Circular Economy in the AEC Industry
This article is based on a panel discussion held on March 12, 2021, focusing on the circular economy within the European region and was moderated by Kritika Kharbanda, who is an MDes Energy & Environment student at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, Sustainability Engineer at Henning Larsen Architects, and co-founder of Cardinal LCA. The panel was strategically planned with eminent individuals from the Architecture, Engineering & Construction (AEC) industry. It included Björn Appelqvist, the Head of Waste Management and Site Solutions Department at Ramboll, and an active member of the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) since 2006 with more than 20 years of experience in the waste management sector. The second panelist was Torben Kulasingam, currently a senior engineer at Ramboll, who successfully represented Denmark and Ramboll at UNLEASH - Innovation lab for SDGs. Torben also emphasized circularity through his master's thesis called 'Conceptualization of livability, using Rambøll as a case'. The final panelist was Duncan Lithgow, a passionate building designer at Ramboll, with Design for Disassembly as the major propaganda. He is currently developing a community to gain information around the open standards for disassembly and material passports, proposing buildingSMART Data Dictionary (bSDD) as the solution.
Q1: What is the first thing that comes to you when we talk about the circular economy? What does the term mean to you?
Björn Appelqvist: For me, a circular economy is about keeping as much value in the system for a long time as possible and making sure that resources and products are used and are being utilized as good as possible and for a long time as possible, without harming them. Basically, bringing back and having those materials here in the loop at this higher level and maintaining that level value as far as possible is the idea.
Duncan: Is there an important distinction between the circular economy and cradle to cradle concepts or is it just a new branding of the same idea?
Björn: For me, maybe the cradle is even more closed-looped when the circular economy could be more adapted in more open systems. At the same time, cradle to cradle go very much for bringing things back into the same product or the same usage. A circular economy could be diverse in a broader sense and could also divert from one value sharing to another.
Torben: From an urban planning perspective, it's really about interrelating existing supply chains. From a materials point of view, you really want to go from a linear perspective into a circular one. The transition is really important, but it's also about expanding these circles and making them interrelate with other circles. For instance, if you have bricks and you want them to be in the same loop or coexist with another loop – we need to see these possibilities. This will come if you make a business plan for all the items used for the manufacture of a product, and you consider each respective item as a product instead of just the final product. It could be everything from bricks, but it can always also be something like the soil that you extract when you build - which is a valuable product in the end because its net resource is depleting. So, considering everything is a product may change the approach, even though it's a small part of a building or an urban plan.
Q2: Can you also talk about some issues that you have identified through your [Torben] thesis or from working in the professional field that stops us from achieving these systems?
Torben: Firstly, the project life cycle of designing buildings in Denmark is quite rigid. You have certain "steps" or "gates" that you have to reach or go through, and then the next stage starts, and circle economy may conflict with some of these stages because you have such rigid stages where certain actors will be involved at certain points. For instance, the contractor's involvement depends on the kind of tender you put up. The turnkey contractor may sometimes act as the main contractor, and these kinds of forms have different influences on how you can push some circular initiatives. For instance, if you want to reuse bricks but if you have a turnkey contractor - they will focus on the price from the beginning because that's the minimum, and they will look into if it is more cost beneficial for us, instead of just buying new bricks. So, there are some conflicts, I think, in the existing way of designing buildings in Denmark, and that's maybe the first point it to address existing infrastructure.
Duncan: The other aspect of it is the turnkey contractors have all of those priorities but are also bound by the current legislation. If we start getting into legislation, it means that it's very hard for councils, for example, to build their infrastructure because the cap on their ability to invest in infrastructure is so low, which means that the council is almost forced to use turnkey contractors and the legislation excludes them from saying "You must use these materials and there are certain ways they can do it." There are some legislative issues right at the top of our industry, which also contributes a lot to some of those problems. The council I live in would love to build themselves, but because of the way the infrastructure caps are set by the national government, they can't really build those kindergartens and schools themselves. So, they end up using turnkey contractors who have other priorities.
Björn: It's very important to stress one of the main challenges of making things more circular is also that it's too cheap to use virgin materials. It's too cheap to throw things out, so the financial drivers on the top end are still not strong enough, and that's also why the business case doesn't hold water well. You can say that it is market-driven, but someone sets the frameworks for the markets, and still raw crude oil is very cheap; energy is cheap, and it's cheap to produce and extract new things out of the ground, and that's on the top! It is very important to remember when you look at the policies and what can be done inside the box.
And then comes the legislation. Our legislation is basically all through the lines adapted to work for a linear economy flow. It is built from this perspective – this is how we use things and how value chains are fought about. You have a distinction between waste and not waste. I would say that's very much about product safety responsibilities and tax issues on one side. But also, if we look at the environmental legislation, it is something that has been very much tinkered on, but basically, the foundation of the is still based on the idea of containment and reducing harm. These concepts are sometimes very much in conflict with the idea of a circular economy. We will need to revamp the full environmental protection legislation in order to say what are the new perspectives and priorities and how does that fit. We need to ask – When does circularity trump containment?
