An alternative understanding of ‘temporary’ material ownership towards a circular economy.
INTRODUCTION
Material lifespan currently ends vigorously with building demolition. Some perfectly reusable materials are left to disintegrate on a landfill whilst the same material is being purchased for another project across London. If only they had known…
[re]Link provides a platform that initiates conversations between companies to reuse materials in the construction industry. Materials are currently simply understood as assets that are one-time-use only. Certainly, this would not pose any problem, had buildings last as long as materials. With the average building lifespan decreasing however, materials are forced to go to waste before their destined longevity. From evaluating the current issues of material efficiency and waste management, this essay explores ways in which a more circular economy can be achieved through reusing materials.
By challenging the existing understanding of material ownership, [re]Link promotes the re-use of building materials. As previously mentioned, the practice proposes to achieve this with the leasing model where state owned materials are rented to private companies under long-term contracts. In this essay however, the concept of material ownership is further evaluated; the proposal now inspects the economic prospect of temporary ownerships over the rental system.
Beyond the economic inducement, the notion of ownership additionally indicates a sense of responsibility, which is currently lacking from the private sector. Owning, rather than, renting will subject the companies to look after the circulating materials. Through analysing the existing system of Transfer of Part, a collaborative process of transferring ownerships that encourages the maintenance of materials is explored. Provoking self-inflicted interest amongst companies will sustain a more circular conception of the construction industry where reuse of materials becomes the norm.
MATERIAL EFFICIENCY
With the rising awareness of environmental emergency, the issue of construction waste has never been so alarming. Certainly, the improvement is evident in the UK construction industry according to the statistics. In 2016, the UK generated 66.2 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste, of which 60.2 million tonnes were recovered. At a recovery rate of 91.0%, this meets the EU target of 70%, which the UK was to meet by 2020 (DEFRA, 2020, p. 9). This is however, turning a blind eye to the distressing truth that the waste from construction, demolition and excavation is responsible for 62% of the total waste produced.
One contributing factor is the lack of material efficiency, which poses negative impacts on the environment and the private companies’ profit margin. Some companies approach this by considering the cost of waste from the beginning. But this is a “self-defeating method” (Sherman, 2018) that avoids seeking material efficiency at all. The problem not only derives from individual businesses but also from the existing regulations imposed by governmental bodies. Although the Construction Product Regulation stresses the importance of material efficiency, it fails to define mandatory rules thereof (Ruuska and Häkkinen, 2014, p. 273).
MATERIAL LIFESPAN
The lack of material efficiency in the construction industry proves particularly controversial with materials that are reusable. Brick is said to last between 100 to 200 years depending on its environment. But in fast developing cities like London, buildings are no longer as permanent as they were once thought. The average building lifespan in the commercial sector is between 25 to 30 years, and as result, bricks are wasted before they need to be. As Pearman justly suggests, we must begin to accept the non-permanent notion of buildings, providing temporary licenses (Pearman, 2011). Arguably, that is not to say that buildings must live on for longer but rather that materials could and must be re-used.
A new phenomenon can therefore be questioned: how can we implement reuse of materials as part of the construction industry’s fundamental responsibility?
MATERIAL OWNERSHIP
Previous statistics indicate that the current one-time-use of construction materials is deemed environmentally and economically unsuitable. There is a need for a more radical approach that encourages recycling of materials to fit the contemporary demand for sustainability. At a smaller scale, each company must change its attitude towards waste. Waste management should be considered throughout a project timeline, as an ongoing process rather than just a consequential hassle. Creating a detailed SWMP (Site Waste Management Plan) is estimated to reduce on-site waste by up to 15%, resulting in 43% less waste heading to landfill (pbctoday, 2019).
To take the matter even further, materials should be reused to achieve less to zero waste, towards a more circular conception of the construction industry (see Diagram 1). There are already practices that push for such sustainable approach. Rotor Deconstruction in particular, not only reduces the quantity of demolition waste by salvaging materials but also argues that buildings must be designed to be reused from the beginning (Rotor Deconstruction, 2020). Despite the practice’s impressive effort, a wider impact of such repurposing could only result from a more of mainstream practice. So how could we accomplish this in a capitalistic society where the moral argument of environmental justice simply doesn’t work?
A new economic perception of materials then becomes necessary. As Rau rightly states, we must begin to view materials as “valuable asset, rather than an expense to be lumbered with” (Wainwright, 2020). Traditionally, materials are not associated with the practice of ownership in the construction industry; owning materials does not increase capital gains over time. But if, the value of materials once again increases towards the end of building lifespan, we can convince private firms that the reuse of materials works ultimately for their benefit.
