Reuse of Construction Materialskth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1439994/FULLTEXT02.pdfof...
Transcript of Reuse of Construction Materialskth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1439994/FULLTEXT02.pdfof...
DEGREE PROJECT REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT REAL ESTATE ECONOMICS AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT MASTER OF SCIENCE, 30 CREDITS, SECOND LEVEL
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2020
Reuse of Construction Materials A study on how a strategic collaboration can facilitate the reuse
of construction materials
Dana Trabulsi & Milan Sofipour
TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRACTION MANAGEMENT
ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Master of Science thesis
Title: Reuse of construction materials. A study on how a strategic collaboration can facilitate the reuse of construction materials. Author(s): Milan Sofipour & Dana Trabulsi Department: Real Estate and Construction Management Master Thesis number: TRITA-ABE-MBT-20403 Supervisor: Agnieszka Zalejska Jonsson Keywords: Circular Economy, Construction Material Reuse, Strategic Collaboration, Reverse Logistics
Abstract The world’s population alongside the general consumption and use of natural resources has
grown immensely during the past decade. The construction sector is today one of the industries
that has the highest impact on the environment. Therefore, the current linear economy has to be
moved towards a circular economy which aims for material- and resource efficiency. The
concept of reverse logistics for reuse of construction material and the need for collaboration has
been identified as key areas for transitioning to a circular economy and thus has a decisive role
in reducing the construction waste. However, due to the construction industry being
fragmented, a lack of collaboration amongst real estate developers and other market actors has
been identified as a barrier for successfully implementing the reuse of construction materials.
Furthermore, the real estate developer is seen as a key actor to utilise the potential of the reuse
of construction materials by creating incentives and collaborations with other actors involved.
The aim of this paper was therefore to investigate different actor’s perspectives in the real
estate- and construction sector regarding reuse of construction materials and what the key
barriers and incentives are for them to implement it. Furthermore, by gaining an understanding
of each actor's perspective the aim was to create a framework model for how a real estate
developer can achieve a strategic collaboration with different actors to make the process of
reusing construction materials in tenant adaptation projects more efficient. This was achieved
by interviewing key actors within the real estate- and construction industry in order to get an
overall perspective on their views. Furthermore, a survey was conducted to obtain an
understanding of the tenants view on having reused construction materials in their facilities.
The results indicated that the main barriers were; a lack of incentives, lack of logistics &
recovery facilities, an established procedure for quality assuring the material & warranty issues
as well as the tenants’ perception of it. Furthermore, the results show that the real estate
developer can create different types of incentives for the tenants and involved actors in order to
facilitate the implementation of material reuse and an established collaboration. Lastly, a
framework model was presented to demonstrate how a real estate developer can collaborate
with different actors in order to get a deeper understanding of the dynamics of a potential
collaboration.
Acknowledgement
This master thesis marks the final moment for the five-year Degree Programme in Civil
Engineering and Urban Management at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm,
Sweden. The degree project has been written within the Master’s Programme Real Estate and
Construction Management, at the School of Architecture and Built Environment and has been
conducted in the spring of 2020 in collaboration with Vasakronan AB.
First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank our supervisors, Agnieszka Zalejska
Jonsson at KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Kubra Ayata at Vasakronan AB, whose
important input, guidance, support and commitment made this study possible.
We would also like to thank Vasakronan AB for giving us the opportunity of conducting this
study. Furthermore, we would like to thank all the participants in the interview for taking the
time to provide us with valuable inputs, reflection and thoughts in this study, despite the
ongoing pandemic. Without you, this study would not be possible.
Last, but certainly not least, we would like to sincerely thank all our loved ones for the constant
support you have given us during all these years at KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Milan Sofipour & Dana Trabulsi
May 20th, 2020 Stockholm, Sweden
Examensarbete
Titel: Återbruk av byggmaterial. En studie på hur ett strategiskt samarbete kan främja å terbruk av byggmaterial Författare: Milan Sofipour & Dana Trabulsi Institution: Fastigheter och Byggande Master Thesis number: TRITA-ABE-MBT-20403 Handledare: Agnieszka Zalejska Jonsson Nyckelord: Cirkulär Ekonomi, Återbruk av Byggmaterial, Strategiskt Samarbete, Omvänd Logistik
Sammanfattning Världens befolkning har i samband med den generella konsumtionen samt vår användning av
naturresurserna ökat avsevärt det senaste decenniet. Bygg- och fastighetssektorn är idag en av
de industrier som har störst påverkan på vår miljö. Därav behövs en skiftning från den linjära
ekonomin till en cirkulär ekonomi som grundar sig i material- och resurseffektivisering.
Konceptet omvänd logistik för ett ökat återbruk av byggmaterial och behovet av samarbete har
identifierats som viktiga verktyg för skiftet mot en cirkulär ekonomi och därmed en minimering
av byggavfall. Då byggbranschen idag är fragmenterad har bristen på samarbete mellan
fastighetsägare och andra aktörer identifierats som en utmaning för att implementera återbruk
av byggmaterial med framgång. Vidare ses fastighetsägare som en huvudaktör som kan utnyttja
potentialen som finns kring återbruk av byggmaterial genom att skapa incitament och
samarbeten med andra involverade aktörer.
Därför var syftet med denna rapport att utreda olika aktörers perspektiv på återbruk av
byggmaterial inom bygg- och fastighetssektorn samt vad de främsta barriärer och incitament är
för att de ska implementera det. Vidare, genom att få en förståelse för samtliga aktörers
perspektiv var målet att skapa en modell för hur fastighetsägarna kan uppnå ett strategiskt
samarbete med olika aktörer för att effektivisera processen av återbruk av byggmaterial vid en
hyresgästsanpassning.
Detta uppnåddes genom att intervjua huvudaktörer inom bygg- och fastighetssektorn. Vidare
gjordes en enkät för att erhålla en förståelse för hyresgästerna syn på att ha återbrukat
byggmaterial i deras lokaler.
Resultatet indikerar på att de främsta barriärerna var; brist på incitament, logistik &
lagerhållning, en etablerad process för kvalitetssäkring & garantier på materialen samt
hyresgästernas uppfattning av det. Vidare visar resultatet att fastighetsägarna kan skapa olika
incitament till inblandade aktörer för att främja implementering av materialåterbruk samt ett
etablerat samarbete. Slutligen presenterades en modell för att åskådliggöra hur en
fastighetsägare kan samarbeta med andra aktörer för att erhålla en djupare förståelse för
dynamiken av ett potentiellt samarbete.
Förord
Detta examensarbete markerar det slutliga momentet av det femåriga civilingenjörsprogrammet
Samhällsbyggnad vid Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan. Examensarbetet har skrivits inom
mastersprogrammet Fastigheter och Byggande på skolan för Arkitektur och Samhällsbyggnad
våren 2020 i samarbete med Vasakronan AB.
Först och främst vill vi tacka våra handledare, Agnieszka Zalejska Jonsson på Kungliga
Tekniska Högskolan och Kubra Ayata på Vasakronan AB, vars viktiga åsikter, vägledning, stöd
och engagemang möjliggjorde denna studie.
Vi vill dessutom tacka Vasakronan AB för att ha gett oss möjligheten att få genomföra denna
studie. Vidare vill vi tacka samtliga som deltagit i intervjuerna samt tagit sig tiden att förse oss
med viktiga åsikter, reflektioner och tankar i denna studie, trots den rådande pandemin. Utan er
skulle denna studie inte vara möjlig.
Sist men absolut inte minst skulle vi vilja tacka våra nära och kära för det konstanta stöd ni har
gett oss under alla dessa år på KTH.
Milan Sofipour & Dana Trabulsi
20de maj 2020 Stockholm, Sverige
Table of contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Formulation .................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Disposition .................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Literature review ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Circular Economy ................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Reuse of Materials ................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Circular Economy and Material Reuse in the Construction Industry ............................................ 8
2.2.1 Identified Barriers for Implementing Material Reuse ............................................................ 8
2.3 Sustainability Effects of Material Reuse ..................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 Economic Sustainability ....................................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Environmental Sustainability ............................................................................................... 11
2.3.3 Equitable Sustainability ....................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Reverse Supply Chain .................................................................................................................. 13
2.4.1 The Process of the Reverse Supply Chain ............................................................................ 13
2.5 Reverse Logistics ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.5.1 Barriers for Implementing Reverse Logistics in the Construction Industry ......................... 16
2.6 Identified Models in Reuse Management ................................................................................... 17
2.7.1 Summary of the Models ...................................................................................................... 21
2.7 Inter-Organisational Collaboration ............................................................................................. 21
3. Method ............................................................................................................................................. 24
3.1 Methodological Approach .......................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Choice of Respondents ............................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................................ 27
3.4 Ethics ........................................................................................................................................... 28
4. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 29
4.1 Current Business Models Within Reuse of Construction Materials ............................................ 29
4.1.1 Real Estate Developers ........................................................................................................ 29
4.1.2 Contractors .......................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.3 Demolition and Logistics Companies ................................................................................... 30
4.1.4 Suppliers .............................................................................................................................. 30
4.2 Construction Materials with the Highest Potential to Be Reused .............................................. 31
4.3 Barriers for Implementing Reuse of Construction Materials ...................................................... 32
4.3.1 Incentives ............................................................................................................................. 32
4.3.2 Logistics and Recovery facility ............................................................................................. 34
4.3.3 Quality Assurance and Warranties ...................................................................................... 35
4.3.4 Tenants Involvement in the Reuse Process ......................................................................... 36
4.5 Tenants View on Having Reused Construction Materials ........................................................... 37
4.6 Real Estate Developer’s Role in Encouraging Reuse of Construction Material .......................... 38
4.7 Key Factors for Initiating a Strategic Collaboration Between Different Actors .......................... 41
5. Analysis/Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 43
5.1 Influential Factors in the Reuse Process ..................................................................................... 43
5.1.1 Degree of Collaboration ....................................................................................................... 43
5.1.2 Tenant’s Perspective on Reused Materials .......................................................................... 44
5.1.3 Finding Added Value in the Existing Property ...................................................................... 46
5.1.4 Conditions to Finding and Using Suitable Reused Materials ............................................... 47
5.1.5 Logistics and Recovery facility ............................................................................................. 49
5.1.6 Real Estate Developer’s Ability to Facilitate Future Reuse .................................................. 51
5.2 Model Proposition ...................................................................................................................... 52
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 57
6.1 Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................................ 58
6.2 Suggestions on Further Studies .................................................................................................. 59
References ............................................................................................................................................ 61
Appendix I – Disclosure of Survey ......................................................................................................... 69
Appendix II – Interview Questions for Real Estate Developers ............................................................ 73
Appendix III – Interview Questions for the Contractors ....................................................................... 74
Appendix IV – Interview Questions for the Suppliers ........................................................................... 75
Appendix V – Interview Questions for the Architect ............................................................................ 76
Appendix VI – Interview Questions for the Demolition and Logistics Contractors ............................... 77
Appendix VII – Interview Questions for the Waste Contractor ............................................................ 78
Appendix VIII – Interview Questions for the Reuse Consultants .......................................................... 79
Appendix IX – Interview Questions for the Research Institute ............................................................. 80
1
1. Introduction
This chapter aims to present the background to the study, the purpose of the study as well as the research questions this study intends to answer. Furthermore, the limitations of the study are presented in this chapter.
1.1 Background The world’s population is rapidly growing. In less than a century, the world’s population has
grown by over a threefold, to a total of 7,7 billion in 2019 (Roser et al., 2020). Alongside our
increase in population, digitalisation and mass production, the general consumption in the world
has risen (Dobers & Strannegård, 2005). As the earth’s resources are limited, it is of great
importance that the resources are preserved and managed sustainably. Resource efficiency is
essential to achieve, as extraction and the production of material has an immense effect on the
environment (European Environment Agency, 2016).
There is a general consensus among researchers that the “buy, use and throw away” mentality
that we as consumers have is not sustainable (Schrader & Thøgersen, 2011). The real estate-
and construction sector is today one of the industries that has the highest impact on the
environment due to the enormous quantities of greenhouse emissions being liberated when
producing construction materials and the high amounts of waste it generates (Boverket, 2019).
During the years of 2008-2017, the real estate- and construction sector stood for 19% of all
green emission gas released in Sweden (Boverket, 2019). Furthermore, nine million tonnes of
non-hazardous waste are generated annually from the construction and demolition sector which
comprises 31% of all waste, excluding mining waste (Boverket, 2019). Material reuse is a
sustainable way to make use of construction waste destined for landfills. However, only a small
amount of construction material is currently reused, which indicates that there is plenty of room
for resource- and material efficiency in the construction industry (Miliute-Plepiene et al., 2020).
In the European Union, construction and demolition waste stands for 25-30% of all generated
waste in 2018 (European Commission, 2019). In 2008, the European Union issued a new
directive framework which aims to have 70% of all construction and demolition waste recycled
and reused by 2020. However, with the exception of a few EU countries, only about 50% of all
construction and demolition waste is currently being recycled or reused (European
2
Commission, 2018). However, the percentage rate mainly accounts recycled materials, which
distinguishes from reused materials. Recycled materials are existing materials that are turned
into raw or processed material which can be used again, normally for another function. While
reuse refers to a material product that is used again to fulfil the same function as it was intended
for before (European Commission, 2018). In order to achieve the directive framework
objective, the European Union issued a waste hierarchy which prioritises the waste management
principles in order to prevent harm against humans, environment and wildlife. see figure 1.1.
The hierarchy consists of five different management steps; prevention, preparation for reuse,
recycling, recovery and disposal.
Fig. 1.1. EU’s waste hierarchy. Figure inspired by The European Commission's waste hierarchy (2008)
Circular economy is a term well investigated by researchers’ and academics. It is designed to
benefit businesses, society and the environment. In contrast to the ‘take-make-waste’ linear
economy, a circular economy is regenerative by design and aims to gradually decouple growth
from the consumption of finite resources (MacArthur, 2013). The concept of circular economy
differs from a linear economy in the sense of replacing the “end of life” for a material as it
remains in productive use to create additional value (MacArthur, 2013). A circular economy
favours activities that preserve value in the form of energy, labour, and materials (Ellen
Macarthur Foundation, 2017). The built environment has been identified as a key target in The
European Commission policy (2018) to achieve circular economy. Furthermore, the European
Environment Agency (2016a) argues that construction and demolition is one of the five priority
areas for transitioning to a circular economy (Jones, 2018).
3
Fig. 1.2. Illustrations of the material process of linear and circular economy. Source: van der Heijden et al., 2017
There are several research papers investigating the potentials of reuse of construction materials
and how to improve the management of construction waste. However, little progress has been
made in practice to address the implementation of construction material reuse. There is a
consensus among researchers that reuse of building materials in the real estate- and construction
sector has a decisive role to play in reducing waste. Previous research has identified the concept
of reverse logistics which is a process within reverse supply chain, as an important tool in terms
of alleviating environmental issues such as material reuse in the manufacturing and construction
industry (Hosseini et al., 2014). However, some of the biggest obstacles in implementing
material reuse that need to be addressed are; limited access of secondary materials with
sufficient quality, lack of infrastructure necessary and few market actors with low incentives
for cooperation (Nußholz et al., 2019). Furthermore, the real estate- and construction sector is
fragmented and hierarchical, causing a lack of dialogue between real estate developers,
architects, designers, contractors and demolition contractors. Therefore, increasing
collaboration and networking may facilitate and expand the knowledge and understanding of
life cycle concerns in design and construction. A lack of cooperation of all parties such as real
estate developers, contractors, subcontractors, waste contractors, architects and designers are
identified amongst others, as a barrier for successfully implementing reuse of construction
materials (Nakajima & Russell, 2014).
Raw Materials
Production
Use
Waste
Raw Material
Production
Use
Reuse and Recycle
Circular Economy Linear Economy
4
Previous research in the area of material reuse have mostly been focused on the barriers and the
opportunities that arise from implementing it. However, there has been a lack of research on
how collaboration amongst different actors can facilitate reuse of construction materials and
how such a collaboration can be manifested.
1.2 Problem Formulation The real estate- and construction sector stands for a high amount of the waste produced in
Sweden. Although the European Union has established a waste hierarchy with the goal of
having 70% of all construction waste reused or recycled by 2020, only a small amount of all
construction waste is currently being reused in Sweden (European Commission, 2018). This
indicates an unutilised potential in reusing construction materials and the real estate developer
is seen as a key actor to utilise the potential of it by using its influence to create incentives for
other actors involved (Miliute-Plepiene et al., 2020; Andersson et al., 2018). The need for a
collaboration between different actors in the real estate- and construction sector has been
identified as a key driver to further facilitate the material reuse process. However, currently
there is a lack of established models which emphasises on the collaboration between a real
estate developer and different actors in the material reuse process, which is what this paper aims
to provide.