We still lack a good knowledge of what's in the resource pool of the built environment. That also makes it hard when you don't know what materials are on the market. It is also hard to quantify what's out there in the pool of materials and when do we expect them to come into the market. From my point of view, and for buildings as well, one challenging thing for the built environment is the tradeoffs between sustainability and circularity. It is definitely a good thing from the sustainability perspective, but the challenging thing for a circular perspective is the long-life span of buildings. This means that the materials used will be highly outdated by technology development.
Figure 1: Design for disassembly prototypes, Courtesy - GXN
Kritika: It is a bit controversial because I have seen some new projects that aim to be more resilient towards changing climates and floods and all of these uncertainties on climate in the coming 50 or 80 years.
Torben: At least from a building's perspective, we need to approach each project based on the context. For instance, it was some time ago that Kasper Guldager said to look at the buildings in Vesterbrogade, Norrebrogade etc. He believed that they might be the most resilient buildings we have in Denmark because they have been there since 1870 and even before! We are just renovating the interior instead of actually touching on the core or the load-bearing structure. This is something that we have been discussing in billings as well when we consult clients on new projects. If there are any existing buildings out there, we consult them to prevent any major demolishing and just say that the structure is actually capable of staying there for 100 years more. So, we encourage them to employ us for floor planning instead and make it more resilient because then we are working actually in compliance with the waste hierarchy - the triangle - and trying to prevent at the top! We are also mitigating the heavy emissions from tearing down concrete or steel structures and building something new, which is really heavy. Then we're trying to recycle instead of going down to the bottom of the triangle and down-cycling something or demolishing something. So, I would advocate looking at the possibility of renovating and designing for resilience, then always come up with this Design for Disassembly because we don't know what will happen in 50 years.
Björn: I totally agree with this approach. This is also about keeping as much value as for long as possible. Don't tear down if something is designed for repurposing rather for disassembly - design and repurpose before building new. So, in a way, a provocative approach would be that in 20 years time, we should not be working that much with actually 'building' buildings but prevent new buildings from being built and just consulting on how to make the most value of what is out there as much as possible. That is also the most attractive business case for every customer to get the function as cheap as possible with as little environmental impact as possible.
Figure 2: Frederiksberg School, Henning Larsen Architects. The facades are made from recycled bricks, 20% of the cladding stem from the old Sct. Annagades School. Courtesy – Henning Larsen Architects
Kritika: You also mentioned that there are certain certifications that can help catalyze this whole process of circularity, so can you elaborate more on that?
Torben: Yes, we are working with the Coop Byen with Henning Larsen Architects. It is a huge urban planning project in Albertslund, and we're using DGNB urban districts for this one. One of the criteria is some credits address circularity concepts, starting from the built environment to soil management to preserving nature or preserving the ecosystems. So, circularity is not only focusing on this built environment; it's actually going into the different loops that are interrelated with materials, integrated with nature, and interrelated with existing ecosystems. So, one of the key ideas on this project is to understand the notion of circularity, which is actually really diverse and every time we touch upon it - for instance, the existing structure in the project - we actually contribute to something existing outside of the Coop city because it interlinks with other things. So, this is the beginning of an adventure with the circular economy, and we need some kind of a rigid starting point, as we did with sustainability 20 years ago, and these schemes actually helped us to make it more tangible. DGNB actually helps sometimes just to make it tangible and strategize our steps to reach the goal line. So, it's a good tool for projects and also for dialogue with a client because they need to understand that everything is not about design for disassembly, like taking old bricks but just putting it in the façade; it's so many other things as well.
Figure 3: Coop Byen, which will be built at Coop's old headquarters in Albertslund, will be built in several phases over the next 10 years, based on a master plan prepared by the design studio Henning Larsen. Courtesy - Henning Larsen Architects
Kritika: Can you comment about the sustainability agendas regarding circular economy in developing countries? If we look only at the life cycle assessment and talk all about the materials, they have no incentive to prepare these environmental product declarations, and why would they do it? So, where should these steps be taken?
Duncan: Environmental Product Declaration is a complicated field, and the mathematics behind it is unique. But the starting point needs to always be the clients that want it. A speculative builder will almost never want it because it is good - they won't want it if it is not their focus. So, I think whether it's a developed economy or a less developed economy, the important thing is making sure that the client is part of the community rather than a speculative investor. This is because we know that if it is a wider community that is setting the agenda, then thinking about the use of resources and the longevity of a project will always have a higher priority because that's what people think about - they think about their children and their grandchildren. A speculative investor thinks about it a 5, 10- or 15-year turnover, so I'm promoting co-operative housing councils building their own buildings and community groups building their own community halls, rather than speculative investors building an apartment building.
Björn: It is about making sure that things are done in the right way and on some level. So, it brings back the argument to any kind of legislation that's needed to be in place and the enforcement of that legislation.