[re]Link therefore proposes an alternative understanding of material ownership. Profits would derive from temporary rather than permanent nature of ownerships. Material ownership should be acknowledged as something which becomes beneficial when exchanged and passed on. This is where governmental incentives play a crucial part within our proposal (see Diagram 2). There are three public regulations throughout the cycle that promote the use of the plug-in:
- Tax incentives: reduction in tax given to companies that agree to be a part of a circular economy. Admittedly, this is not an optimal proposition. A survey with Gielen (see Appendix), has revealed that public money should not be used to incentivise private developers. In an ideal world, tax incentives should only be used as an initiative which eventually diminishes.
- Planning system: [re]Link rating within the plugin which will be considered when a planning application is made
- Subsidised demolition: provided to companies who are salvaging materials for further reuse. As Gielen mentions, if developers are to pay the real cost of damaging environmental factors, such as for pollution (Heathcote, 2020), the system of reuse would certainly cost less and become more appealing.
Previously, [re]Link suggests a leasing model where local councils have the sole ownership over the reusable materials. However, further analysis reveals that if the governmental regulations provide economic incentives the construction industry needs, a central rental body is no longer deemed necessary. Taking Opalis (Opalis, 2021) as an example, it would naturally be in companies’ own interest to use the [re]Link platform as an online directory to trade material ownerships. Instead of obliging local councils additional liability throughout, they should be given the ownerships when the materials are either no longer recyclable, or yet to be reclaimed. It would be up to the councils where and how to store the materials until further use (see Diagram 3).
The government thus becomes a participant within the cycle rather than an authoritative body and a more collaborative, than a hierarchical, relationship between the public and private sector is created. This revised proposal not only reduces the cost of public spending but also relieves further pressure on the government to supervise. According to Maarten Gielen from Rotor (see Appendix), the central management of resource is unlikely to increase reuse and “the more layers of management you have, the least likely reuse is”.
Certainly, the proposed scheme relies on private companies to enact independently and evoking such interest within contractors may seem hopeless and lengthy to begin with. However, as more materials enter the system, more firms will use the plugin, eventually causing a snowball effect. [re]Link’s goal is to focus on the future and provide a lasting solution which sustains itself. The current issue of material efficiency and waste management stems from companies neglecting their personal responsibilities towards sustainability, as it does not pose negative impacts on them directly. The platform therefore strives for the opposite; we insist that our network provides positive economic impacts on businesses. It is precisely the combination of initial governmental incentives and self-inflicted interest from the private sector that will allow the system to be increasingly sustainable over time.
MATERIAL CYCLE
Besides economic imperative, the idea of owning rather than renting also provokes the feeling of responsibility and motivates the companies to look after the materials. The success of the proposal heavily relies on the maintenance of materials. Unfortunately, materials inevitably weather over time and their conditions are not altogether predictable. It must be in companies’ individual interest to keep the materials in their best possible quality. In order to investigate how ownerships are passed on ensuring this, the existing agreement in transferring land or property ownership (conveyancing) is studied. One specific type of transfer, known as Transfer of Part of Registered Title, becomes particularly of interest. The latter refers to when an owner sells a portion of a property to someone else (GOV.UK. 2019).
Considering the impossibility of determining which exact materials to reuse, the ownership of materials cannot be as easily defined as for land or properties. By re-evaluating the conditions of Transfer of Part where a property is divided into two separate ownerships, [re]Link proposes a prolonged transferring procedure that opts for shared responsibilities (see Diagram 4). For the purpose of this essay, the timeline explores transferring of brick ownership within the commercial sector:
- The mixed-use commercial building is 20 years old, nearing the end of its lifespan (the average building lifespan is 25–30 years within the commercial sector, as mentioned previously). As bricks could last between 100 to 200 years, Company A hires a trader, with the guidance from [re]Link, to perform inventories. This includes (see Appendix):
- Precise encoding en description
- Rating per quality
- Technical tests
- Required refurbishment
2. With a better understanding of which portion of materials to salvage, Company A lists the bricks to the plug-in.
3. In preparation for its forthcoming project, Company B searches through the plug-in. The search criteria includes:
- The type: of bricks including age and aesthetic
- The availability: of when and how many bricks could be claimed
- The location: of bricks to minimise transportation distance
- The rating: from the plugin that will be considered during planning application
4. After the consideration, Company B selects Company A to collaborate with, and Company A reviews the offer and accepts.
5. The prolonged process of Transfer of Part begins and lasts until the disassembly. The primary goal is to maximise the number of bricks being handed over. By doing so, Company A receives demolition subsidies and avoids the cost of waste removal, whilst Company B gains a [re]Link rating useful for planning approval. Consequently, maintaining quality becomes a mutual interest for both companies. The number of reusable bricks, alternate over time, depending on how well they have been maintained. The contractual change between the parties should not be seen as a competition where one gains or loses, but as a collaborative procedure, which benefits both in the long run.