1.3 Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of different actor’s perspectives in the
real estate- and construction sector regarding reuse of construction materials and identifying
what the key barriers and incentives are for them to implement it. Furthermore, by gaining an
understanding of each actor's perspective the aim is to create a framework model for how a real
estate developer can achieve a strategic collaboration with different actors to make the process
of reusing construction materials in tenant adaptation projects more efficient.
1.4 Research Questions The research question can be divided into three different questions;
• Which barriers exist with implementing the reuse of construction materials according
to different actors within the real estate- and construction sector?
5
• How can a real estate developer create incentives for other actors to engage in a
collaboration to facilitate the reuse of construction materials?
• How can a strategic collaboration between a real estate developer and other actors be
actualised in order to streamline the process of using reused construction materials?
1.5 Limitations To be able to conduct the study, some limitations have been made. First and foremost, this study
is centred around the real estate developer and how such an actor can collaborate with other
actors to facilitate the reuse of construction materials. Also, this study and its conclusions is
only based on reuse of construction materials for tenant adaptation projects. Secondly, this
study is limited to a certain number of actors. Some actors, such as governmental entities, legal
representatives and subcontractors have not been taken into account. Furthermore, the survey
conducted was only answered by tenants of the real estate company, Vasakronan, who were
located in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Uppsala. Lastly, this study examines a collaboration
between actors with regards to a general concept of reused material, i.e. this study does not
differentiate on whether the collaboration should be approached differently depending on the
materials reused.
1.6 Disposition This report is divided into six different chapters as seen in figure 1.6.
Fig. 1.6. Visualisation of the disposition of this report
The first chapter is the introduction which aims to give the reader a comprehensive
understanding of the problem and why material reuse is important, followed by the purpose of
this report and the research questions it is intended to answer. The literature review chapter
aims to give the reader an understanding of previous research regarding circular economy, reuse
of construction materials, reverse logistics, reverse supply chain and inter-organisational
collaboration. Thereafter the method chapter is presented, which shows the reader which
approaches the authors have taken in order to obtain the results needed. Furthermore, it aims to
clarify the chosen method and how it contributes to increased validity and reliability. This is
Introduction LiteratureReview Method Results Analysis Conclusion
6
followed by the results chapter which presents the reader with the empirical data that has been
collected from the interviews and survey. In the analysis chapter the authors discuss the results
obtained with the help of the theoretical framework, the literature review and the empirical data
collected. The concluding chapter presents the final conclusions drawn from the authors based
on the previous chapters as well as a review of the reliability and validity of the empirical data
collected and is then finalised with the authors suggestion for further studies.
7
2. Literature review
This chapter will provide the reader with previous research conducted in the field of circular economy, reuse of construction materials and inter-organisational collaboration. Furthermore, this chapter presents previous research on models of reverse logistics and reverse supply chain in the construction industry.
2.1 Definitions
2.1.1 Circular Economy Circular economy is a concept which has gained immense importance to policymakers and
industries in addressing sustainability issues during recent years. Therefore, it is out of
importance to define the concept of circular economy. However, the concept is rather broad and
is based on a fragmented collection of ideas from different scientific fields that all share the
idea of closed loops (Korhonen, 2018). Circular economy is seen as a business model which
contributes to sustainable development (Zhijun & Nailing, 2007). MacArthur (2013) explains
the term circular economy as “an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by
intention and design” and thereby replaces the concept of “end of life” as the material remains
in productive use to create additional value and thus minimise waste. Similarly, Geng &
Doberstein (2008) provides an explanation of the concept that is derived from research in China
and concludes that circular economy is the “realisation of a closed loop material flow in the
whole economic system”. Circular economy emphasises on product, material and component
reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishment and the potential of sustainable energy sources through
the product value chain by a cradle-to-cradle life cycle approach (Rashid et al., 2013).
At first sight, the potential outcomes of circular economy seem solely positive, however it is
out of importance to consider that the positive externalities prevailing within a circular economy
are mostly based on environmental observations, rather than economical (Andersen, 2007).
According to Andersen (2007) the benefits with reuse and recycling materials will gradually
decline whereas there will be a stage where a cut-off will be reached. This is further
strengthened by Daly (2007) who believes that it is impossible for an economic system to be
fully circular due to the entropy law. Furthermore, according to Korhonen et al (2018) there are
several limitations and challenges when trying to implement the concept of Circular Economy
in practice, whereas the limitations are mostly centred around system boundaries as well as
governance and management. Therefore, a new definition of circular economy is developed by
8
Korhonen et al (2018) which besides production and consumption system also focuses on the
holistic contribution it has on sustainable societal development. The definition that Korhonen
has established takes into account the importance of inter-sectoral, inter-organisational
management and governance models (Korhonen et al., 2018).
2.1.2 Reuse of Materials
The general conception about reuse is using the same material in construction more than once
and for the same function as it previously had (Yuan & Shen, 2011). Furthermore, reuse of
materials can also be defined as “new-life” reuse, where materials does not necessarily need to
have the same function as it previously had, but is used as raw material for a new function
(Duran et al., 2006). In this report, reuse will be defined in accordance to the European
Commission Waste Framework Directive (European Commission, 2010);
“Reuse involves the repeated use of products and components for the same purpose for which
they were conceived” – European Commission 2010
2.2 Circular Economy and Material Reuse in the Construction Industry The concept of circular economy has gained recognition among policymakers in the
construction industry. However, research indicates that the building sector is still mostly
discouraging the implementation of it because of certain barriers (Nußholz et al., 2019). Limited
research on how circular economy and circular business models can enable the reuse of
construction materials has been undertaken, therefore there is a need for expanding the research.
2.2.1 Identified Barriers for Implementing Material Reuse
Nußholz et al (2019) examines the potential barriers and potentials for implementing the use of
secondary materials in the building sector and how a transition into a circular business model
can be of importance to increase the decarbonization of the sector. The most common barriers
according to Nußholz et al (2019) is identified to be the limited access of secondary materials
with sufficient quality, the lack of infrastructure necessary and few market actors with low
incentives for cooperation. Similarly, Adams et al (2017) conducted a research by analysing the
largest challenges and enablers that exist when recovering and using secondary materials in the
construction sector. Correspondingly to the study conducted by Nußholz et al. (2019) the most
common barriers for implementing the reuse of secondary materials were mainly centred
9
around the lack of incentives for designing end-of-life issues for construction materials, a lack
of market incentives to aid recovery, the low value of products at end of life, warranty issues
of using reused materials and a general lack of knowledge (Adams et al., 2017). Furthermore,
besides the general lack of knowledge, a major barrier according to Kartam et al. (2004) is the
negative perception the final users have on reused materials, which makes a shift in the end-
user’s mentality essential.
Enablers to successfully implement circular economy through the reuse of materials includes
feasible logistics, the development of higher value markets and clear business models (Adams
et al., 2017). While business models for the reuse of materials in the construction industry has
been developed, the implementation of such circular business models has been rather slow
(Nubholz, 2019). An issue that has been highlighted in previous research is the absence of
market incentives and the lack of incentives for cooperation between different actors, which
can be illustrated in the current lack of circular business models. In order to promote closed and
circular cycles, it is of great importance to include the entire supply chain and involve all parties
from the design stage to the material suppliers and the actors operating in the final stage (Leising
et al., 2018).
Reusing materials are often associated with financial value due to the reduction in costs from
using secondary materials (Verian et al., 2013). However, a limited amount of studies on the
financial aspects of material reuse within the building and construction sector have been made
(Hart et al., 2019). Studies made on circular business models in general often highlight the risks
associated with the uncertainty of the prices of secondary materials, the high costs associated
with labour and reverse logistics (Nubholz, 2019). In the field of recycled materials, whereas a
higher amount of studies has been conducted, Kartam et al. (2004) found that the cost of
recycled materials in comparison to raw material is an important factor in the decision factor of
using recycled materials. Furthermore, Lauritzen (1998) states that recycled materials are only
attractive to use when they are competitive with raw materials, both in terms of cost and quality.
In the context of material reuse, new material is likely to be more preferable due to the necessity
to meet regulatory requirements that secondary materials may struggle to attain (Ferreira et al.,
2015). Similarly, Vares et al. (2019), claims that the main obstacles for reusing construction
materials are the economic aspects listed below:
10
• The overall cost of reused materials may exceed the cost of building with new or
recycled materials, due to the fact that when reused materials come to the market they
may require sampling, testing and certification.
• The second-hand market for construction materials is small. This results in preventing
reused materials to be applied on a large scale, due to a lack of recovery facilities and
information about reused elements from planned and on-going demolitions.
• There is a scarce amount of companies in the market today that are specialised in
deconstruction; designers willing to design buildings using reused materials and
contractors willing to construct buildings with reused materials.
Economic challenges such as financial metrics and a return on the investment is therefore
believed to be one of the biggest challenges with implementing material reuse in the
construction industry (Hart et al., 2019; Adams et al., 2017). Despite the economic challenges
arising, several studies show that a circular economy implementation has the potential to reduce
the total life cycle costs. (Ellen Macarthur, 2017). Mokhlesian and Holmen (2012) show that
the implementation of circular economy in the building sector has the ability to decrease the
total life-cycle cost. This is further strengthened by Jung et al (2015) who states that the total
costs of the entire value chain structure should be considered in the decision-making process of
recovering and reusing secondary materials.
Furthermore, it is important to recognise that in order to achieve economic viability, material
reuse must be accompanied with appropriate business models capable of commercialising price
competitive products that both meet regulatory standards in terms of quality and safety, but also
deliver strong sustainability benefits (Nußholz et al., 2020). The economic viability
accompanied with the business model also need to sort out other issues of interest in what value
the business model creates for the firm and its customers (Wirtz et al., 2016), and for other
stakeholders, in terms of environment and society (Massa & Tucci, 2014).
2.3 Sustainability Effects of Material Reuse There have been several research papers written regarding the reuse of materials in the real
estate and construction sector and its impact on sustainability. Previous research and literature
regarding reuse in the real estate- and construction sector claims to have been motivated by the
three E’s of sustainability; economic, environmental and equity (aka social) (Tobias &
Vavaroutsos, 2012; Wilkinson et al., 2009). However, most of the research that has been made
11
has mostly focused on the environmental and economic impact of reuse in the real estate and
construction sector and has thus mostly focused on two of the three E’s of sustainability
(Mohamed et al., 2017).
2.3.1 Economic Sustainability
A study regarding the effects of reusing materials in refurbishment projects, more specific,
commercial real estates was conducted in 2018 by Lindholm et al. for IVL (Swedish
Environmental Research Institute). The study was a case study based on two of IVL’s own
offices in Stockholm and Gothenburg and was focused on what the effects of the renovations
of the two offices would be from an economic and environmental aspect and was focused on
furniture’s and fixed interior building products, compared to what the effects of the renovation
would be with new materials. The study found that the office renovations with reused materials
ended up with reduced project costs of 1,4 million SEK for the office in Gothenburg and 1,9
million SEK for the office in Stockholm. The biggest reduction in costs came from reduced
purchasing of materials, followed by revenues from sales of used products and then reduced
costs for waste management. However, the study also concluded that reusing materials in the
two offices resulted in an increase of labour cost by 320 000 SEK for the office in Gothenburg
and 350 000 SEK for the office in Stockholm. The reason for the increased labour costs was
according to Lindholm et al. (2018) the fact that by using reused materials in a renovation
project, the overall wage costs increase due to increased planning work from architects and
contractors (Lindholm et al., 2018). Furthermore, since there are many actors participating in
an office refurbishment project, Lindholm et al. (2018) believes it is of importance to agree on
how the new costs and savings for applying reused materials should be divided amongst the
different actors.
2.3.2 Environmental Sustainability
The potential that material reuse has on the environment in terms of reducing embedded
emission has gained increased recognition amongst policy makers, companies and academic
scholars (Merrild, 2016; Moncaster et al., 2019). Several studies show that the reuse of materials
has a significant effect on reducing the negative environmental impact (Cabeza et al. 2014;
Nußholz et al. 2019). The extent of the positive impact varies and is dependent on the type of
material being reused and the processes affiliated with being able to reuse the material, such as
the process of making the secondary material fulfil certain requirements (Nubholz, 2019,
Vadenbo et al., 2017). A case study conducted in Sweden by Thormark (2000) investigated the
12
environmental effects on a building with a large proportion of reused materials compared to
newly produced materials. The study showed that the environmental impacts were about 55 %
lower with reused materials compared to if the materials were new. Of the materials
investigated, the study found that the reuse of clay bricks of roofing clay tiles accounted for the
main decrease in environmental impact and that these materials could be transported over a
long distance and still be environmentally beneficial (Thormark, 2000). Furthermore, a study
made by Nußholz et al. (2020) investigated what the environmental impacts of reusing two
different products, namely concrete and glass would be, compared to using newly produced
materials. The results suggested a carbon saving potential of 56 tons CO2-eq for glass and 11
tons CO2-eq for concrete.
Besides the potential economic benefits from renovating IVL’s two offices in Stockholm and
Gothenburg with reused materials, Lindholm et al. (2018) also came to the conclusion that in
the events of renovating the two offices with reused materials compared to new, the decrease
in waste would be 18 tons for the office in Gothenburg and 12 tons for the office in Stockholm.
Furthermore, the decrease in greenhouse gas emission would be 52 tons CO2-eq for the office
in Gothenburg and 41 tons CO2-eq for Stockholm. This corresponds to a gas emission decrease
of around 60 % per office, compared to new purchased materials (Lindholm et al., 2018).
2.3.3 Equitable Sustainability
As previously mentioned, out of the three E’s of sustainability, equity is the one that has been
focused least on with regards to reuse in the real estate and construction sector. However,
Mohamed et al. (2017) list four potential impacts on social sustainability due to material reuse:
• Creates distinctive communities: Constructing or renovating a building with a primary
focus on creating distinctive communities could have the potential to be more successful
and have a more lasting impact with using reused materials.
• Acknowledges underserved and vulnerable populations: Reuse that specifically focuses
on the needs of underserved and vulnerable communities can help counter the effects of
gentrification.
• Workforce development: Constructing with reused materials could be a key factor in
workforce development to train workers either in deconstruction and preservation
techniques and thus creating more jobs.
13
2.4 Reverse Supply Chain According to Guide & van Wassenhove (2002) the definition of reverse supply chain is:
“The series of activities required to retrieve a used product from a customer and either
dispose it or reuse it.” - Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002
The definition is further strengthened by Prahinski & Kocabasoglu (2006) who states that the
scope of Reverse supply chain also involves the collaboration with other parties and actors
(Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006). The concept of a reverse supply chain implies that the life
cycle of products and materials do not end when being delivered to the end customer, rather,
the end-of-used products can be brought back from the end customers to the suppliers in order
for it to be reused, recycled or disposed (Álvarez-Gil et al., 2007).
The implementation of a reverse supply chain requires a large initial investment; however, it
also causes strategic importance to companies as well as economic benefits (Álvarez-Gil et al.,
2007). The strategic importance can be manifested by the “green image” it offers to the
company which may increase the company’s competitiveness in the market and with its
customers (Álvarez-Gil et al., 2007).
2.4.1 The Process of the Reverse Supply Chain
Important aspects to consider when establishing a reverse supply chain is which activities that
needs to be outsourced versus insourced and how to minimise the costs while maximising the
recovering value. When implementing a reverse supply chain, it also is of great importance to
make rational decisions about the structure of such a chain. Not all reverse supply chains are
identical, however Guide & van Wassenhove (2002) identified that the chain could be divided
into five key processes.
Fig. 2.4.1. Illustration of the Reverse Supply Chain. Source: Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002
Product acquisition
Reverse Logistics
Inspection and Disposition Reconditioning
Re-distribution and Sales
14
Product acquisition The term product acquisition refers to the process of obtaining used products, components or
materials from the user (Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002). According to Prahinski &
Kocabasoglu (2006), there exists three sources of products: those from the forward supply chain
which contains returns of defective or damaged products, those from an already established
reverse supply chain, also called market-driven systems; or those from the waste stream.