It should lay down specifics that you have to be rewarded for building good buildings that are in accordance with the regulations. Further, you have to be sure that that waste is handed in in in a good way and that production processes are according to some environmental regulations. You need that framework because if you don't have it, there are no financial drivers at all to do things right. So, you need some kind of legislation, and most importantly, you need to be sure that the legislation is enforced because, without that, we are on a total liberal free market where profit maximization will drive any kind of decision.
Figure 4: ’How to read the EPD?’ Courtesy - paroc.com
Kritika: Shifting to a circular economy in the EU, it might have an adverse impact on the developing countries. I'm talking more about how we export waste for burning in these developing countries, so what do you think we can better in this process? Is there a different strategy, or again do we need to have better legislation?
Björn: We should not be allowed to export our waste; it is very simple. It's a very sensitive field - it's not self-evident what to do in the best way. So yes, I would say we shouldn't export waste where it does harm, which is, of course, one thing to look into. But when you look at circularity, if we want circular systems in the world as it looks today, where most products actually are produced outside of Europe, in a way, we need to get that material back to where production is done. So, when the question is on the threshold, or how much should you refine something and on which side of a border - which is basically about once again the capabilities to handle that kind of material in an efficient & environmentally friendly way, and in a way that makes sure that it gets back into the loop. Then, when things are beginning to get really complicated, the European Union should tell which countries are not capable of handling materials in the correct way. We had a Basel Convention where some of these regulations on handling products were highlighted. Inspite of this "gate issue," we can argue that the circular economy could be a driver for financial development and growth in the future. Of course, one thing is that we need to get materials back to where production is to make things circular, but once again about not "green washing." The most important thing is that we shouldn't export waste under the disguise of material recovery and recycling when it's rather about getting things tucked away in a river in Africa. That's not the way to do it, but if there is an infrastructure in the countries to support this, then shipping materials might make sense. The more I look to it, and also from working for the ISWA, I understand that you have to force yourself to not focus on the European perspective but also look from other angles and say how much are we supposed to be policing the world.
Torben: We should call it a resource.
Björn: It is a resource. However, that's where we get caught up in legislation and definitions and where we end up with the waste definition is quite tricky since it actually is based on the intentions of the holder. There is no absolute terminology for when something is waste or not, so it's basically about the intention of the holder of the material at the moment. So, if you intend to get rid of or want to dispose of your perfectly working bicycle, it falls into the waste paradigm, and all of a sudden, has to be handled under waste legislation. Then it's much harder to get it out of that legislation again than something which is a product and can stay in a product loop. This is very tricky - a circular concept basically would mean that nothing is a waste. We should define ways by highlighting things that we really don't want to have in the loops any longer and put them away in final sinks. Everything else is basically a resource. But then, a lot of things are in the grey zone where you have a lot of good metals that can be recycled.
Duncan: Well, it gets me to think that maybe the way around it is that a company like Kingo, for example, does a lot of demolition work - they continue to be the owner of a lot of the materials they demolish. So rather than selling them or being sent outside, they maintain ownership of them and instead pay for their refinement and continue to own them until somebody else buys the refined product. Because then, from what you're saying, it does not become a waste at any point.
Björn: Yes, and if you do renovation projects, or if you do your specifications with the intent of using the materials again, then you can follow a different kind of string and very much argue that these are products or resources to be reused. Of course, this will have to be reflected in the way you want to handle them, but then you can also start thinking about new waste definitions if possible.
Figure 5: ’Kingo Karlsen A / S is Denmark's leading environmentally conscious demolition contractor.' Courtesy - Kingo
Kritika: To end with an optimistic note - Can you give us an example of where two or more industries can work together to make this process happen?
Duncan: It is obvious that the building construction industry and the waste management industry need to work together. We need to integrate the waste management processes in our ways of finding new resources, and I've got a whole lot of opinions on how the waste management industry should be cataloguing and organizing their data so that we can do that in the building industry. For a good example, when old concrete structures get demolished, most of that aggregate and the steel gets reused.
Torben: There's one more example from STARK - they have this concept called " GENTRÆ," (Read More here), like reuse of elements from a construction site, for example, the staircases and the concrete structures. They actually come back to take it down and use it for other construction sites. But it's again something that you have to address to the client at the beginning of a project, that in the end, you can make agreements with the respective actors who come and pick it up and put the product back into the circle.
Therefore, the focus has to be on the usage of materials and buildings - what is the purpose, how do we make sure that the build is valuable as long as possible by ensuring that we have a long-term end. Because that's the way you secure the interest of keeping value and that's what you see in the stone quarters of Copenhagen - these are buildings that have been there for 100 years, and our owners are interested in keeping the value of the buildings so that that is a very important point. But we will find the need for connections between different sectors capabilities all along the way for redefining the way to work together.
Figure 6: ’GENTRÆ collects construction site wood, cleans it and sells it. The goal is to save up to 50,000 tons of construction site wood annually from ending up as fuel.' Courtesy - STARK
Reach out to Kritika Kharbanda (kritikakharbanda@gsd.harvard.edu) for further discussion and/or question.