kingdom.
Mulhall, Douglas, and Michael Braungart. 2010.
“Cradle To Cradle® Criteria for the Built Environment.” In
EKONOMIAZ. Revista Vasca de Economía, Gobierno Vasco
/ Eusko Jaurlaritza / Basque Government, 75(-4):182–93.
Mullens, Michael A., and Mohammed Arif. 2006.
“Structural Insulated Panels: Impact on the Residential
Construction Process.” Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 132 (7): 786–94.
Muratovski, Gjoko. 2016. Research for Designers: A
Guide to Methods and Practice. University of Cincinnati,
USA: SAGE Publishing.
Nakajima, Shiro, and J Koga. 2009. “Barriers for
Deconstruction and Recycling of the Currently Built Single
Detached Homes.” In Proceedings of the 2009 CMS
Conference on Lifecycle Design of Buildings, Systems and
Materials., 59–65. The Netherlands.
Nallaperumal, Krishnan. 2013. Engineering Research
Methodology: A Computer Science and Engineering
and Information and Communication Technologies
Perspective. 1st ed. India: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Nuñez-Cacho, Pedro, Jaroslaw Górecki, Valentín MolinaMoreno, and Francisco Corpas-Iglesias. 2018. “What
Gets Measured, Gets Done: Development of a Circular
Economy Measurement Scale for Building Industry.”
Sustainability 10 (7): 2340.
O’Leary, Zina. 2010. The Essential Guide to Doing Your
Research Project. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Osmani, M., J. Glass, and A.D.F. Price. 2008.
“Architects’ Perspectives on Construction Waste
Reduction by Design.” Waste Management 28 (7):
1147–58.
Osmani, Mohamed. 2011. “Construction Waste.” In
Waste, 207–18. Elsevier.
39
Papakyriakou, Aigli, and Lara Hopkinson. 2012. “The
Potential of Integrating Design for Deconstruction as a
Waste Minimization Strategy into the Profession of the
Architect.” In Proceedings of 2nd Conference: People and
Buildings Held at Graduate Centre, 6. London.
Parchomenko, Alexej, Dirk Nelen, Jeroen Gillabel,
and Helmut Rechberger. 2019. “Measuring the Circular
Economy - A Multiple Correspondence Analysis of 63
Metrics.” Journal of Cleaner Production 210 (February):
200–216.
Penev, Kiril Dimitrov. 2012. “Design of Disassembly
Systems: A Systematic Approach.” International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research 3 (6).
Peters, B. Guy. 2017. “What Is so Wicked about Wicked
Problems? A Conceptual Analysis and a Research
Program.” Policy and Society 36 (3): 385–96.
Pomponi, Francesco, and Alice Moncaster. 2017.
“Circular Economy for the Built Environment: A Research
Framework.” Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (February):
710–18.
Price, Rebecca, Cara Wrigley, Judy Matthews, and
Alexander Dreiling. 2014. “Design Research for the
Real World: A Design-Led Innovation Model for Action
Research.” In NordDesign 2014, 10.
Rabl, Ari, Joseph V. Spadaro, and Assaad Zoughaib.
2008. “Environmental Impacts and Costs of Solid Waste:
A Comparison of Landfill and Incineration.” Waste
Management & Research 26 (2): 147–62.
REBRI. 2018. “Reducing Building Material Wastes.”
Building Research New Zealand. 2018. Availible at: www.
branz.co.nz/REBRI. Accessed 15/12/2018.
Relph-Knight, Lynda. 2014. “Modular Values.”
Architectural Review. 2014. Resource and Waste Guidelines
during Construction and Demolition: Kretsloppsrådet’s
Guidelines. 2015. Sweeden: Swedish Recycling Council.
Roggema, Rob. 2016. “Research by Design:
Proposition for a Methodological Approach.” Urban
Science 1 (1): 2.
Røpke, Inge. 2004. “The Early History of Modern
Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 50 (3–4):
293–314.
Rosevear, Martin, and Matthew Curtis. 2015. “Physical
Characteristics of New Houses 2015.” Study Report.
Physical Characteristics of New Houses. Wellington:
Building Research New Zealand.
6.0 R e ferenc es
Russell, Allen S. 1983. “Energy Savings in Aluminum
Production, Use, and Recycling.” JOM 35 (7): 51–54.
Saghafi, Mohammad Djavad, and Zahra Alsadat Hosseini
Teshnizi. 2011. “Building Deconstruction and Material
Recovery in Iran: An Analysis of Major Determinants.”
Procedia Engineering 21: 853–63.
Saidani, Michael, Yannou Bernard, Leroy Yann, and
Cluzel François. 2017. “Hybrid Top-down and Bottomup Framework To Measure Products’ Circularity
Performance.” In DS 87-9 Proceedings of the 21st
International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17)
Vol 9. Vancouver, Canada.
Saidani, Michael, Bernard Yannou, Yann Leroy,
and François Cluzel. 2017. “How to Assess Product
Performance in the Circular Economy? Proposed
Requirements for the Design of a Circularity
Measurement Framework.” Recycling 2 (1): 6.