Products that enter the reverse supply chain through the waste stream can either be landfilled
or reused due to their recoverable value (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006). Guide & van
Wassenhove (2002) believe that the quality, quantity and the timing of the product return needs
to be carefully coped with in order to prevent receiving a huge number of returned products
with different levels of quality which further decreases the effectiveness of the process.
Retrieving the product efficiently is key to creating a profitable chain while coordinating the
collection of the used product through collaboration with distributors (Guide & van
Wassenhove, 2002).
Reverse Logistics Reverse logistics refers to the process of retrieving the product from the end consumer by
transporting the products to a facility for inspecting, sorting and disposition (Prahinski &
Kocabasoglu, 2006). Reverse logistics contain activities such as; transportation, recovery
facility, distribution and inventory management. During this process, the key objective is to
assess the condition of the return product and determine the level of quality and use a returned
product has (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006). Prahinski & Kocabasoglu (2006) suggested four
pre-dominant groups of product recovery strategies, namely, direct reuse, product upgrade,
materials recovery and waste management.
A business should aim to make decisions on the alternatives based on the quality of the product,
configuration of the product and other necessary variables as early as possible in the returns
process to achieve profitability and decrease logistic costs (Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002).
Products that are identified to be in a good condition can be reused by being returned to the
supply chain for distribution or to the secondary market for resale. Products which are
inadequate, and which does not meet the conditions for being reused, upgraded or recovered
should be incinerated or land filled (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006)
15
Reconditioning If product upgrade or material recovery is decided to be the most appropriate and profitable
product recovery strategy in the disposition process, then, the product is transferred to the
reconditioning process. During this process the product can be repaired, refurbished or
remanufactured. Repair refers to the return of used products to its normal order and refurbishing
refers to achieving a product specified quality standard, while remanufacturing aims at
reconfiguring a product to reach the same quality standard as a new product. (Gobbi, 2011).
However, reconditioning and remanufacturing processes are unpredictable as there exists a
large degree of uncertainty in the timing and quality of returned products (Guide & van
Wassenhove, 2002).
Re-distribution and Sales
If recovered products are to be re-entered into an external market, reconditioned products and
products that are usable can be re-sold to the market (Nuss, 2015). Guide & van Wassenhove
(2002) proposes that companies that are considering to re-sell products firstly need to determine
whether there exists a demand for it or if such a market has to be created (Guide & van
Wassenhove, 2002). If a market has to be created, large investments are required to target
potential customers. Potential customers for the products can consist of both purchasers within
the existing markets such as original purchasers as well as new customers from different
markets for instance such customers who cannot afford new products (Guide & van
Wassenhove, 2002).
2.5 Reverse Logistics
In the context of supply chain management, the management of reusing products and materials
in industrial production processes, also named reverse logistics, was developed to add value to
the current manufacturing processes. (Pacheco et al., 2018). Currently there exists no consensus
regarding the concept of reverse logistics (Nikolaou, 2013). Several authors and researchers
have defined reverse logistics somewhat broadly as the definition of reverse logistics is
sometimes referred to as reverse supply chain. However, according to Guide & van
Wassenhove (2002) the terms should be distinguished as reverse logistics is the process of
retrieving the product from the end consumer for the purposes of capturing value or proper
disposal (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006). According to Nikolaidis (2012), reverse logistics
can be defined as:
16
“the process of logistics management involved in planning, managing, and controlling the
flow of wastes for either reuse or final disposal of wastes” – Nikolaidis, 2012
The most recognised definition is however proposed by the European Working Group on
reverse logistics who defines it as “the process of planning, implementing and controlling flows
of raw materials, in process inventory, and finished goods, from a manufacturing, distribution
or use point, to a point of recovery or point of proper disposal” (Nikolau, 2013). There exist
two different areas where reverse logistics is applicable; after-sales and after-consumption.
Reverse logistics in after-consumption which is the area of most importance in this study
considers products at the end of their lifecycle, products that can be reused and industrial waste
from production processes. A reverse logistics approach should be adapted when products and
materials can be reused and whereas materials will only be disposed of when the total reuse is
unfeasible (Pacheco et al. 2018).
An effective management of the activities included in reverse logistics as well as financial
incentives is essential for companies to adopt a reverse supply chain system. If the total costs
related with the retrieval process exceeds the total cost of new materials or products, firms
would have smaller financial incentives to invest in such a system (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu,
2006). The design for a reverse logistics network has to be tailored according to the size and
frailness of the products and materials involved as well as the economics of their reuse (Guide
& van Wassenhove, 2002). Besides transportation and storage costs, companies should also
consider how rapidly the value of the returned products will decline as well as if logistics should
be outsourced (Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002).
2.5.1 Barriers for Implementing Reverse Logistics in the Construction Industry
The literature on the main barriers regarding reverse logistics has been made across different
industries, such as services, manufacturing and construction (Chileshe et al., 2015). Drawing
upon previous research, the barriers that exists in the construction industry can be categorised
into intra-organisational (internal) and inter-organisational (external). According to Chileshe et
al. (2015), the previous construction-specific literature consists of the following identified
barriers in relation to the two mentioned categories and are illustrated in the table below.
17
Table 2.5.1. Identified barriers within reverse logistics literature in the construction industry
Intra-Organisational Barriers Inter-Organisational Barriers • Higher initial costs of adopting Reverse
Logistics • Risks and uncertainties with using reused
materials • Operational difficulties with providing on-
site space for materials • Lack of awareness amongst organisations
regarding the potential benefits of reverse logistics
• Lack of recovery facilities, infrastructure and an established market for reused materials
• Lack of technical support such as building standards and guidelines for reused materials
• Lack of financial and regulatory incentives • End-users mindset about the lower quality of
reused materials • Low costs of newly produced materials • Lack of awareness of reverse logistics in the
construction industry • Lack of competence and experience in the
workforce
2.6 Identified Models in Reuse Management Previous research made in the field of reuse shows that different management models has been
created. In the aspect of reverse logistics and how it can be applied to the construction sector, a
study was made by Hosseini et al (2014) investigating the appliance of reverse logistics onto
the construction industry with lessons taken from the manufacturing industry. By investigating
previous research literature, Hosseini et al (2014) created one model on how to apply reverse
logistics in the manufacturing industry and another model for applying reverse logistics in the
construction industry. Fig. 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 shows the adaptations of the models created by the
authors (Hosseini et al., 2014).
Fig 2.6.1. Illustration of Hosseini et al’s model of reverse logistics in the manufacturing industry. Source:
Hosseini et al., 2014
18
Fig 2.6.2. Illustration of Hosseini et al’s model of reverse logistics in the construction industry. Source: Hosseini
et al., 2014
Similarly, as Hosseini et al (2014), another research was carried out by Pushpamali et al (2019)
investigating how the decision making of applying reversed logistics in the construction sector
could be streamlined. Hosseini et al (2014) argues that the primary reasons for reverse logistics
are economic factors and the desire for economic gains. However, Pushpamali et al (2019)
argues that the construction sector consumes more substantial quantities of scarce and finite
natural resources compared to other industries. Therefore, reversed logistics must be adopted
in the construction sector, primarily to reduce the negative environmental and social effects
caused by upstream construction activities (Hosseini et al., 2014; Pushpamali et al., 2019).
Thus, Pushpamali et al (2019) suggests a model (Fig. 2.6.3) for the decision on reversed
logistics which emphasises on both forward and reverse flow in order to maximise its
environmental, economic and social benefits. This model also emphasises on the fact that
reverse logistics decisions must be made during the pre-construction phase where planning and
designing takes place (Pushpamali et al., 2019).
Fig. 2.6.3. Illustration of Pushpamali et al’s reversed logistics decision making model. Source: (Pushpamali et
al., 2019).
19
A study by Da Rocha & Sattler (2009) investigated how the collaboration between different
actors in the construction sector could streamline the process of reusing materials from an old
building to a new one. Using a theoretical framework of supply chain management and by
conducting semi-structured interviews with different actors in the construction and demolition
industry, they opted for a model (fig. 2.6.4) for how the process should be (Da Rocha & Settler,
2009).
Fig. 2.6.4. Illustration of Da Rocha & Settler’s supply chain management of reused building materials. Source:
Da Rocha & Settler, 2009
Although the model shows the different ways and actors that can benefit from reused materials,
it is mostly focused on the demolition firm’s perspective and not on all the stakeholders. The
study by Da Rocha & Settler (2009) further showed that the reuse of building components is
primarily supported by economic and social aspects, such as labour costs of deconstruction and
demand for reused materials.
A study by Iacovidou et al (2018) examined how RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) could
ease the flow of information between stakeholders in regard to reusing construction
components. By using a common platform such as RFID, it would be possible for all the
stakeholders to retain the functionality of a construction component through a flow of
information related to its treatment, use and maintenance that requires updates throughout its
entire lifecycle (Iacovidou et al., 2018). The idea of sharing information on a components
lifecycle throughout different stages is further described in a study by Motamedi et al (2011),
who explains that information regarding a construction component should be stored at a suitable
20
location that enables all stakeholders to efficiently access, read and update it accordingly
(Motamedi et al., 2011). Fig. 2.6.5 shows the model for the levels of information flow required
for managing reused construction components between the stakeholders (Iacovidou et al., 2018)
Fig. 2.6.5. Illustration of Iacovidou et al’s, information flow model. Source: Iacovidou et al., 2018.
The model by Iacovidou et al. (2018) shows what type of information that needs to be reported
and also when it needs to be reported. Therefore, it could prove to be a valuable tool for
managing reused construction components between different stakeholders. By providing all the
stakeholders with access to view and update the information, the product data can be followed
up in real time throughout the entire product lifecycle (Iacovidou et al., 2018). However, the
model demands that all the stakeholders have access to RFID, which may not be the case in
practice. Also, it would require unified standards and best of practice guidance (Iacovidou et
al., 2018).
Despite the models presented, few models in reuse management which emphasises on the
collaboration between different actors has been produced. There exists a lack of extensive
research and a big research gap on how such a collaboration can facilitate the implementation
of the reuse of construction materials.
21
2.7.1 Summary of the Models Table 2.7.1. Summary of the models presented in previous chapter
Models Reference Positives Negatives Theoretical Framework
Reverse Logistics in the manufacturing
industry model
Hosseini et al., 2014
Takes into account different ways that materials can be
circular
Mostly adapted to the manufacturing
industry and may not be as
appropriate in other industries
Reverse Logistics
Reverse Logistics in the construction industry model
Hosseini et al., 2014
Takes into account different ways that materials can be
circular
Mostly adapted to the construction
industry and may not be as
appropriate in other industries
Reverse Logistics
Reverse Logistics decision
making model
Pushpamali et al., 2019
Emphasises that decisions
regarding reuse must be taken in the early stages of designing
and planning
Requires an early initiative from the
client to use reused materials, which may not always be of
interest for the client
Reverse Logistics
Supply chain management for
reused construction
components model
Da Rocha & Settler, 2009
Gives a comprehensive view
on the different ways and actors that reused materials can
go
Solely focuses on the aspects of the demolition firms
Supply chain management
Level of information flow for
managing reused construction
components model
Iacovidou et al., 2018
Shows in a thorough way when the
information needs to be transferred and
what it should contain
Requires that all the stakeholders implement RFID into their daily
routines
Not given in the report
22
2.7 Inter-Organisational Collaboration Inter-organisational collaboration refers to the process of collaboration between different
organisations with a wide variety of stakeholders facing complex issues they cannot solve
separately (Franco, 2008). A theoretical perspective to conceptualise inter-organisational
collaboration is inter-organisational domain theory, which emphasises on how collaboration
can be a response to inter-organisational problem domains. A problem domain is an entity that
is socially constructed, arising when a set of actors becomes dependent on each other as the
actions that the actors take in response to a problem occurring can generate potential and
unpredictable consequences for the others (Franco, 2008). An inter-organisational collaboration
between different actors from different organisations can lead to failure, primarily due to
asymmetry of interests and goals (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002), diverse routines, practices and
values (Levina, 2005). However, Gray (1989) argues that the differences in actor’s views,
interests and knowledge when facing a problem becomes a valuable asset, which enables the
actors to develop a shared understanding of the problem. Furthermore, Gray (1985) believes
that the perception of the positive outcome of an inter-organisational collaboration can be
increased for certain actors when incentives are provided.
Decision-making problems in a construction project is often caused by the complexity and the
high number of involved actors which characterises the construction industry (Yamazaki,
2004). Inter-organisational collaboration in the construction industry refers to relationships
between and amongst organisations, such as suppliers, customers, contractors and competitors
that are pursuing mutual interest, whilst still remaining independent and autonomous and thus
maintaining separate interests (Ebers, 2015). Actors in the real estate- and construction sector
can actively reach out and collaborate between organisations, projects and resources and
activities that are engaged over time (Havenvid et al., 2019). For instance, in terms of the
materials and technologies they use within and across projects, the lessons obtained from within
and across projects as well as how they develop new solutions within and across projects
(Havenvid et al., 2019). However, these gains can only be actualised when collaborative
partners trust each other and create business decisions and plans that are mutually beneficial
(Daugherty et al., 2006).
Transitioning to a circular economy in the construction and waste industry goes beyond the
borders of a single actor and stimulates the need for a collaboration among different actors. The
concept of circular economy can therefore be enabled through an inter-organisational
23
cooperation among different actors (Ruggieri et al., 2016). By investigating how opportunities
of cooperation through inter-organisational symbiosis can enable the development of circular
approaches to reuse waste, the authors found that inter-organisational cooperation can in fact
facilitate the potential reuse of waste (Ruggieri et al., 2016).
Despite the potential benefits of inter-organisational collaboration there exists several barriers
to achieving efficient inter-organisational resource management. Nilsson & Baumgarten (2014)
has identified barriers structured into five categories;
o The economic factor includes barriers such as high investment costs, low results due
to limited access to material and an unstable market.
o The social factor includes barriers such as a social isolation between organisations, lack
of time and resources as well as resistance from external factors such as public entities.
o The technological factor includes barriers related to materials such as being unsuitable
for reuse and having quality assurance demands on materials.
o The information related factor contains barriers such as limited knowledge about the
market, limited information on potential benefits and a lacking communication between
companies.
o Policy related factor barriers such as demanding logistic requirements and a lack of
supporting legislations and policies.
24
3. Method
This chapter presents the reader the methodological approaches the authors have chosen in order to conduct this study. Furthermore, this chapter presents the reader with information regarding the respondents interviewed as well as the actions taken to withhold a high reliability and validity.
3.1 Methodological Approach When discussing methodological approach, there are two general categories of methodologies;
quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative methods are more preferable in research questions
such as “how much” and “how many in general to a greater amount”. The aim with such a
method is to apply a relationship between parameters and variables to a general population
(Brannen, 2005). Qualitative methodologies emerged as a criticism towards quantitative
methods (Flick, 2014). Flick (2014) argues that qualitative methodologies are more relevant
today because people live a more individualised life than before and society today is more
diverse for sub-cultures and lifestyles than before. Therefore, according to Flick (2014), a
qualitative research strategy is better adapted to subjective research questions.
In order to fully investigate the research question, this study has used a triangulation of methods.
According to Gardner (1990), a triangulation can be described as “a combination of
methodologies in the study of the same phenomena”. There are different ways to design a
triangulation of methodologies. However, what they all have in common is the assumption that
the effectiveness of a triangulation rests on the premises that the weakness in each single
method will be compensated by the counter-balancing strength of another (Jick, 1979).
Bouchard (1976) argues that by using more than one method in the validation process, you
ensure that the variance is reflecting that of the trait and not on the method. Thus, the merging
of methods can enhance our belief that the results are valid and not a methodological artefact.
This report used an abductive research strategy, which is a combination of an inductive and a
deductive strategy. An inductive strategy means that the theoretical frameworks are based on
the empirical data collected, while a deductive strategy means that the researcher has a
perception on what the results will be based on the theoretical framework and then compare it
to the empirical data collected. By applying an abductive research strategy, it is possible to
25
change the strategy of the research depending on the questions that might arise during the
research (Saunders et al., 2015).
The primary data was obtained by semi-structured interviews with relevant people in the
industry as well as a survey to the tenants. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with
determined main questions, with the possibility to free follow up questions based on the answers
from the respondents. Semi-structured interviews are best suited for subjective questions where
the answers from the respondents are based on their own experience and perception. The choice
of semi-structured interviews is done based on the premise that the respondents might have
different opinions regarding reuse of materials and a semi-structured approach with free follow
up questions thus allows for a deeper understanding of the questions and answers between the
interviewer and the interviewees.
