Cited by 200Recycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceSustainable Building Design and AssessmentSustainable Supply Chain Management

Mining the physical infrastructure: Opportunities, barriers and interventions in promoting structural components reuse

Open access
Iacovidou, Eleni, Purnell, Phil·2016·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

Construction is the most resource intensive sector in the world. It consumes more than half of the total global resources; it is responsible for more than a third of the total global energy use and associated emissions; and generates the greatest and most voluminous waste stream globally. Reuse is considered to be a material and carbon saving practice highly recommended in the construction sector as it can address both waste and carbon emission regulatory targets. This practice offers the possibility to conserve resources through the reclamation of structural components and the carbon embedded in them, as well as opportunities for the development of new business models and the creation of environmental, economic, technical and social value. This paper focuses on the identification and analysis of existing interventions that can promote the reuse of construction components, and outlines the barriers and opportunities arising from this practice as depicted from the global literature. The main conclusions that derive from this study are that the combination of incentives that promote reuse of construction components and recycling of the rest of the construction materials with the provision of specialised education, skills and training would transform the way construction sector currently operates and create opportunities for new business development. Moreover, a typology system developed based on the properties and lifetime of construction components is required in order to provide transparency and guidance in the way construction components are used and reused, in order to make them readily available to designers and contractors. Smart technologies carry the potential to aid the development and uptake of this system by enabling efficient tracking, storage and archiving, while providing information relevant to the environmental and economic savings that can be regained, enabling also better decision-making during construction and deconstruction works. However, further research is required in order to investigate the opportunities and constraints of the use of these technologies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.098

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 119 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Allwood, J.M., Cullen, J.M., 2011. Sustainable Materials -With Both Eyes Open: Future Buildings, Vehicles, Products and Equipment -Made Efficiently and Made With Less New Material. UIT Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  2. Bradly, G., Shell, S., 2002. Design for Deconstruction and Material Reuse, Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39-Deconstruction Meeting. CIB.
  3. Durmisevic, E., Brouwer, J., 2002. Design aspects of decomposable building structures. Proceedings of the Deconstruction and Materials Reuse Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany.
  4. Earle, J., Ergun, D., Gorgolewski, M., 2014. Barriers for deconstruction and reuse/recycling of construction materials in Canada. In: Nakajima, S., Russell, M. (Eds.), Barriers for Deconstruction and Reuse/Recycling of Construction Materials. CIB Publication 397.
  5. Gorgolewski, M., Ergun, D., 2013. Closed-loop materials systems. Sustainable Buildings Conference. Coventry University, UK.
  6. Grinnell, R.C., Austin, S.A., Dainty, A.J., 2011. Reconciling low carbon agendas through adaptable buildings. Proceedings of 27th Annual Conference of Researchers for Con- struction Management.
  7. Guy, B., 2014. Survey of deconstruction operations by building materials reuse organiza- tions in the US. In: Nakajima, S., Russell, M. (Eds.), Barriers for Deconstruction and Reuse/Recycling of Construction Materials. CIB Publication 397.
  8. Guy, B., Gibeau, E.M., 2003. A guide to deconstruction. In: Institute D. (Ed.), Florida De- partment of Environmental Protection, Florida, USA.
  9. Guy, B., Shell, S., 2002. Design for deconstruction and materials reuse. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 -Deconstruction Meeting, Karlsruhe, Germany.
  10. Nakajima, S., Russell, M., 2014. Barriers for deconstruction and reuse/recycling of con- struction materials. In: Nakajima, S., Russell, M. (Eds.), Barriers for Deconstruction and Reuse/Recycling of Construction Materials. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB).
  11. Office Journal of the European Union, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parlia- ment and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Direc- tives (Text With EEA Relevance).
  12. O'Rourke., Laing, 2013. The future of DfMA is the future of construction [Online]. [Accessed EEJ -2013 edition]. Available from: file:///C:/Users/cenei/Downloads/ LOR%20Engineering%20Excellence%20Journal%202013.pdf.
  13. Sassi, P., 2002. Study of current building methods and products that enable dismantling and their classification according to their ability to be reused, recycled or downcycled. International Conference for Sustainable Building, Oslo, Norway.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iacovidou, E., & Purnell, P.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Iacovidou, Eleni
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-07
Volume
557-558
Pages
791-807
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2337881206
Cited by
200
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council (EP/K012398/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Keywords
construction waste, construction and demolition waste, construction carbon emissions, barriers to reuse, construction recycling, deconstruction, smart technologies, skills and training, business models, resource conservation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review