CONCLUSION
A radical shift from the existing system of linear material flow to a more circular economy within the construction industry is long overdue. As our awareness of the climate crisis intensifies, it has revealed the poor performance of material efficiency and waste management from the private sector. Without imminent drawback, companies have opted to neglect their duties towards sustainability.
The platform [re]Link therefore proposes an alternative, updated understanding of material ownership. The notion of ownership not only signifies the sense of responsibilities but also embodies an economic implication. The proposal promotes temporary material ownership where one profits from passing on ownerships for reuse. Here, the governmental incentives become crucial. A combination of tax incentives, integrated planning systems and demolition subsidies, will captivate companies and encourage a wider system of reuse.
The primary aim of the [re]Link plug-in is to demonstrate its ease of use that works entirely for the private companies’ benefit. It is through provoking interest, rather than enforcing rules, that will avoid the existing non-holistic approach to sustainability. Admittedly, the proposal has been designed as a solution to current issues, which are likely to continue evolving in the future. The overall success relies on our ability to accept the necessity of regular revisions and update the platform accordingly. Although its accomplishment cannot be anticipated, this fundamental shift in the method of working, to become more flexible for future generations, is what [re]Link ultimately strives for.
APPENDIX
A survey with Maarten Gielen from Rotor
Q: What is the current process of reuse?
A: The process is: rough inventories on demolition sites, just to enable traders to have an idea what to salvage. Precise encoding en description by the trader, rating per quality, technical tests, refurbishment, etc. And then that’s where a tool for transferring this info to designers can make sense.
Q: Where would you store the materials once salvaged?
A: where the land is cheapest and the workforce plenty. Depends on type of material; second hand decorative lighting for retail can be handled very close to city center, a brick yard needs more space and would be a bit further etc. Have a look at the opalis.eu map and you’ll see there are patterns in where &what.
Q: Initially as a group, we argue for a leasing model, where state owned materials are rented to companied under long term contracts. However, if the governmental incentives would already encourage the use of the platform, I now believe that a central rental body would no longer be necessary. This is also because the notion of ‘owning’ rather than ‘renting’ indicates responsibility and encourages the companies that the maintenance of materials is in their interest. What do you think about this? Is governmental incentives more important or the mix of the latter and self-inflicted interest from private companies?
A: I have yet to see proof that central management of resources is increasing reuse.
I know the theory, some cases with Philips and so on. But I’ve never seen an actual increase of reuse in any of these systems. In reuse, track record show that it most common in informal contexts, then small companies, then larger, and absent in multinationals because it is difficult to manage abstractly. So the more layers of management you have, the least likely reuse is.
Why should public money be used to incentivise people to do the decent thing? Legislators have other means at their disposal than handing out public cash to private developers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles
Pearman, H., 2011. Lifespan. [online] Ribaj.com. Available at: <https://www.ribaj.com/culture/lifespan#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20lifespan%20of,needs%20a%20%C2%A328m%20restoration>
Sharman, J., 2018. Construction Waste And Materials Efficiency. [online] NBS. Available at: <https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/construction-waste-and-materials-efficiency>
pbctoday. 2019. How Is The Construction Sector Combatting Its Waste?. [online] Available at: <https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/waste-in-construction/65702/>
Wainwright, O., 2020. The Case For … Never Demolishing Another Building. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2020/jan/13/the-case-for-never-demolishing-another-building>
Heathcote, E., 2020. Why Tomorrow’S Architecture Will Use Yesterday’S Materials. [online] Ft.com. Available at: <https://www.ft.com/content/191c2f50-3395-11ea-a329-0bcf87a328f2>.
Opalis. 2021. About. [online] Available at: <https://opalis.co.uk/en/about>.
Journals
Assets.publishing.service.gov.uk. 2020. UK Statistics On Waste. [online] Available at: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/918270/UK_Statistics_on_Waste_statistical_notice_March_2020_accessible_FINAL_updated_size_12.pdf>
Official Journal of the European Union., 2011. Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. [online] Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0005:0043:EN:PDF>
Antti Ruuska and Tarja Häkkinen (2014) ‘Material Efficiency of Building Construction ‘, [Online]. Available at: < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264859687_Material_Efficiency_of_Building_Construction >
Websites
GOV.UK. 2019. Registered Title(S): Part Transfer (TP1). [online] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/registered-titles-part-transfer-tp1>
Gumtree.com. 2020. Terms Of Use | Gumtree.Com. [online] Available at: <https://www.gumtree.com/termsofuse>.