To get an understanding of the tenants view on reuse, the most ideal approach in this study was
to conduct a survey. There is always a risk for bias and error with a survey, but the procedure
used has a major effect on the likelihood that the results will be accurate and in terms with
reality (Fowler, 2009). In order to minimise the risk of potentially receiving answers that do not
correspond with reality, a survey should have standardised questions (Fowler, 2009). To collect
enough participants, the survey was internet-based and sent to a total of 400 companies who
are tenants to Vasakronan which resulted in a total of 40 responses. To decrease the risk of bias,
the survey was anonymous and the only information the tenants had to disclose was which
sector their company operates in.
An adequate approach to complete the primary data is to complement it together with secondary
data and then compare the results from the two. Saunders et al. (2015) argues that by
complement the primary data with secondary data, it is possible to further argue for the data
obtained by the primary data, or even discover new results by triangulation (Saunders et al.,
2015). Therefore, secondary data has been obtained by an extensive literature review regarding
previous research and literature in this topic. The literature review mostly consisted of peer-
reviewed scientific journals and governmental reports.
By gathering the primary data from the interviews and survey as well as secondary data from
investigating previous models made in the field of reuse management, the aim is to develop a
26
new framework model for optimising the management of reused materials and how a strategic
collaboration between actors can be incorporated in such a model.
3.2 Choice of Respondents When choosing respondents to interview, a lot of emphasis was put to conduct interviews with
relevant actors active in a tenant adaptation project from different fields within the real estate-
and construction industry. This was done due to the fact that by interviewing actors from
different fields, it would then be possible to locate common challenges these actors face and
how each of these actors can collaborate with each other. Therefore, interviews have been
conducted with representatives from real estate companies, architectural firms, demolition
firms, waste firms, contractors, material suppliers, logistics companies and consultants
specialised in reuse of construction materials. The respondents interviewed represents the
following companies; AMF Fastigheter, Castellum, Hufvudstaden, Skanska, NCC, Skanska
Hus, Ragnsells, Lotus Maskin och Transport, CS Riv och Håltagning, Byggpall, Interface,
Nordström Trä, Moelven, Omreda, Kompanjonen, White Arkitekter and IVL Svenska
Miljöinstitutet. Table 3.2.1 shows each representative, their role in the company and how the
interview was conducted. The questions asked in the interviews will be presented in the
appendix at the end of this report.
Table 3.2.1. List of the respondents and their role in the company
Respondent
Type of company
Role in the company
How the interview
was conducted
Real Estate Developer 1
Real estate company Head of Sustainability Telephone
Real Estate Developer 2
Real estate company Head of Sustainability Microsoft Teams
Real Estate Developer 3
Real estate company Head of Sustainability Microsoft Teams
Contractor 1 Construction company Sustainable Business Developer
Telephone
Contractor 2 Construction company Research and Innovation Coordinator
Telephone
Contractor 3 Construction company Project Manager Telephone
Waste Contractor 1 Waste contractor Contract Manager Telephone
27
Demolition and Logistics Contractor 1
Demolition and logistic company
Project Manager Telephone
Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2
Demolition and logistic company
Head of Quality and Environment
Telephone
Supplier 1 Supplier of construction pallets with
specialisation on reused pallets
Project Manager
Skype
Supplier 2 Supplier of textile and floors
Sustainability Ambassador
Telephone
Supplier 3 Wholesaler of wood Sales Manager Telephone
Supplier 4
Supplier of prefabricated construction modules
Marketing Director Skype
Consultant 1 Independent consultant in reuse and renovations
Consultant in reuse and renovations
Telephone
Consultant 2
Independent consultants in reuse of construction
materials
Consultant in reuse
Telephone
Architect 1 Architectural Firm Architect Skype
Researcher 1 Research institute funded by the Swedish
government
Project Manager Mail
3.3 Reliability and Validity Reliability and validity in research studies are of utmost importance. There is a general
consensus amongst researchers that all research must be open for criticism and evaluation. To
not be able to assess the importance of a study, the soundness of its methods, the accuracy of
its findings, the integrity of the assumptions made, or conclusions reached, could have
devastating consequences. Empirical findings that prove to be ambiguous or incomprehensible
may result in a waste of time and effort, while empirical findings which are quite frankly wrong
may result in the implementation of dangerous or harmful practices (Long & Johnson, 2000).
According to Polit et al (2001), validity can be defined as “the degree of consistency or
dependability with which an instrument measures the attribute it is designed to measure”, while
reliability is defined as “the degree to which an instrument measures what it is intended to
measure”. In order to minimise the risk of low reliability and validity, some actions have been
taken in this research:
28
• The respondents were chosen based on their expertise and experience within the real
estate and construction sector and also within reuse of materials.
• The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured way in order to have a freer
interview with relevant follow up questions that adds to a deeper understanding of the
questions and answers.
• The interviews were recorded to ensure the minimisation of loss of information from
the time of the interviews to when it is analysed and written down.
• The questions were formulated so that the risk of misinterpretation is minimised.
• The secondary data from the literature review was obtained from peer-reviewed journals
and governmental reports.
• The survey conducted was anonymous. This will ensure that the respondents will
express their opinion more freely, without feeling that they are going against company
policies or jeopardising their own interests.
3.4 Ethics Every researcher has an obligation to conduct research within the frames and aspects of the
ethical standards. Therefore, this research was conducted according to Bryman & Nilsson’s
(2011) four principles of research ethics:
• Information. The people participating in a research project shall be informed of the
purpose of the research. This includes that the participants shall know that their
participation is voluntary and not forced upon. They shall also be informed that they
have the right to drop out of the research if they want to.
• Consent. The people participating in a research have the right to decide for themselves
the level of participation they wish to have. They can themselves choose not to answer
a question if they do not wish to.
• Confidentiality. The personal data from the participant will be treated with the utmost
confidentiality. This is to prevent unauthorised people from getting access to their
personal data.
• Use. The empirical data obtained from the participants will only be used for the purpose
of this research.
Another key aspect in ethics is diversification amongst the participants. The goal of this
research is to obtain data from people with different ethnicity, gender, professional and
background.
29
4. Results
This chapter presents the reader with the empirical findings obtained from the interviews and the survey conducted. The empirical findings in this chapter is focused on the barriers as well as the incentives required to implement material reuse and participate in a strategic collaboration for material reuse.
4.1 Current Business Models Within Reuse of Construction Materials To obtain an overview of the present approach of how companies within the real estate- and
construction sector works with material reuse and identify potential difficulties with fully
implementing a circular approach to reuse, the respondents were asked about their company’s
current business model related to material reuse.
4.1.1 Real Estate Developers
According to the respondents within the real estate sector there exists no clear and common
framework for working with reuse of construction materials. Each real estate developer’s
business model differs depending on the company’s environmental awareness and established
goals within the firm. However, the company’s business models are similar in several aspects,
for instance, a majority of the real estate developers mainly work with transferring materials
that can be reused within their own construction projects. When working with reconstructing a
property, Real Estate Developer 1 mentions that they use a third-party consulting company that
specialises in reuse to make an inventory and quality assurance of the existing materials within
the premises to determine what can be reused. Real Estate Developer 2 mentions in the
interview that their existing strategy to minimise waste and to encourage the implementation of
reusing materials is mainly through putting demands on the contractors that only a certain
amount of waste can go to the landfill, which indirectly forces the contractors to reuse
construction materials. Real Estate Developer 3 emphasises that their business model focuses
on planning buildings that do not require demolition when a new tenant is moving in. Therefore,
constructing flexible buildings with materials that are more expensive and are meant to last
longer than other materials is more preferable. Thus, planning for buildings to last longer and
preserving their current property stock in order to prevent the need for reusing is their main
business strategy rather than constructing with the intent of reusing. The real estate developer
uses standardised materials which are seen as exclusive, has high-quality and has a long
lifespan, materials used are for instance marble tiles in the restrooms.
30
“Focus should be emphasised on constructing and designing to avoid the need to reuse
materials, rather than focusing on how to reuse materials. Constructing buildings with a
long-term perspective will diminish the need for demolition and reuse of materials.” - Real
Estate Developer 3
4.1.2 Contractors
Out of the three contractors interviewed, two of them are currently developing their business
models to implement reuse of construction materials on a larger scale. Contractor 1 mentions
that two business models are in progress, however the respondent could not disclose
information on the content due to them being in an early testing-stage, only that they differ in
two important aspects: purchasing strategy and quality assurance. Unlike previous
respondents, Contractor 2 reveals in the interview that the company has an internal digital
platform where they can share leftover materials from their own construction sites which can
further be reused in other of their construction projects. In terms of quality assurance, the
company is currently developing methods to assure the quality of the reused materials,
according to the respondent samples of materials are sent to RISE (Research Institutes of
Sweden) for quality assurance.
4.1.3 Demolition and Logistics Companies
Demolition and Logistic Contractor 2 that was interviewed has a fully established circular
business model for reusing construction materials. The company has a subsidiary which sells
reused construction materials to third party customers. Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2
mentions in the interview that the company and its subsidiary is responsible for dismantling,
making quality assurance of the materials and then transporting it to their recovery facility. The
company usually plans ahead to match a certain demolition process of a building with a
construction process that is going on at the same time, to be able to reuse the materials from the
demolition. The company has also applied an own climate calculator to determine and present
how much CO2 emissions can be saved by reusing certain construction materials to the client.
Furthermore, the subsidiary company is not only bound to the parent company itself, but also
receives materials from external companies and actors.
4.1.4 Suppliers
Similar to Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2, Supplier 1 has a fully established business
model that specialises in reusing construction pallets. The circular model is based upon the
31
contractors making a request to the suppliers that they want their supplies delivered through the
company. The supplier then purchases pallets from the company and delivers their goods on
these pallets to the construction site. Once the pallets have been used, they are collected on the
construction site and purchased as well as brought back by the company for quality assurance
and are further restored if required. The model is based on being non-profitable to encourage a
circular implementation of reuse, thereby the supplier gets full coverage for the pallet
independent of its condition when being purchased back.
Supplier 2 has an established circular business model in their branches in the United Kingdom
and in the Netherlands. In the interview, Supplier 2 mentions that they are currently
investigating different circular business models in Sweden. However, there is currently no
established model for the Swedish market. As of today, the business models that the company
uses for the Swedish market consists of partnering with a third-party company in the
Netherlands, the same third-party company that the Dutch branch partners with. The floor
contractors dismantle the textile rugs which are then transported to the third-party company in
the Netherlands which is further responsible for restoring, stocking and then selling the material
to a new customer, which in some cases is the original customer. The third-party company also
rates the condition of the textile floor which enables the end-customer to choose which quality
they prefer. Similarly, Supplier 4 mentions in the interview that they first and foremost work
with reuse internally within the facility. Supplier 4 mentions that there is usually a contractor
between them and the real estate developer whom the supplier works together with.
Additionally, Supplier 4 mentions that they are developing a strategy to bring back the materials
for reconditioning more effectively. However, this alternative is considered as the last
prioritised option, since reusing internally within the facility decreases logistical demands.
4.2 Construction Materials with the Highest Potential to Be Reused In order to examine which materials, have the highest potential to be reused for a tenant facility
adaption, we asked all the respondents which materials they considered had the highest potential
to be reused. Figure 4.2.1 shows their response. The figure below shows that the majority of
the respondents believe that windows and doors have the highest potential to be reused, mostly
because of the simplicity of dismantling and mantling them back on. Furthermore, some of the
respondents also believe that textile floors and ventilation also have a high potential to be
reused. Textile floors mostly because of the simplicity to dismantle and restore it and then
32
mantle it back on, ventilations channels because, according to Contractor 1, they have been
standardised since the 1960’s and do not need to be modified substantially. Other materials
such as steel and concrete are mostly mentioned because of their environmental impact upon
production and would thus be the best material to reuse from an environmental standpoint.
Figure 4.2.1. Materials with the highest potential to be reused according to the respondents.
4.3 Barriers for Implementing Reuse of Construction Materials
4.3.1 Incentives According to the respondents, different types of incentives have to be developed for facilitating
the reuse of construction materials. Most of the respondents interviewed agree that in order to
fully implement reuse of construction materials at a higher rate than today it needs to be
economically feasible and therefore economic incentives are required. A reason for
implementing economic incentives according to the interviews is that using secondary materials
often becomes more expensive than buying new materials which makes it non-profitable. Real
Estate Developer 2 also mentions that in certain projects the costs for the reuse consultant who
carry out the inventory and the costs for reconditioning the materials exceed the costs for
purchasing new construction materials. Real Estate Developer 1 believes that economic
incentives from the government are necessary for those parties involved that do not have the
climate issue as a priority. However, according to Supplier 1 reusing construction materials can
be cheaper if solutions for creating economic incentives within the building sector can be made
without the involvement of authorities.
33
Some respondents claim that the environmental benefits that arise with reusing construction
materials are crucial and should act as the most important incentives. Therefore, respondents
have emphasised that it would be beneficial to create further incentives by demonstrating a CO2
emission consumption for each material which can be reused, contrary to the CO2 emission
consumption of buying newly produced materials of the same kind. During the interview with
Supplier 2, the respondent mentions that the company has goals to be climate neutral by the
year 2040. Because of the company goals, they are inclined to continue with the present
business model for reusing textile floors despite it not being economically feasible today.
“It is acceptable that it costs the same or more right now until the process for reuse has been
refined” - Supplier 2
However, many agree that despite the environmental benefits, material reuse cannot be
implemented if there is no economic feasibility with it. Both of the reuse consultants
interviewed mention that one way to tackle the economic concerns is by adding value to
properties that have reused construction materials. However, they suggest two different means
to add value to the property. Consultant 1 and Architect 1 suggests that that an office space that
has been built of reused construction materials should lead to a higher real estate value and a
higher willingness to pay for tenants, while Consultant 2 suggests that real estates with reused
construction materials should receive environmental certifications which thus adds value to the
real estate and creates incentives for the tenants.
Another way to solve the issue of lacking incentives amongst actors in the industry is by
governmental involvement. A real estate developer mentions in the interview that one way to
increase the incentives could be by demands put by politicians and lobbyists for implementing
a circular economy. Another way for the government to involve and increase the incentives is
by affecting the property tax. One of the reuse consultants mentions in the interview that a
decreased property tax on real estates with reused materials would raise the real estate value
and thus serve as an incentive to the real estate owner. According to Supplier 2, another
approach could be by further taxing newly produced construction materials, this would result
in increased incentives amongst actors to further implement reused construction materials as it
will be more economically beneficial. However, Supplier 1 believes that the government should
set up goals for the building sector to achieve rather than introducing demands as the
34
involvement of authorities may lead to bureaucracy. However, other respondents believe that a
combination of legal requirements and incentives can promote a circular economy and
encourage the use of secondary construction materials.
4.3.2 Logistics and Recovery facility A big challenge that was highlighted during the interviews was the issue of logistics and storage.
The process for intermediate storage of materials that is indented to be reused by real estate
developers is similar to each other. First and foremost, all respondents within the real estate
developing companies mention that materials which will be reused are normally stored in the
existing facility that is being rebuilt. If no such storage exists, the materials are stored in their
own facilities nearby. However, a challenge with this according to the respondents is that it is
difficult to find such intermediate storage, especially in central areas. According to Real Estate
Developer 3 there exists no free storage in their facilities in central areas due to them having a
higher market demand and is therefore fully leased by the real estate owner with no available
space. A challenge arising concerning the logistics according to Real Estate Developer 2 is that
there should exist large volumes of reused materials for it to be financially profitable. This is
further strengthened by Supplier 1 who believes that logistics within a circular economy may
enable a negative environmental impact due to the material having to be transported an
additional time and whereas a low volume of material will enable a larger amount of transports
which would not be cost-efficient. As contractors primarily work with construction materials
on construction sites Contractor 1 mentions that questions arise concerning how leftover
materials can be transported from one construction site to another and also emphasises on the
importance of the quantity of material.
The real estate developers interviewed in this study has most of their commercial buildings
located in the central parts of Stockholm, where as much space as possible should go to tenant
leasing. Therefore, according to the respondents, stocking on construction materials in their
own premises is not the best solution. One solution to this problem is according to respondent
1 to have a common recovery facility between the real estate developer in an area outside of the
city-centre where rents are lower. Furthermore, the respondents believe that the transportation
and recovery facility should be managed by a third party. This is also suggested by Consultant
2, who claims that logistics and recovery facility should be provided by a third-party company
that can manage this type of businesses at large quantities.