Salama, Wasim. 2017. “Design of Concrete Buildings for
Disassembly: An Explorative Review.” International Journal
of Sustainable Built Environment 6 (2): 617–35.
Saviour, M Naveen. 2012. “Environmental Impact of
Soil and Sand Mining: A Review.” International Journal of
Science, Environment and Technology 1 (3): 10.
Sawyer, Lee. 2015. “Construction and Demolition
Waste Characterization and Market Analysis.” United
States of America: The Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection.
Schmidt, Robert, Jason Deamer, and Simon Austin.
2011. “Understanding Adaptability Through Layer
Dependencies.” In Proccedings of the 2011 Iternational
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), 13. Denmark.
Shaviv, Edna, and Svetlana Pushkar. 2014. “Green
Building Standards – Visualization of the Building
as Layers According to Lifetime Expectancy.” Energy
Procedia 57: 1696–1705.
Siddique, Zahed, and David W Rosen. 1997. “A
Virtual Prototyping Approach to Product Disassembly
Reasoning.” Computer-Aided Design 29 (12): 847–60.
Stapleton, Andrew J. 2005. “Research as DesignDesign as Research.” In Proceedings of the Digital Games
Research Conference 2005, 8. Vancouver, Canada.
Stappers, Pieter, and Elisa Giaccarda. 2013. “Research
through Design.” In The Encyclopedia of HumanComputer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
40
Sun, Feifei, Yun Dai, and Xiaohua Yu. 2017. “Air
Pollution, Food Production and Food Security: A
Review from the Perspective of Food System.” Journal of
Integrative Agriculture 16 (12): 2945–62.
Susman, Gerald I., and Roger D. Evered. 1978. “An
Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (4): 582.
Thormark, Catarina. 2001. “Recycling Potential and
Design for Disassembly in Buildings.” Doctoral, Sweeden:
Lund University, Lund Institute of Technology, Department
of Construction and Arhitecture, Division of Building
Science, Lund, Sweden.
Tingley, Danielle Densley. 2012. “Design for
Deconstruction: An Appraisal.” PhD Dissertation,
Sheffield: The University of Sheffield.
Tripp, David. 2005. “Action Research: A
Methodological Introduction.” Educ. Pesqui 3 (31):
443–66.
Elverum, Sigmund A., Christer W. Tronvoll, and Torgeir
Welo. 2017. “Prototype Experiments: Strategies and
Trade-Offs.” In Procedia CIRP, 60:554–59.
Van Ewijk, S., and J.A. Stegemann. 2016. “Limitations of
the Waste Hierarchy for Achieving Absolute Reductions in
Material Throughput.” Journal of Cleaner Production 132
(September): 122–28.
VCL, (Value Control Ltd), and (Engineering Industry
Training Board) EITB. n.d. “Value Engineering.”
Engineering Industry Training Board. London: Engineering
Industry Training Board.
Venable, John R. 2009. “Identifying and Addressing
Stakeholder Interests in Design Science Research: An
Analysis Using Critical Systems Heuristics.” In Information
Systems – Creativity and Innovation in Small and MediumSized Enterprises, edited by Gurpreet Dhillon, Bernd
Carsten Stahl, and Richard Baskerville, 301:93–112. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Verberne, Jeroen. 2016. “Building Circularity Indicators
an Approach for Measuring Circularity of a Building.”
Masters Thesis, Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of
Technology.
European Commission and Vermeulen, Jurgen. 2016.
“EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management
Protocol.” European Commission.
6.0 R e ferenc es
Westerlo, B van de, Johannes I M Halman, and E
Durmisevic. 2012. “Translate the Cradle to Cradle
Principles for a Building.” Conference Proceedings of
CIB W115 Green Design Conference, 27-29 September,
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina International Council for
Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB):
33–38.
Wood, Alexander, Pamela Stedman-Edwards, Johanna
Mang, and World Wide Fund for Nature, eds. 2000. The
Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss. London ; Sterling, VA:
Earthscan.
Yeheyis, Muluken, Kasun Hewage, M. Shahria Alam,
Cigdem Eskicioglu, and Rehan Sadiq. 2013. “An Overview
of Construction and Demolition Waste Management in
Canada: A Lifecycle Analysis Approach to Sustainability.”
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 15 (1): 81–91.
Yuan, Fang, Li-yin Shen, and Qi-ming Li. 2011. “Emergy
Analysis of the Recycling Options for Construction and
Demolition Waste.” Waste Management 31 (12): 2503–11.
Yuan, Hongping, and Liyin Shen. 2011. “Trend of
the Research on Construction and Demolition Waste
Management.” Waste Management 31 (4): 670–79.
Zou, P, R Hardy, and R Yang. 2015. “Barriers to Building
And Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse And Recycling
A Case Study of The Australian Capital Region.” In
Building Today - Saving Tomorrow: Construction and
Deconstruction : Proceedings of the Sustainability in
Construction and Deconstruction Conference, 28–35.
Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun. 2001. “Action Learning and
Action Research: Paradigm, Praxis and Programs.” In
Effective Change Management through Action Research
and Action Learning: Concepts, Perspectives, Processes
and Applications, 1st ed., 27. Australia: Southern Cross
University Press.
41