Why not reprocessed: identifying factors limiting the uptake of reprocessed structural timber

Abstract

PurposeTimber waste from construction is downcycled into non-structural products, incinerated for energy generation or disposed of in landfills. Existing literature highlights that the use of reprocessed timber for structural purposes is limited. Therefore, this study aims to focus on identifying factors limiting reprocessed structural timber (RST) uptake amongst construction professionals in Australia.Design/methodology/approachCurrent literature shows that the use of reprocessed materials (RMs) depends on user-specific personal factors and broader contextual factors. Therefore, data collection and analysis were based on the attitude-behaviour-context (ABC) theory, which affirms this relationship between personal and contextual factors in determining pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs). A qualitative research approach was adopted, considering limitations with industry expertise and the need for developing an in-depth understanding of limiting factors. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted amongst construction professionals experienced in using reprocessed materials, while the thematic analysis technique was used to analyse interview findings.FindingsPersonal factors that limit the uptake of RST include negative cost and quality perceptions, risk appetite, the tendency to maintain the status-quo, limited decision-making capability and lack of skills and expertise, while contextual factors include higher prices, poor and uncertain quality, limitations with information availability, under-developed supply and drawbacks in the regulatory environment.Originality/valueThe current study is amongst the first to explore the uptake of reprocessed timber for structural uses in Australia. The findings can be utilised to create a stronger demand for RST by directly addressing personal and contextual factors that constrain construction professionals from using RST.

Circular economy in action: the application of products with recycled content in construction projects – a multiple case study approach

“…The findings regarding diverse stakeholders' perceptions of using PwRC in construction projects align with prior research conducted in various regions, including China (Henry and Kato, 2012;Jin et al, 2017), New Zealand (Balador, 2020) and Australia (Tennakoon et al, 2023) itself. Tennakoon et al (2023) reported that while clients are primarily concerned about the cost, construction practitioners focus more on risks associated with the use of PwRC. These findings clearly illustrate the intricate decision-making landscape within the building and construction sector.…”

“…The findings regarding diverse stakeholders' perceptions of using PwRC in construction projects align with prior research conducted in various regions, including China (Henry and Kato, 2012; Jin et al ., 2017), New Zealand (Balador, 2020) and Australia (Tennakoon et al ., 2023) itself.…”

“…Tennakoon et al . (2023) reported that while clients are primarily concerned about the cost, construction practitioners focus more on risks associated with the use of PwRC.…”

“…This might be due to the fact the supply and demand for PwRC is traditionally skewed towards a lower demand (Wang et al, 2014). A recent study by Tennakoon et al (2023) suggested that the utilisation of reprocessed structural timber is constrained by its limited availability both in the quantity and quality required according to construction project requirements.…”