35
Consultant 2 mentions in the interview that one possible way to solve the issues of logistics and
recovery facility could be by demolition or waste companies expanding their services to also
include transport and recovery facility. However, according to Demolition and Logistics
Contractor 2, the logistics of material reuse which includes dismantling the materials, requires
competence and experience for it to be handled efficiently. Waste Contractor 1 mentions in the
interview that despite the fact that they today do not actively work with reused construction
material, they do have the capacity to in theory be able to place containers on the construction
site where the demolition firms place all the materials which are then transported and possibly
also stocked by the waste contractor. However, according to Waste Contractor 1, there has to
exists a sufficient market and economic feasibility for them to engage in such a collaboration.
“It could be as standardised as the process with construction waste is today, as long as there
is an economic feasibility” – Waste Contractor 1
Demolition and Logistics Contractor 1 states that if they should expand their services to also
dismantle, transport and store products, it requires for them to have a recovery facility to hold.
Furthermore, a new customer for the dismantled products has to be ensured before the
dismantling process begins. According to the respondent this is vital to ensure that both
economic and time feasibility is maintained within the project.
A way to tackle the concerns regarding quantities and the low market for reused materials is to
increase the incentives amongst actors by increasing their knowledge regarding the economic
effects of reused construction materials, according to Researcher 1. Furthermore, Consultant 2
suggests that by planning to reuse at an early stage of the planning process and making an
inventory of the real estate owners internal existing stocks could increase the quantities and
raise the market for reused materials. Implementing an electronic register of the properties and
their inventory, similar to what they have in the Netherlands, that contains information such as
age, characteristics and quality could improve the inventory and demolition process, according
to Waste Contractor 1.
4.3.3 Quality Assurance and Warranties One challenge that was brought up amongst all the interviews is the challenge concerning
quality assurance and warranties on reused construction materials. Demolition and Logistics
Contractor 2 mentions that there exists a common expectation that the warranty for newly
36
produced materials should be the same for reused materials. The respondent believes that it is
of great importance that quality assurances which are relevant to reuse construction materials
are created, to ensure a form of safety for the customer. A challenge with this according to the
respondent is that a guarantee for newly produced material is associated with it being expected
to last for a number of years, while this might be more difficult to do for reused materials. The
respondent means that a guarantee for reuse should focus on the characteristics of the material
and on guaranteeing a certain level of quality, rather than guaranteeing that it will last for a
certain number of years. According to the contractors, challenges also occur for materials that
have to be CE marked, which can be difficult to find amongst former components, which
complicates the purchasing process of materials.
When managing reused construction materials, making sure the withhold the quality standards
issued by regulations is essential. In the interview with Consultant 2, the respondent mentions
that eight parameters can be used in determining whether the material is suited for to be reused
or not, they are; demand, ability to dismantle, quantity, age, condition, form, foresight and
function. When interviewing the real estate companies, Real Estate Developer 1 and 2
mentioned that their quality assurance on materials is made by hiring a third-party consulting
company that performs the quality assurance. The same issues with warranties are mentioned
by Contractor 3, where in the interview, the respondent mentions that in order to set a warranty
time from contractor to developer, the same warranty time must be set from supplier to
contractor.
When being asked about solutions for streamlining the process of quality assurance concerning
reused construction material, Real Estate Developer 2 mentions that there exists no building
product requirements and standards for circular material today as there exist for newly produced
materials. The lack of standards and product requirements puts a restraint on the real estate
developer to follow up and measure the requirements that have been set on the contractors. The
respondent therefore believes that product declarations and standards for circular materials must
be established in order to more easily ensure quality of the reused materials.
4.3.4 General Perceptions of the Tenants’ View on Material Reuse A key factor in the possibility to implement reused materials in a tenant reconstruction is by
coming to an agreement with the tenant. However, according to the real estate developers,
tenants’ general view on reused materials is that the materials are old and do not have the same
37
quality and appearance as newly produced materials and thereby it is not a suitable and
attractive choice for them.
Another aspect is, according to Supplier 2, that most tenants’ main priority is to reconstruct the
facility with regards to financial aspects and are therefore more likely of choosing newly
produced materials as they tend to be cheaper. According to Supplier 1, it is also important to
differentiate between tenants when selling the concept of reused materials. While some may be
open to it when presented with the concept of reusing and avoiding waste, others may not see
it beneficial for their businesses.
4.5 Tenants View on Having Reused Construction Materials Out of the 40 responses obtained from the survey, 85% of the respondents answered that they
have knowledge on what the term reuse of construction materials in a tenant adaptation means.
Also, when asked what the tenants associate the term reused construction materials with, 92,5
% associated it with “Reusage of a functional and adequate material” rather than an “Old and
worn out material”. Furthermore, when asked to rank their view on having reused construction
materials in their premises, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is least positive, and 5 is most
positive. A total of 57,5% ranked their view at a scale of 5, implying that they have an
overwhelmingly positive view on using it. This is further strengthened in the answers when
being asked on whether the tenants would prefer a facility with partly reused materials over a
facility with only newly produced materials. Out of the respondents, 90% would prefer a facility
with partly reused materials over a facility with only newly produced materials, when being
presented with information on how much CO2 emissions can be saved per square meter office
space.
When tenants have determined to have reused materials in their facility, 62,5% rank
functionality of the materials as their highest priority, over the materials aesthetic appearance
and it being financially favourable. This could be the reason why the respondents ranked steel
girders and windows as the two materials tenants would most likely prefer to have as reused
materials in their facility. However, for the tenants to determine to have reused materials in
their offices, several other factors other than it being environmentally beneficial and
strengthening the company’s environmentally friendly image is decisive. For instance, some
respondents emphasise on that size, location, rent level and that the facility accommodates to
38
the needs of the business as important factors before considering implementing the reuse of
construction materials.
Although the tenants' views on reused construction materials in their facilities is
overwhelmingly positive, 61% of the tenants answered that they would expect a decrease in
rent if they would have reused materials in their facility. Furthermore, 65% answered that they
would not embrace reused materials in their facility if it would result in an increase of the rent.
For full disclosure of the survey, please see appendix at the end of the report.
4.6 Real Estate Developer’s Role in Encouraging Reuse of Construction
Material During the interviews conducted, there is a general consensus amongst the respondents that the
real estate developers have a significant part in the process of further implementing the reuse
of construction materials. The respondents provided different answers based on their
relationship with the real estate developers. Many of the respondents interviewed mentioned
the role of the tenants and how important it is from the real estate developer and architect to
sell the concept of reused materials to the tenants. An approach that the real estate developers
and architects can take to sell the concept according to Consultant 1 is for them to change the
mentality and the general view tenants have on reused construction materials.
Additionally, some emphasise on the importance of actually determining reusing at an early
stage of the planning process. Contractor 3 mentions in the interview that the developers should
at an early stage in the planning process determine which materials can be reused and at what
quantities and thereby make an inventory of the existing materials. However, the architect as
well as the reuse consultants believes that the real estate developers must start a step earlier by
identifying the values that exist in the facility, building or neighbourhood. The architect
emphasises that the architects and designers should be involved early in the process by helping
the real estate developers in identifying values, both in the building as a whole, but also in the
existing materials before the design of the new facility begins. Today, most of the architect’s
work is usually completed when the drawings are completed and has gone to procurement,
however the respondent thinks that it is out of importance that the architect is involved in the
whole building process, from designing, to follow-up, to dismantling and to the management
of the building to utilise the process of reusing construction materials. The respondent believes
39
that the real estate owners have to think of buildings as material banks and as a storage space
for future assets and therefore structure their buildings to benefit and suit material reuse.
Therefore, the respondent believes that the real estate developers should have a long-term
perspective which can be achieved by having a long-term collaboration with the designers and
architects of the buildings. By including the same architects and designers in the management
phase, it would result in the designers having more knowledge in the previous materials used
and the overall design of the building which would simplify the process of reusing those
materials in a future tenant facility adaption, and would thus, save time and money for the real
estate developer.
“The more knowledge we have of the buildings, the better we can refine its resources and
identify its potential values” - Architect 1
The respondent also mentions the importance of the demolition process and that it should be
integrated in the building process, rather than being performed separately. This is further
strengthened by the demolition contractor who believes that in order for them to expand their
usual business model to also include dismantling products, the real estate developer has to
assign more time for the dismantling process in the demolition phase.
“The real estate developers have to plan and make time for the inventory and dismantling
process in the time plan, otherwise the schedule will be pressured which will result in
demolition of materials that could have been reused. However, with thorough planning the
process can be streamlined” - Demolition and Logistics Contractor 1
Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2 further mentions in the interview that the time for test
projects are over and that real estate developers must integrate reused materials as a standard in
their business models. Furthermore, Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2 mentions that it is
not necessary to construct an entire building with reused materials, but that it can be minimised
to one floor or one premise, as long as it is done. Another aspect that is emphasised in the
interviews is that there needs to be a market for reuse construction materials pushed by the
developers. If there is not a market with a substantial volume of reused materials, then it would
be difficult to compete against newly produced materials from factories which has streamlined
their production.
40
The importance of the cooperation between developers and contractors is mentioned in the
interviews. While some respondents, such as Supplier 1 and Consultant 2, want to see the
developers put higher demands toward the contractors, Contractor 1 would rather see that the
developers are less specific in their description in the procurement phase in order to give more
flexibility and room for creativity for the contractors to scan the market for reuse construction
materials. A way for the real estate developer to create conditions for reuse is by having
requirements associated with “design to reuse” which for instance can be that the materials they
construct the building with should be constructed in such a way that it is possible to dismantle
them in the future. The respondent also highlights how the requirement “zero waste to landfill”
can in cooperation with the real estate developer lead to incentives for using a higher amount
of reused materials. According to the Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2, many real estate
developers have procurement requirements that specify the waste going to a certain waste
manager which the respondent means creates obstacles for reusing construction materials.
For contractors, working with reused construction materials often leads to a risk concerning the
guarantee that they are not willing to take. Contractor 1 mentions that the developers should be
open to having a lower warranty time, as this creates opportunities for the contractor to increase
material reuse when having the option to use materials that has a lower lifespan. The respondent
further mentions that the warranty time should depend on the tenant’s length of contract and
the time span until the next tenant moves in and therefore the materials do not always have to
have a high warranty time as the material may be replaced when a new tenant moves in. The
respondent highlights that the body and the roof of the building are the parts that should have a
high warranty time. However according to the architect interviewed, the warranty time for
material should be longer as it should be considered as a long-term investment that can be
distributed to the next tenant as well, providing that the material remains its functionality and
quality. Another way of managing the risk of warranties from developer to contractor is
according to Contractor 2, by having a risk premium towards the real estate developer.
“The developer must take a greater part of the risk that usually is put on the contractor,
because the contractor cannot guarantee the quality on all material” - Contractor 2
41
4.7 Key Factors for Initiating a Strategic Collaboration Between Different
Actors When asking the respondents how they think a strategic collaboration might be structured, the
answers were different depending on their company's perspective. However, one aspect that a
majority of the respondents had in common was that in order for a strategic collaboration to be
successful, it has to be non-competitive. Furthermore, it is of importance that each actor sets
common goals which all parties can benefit from and that each actor takes responsibility in
achieving these goals. This is also mentioned in the interview with the architect that emphasises
on the fact that a single actor cannot do this by themselves and needs support and collaboration
with other actors. Furthermore, the architect mentions that those who do the transition from a
linear economy to a circular economy today and by themselves often sees themselves being
outcompeted by their competitors whose business plan is still linear.
“A fundamental pillar within circular economy is about turning competitive relationships into
collaborative relationships” - Architect 1
Furthermore, Architect 1 also mentions that companies that transition to a circular economy
today want their circular loop to be as small as possible. The smaller the circular loop, the more
profitable it is. This leads to the fact that developers tend to keep their materials internally and
within the company stock. Thus, sharing common goals and finding a common network
between the actors is crucial to enlarge the circular loop and still be profitable.
Two of the three real estate developers interviewed mentioned the importance of a collaboration
between the developers, where a continuous exchange of materials is made between them. This
would thus require a common platform between the developers where they exchange or
purchase materials between them. Real Estate Developer 1 goes further into this and says that
the common platform can either be run entirely by a third party or by the real estate developers
through the usage of a common recovery facility. However, this would require a substantial
amount of volume in order for it to be profitable and thus economically feasible. This model
will, according to Supplier 2, mean that the real estate companies will have the entire ownership
of the materials and the responsibility for the process of reconditioning and mantling the
products, which would thus exclude the supplier’s potential role. According to Supplier 3, the
supplier should have the ownership of the materials, and instead of selling the material, the
42
material should be leased to the real estate developers during a certain amount of time and with
a certain level of quality. This type of ownership is a way of avoiding the problems arising with
product warranties.
Although the real estate developers emphasise on a potential cooperation between them, they
do also mention the potential role the demolition contractors and suppliers can have in the
dismantling, transporting and recovery facility process. However, according to the Demolition
Contractor 1, for them to handle the dismantling, logistics and selling process, a recovery
facility is required for storing. As previously mentioned, another requirement for them to be
involved in such a collaboration is that a new customer has to be secured for the materials before
the dismantling process has begun to ensure time and financial profitability.
The contractors, however, mention that the waste companies should be involved in the
collaboration in terms of gathering the materials and then transporting it. The contractors’ part
in this would be to provide the materials, monitor the procedure and guaranteeing that the
materials end up where they should and to the right end user. This type of arrangement goes in
line to what the waste contractor said in the interview. According to them, their role in this
collaboration would be as a collecting part. Waste Contractor 1 mentions that they could place
containers with fractions on demolition sites where the dismantled materials would be collected
and then transported to a producer or supplier where it can be reconditioned and later resold.
However, the respondent is sceptical on whether there exists a demand and a substantial market
for reused materials. Thus, it would not be in their interest to participate in such a collaboration
if there is no financial benefit.
43
5. Analysis/Discussion
This chapter presents the reader with the analysis and discussion of the results in relation to the literature review.
5.1 Influential Factors in the Reuse Process
5.1.1 Degree of Collaboration In order to obtain a general overview on how some of the companies work with material reuse
today, the respondents were asked about their company’s business model and current strategy
for implementing the reuse of construction materials. The results show that some companies
are at an early stage in the implementation of material reuse, whilst others have an established
and more circular business model. The results further show that the companies that are still
establishing their business models, mostly work with reuse of materials internally in their own
facilities or projects, which corresponds to the barriers within the social-and information factor
identified by Nilsson & Baumgarten (2014) which highlights the social isolation and lack of
communication between organisations. The share of materials on a wider market can facilitate
the reuse of construction materials and transition companies from working internally and
maintaining a small circular loop for material reuse to also working externally and thereby
enlarging their circular loop. This aligns with Havenvid et al. (2019) who states that actors can
collaborate and share materials and resources within and across projects. The use of a common
digital platform between actors can enhance a wider distribution of material reuse by increasing
the availability of materials that can be reused and thereby increasing the materials life cycle
elsewhere.
The companies that have a more circular and established business model show that their models
are centred around collaboration and the involvement of other actors. This indicates that an
inter-organisational collaboration amongst different actors is essential for implementing
material reuse at a wider scale in the real estate- and construction sector. However, as the actors
between different organisations have different interests and goals, the collaboration has to be
efficient to produce positive outcomes. The results show that the perception of the positive
outcome of an inter-organisational collaboration can be increased for certain actors when
incentives are provided, most primarily economic incentives which aligns with the statement
by Gray (1985) and the barrier centred around the economic factor by Nilsson & Baumgarten
(2014).
44
5.1.2 Tenant’s View on Reused Materials The results obtained highlights that there exists a general perception amongst the interviewees
that tenants may have a negative view towards having reused construction materials in their
facilities. This belief aligns with Kartam et al. (2004) as well as the identified barrier according
to the reverse logistics literature which states that a difficulty for implementing the reuse of
construction materials is the negative perception that the final end-users may have of it.
However, the results of the survey do not align with neither Kartam et al. (2004) nor the
literature review. According to the survey conducted tenants have a positive attitude towards
using reused construction materials. The survey showed that tenants value functionality and
aesthetic appearance as the most depending factors influencing their willingness to adapt reused
materials. Therefore, the real estate developers should convey to the final clients that the reused
construction materials can maintain the same functionality and quality as new products. As
some tenants state that it is of importance that the facility is also designed in such a way that
accommodates the need for their businesses, the architects should aim to design the facility and
its aesthetic appearance in such a way that is requested and attractive, to further make it
appealing to the tenant. The results obtained from the interviews also states that it is important
to sell the concept of reused materials to the tenants and thus increase their knowledge about it.
