Stakeholder perceptions on implementing design for disassembly and standardisation for heterogeneous construction components

Abstract

The reuse of construction components is considered as a higher value process in a Circular Economy (CE) than recycling. However, this is not yet widely adopted as many barriers still prevent the successful integration of the concept. The ISO20887 standard advocates that the implementation of construction standards will benefit circular reuse. Yet, these standards still need to be developed. To better understand the views of the construction sector, a survey was sent to the network of the Green Deal on Circular Construction (GDCC), led by Circular Flanders. The survey (number of recipients = 629, response rate = 16%) investigates the current implementation of Design for Disassembly and the reuse of construction components. Additionally, it investigates the respondents’ view on how a further morphological standardisation of components and connections, as well as standardisation of procedures can facilitate this reuse of construction components. The result is a concrete set of action points and corresponding actors who need to take responsibility. The stakeholders point out that there is no legal framework for component reuse. Yet, this framework can only be created through their largescale cooperation to create the needed construction standards that will truly enable the circular reuse of components.

Barriers and Enablers for Green Concrete Adoption: A Scientometric Aided Literature Review Approach

“…These factors may discourage the stakeholders from adopting the reuse of components and design for disassembly. [47,70,72] Lack of support and incentives Some companies may face resistance or opposition from internal or external stakeholders, such as managers, employees, customers, suppliers, or competitors, who may not share the same vision or values of the green competitive advantage. Additionally, there may be a lack of adequate incentives, recognitions, or rewards for pursuing the green competitive advantage, such as tax breaks, subsidies, grants, or recognition.…”

“…The article suggests that governments should take on their responsibility to create the necessary regulations and legislation for circular reuse. [47,51,53] Lack of strategic alignment, integration, and collaboration…”

“…A final barrier in this category is the resistance to change that some stakeholders may have toward standardization and design for disassembly which they may perceive as a threat to their project uniqueness and architectural freedom. They may also lack the required knowledge and skills to implement these principles [47][48][49][50][51][52][53].…”

“…The lightweight concrete structures have reduced mechanical properties compared to normal weight concrete [68][69][70]. The reuse of components and design for disassembly require skills, facilities, and technology that are not widely available or feasible [47,50,52,71,72].…”

“…Economic and Market: This section discusses various economic and market barriers that hinder the adoption and implementation of green solutions in different sectors. Some of these barriers are: (i) the British Columbia carbon tax, which increases the compliance costs and reduces the competitiveness of the British Columbia cement industry [54,57,74], (ii) the cost and availability of materials which may make recycled materials less attractive than conventional materials [32], (iii) the cost of renewable energy which is much higher than that of coal, the dominant fossil fuel used in cement manufacturing, (iv) the high costs and uncertain returns of investing in green and digital factors, such as technological innovation and environmental management [64,75], (v) the lack of funding and incentives for nature-based solution implementation and monitoring which may limit the financial feasibility and attractiveness of these projects [34], (vi) the lack of government grants and incentives which may discourage building owners from investing in green measures [64,75], (vii) the lack of government support, which may create policy uncertainty and inconsistency for firms pursuing the green competitive advantage [64], (viii) the lack of support and incentives which may generate resistance or opposition from internal or external stakeholders who do not share the same vision or values of the green competitive advantage, and (ix) the perceived split benefits, which create an imbalance between the costs accepted by the building owners and the benefits appreciated by the tenants [38,47,[68][69][70]72,73].…”