By increasing tenants' knowledge about it and the potential benefits, reused construction
materials could be further promoted to the tenants. These concerns are further stated by Adams
et al. (2017), who stated that a general lack of knowledge was conceived as a major barrier for
implementing reused construction materials on a wider scale.
However, the answers of the survey reveal that the vast majority of the tenants have knowledge
of what the term reused construction materials means. Nevertheless, the knowledge concerning
the term does not necessarily imply that tenants are also aware of the potential benefits arising
from it. Therefore, it is essential that real estate developers showcase the benefits of reusing
construction materials for their tenants to encourage them to request such materials in their
facilities. One approach that can be adapted is to demonstrate for the tenants how much
greenhouse gas emissions that can be saved by reusing certain construction materials compared
to newly produced materials in the specific facility. Illustrating the potential environmental
consequences for the tenants might positively strengthen their opinion of it and serve as a
further incentive for them to choose reused construction materials. The role of the
environmental benefits could have a positive influence for the tenants decision making which
was shown in the survey as a majority of the tenants would prefer a facility with reused
45
construction materials over a facility with all newly produced materials when given information
about how much CO2 emissions could be saved by reusing construction materials.
Supplier 4 believes that the location is the tenants’ highest priority in choosing a facility, which
is further strengthened by some of the tenants in the survey results. The tenants state that their
decision making when choosing a facility is primarily based on the location of it, rather than
the sole alternative of it being constructed with reused building materials. Therefore, if real
estate developers own facilities in attractive locations, it may enable them to have more
influence in promoting reuse of materials towards the tenants as the location will be the main
decisive factor for the tenant in choosing the specific facility. However, difficulties concerning
logistics and recovery facility in attractive and central locations may erupt due to the lack of
available space. However, when factors such as rent levels play a more decisive role in choosing
a facility, the real estate developer may have to create other incentives to encourage tenants in
choosing reused construction material.
The real estate developers can further create a favourable context for reuse for the tenants by
offering economic incentives. Such an economic incentive can be to offer the tenants a lower
rent or a temporary decrease in rent which is what a majority of the respondents according to
the survey expects. However, according to the interviews, it is of importance that the
implementation of material reuse is economically feasible for the real estate developers, which
corresponds to the findings of Hart et al (2019) who states that a return on the investment is one
of the biggest challenges with the implementation. Therefore, a lower rent combined with the
increased costs associated with reused materials may be seen as problematic for some real estate
developers as it will not be financially beneficial. However, it is of importance for the real estate
developers to consider that the cost savings due to material reuse in a long-term perspective can
outweigh the initial investment costs and reduction in rental income. The real estate developer
should therefore account for savings that can be made and include them in the feasibility
assessments. The cost of reused materials should not be the only factor considered as cost
savings derived from, for instance, landfill costs are eliminated in material reuse and may in
combination with other cost-savings outweigh or reduce the initial investment. This aligns with
Jung et al (2015) who states that the total costs of the entire value chain structure should be
considered in the decision-making process of recovering and reusing materials. Some
respondents believe that the real estate developer should rather view the reuse of materials as a
long-term investment for the facility in the future and to not only associate it with the initial
46
tenant. Rather, the initial investment for reuse will be financed by the following tenant as well,
provided that the materials remain in the facility for the following tenant.
Depending on each tenant’s desire and commercial model, it is of great importance that the real
estate developer creates incentives and a collaboration with the tenant to convey the
opportunities that exist within the existing facility to encourage them in adapting reused
construction materials.
5.1.3 Finding Added Value in the Existing Property
Pushpamali et al. (2019) Reverse Supply decision making model, in section 2.6 emphasises that
material reuse decisions have to be taken as early in the planning stage as possible. This was
further stated by the majority of the conducted interviews which highlighted the importance of
determining to adapt material reuse at an early stage. Therefore, planning for a reuse strategy
has to be initiated and created before conducting an inventory of the existing materials in the
facility. The real estate developer should in the pre-inventory identify potential values within
the existing facility, in close collaboration with the tenant, designers and architects to create a
vision that is based on the characteristics of the facility. This preparatory work simplifies the
inventory process which should focus on identifying and quantifying existing materials that can
be reused. The inventory could according to the interviewees be conducted in collaboration
with reuse consultants for their expertise on the quality of the products. It would hence be wise
to consult with the reuse consultants which aligns with the framework for reverse logistics
created by Guide & van Wassenhove (2002) who emphasises that a company should aim to
make decisions on reuse based on the quality of the product and other necessary variables as
early as possible in the process to achieve profitability and decrease logistic costs.
It is crucial for the architects and designers to be a part of the planning of the choice of materials
at an early stage. The architects need to not only be included in the process of deciding which
materials can be reused at the present moment, but also to be included in deciding which
materials should be purchased for future reuse. In order to enable a sufficient deconstruction,
the architects should for instance not use such materials that are required to be adhesive, and
thus irreversibly attached, something that is further strengthened by Consultant 2. The architects
can assist in making a selection of materials from the reuse market to ensure that building
components meet the intended design and quality. Furthermore, it is of importance that the
architect and real estate developer has a continuous collaboration throughout the planning
47
phase. The architect and designer can further assist the developer in preparing flexible tender
documents for the contractor, by deciding that materials that will be purchased are not locked
to a certain requirement that will hinder the purchasing process. Therefore, a close collaboration
will enable the design team to further develop the project vision by basing the decision of
material on what is available on the reuse market or on how the available materials within the
existing facility can be refined to be compatible with the project vision.
The demolition contractor’s role in finding added value in the existing property also plays a
significant role in the reuse process, and therefore a collaboration between them and the real
estate developer is of great importance. To best facilitate salvage from buildings, it is crucial
for the real estate developer to choose and procure a demolition contractor with experience and
competence within deconstruction for reuse, which is essential to overcome the barrier
regarding the lack of competence and experience identified in the literature review and results.
The real estate developer can therefore in the bidding process assess the experience and
knowledge demolition contractors have, as this can translate into larger savings for the real
estate developer due to a higher amount of materials being resolved and thereby reused.
Demolition contractors with less experience might demand a higher bid in the bidding process
due to the uncertainties and increased risk they are exposed to when working with reuse. The
higher bid may be used to compensate for their lack of experience and competence of handling
such deconstruction works.
An issue in today’s building process is that it is very common that the demolition process is
initiated before or during the design phase to save time. The results of this is that the designers
are not given enough time and preconditions to be involved in the inventory and dismantling
process and thereby design for reuse. As Demolition Contractor 1 mentioned, a key requirement
for them to be able to participate in the reuse process is that they are given enough time for
dismantling. A solution for this is that the real estate developer should assign more time for the
demolition and dismantle process in the time plan which can be accomplished by scheduling
the demolition to be performed after the design phase. Although this may benefit the reuse
process, it can be more time consuming which can put a restraint on the project’s budget.
5.1.4 Conditions to Finding and Using Suitable Reused Materials The contractors in the interviews emphasised on the importance of flexible demands to facilitate
the purchasing process. However, several of the other actors interviewed believe that the real
48
estate developers should have stricter demands with specific requirements. Putting specific
requirements such as a reuse percentage target can indirectly force the contractor to work with
reused materials and thus achieve the stated requirements. However, too specific requirements
can, on the other hand, hinder the contractors from effectively fulfilling the requirements due
to difficulties arising in finding and purchasing suitable materials. The contractors interviewed
believe that the real estate developer and architect should put flexible demands on materials in
the procurement documents as well as account to which materials have been salvaged and are
intended to be reused to simplify the purchasing process for the contractors. For instance, the
real estate developer and designers should not specify which material that should be used, such
as tiled façade material. Instead, the real estate developer and designers should for instance state
that a red façade material should be used, which will create flexibility for the contractor as they
will have a wider span to search for different reused materials on the market. This procurement
approach can simplify the process of finding materials from a reuse market or purchasing newly
produced materials with the intention of future reuse for the contractor. Another benefit arising
from formulating the design documents and procurement requirements in a flexible way
towards the contractor is that time could be regained and compensated for delaying the
demolition process. Furthermore, the real estate developer should coordinate with the contractor
in the construction phase to assure that leftover materials are not sent to waste, but rather being
used in another construction project.
Another difficulty according to the respondents with finding appropriate reused materials is
making sure they have an appropriate quality assurance and warranty. There are disagreements
amongst the respondents regarding who should take the responsibility of the warranties of the
materials. As it is important for all the actors to be confident that the materials are of adequate
quality, the suppliers could be involved in the reconditioning and quality assurance of salvaged
materials and thereby in assuring a new warranty time for the material. However, it is important
to find economic incentives for the suppliers as this proposal would not be beneficial in terms
of their own sales as a higher amount of reused materials will result in a decrease in their own
sales.
Digitalisation can be a helpful tool for real estate developers and other involved actors to
simplify the process of material reuse. Buildings should be viewed as material banks, similar to
the electronic property register in the Netherlands. Such a digitised register can withhold
information regarding defined characteristics of materials and components in products and
49
systems and their historical information that will give value for present use, recovery and reuse
included in a specific property. The digital information can ease the process for the demolition
contractors in identifying which materials that can be salvaged and reused which can thereby
enable the process of material reuse. Such material banks containing essential information and
traceability can in conjunction with information sharing within internal parties and external
parties in the inter-organisational collaboration play a key role in facilitating the transition to a
circular business model for real estate developers. The RFID-model by Iacovidou et al. (2018),
in section 2.6, shows how digital tools, especially Radio Frequency Identification can facilitate
the flow of information between different actors in reuse management.
5.1.5 Logistics and Recovery Facility
Table 2.5.1 in section 2.5 depicts logistics and recovery facility as two main inter-organisational
barriers. The view on recovery facility is also considered to be one of the barriers for
successfully and efficiently implementing the reuse of construction materials according to the
respondent interviewed, which furthermore aligns with Nußholz et al (2019). The subject of
logistics and recovery facility was the area of which the respondents had the least concrete
suggestions for addressing the issues surrounding it. There were split opinions in the allocation
of responsibilities and costs concerning the transport and recovery facility of reused materials
depending on each actor's own interest. In a situation where the materials have the intention to
be reused in the same facility or another facility of the same developer, the real estate developer
has to seek out available space for storage of the materials. The real estate developer should
carefully plan before the dismantling process has been initiated, for how areas for storing the
materials in the workplace will be solved, this can for instance be entered into the APD-plan.
The real estate developer could also make a thorough inventory of their current spaces and
storage rooms to determine which storage rooms can be freed in order to benefit from more
space which can be used for storing materials that can be reused. The real estate developers
interviewed mention that if no such available space exists within the same property, they often
seek out space in their other properties, most primarily properties located close by in an attempt
to minimise transportation and environmental emissions. If space close by cannot be found, the
real estate developer should seek for properties within their own property stock that are located
further away, in order to find available space that can be used to store the materials.
A solution to the lack of storage space brought up in the interviews was the need for a common
recovery facility between real estate developers. A common recovery facility could increase the
50
market between the real estate developers and enable a larger circular distribution of materials.
However, this solution may not be beneficial due to the fact that it would require the real estate
developers to be solely responsible for ensuring that the material is quality assured and
reinstalled. Furthermore, the costs of a recovery facility and process of salvaging materials may
outweigh the potential cost-savings from reusing materials. If such a common recovery facility
were to be implemented, allocations concerning transportation and quality assurance has to be
developed strategically.
Logistics, and most importantly transportation, has also shown to be a very sensitive parameter
and an important barrier to overcome to make the reverse supply chain economically viable.
The process concerning logistics and recovery facility may differ depending on different
scenarios which includes different actors to be involved in the supply chain process. Different
scenarios can be dependent on the materials quality, need for reconditioning and whether the
material will be used internally or externally in another facility. The real estate developer should
have a close collaboration with the material suppliers and demolition contractors depending on
each scenario's characteristics. Furthermore, another alternative could be to include the waste
contractor on a wider scale. The waste contractor’s role would thus be to sort reused materials
in fractions containers, gather it and thereafter transport it from the demolition site to a recovery
facility or to a supplier for potential reconditioning. An advantage with including the waste
contractor is that they already have a standardised process and experience in handling and
transporting recycled materials, therefore they possess a logistical advantage. However,
according to the interviews such a collaboration can only be manifested if economical gain
which is derived from a high market demand is achieved.
If the real estate developers are not able to find an opportunity to reuse the materials, the
materials can be dismantled and obtained by the demolition contractor. This enables the
contractors on the site to work more efficiently as the materials will not obstruct the rebuilding
process. Demolition Contractor 1 mentions that expanding their services for recovery facility
and selling materials that have been dismantled can only be feasible if a new customer for the
materials has already been found before the dismantling process. Ensuring a new customer and
ensuring that the shipping to the buyer can be arranged directly from the demolition site would
significantly limit costs associated with storage and transport costs for the demolition
contractor, which aligns with the current business model of demolition contractor 2 and the
51
theoretical reverse supply chain management model proposed by Da Rocha & Settler (2009) in
section 2.6.
The concept of reverse supply chain followed by the model of reverse logistics in the
construction industry by Hosseini et al. (2014), in section 2.6, demonstrates the importance of
materials being brought back to the material supplier for reconditioning at an off-site location.
In a situation where the materials have potential to be reused and need reconditioning, it is
crucial to include the material suppliers in a collaboration network. The material suppliers
interviewed had a positive attitude towards delivering materials to real estate developers,
retrieving the same materials for reconditioning and thereafter delivering the reused material to
the same facility or selling it to another actor.
The most effective alternative for all involved actors would hence be that the transportation and
recovery facility of reused materials would be provided by the material suppliers or by a third-
party who operates in collaboration with the suppliers. However, it is of importance to have an
off-site location and recovery facility in close proximity and that there exist large volumes of
materials, to limit the transportation costs and thereby the greenhouse gas emissions related to
such transportations. Otherwise the purpose of reuse and reducing the negative environmental
effect becomes counter-effective and contradicted. Therefore, the need for economic feasibility
and a high enough demand for such services would have to be provided for the material
suppliers to participate in such a collaboration with the real estate developer. However, the
opportunity for the material suppliers to purchase back their materials, recondition them and
then sell them back to the real estate developers should increase the incentives for reuse for the
suppliers. As stated in the concept of reverse logistics, in order for the supplier to adopt a reverse
supply chain, it requires an effective management of transportation, recovery facility and
reconditioning to achieve financial incentives.
5.1.6 Real Estate Developer’s Ability to Facilitate Future Reuse
A prerequisite for circular economy in construction is to have the tools required to facilitate for
future reuse. The proposition proposed by the architect interviewed emphasised on the need for
the real estate developer to maintain a long-term collaboration with the architect in the
management phase as well could contribute to simplify the process of future reuse in a new
tenant adaption. This could be beneficial as it could result in time savings as the same architects
are involved and thus, they will have more knowledge in the previous materials used and the
52
overall design of the building which can facilitate for future reuse. However, this could result
in increased architect costs for the real estate developer, which makes the option of using
digitalisation instead, as a more cost-effective option. Digital tools such as a register for the
facility with information on each material's characteristics could further simplify the future
reuse process for the facility manager. The facility manager can at that stage update the register
with the condition of each material which in a stage of a new tenant adaption, will simplify the
process of determining which materials are suitable to be reused. Availability of the materials
characteristics and properties in a digital tool also opens up opportunities for the suppliers at a
later stage to determine if they wish to purchase back their materials for reconditioning. If the
real estate developer has a desire to purchase back the materials which already existed in the
facility, the use of a digital storing information register enables the facility manager to ensure
new tenants the origin and suitability for the materials to be reused, based on its already
documented characteristics and properties.
5.2 Model Proposition Based on the results and discussions, a framework for how a real estate developer can
collaborate with different actors to facilitate the reuse of construction materials has been
created. The proposed model aims to demonstrate which actors the real estate developer could
collaborate with at a given phase and the expectations and responsibilities of each actor. Figure
5.2.1 shows a visualisation of the model with suggestions on what actors the real estate
developer should collaborate with at a given phase, followed by table 5.2.2 which shows the
responsibilities and information flow required between the suggested actors in each phase.
53
Planning
Design
Demolition
Procurement
Construction
Facility Management
Fig. 5.2.1. Visualisation of the collaboration model
Identify potential values Create reuse concept
Inventory Prepare a time plan
accounting for the design and deconstruction
Design and choose material suitable
for reuseCreate flexible
building documents to ease
the purchasing process
Dismantle for internal reuseTransport to supplier for
reconditioningTransport and
sell materials to new a facility
Negotiate warranty issues
Find suitable reuse materials on the reuse
market
Coordinate with the
Contractor to find suitable
use for leftover material
Digitise information about the materials
in the facility
RED = Real Estate Developer T = Tenant A = Architect D = Designer RC = Reuse Consultant DC = Demolition Contractor MS = Material Supplier C = Contractor WC = Waste Contractor
RED; T; A; RC
RED; T; A; C; DC
RED;MS; DC;
WC
RED; A; C
RED; MS; C
RED; T; S
54
Table 5.2.2. Table of the responsibilities and information flow between different actors in each phase.
Phase
Actor
Responsibilities and information flow needed to be conveyed
Recipients
Planning Real Estate Developer Real Estate Developer Architect Architect Reuse Consultant Reuse Consultant Architect Designer Real Estate Developer
Change the tenants view on reused materials by creating incentives, increasing their knowledge and highlighting its potential benefits Develop a reuse concept depending on the tenants needs and in such a way that accommodates the need for their business Assist the real estate developer in a brief pre-inventory to identify potential values within the existing facility to create a vision that is based on the characteristics of the facility Conducting a thorough inventory of the materials that can be reused in the existing facility Create a time plan where all the activities are included and where enough time is given to the demolition contractor for dismantling materials. Furthermore, it is of importance that the time plan accounts for the designer having enough time to design efficiently and create building documents before the dismantling process has begun
Tenant Tenant Real Estate Developer Tenant Real Estate Developer Tenant Architect Reuse Consultant Demolition Contractor Contractor
55
Design Architect Designer Architect Designer Architect Designer
Create a timeless yet contemporary reuse design based on the inventory Assist in deciding which materials that should be purchased for future reuse, for instance materials that can be dismantled easily in the future Prepare flexible tender documents where materials are not tied to a specific requirement that may create difficulties for the contractor in the purchasing process
Real Estate Developer Tenant Contractor Real Estate Developer
Contractor
Demolition Real Estate Developer Demolition Contractor Real Estate Developer Real Estate Developer
Provide digital information about the materials to ease the process for the demolition contractor in identifying which materials can be salvaged and reused Provide information about the materials that were dismantled and salvaged Inform the material supplier through the use of digital information about the products properties and status Inform about the opportunity for suppliers to purchase back the materials, recondition them and sell them back to the real estate developer or another actor
Demolition contractor Real Estate Developer Material Supplier
Material Supplier
56
Procurement Real Estate Developer Real Estate Developer Designer
Make requirements in the procurement as open and flexible as possible to simplify the purchasing process and provide space for creativity and flexibility to the contractor Negotiate warranties for the reused materials and allocate the responsibility of the materials Assist the contractor in finding suitable materials on the reuse market
Contractor
Contractor Material supplier Contractor Real Estate Developer
Construction Material Supplier Contractor Contractor
Transport the reconditioned materials to the construction site Construct according to the construction documents and give regular updates to the real estate developer Coordinate with the real estate developer to find other construction projects where leftover materials could be used
Contractor Real Estate Developer Real Estate Developer
Facility Management
Real Estate Developer Digitise the facility with information regarding the materials properties and condition in a digital platform
Tenant Supplier
57
6. Conclusion
This chapter presents the reader with the conclusions drawn by the authors based on the analysis and discussion in the previous chapter.
The aim of this study was to examine the main barriers for different actors to engage in a
strategic collaboration and how the real estate developer can create incentives in order to
facilitate the reuse of construction materials. Furthermore, based on the results obtained, a
framework model for how real estate developers can work with different actors at different
stages was developed. The overall results obtained corresponds with previous research in the
literature review. Furthermore, the research gap of how a real estate developer can collaborate
with other actors to facilitate material reuse on a wider scale is presented and addressed.
Currently, there exists few established frameworks and procedures for material reuse in the real
estate and construction sector, however, the results indicate a strong driving force amongst the
actors to fully commit to implementing material reuse. Furthermore, the study shows that there
is a common consensus that a collaboration between different actors is essential to transition
from a linear economy towards a circular economy and thus, increased sustainability effects.
The main barriers for implementing material reuse in the construction industry was identified
to be; tenants view on reused construction materials, lack of logistics & recovery facility and
the procedure of quality assurance & warranties. The results from the interviews show that there
is a general perception amongst actors that tenants have an unwillingness to adapt reused
materials due to their negative view on it. However, the survey conducted contradicts this
general perception and shows that a vast majority of the tenants had a positive view on reused
material which creates room for the real estate developer to create conditions for the tenant to
adapt such materials. In the aspects of logistics & recovery facility as well as quality assurance
& warranties, the results indicate that the actors have split opinions on how these matters can
be addressed. There are several possible approaches for how the responsibilities regarding
logistics and recovery facility can be distributed. However, it was identified that there has to
exist different incentives for actors as well as an established market demand for reused products
in order for actors to undertake such responsibilities and achieve economic gains in a reverse
supply chain. The study shows that there are no established procedures to quality assure reused
58
material and to allocate the responsibility of warranties today. However, it was found that
digitalisation and product data throughout the material’s life cycle could serve as an opportunity
to streamline the quality assurance process.
The results of the study further show that for fully realising the implementation of material
reuse and collaboration amongst actors, the real estate developers have a significant role in the
process. The real estate developer should aim to create a favourable context for material reuse
and create such incentives that favour a collaboration with different actors. This can for instance
be achieved by planning and designing for reuse at an early stage and to allocate enough time
for the demolition contractor to properly dismantle materials. The real estate developer can
further create conditions for reuse and encourage actors to engage in a strategic collaboration
by formulating their demands and requirements in a certain way. For instance, the developers
could be less specific in their description in the procurement phase in order to give more
flexibility for the contractors to find suitable materials. Thus, the solutions identified, and
framework model created can provide a range of practical solutions to address the challenges
with material reuse. The framework model breaks down the complex issues concerning material
reuse into a set of more manageable processes, where responsibilities can be assigned to
different actors to further facilitate the implementation of material reuse. However, each project
needs to consider the solutions individually to achieve an efficient management practice for
material reuse.
Although the real estate developers have a major role in the process of material reuse, the study
has shown that a clear allocation of responsibility between the involved actors has to be made
for successfully implementing the reuse of construction materials. Therefore, to achieve a
higher efficiency of reused materials in the construction industry, objectives between actors has
to be accomplished through collaboration, rather than competition.
6.1 Reliability and Validity Due to the fact that the results obtained from the interviews correspond with previous research
in the literature review, high validity of the study can be ensured. Although the intention in the
interview was to have as objective answers as possible, the risk of bias could be present.
Respondents may answer questions based on their own interests, which could have an impact
on the outcome of the presented model and thereby its validity. Furthermore, a higher
59
generalisability in the study could be achieved if further interviews with actors within the same
field were conducted. Tenants views on reused materials was based on 40 responses. A higher
and more accurate generalisability could be made with more responses and with tenants from
different real estate companies. It is also of importance to acknowledge that a simplification of
reality has been done when creating the model. The model could be further in depth by engaging
and interviewing other actors, such as sub-contractors, governmental entities, insurance
companies and legal representatives.
COVID-19 limited the information obtained due to the fact that many of the planned interviews
could not be conducted by the respondents. If those interviews would have been conducted, a
more substantial amount of information could have been collected to further develop the
framework model. Furthermore, COVID-19 eliminated the planned possibility for the authors
to perform case studies of actual construction projects where reused materials have been used.
Performed case studies could have given the authors an in-depth understanding of how the
implementation of material reuse works in practice and would thus make it easier to measure
success factors.
The framework model could serve as an important tool and guidance for how real estate
developers can collaborate with other actors when implementing reuse construction materials
in a tenant adaptation. Furthermore, the framework model could assist real estate developers in
their decision-making at different stages and also be adjusted depending on the company’s
ambitions and project characteristics. However, when taking the limitation factors mentioned
above into consideration, the framework model should be acknowledged as a model that can be
further developed.
6.2 Suggestions on Further Studies Numerous studies can be made to increase the knowledge within reuse management and of how
a strategic collaboration between different actors can be achieved. As many of the interviewees
emphasised on the governmental role to create incentives for material reuse, the model can be
developed to include such actors and also examine their view on expanding the services of
municipal recycling centres to also include reused construction materials. This study was
limited to tenant adaptations as well as a selection of different actors. A suggestion to further
examine the topic of reused construction materials could be to create a collaboration model for
60
the construction of new facilities. Furthermore, it can be of interest to expand this study to
housing residents to see whether a collaboration model would appear differently.
61
References Literature Adams, T.K., Osmani,M., Thorpe,T., Thornback, J. (2017). Circular economy in construction:
current awareness, challenges and enablers. Waste and Resource Management, Volym 170, Nummer WR1.
Álvarez-Gil, M. J., Berrone, P., Husillos, J., & Lado, N. (2007). Reverse logistics, stakeholders'
influence, organizational slack,and manager's posture. Journal of Business Research, 60, pp. 463-473.
Andersen, M. S. (2007). An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular
economy. Sustainability science, 2(1),133-140 Anderson, T.R., Hawkins, E. & Jones, P. D. (2016). CO2, the greenhouse effect and global
warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Calendar to today's Earth System Models. Endeavour, 40(3), pp.178–187.
Baumgarten, S., & Nilsson, M. (2014). Industriell symbios som affär. Hur kan ett
återvinningsföretag facilitera utvecklingen av regionala industriella ekosystem. Blackburn, J. D., Guide Jr, V. D. R., Souza, G. C., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2004). Reverse
supply chains for commercial returns. California management review, 46(2), 6-22.
Bouchard, T. (1976). Unobtrusive Measures: An Inventory of Uses. Sociological Methods and Research, 4(3), pp.267–300.
Boverket (2020). Miljöindikatorer 2019 Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
into the Research Process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), pp.173–184.
Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., & Castell, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 29, 394-416.
Cabrera, Á., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas Organization Studies, 23. Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Hosseini, M. R., & Lehmann, S. (2015). Barriers to
implementing reverse logistics in South Australian construction organisations. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
Da Rocha, C.G. & Sattler, M.A. (2009). A discussion on the reuse of building components in
Brazil: An analysis of major social, economical and legal factors. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 54(2), pp.104–112.
Daly, H.E. (2007). Ecological economics and sustainable development. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
62
Daugherty, P., Richey, R., Roath, A., Min, S., Chen, H., Arndt, A., & Genchev, S. (2006). Is
collaboration paying off for firms? Business Horizons, 49(1), 61-70. Dobers, P. & Strannegård, L. (2005). Design, lifestyles and sustainability. Aesthetic
consumption in a world of abundance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(5), pp.324–336.
Dowlatshahi, S.H.A.D. (2010). A cost-benefit analysis for the design and implementation of
reverse logistics systems: case studies approach. International Journal of Production Research, 48(5), 1361-1380.
Duran, X., Lenihan, H. & O’regan, B. (2006). A model for assessing the economic viability of
construction and demolition waste recycling—the case of Ireland. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 46(3), pp.302–320.
Dyckhoff, H., Lackes, R., & Reese, J. (2004). Supply Chain Management and Reverse
Logistics. Springer. [DT1] Ebers, M. (2015). Interorganizational Relationships and Networks. In International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second ed., pp. 621-625). Elsevier European Commission (2010). Being wise with waste; the EU’s approach to waste
management. European Union. ISBN: 978-92-79-14297-0 Ferreira, J., Duarte Pinheiro, M., & de Brito, J. (2015). Economic and environmental savings
of structural buildings refurbishment with demolition and reconstruction - A Portuguese benchmarking. Journal of Building Engineering 3: 114-126.
Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research 5. Ed., London: SAGE. Fowler, F. (2009). Survey research methods (4.th ed., Applied social research methods series;
1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Franco, L. A. (2008). Facilitating collaboration with problem structuring methods: a case study
of an inter-organisational construction partnership. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(4), 267-286.
Gardner, G., Assadourian E. & Sarin R. (2004). The state of consumption today. In State of the
World 2004. Special Focus: The Consumer Society, Worldwatch Institute (ed.). Norton: New York;3–21.
Gardner, D.M. (1990). The Research Act (Book Review). Journal of Marketing Research,
27(2), pp.240–241. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy
– A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143(C), pp.757–768. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–
A new sustainability paradigm?. Journal of cleaner production, 143, 757-768.
63
Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog development'. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(3), 231-239.
Gerhardsson, H., Lindholm, L. C. & Ahlm, M. (2019). Arbetssätt för ökat återbruk i
lokalanpassningar. IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet. Gobbi, C. (2011). Designing the reverse supply chain: the impact of the product residual value.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human relations,
38(10), 911-936. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Habib, M. (2011). Supply Chain Management (SCM): Theory and Evolution. Supply chain
management-applications and simulations, 1-14. Hansen, E.G., Grosse-Dunker, F. & Reichwald, R. (2009). Sustainability innovation cube—a
framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management 13(04): 683-713.
Harris, D. (2011). Monitoring Global Warming. Energy & Environment, 22(7), pp.929–937. Havenvid, M. I., Bygballe, L. E., & Håkansson, H. (2019). Innovation among project islands:
A question of handling interdependencies through bridging. In The Connectivity of Innovation in the Construction Industry (pp. 126-142). Routledge.
Hosseini, M., Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., & Lehmann, S. (2014). Reverse logistics for the
construction industry: Lessons from the manufacturing context (Doctoral dissertation, Scientific and Academic Publishing).
Hu, T. L., Sheu, J. B., & Huang, K. H. (2002). A reverse logistics cost minimization model for
the treatment of hazardous wastes. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 38(6),457-473.
Iacovidou, E., Purnell, P. & Lim, M.K. (2018). The use of smart technologies in enabling
construction components reuse: A viable method or a problem creating solution? Journal of Environmental Management, 216, pp.214–223.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp.602–11. Jones, P., Comfort, D. (2018). The construction industry and the circular economy.
International Journal of Management cases, 20(1) pp. 4-15 Kartam, N., Al-Mutairi, N., Al-Ghusain, I., & Al-Humoud, J. (2004). Environmental
management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait. Waste management, 24(10), 1049-1059.
64
Jung, J.S., Song, S.H., Jun, M.H. & Park, S.S. (2015). A comparison of economic feasibility and emission of carbon dioxide for two recycling processes. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 19(5): 1248-1255.
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: the concept and its
limitations. Ecological economics, 143, 37-46. Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an
essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544-552. Lauritzen, E. K. (1998). The global challenge of recycled concrete. In Sustainable
Construction: Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate: Proceedings of the International Symposium organised by the Concrete Technology Unit, University of Dundee and held at the Department of Trade and Industry Conference Centre, London, UK on 11–12 November 1998 (pp. 505-519). Thomas Telford Publishing
Leising, E., Quist, J. & Bocken, N. (2018). Circular Economy in the building sector: Three
cases and a collaboration tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, pp.976-989. Levina, N. (2005). Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: A
collective reflection-in-action view. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 109-130. Lindholm, C. L., Gerhardsson, H., Youhanan, L. & Stenmarck, Å. (2018). Återbruk av möbler
och interiöra byggprodukter. Utvärdering och arbetsguide baserat på erfarenheter från IVL:s lokalanpassningar. IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet.
Long, T. & Johnson, M. (2000). Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clinical
Effectiveness in Nursing, 4(1), pp.30–37. MacArthur, E. (2013). Towards the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2, 23-44. Massa, L. & Tucci, C.L. (2014). Business Model Innovation. In the Oxford Handbook of
Innovation Management. Oxford University Press, pp. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, Chapter 002.
Merrild, H, Guldager Jensen, K & Sommer, J. (2016). Building a Circular Future. vol. 248, 1
edn, GXN, Denmark. Miliute-Plepiene, J., Almasi, A., Hwargård, L. & IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet. (2020).
Återanvändning av bygg- och rivningsmaterial och produkter i kommuner. Mohamed, R., Boyle, R., Yilun Yang, A., & Tangari, J. (2017). Adaptive reuse: a review and
analysis of its relationship to the 3 Es of sustainability. Facilities, 35(3/4), pp.138–154 Mokhlesian, S. & Holmén, M. (2012). Business model changes and green construction
processes. Construction Management and Economics, 30(9), pp.761–775.
65
Moncaster, A.M., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Malmqvist, T., Houlihan Wiberg, A. & Birgisdottir, H. (2019). Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multinational quantitative and qualitative case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, pp.378–393.
Motamedi, A., Saini, R., Hammad, A. & Zhu, B. (2011). Role-based access to facilities lifecycle
information on RFID tags. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(3), pp.559–568. Nakajima, S., & Russell, M. (2014). Barriers for deconstruction and reuse/recycling of
construction materials. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB).
Nikolaou, I. E., Evangelinos, K. I., & Allan, S. (2013). A reverse logistics social responsibility
evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach. Journal of cleaner production, 56, 173-184.
Nuss, C., Sahamie, R., & Stindt, D. (2015). The reverse supply chain planning matrix: A
classification scheme for planning problems in reverse logistics. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 413-436.
Nußholz, J.L.K., Rasmussen, F. N. & Milios, L. (2019). Circular building materials: Carbon
saving potential and the role of business model innovation and public policy. Journal for Resource Conservation and Recycling 141: 308-316.
Nußholz, J.L.K & Milios, L. (2017). Applying circular economy principles to building materials
Front-running companies’ business model innovation in the value chain for buildings Applying circular economy principles to building materials: Front-running companies’ business model innovation. Paper presented, 2017, Berlin.
Nußholz, J.L.K., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Whalen, K. & Plepys, A. (2020). Material reuse in
buildings: Implications of a circular business model for sustainable value creation. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 245, pp.Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, Vol.245.
Pacheco, E., Kubota, F., Yamakawa, E., Paladini, E., Campos, L., & Cauchick-Miguel, P.
(2018). Reverse logistics. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(5), 1447-1460. Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T. & Hungler, B.P. (2001). Essentials of nursing research: methods,
appraisal, and utilization. (5.ed.) Philadelphia: Lippincott. Prahinski, C. & Kocabasoglu, C. (2006). Empirical research opportunities in reverse supply
chains. Omega, 34(6), 519-532. Pushpamali, N., Agdas, D. & Rose, T.M. (2019). A Review of Reverse Logistics: An Upstream
Construction Supply Chain Perspective. Sustainability, 11(15), p.4143. Rashid, A., Asif, F.M., Krajnik, P., & Nicolescu, C.M. (2013). Resource Conservative
Manufacturing: an essential change in business and technology paradigm for sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner production, 57, 166-177.
66
Ruggieri, A., Braccini, A. M., Poponi, S., & Mosconi, E. M. (2016). A meta-model of inter-organisational cooperation for the transition to a circular economy. Sustainability, 8(11), 1153.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research Methods for Business Students,
Pearson Education M.U.A. Schrader, U. & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Putting Sustainable Consumption into Practice. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 34(1), pp.3–8. Schultmann, F., & Sunke, N. (2007). Organisation of reverse logistics tasks in the construction
industry. Portugal SB07: Sustainable Construction, Materials and Practices, 577-584. Schut, E., Crielaard, M., & Mesman, M. (2015). Circular economy in the Dutch construction
sector. Den Haag. Thormark, C. (2000). Environmental analysis of a building with reused building materials.
International Journal of Low Energy &Amp; Sustainable Building, 1, pp. International Journal of Low Energy & Sustainable Building, 2000, Vol.1.
Tobias, L., & Vavaroutsos, G. (2012). Retrofitting buildings to be green and energy-efficient:
optimizing building performance, tenant satisfaction, and financial return. Urban Land Institute.
van der Heijden, R. E. C. M., Coenen, J. W. E., & van Riel, A. C. R. (2017). Transitioning from
a linear economy towards a circular economy: The case of the apparel industry. Vares, S., Hradil, P., SansomM. & Ungureanu V. (2019). Economic potential and
environmental impacts of reused steel structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2019.1662064
Verian, K. P., Whiting, J. O. & Snyder, M. B. (2013). Using Recycled Concrete as Aggregate
in Concrete Pavements to Reduce Materials Cost. West Lafayette, Indiana, USA Virtanen, M., Manskinen, K., Uusitalo, V., Syvänne, J. & Cura, K. (2019). Regional material
flow tools to promote circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1020-1025. Wilkinson, S., James, K. & Reed, R. (2009). Delivering sustainability through the adaptive
reuse of commercial buildings: the Melbourne CBD challenge. In PRRES 2008: Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society 15th Annual Conference (pp. 1-19). Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PPRES).
Wirtz, B., Göttel, V. & Daiser, P. (2016). Business Model Innovation: Development, Concept
and Future Research Directions. Journal of Business Models, 4(1), pp.1–28. Yamazaki, Y. (2004). Future innovative construction technologies: Directions and strategies to
innovate construction industry. In Proc. 21st Int. Symp. on Automation and Robotics in Construction
67
Yuan, H. & Shen, L. (2011). Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Management, 31(4), pp.670–679.
Zhijun, F., & Nailing, Y. (2007). Putting a circular economy into practice in China.
Sustainability Science, 2(1), 95-101. Online resources Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2017). The Circular Economy in Detail. Retrieved from:
‘https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/the-circular-economy-in-detail’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]
European Commission (2018). EU Construction and Demolition Waste Protocol and
Guidelines. Retrieved from: ‘https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/eu-construction-and-demolition-waste-protocol-0_en’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]
European Commission (2019). Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive).
Retrieved from: ‘https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]
European Commission (2019). Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW). Retrieved from:
‘https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/construction_demolition.htm’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]
Roser, M., Ritchie, H., & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2020). World Population Growth. Published online
at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth’ 2020-02-02 [Online Resource]
European Environment Agency (2016a) ‘More from less – material resource efficiency in
Europe’, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/more-from-less’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]
Interviews Interview with AMF Fastigheter - 2020-03-23 Interview with IVL – Svenska Miljöinstitutet - 2020-03-25 Interview with Kompanjonen - 2020-03-27 Interview with Castellum - 2020-03-31 Interview with Byggpall - 2020-03-31 Interview with Ragnsells - 2020-04-06 Interview with Skanska - 2020-04-07 Interview with CS Riv & Håltagning - 2020-04-08
68
Interview with Omreda - 2020-04-08
Interview with Hufvudstaden - 2020-04-08
Interview with NCC - 2020-04-14
Interview with Interface - 2020-04-15
Interview with Skanska Hus - 2020-04-20
Interview with Moelven - 2020-04-23
Interview with White Arkitekter - 2020-04-23
Interview with Lotus Maskin & Transport - 2020-04-24
Interview with Nordström Trä - 2020-04-30
s
69
Appendix I – Disclosure of Survey
70
71
72
73
Appendix II – Interview Questions for Real Estate Developers
o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?
o Hur ser er process och affärsmodell för återbruk av byggmaterial ut?
o Vilka byggmaterial brukar ni återbruka mest?
o Vilka byggmaterial tror du har störst potential att återbrukas för enlokalanpassning/ombyggnation?
o Kan du berätta om ett projekt ni använt er av återbrukat material? Skulle det kunnatillämpas i alla projekt? Eller hur ser förutsättningarna ut för olika projekt?
o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk? Hur kanman lösa dessa utmaningar?
o Vad finns det, som du ser, för möjligheter med att öka återbruk av byggmaterial?
o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar?
o Hur väljer ni er byggentreprenör? Hur ser ert samarbete ut medbyggentreprenören? Vad sätter ni för krav på entreprenören och hur skapar niincitament?
o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägarna för att ett bra samarbete kring återbruk skakunna ske?
o Vad tycker du krävs från andra aktörer?
o Skulle du kunna tänka dig ett samverkansnätverk för återbruk tillsammans med andrafastighetsägare?
o Hur tror du att ett sådant samverkansnätverk skulle kunna vara uppbyggt?
o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkanåterbruka byggmaterial?
o Vad uppfattar du är hyresgästernas syn på återbrukat material?
o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?
74
Appendix III – Interview Questions for the Contractors
o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?
o Hur ser er process och affärsmodell för återbruk av byggmaterial ut?
o Har ni tidigare haft något samarbete med fastighetsägare där ni använt er av material som kan återbrukas?
o Vilka byggmaterial tror du har störst potential att återbrukas för en lokalanpassning/ombyggnation?
o Vilka tror du är de tre största fördelar med att implementera återbruk av byggmaterial?
o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk av byggmaterial ur ert perspektiv och hur kan man lösa dessa utmaningar?
o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar
o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkan återanvända byggmaterial?
o Vi har hört att demontering, logistik och lagerhållning utgör de största hindren idag. Hur jobbar ni med det och hur ser era lösningar på att effektivisera detta ut?
o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägare för att ett bra samarbete kring återbruk ska kunna ske? Hur kan dom skapa ytterligare incitament för er?
o De fastighetsägare som vi har intervjuat säger att det är enkelt för de att ställa krav på entreprenörer men svårt att kunna följa upp och kunna mäta att kraven som ställts vidare från entreprenörernas sida. Hur kan man jobba med detta och hur kan man säkerställa att det verkligen följs i de nedre leden?
o Hur tror du att ett samverkansnätverk skulle kunna vara uppbyggt och hur skulle er roll i ett sådant samverkansnätverk se ut?
o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?
75
Appendix IV – Interview Questions for the Suppliers
o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?
o Hur jobbar ni med återbruk idag? Hur ser er process ut?
o Hur jobbar ni idag med att tillverka era produkter så att de i framtiden enklare ska kunna demonteras och återbrukas?
o Tar ni hand om förflyttningen av materialet eller använder ni er av en tredje part?
o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk och hur
tror du att man kan lösa de?
o Vi har hört från tidigare respondenter att det är dyrare med återbrukat: Har kostnaderna för er blivit högre med återbrukat material?
o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar?
o Vilka incitament krävs för att öka användandet av återbrukat material?
o Vi har hört att demontering, logistik och lagerhållning utgör de största hindren idag. Hur jobbar ni med det och hur ser era lösningar på att effektivisera detta ut?
o Vad krävs från fastighetsägarna för att ett bra samarbete med er kring återbruk ska kunna ske? Hur kan de skapa ytterligare incitament för er och vilka krav ställer ni på de
o Vad uppfattar du är hyresgästers syn på återbrukat material?
o Hur tror du man kan få hyresgästen att välja återbrukat material och ändra deras syn från något negativt till positivt?
o Hur tror du att ett samverkansnätverk mellan olika aktörer skulle kunna vara uppbyggt och hur skulle er roll i ett sådant samverkansnätverk se ut?
o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?
76
Appendix V – Interview Questions for the Architect
o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?
o Hur jobbar ni med återbruk idag? Hur ser er affärsmodell ut?
o Har ni tidigare haft något samarbete med fastighetsägare där ni använt er av materialsom kan återbrukas? Vad skulle ni kunna göra annorlunda?
o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk avbyggmaterial ur ert perspektiv och hur tror du att man kan lösa de?
o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägare för att ett bra samarbete med er kringåterbruk ska kunna ske? Hur kan dom skapa ytterligare incitament för er?
o Vilka incitament krävs för att öka användandet av återbrukat material?
o Vad uppfattar du är hyresgästernas syn på återbrukat material?
o Hur tror du att ett samverkansnätverk mellan olika aktörer skulle kunna vara uppbyggtoch hur skulle er roll i ett sådant samverkansnätverk se ut?
o Hur kan ni jobba för att främja återbruk vid lokalanpassning/ombyggnation samt atteffektivisera processen för fastighetsägarna?
o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?
77
Appendix VI – Interview Questions for the Demolition and Logistics Contractors
o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?
o Hur jobbar ni med återbruk idag? Hur ser er affärsmodell ut?
o Vilka material anser du har störst potential att återbrukas vid enlokalanpassning/ombyggnation?
o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk avbyggmaterial ur ert perspektiv och hur kan man lösa dessa utmaningar?
o Har ni tidigare haft något samarbete med där ni hanterat brukbart avfall frånbyggmaterial och hur har det gått till?
o Tar ni hand om förflyttningen av materialet eller hur går det till?
o Hur går säljprocessen av återbrukat material till? Är det entreprenörer eller beställarenalt. fastighetsägaren som ni säljer till?
o Vi har hört att demontering och lagerhållning utgör de största hindren idag. Hur jobbarni med det och har du förslag på hur demontering respektive lagerhållningen kaneffektiviseras?
o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar och gör ni någon inventering?
o Hur tror du att ett samverkansnätverk skulle kunna vara uppbyggt och hur skulle erroll i ett sådant samverkansnätverk se ut?
o Vad krävs från fastighetsägarna för att ett bra samarbete med er kring återbruk skakunna ske och vilka krav ställer ni på de?
o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkanåteranvända byggmaterial?
o Vilka material anser du kan vara bra för att få upp volymerna?
o Vad finns det, som du kan se med en sådan samverkan/samarbete, för möjligheter ochutmaningar?
o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?
78
Appendix VII – Interview Questions for the Waste Contractors
o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?
o Jobbar ni med återanvändning av byggmaterial eller har ni några såna mål?
o Har ni tidigare haft något samarbete med fastighetsägare där ni hanterat återbrukat material?
o Vilka byggmaterial tror du har mest potential att återbrukas?
o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk av byggmaterial ur ert perspektiv och hur kan man lösa dessa utmaningar?
o Vi har hört att demontering och logistik utgör stora hinder idag. Har du förslag på hur demontering respektive logistik kan effektiviseras?
o Skulle det enligt dig vara möjligt att utöka er verksamhet så att ni agerar som mellanhand och hanterar byggmaterial som kan återbrukas från byggavfall?
o Hur ser ni på återbruksfraktioner, att ställa upp containrar för återbrukat material i fraktioner, t.ex. dörrar, glaspartier etc. Vad krävs för att ni ska göra det?
o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkan återanvända byggmaterial?
o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägare för att ett bra samarbete kring återbruk ska kunna ske?
o Hur tror du att ett sådant samverkansnätverk skulle kunna vara uppbyggt och hur
skulle er roll i ett sådan samverkan se ut?
o Om flera entreprenörer och fastighetsägare går med i detta, hur kan man planera så att det sker som mest tidseffektivt? Kan flera projekt underlätta för er i form av transport och logistik?
o Vad finns det, som du kan se, för möjligheter och utmaningar med en sådan verksamhet?
o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?
79
Appendix VIII – Interview Questions for the Reuse Consultants
o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?
o Hur jobbar ni med återbruk idag? Hur ser er affärsmodell ut?
o Hur kommer det sig att ni inte lagrar materialen längre?
o Vilka material anser du har störst potential att återbrukas vid en lokalanpassning/ombyggnation?
o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk och hur kan man lösa de?
o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar och gör ni någon inventering?
o Hur går säljprocessen av återbrukat material till? Är det entreprenörer eller beställaren alt. fastighetsägaren som ni säljer till?
o Vi har hört att demontering och lagerhållning utgör de största hindren idag. Har du förslag på hur demontering respektive lagerhållningen kan effektiviseras?
o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägarna för att ett bra samarbete kring återbruk ska
kunna ske?
o Vilka villkor har ni för att ingå i ett sådant potentiellt samarbete?
o Hur tror du ett strategiskt samarbete mellan aktörer kan uppnås för att främja en högre grad av återbruk vid en lokalanpassning/ombyggnation?
o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkan återanvända byggmaterial?
o Vad finns det, som du kan se med en sådan samverkan/samarbete, för möjligheter och
utmaningar?
o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?
80
Appendix IX – Interview Questions for the Research Institute
o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk i en störreskala?
o Vad anser du behövs göras för att underlätta för dessa utmaningar?
o Vilka material anser du har störst potential att återbrukas vid enlokalanpassning/ombyggnation?
o Vilken/vilka aktörer anser du har mest möjlighet att påverka implementeringen avåterbruk vid lokalanpassningar?
o Vilka incitament krävs för att implementera återbruk i en större skala?
o Existerar det idag några nyckeltal (schablonvärden) för hur mycket CO2 man sparar inpå att återbruka olika material?
o Hur tror du att man genom data på respektive material kan få in återbruksperspektiveti ett tidigare skede
o Vad anser du är det kritiska stadiet i återbruk processen vid enlokalanpassning/ombyggnation?
o Hur tror du ett strategiskt samarbete mellan aktörer kan uppnås för att främja en högregrad av återbruk vid en lokalanpassning/ombyggnation?
81
TRITA-ABE-MBT-20403
www.kth.se