waste management architecture dissertation

The Architecture of Waste: Is wasting resources a necessary part of the design process?

Site visit to Hokkaido, Japan, for the "Making Next to Forest" studio. Photo: Maggie Janik

A linear economy conceives of waste as an end. It presumes that refuse cast off, flushed, or buried terminates the processes of consumption. The world’s dominant understanding of capital depends on this view, an idea that begins with resource extraction and leads eventually to disposal—what Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace, refers to as “Take, Make, Waste.” Conceptually, “waste” represents a fundamental redesignation of value by separating out material that no longer seems to have potential. This conversion of material to waste results in the burial of more than 200 million of tons of detritus each year in the US.

An additional 100 million tons or so of disposed material feeds back into the consumption stream, but this happens almost invisibly. Sorted and repurposed for recycling and composting, divided waste streams merely hint at an inflection from “Take, Make, Waste” thinking. As far as most people can tell, different waste bins direct material to different trucks, which carry it to different ends. Even with effective recycling, it is difficult for people to conceive of the consumption process as other than linear, because used material still goes “away.” And virtually everything we use seems to start out as new. Even things made from reconstituted material, such as recycled or partially recycled paper, plastic, and metal, are essentially indistinguishable from the same items made from new materials. Compost is not much different: for most consumers it comes as soil, freshly packaged in branded, brightly printed plastic bags. So, crucial as it is, an effective recycling system disguises itself, for consumers, as waste disposal.

Huge changes in the linear consumption stream have developed since the 1970s, but they are hard to discern. In their 2015 Harvard Design Magazine essay, “ The Missing Link: Architecture and Waste Management ,” Hanif Kara , Andreas Georgoulias , and Leire Asensio Villoria point out that “drastic efficiency leaps, environmental impact improvements, and technological innovations all happen far from the public eye.” They argue that architects should be more deeply involved in making these visible by creating better-designed waste facilities. These would not merely soften the harsher aspects of waste infrastructure, they also could help turn public attention toward the multiple ways we dispose of material. “With their innovative programming, and welcoming and transparent architecture,” they emphasize, “these buildings help to promote healthier communities.” This is one important way to elucidate the problem of waste, but it doesn’t fundamentally challenge the system of consumption that creates it. Waste is still an end product.

Designers can also reconceive the consumption system in more subtle ways. As a circular economy develops, its goal of disposing of no material moves the challenge of waste more deeply into the system. Waste becomes as much a beginning as an end. In their book Building from Waste: Recovered Materials in Architecture and Construction , Dirk E. Hebel, Marta H. Wisniewska, and Felix Heisel question “whether the consideration of the waste state of a product should not become the starting point of its design proper.” In this view, waste becomes an essential concept in design, since the depleted value state of the material informs the process from the beginning.

Alternatively, designers could focus their attention on utilizing materials that have already been used. For now, however, designing with reused building materials can be challenging because they are not widely available. As Alejandro Bahamón and Maria Camila Sanjinés point out in Rematerial: From Waste to Architecture , “The design process for a building that incorporates recycled materials and products differs significantly from the conventional way of conceiving architecture…. The design team must first identify the sources of materials suitable for reutilization and then start to define the details.” While this shift in design process can drive creativity, the limited market for reused material can constrain innovation. As a circular consumption system develops, designers must continue to question conventional design processes, but they must also shift the ways they think about waste.

Over the past year, a number of GSD courses have directly addressed this challenge. Waste in its many manifestations was the central theme of the first-year courses in the Masters of Design Engineering program. In Architecture, the spring semester studio “ Making Next to Forest ” confronted the concept of a circular economy in Japan’s wood production industry. And several Landscape Architecture courses have focused on how urban sewage can support agricultural production and food systems.

Waste “is on some level unappealing,” points out GSD instructor Jock Herron . So, while waste may not necessarily be the big idea designers first turn to, it presents “lots of different design solutions,” difficult engineering challenges, and “big behavior elements.” Consequently, as a theme for the first-year course sequence in the MDE program, “it worked extraordinarily well.” Twenty-two students worked in multidisciplinary teams to unearth the huge challenges waste presents. Herron says that the program structure lends itself to broad investigations—“We give them the theme, and they figure out what the problem is”—but the research teams moved, over the course of the year, toward tightly focused and very specific design solutions.

During the fall semester, students worked with the faculty team of Andrew Witt , Joanna Aizenberg , Elizabeth Christoforetti , and Cesar Hidalgo to investigate multiple different kinds of waste—electrical, medical, nuclear, and so on—and the systems associated with them. Naturally, these intersect, and their interactions point out how waste occupies the complex interfaces between human and natural systems. Continuing with the theme into the spring semester, student teams worked with Jock Herron , Stephen Burks , Luba Greenwood , and Julia Lee on developing specific products to help contend with waste-related challenges.

Groups addressed a wide range of topics including noncompliance in medical regimens (which results in wasted medicine, economic resources, and human capital); waste of ink and paper in book publishing; furniture disposal by large and very mobile student populations; sources of food waste in agricultural production and at points of sale; efficiency in the complex timeline for liver transplants; the use of algae for carbon sequestration; and identification and disposal of trash in national parks. Each team designed a tangible product to deal with the challenge.

Coming at waste from a very different angle, Toshiko Mori’s “Making Next to Forest” spring semester studio started with the idea that waste “is a completely wrong notion.” “We really should not have any waste,” Mori emphasizes. Her studio focused on “a global approach to proposing alternative forest economies,” using wood production in Hokkaido, Japan as a model. Japanese resource usage is highly effective, in part because it balances natural forest management with industrial wood production that produces little waste. “In Hokkaido when they harvest trees,” Mori explains, “there’s only 10 percent waste. Ninety percent of everything they harvest is being used, even the small branches… they’ll be used for chopsticks, which makes sense. Even though the last 10 percent is unused, it could be used for biofuels.”

Students studied the processes that contribute to this highly efficient system, including natural resource preservation, timber harvesting, furniture building, and material reuse—both in Boston and while visiting Hokkaido for two weeks in February. Their first design included a masterplan for a forest research center on an abandoned university campus in the city of Asahikawa. The center’s primary purpose would be to promote a circular economic model—finding ways to make use of otherwise wasted wood, particularly byproducts of industrial processes. Their final project, a chair museum in the township of Higashikawa (a partner and sponsor of the studio), sought to connect the research on forest ecology with design at all scales, using regionally sourced materials.

Waste of another kind is the central focus of a GSD faculty team studying the complex interactions between Mexico City and the agricultural Mezquital Valley, about 37 miles northeast of the city. A massive pipe connects the city and the valley, pumping an almost incomprehensible volume of raw sewage into its highly productive soil. Wastewater nutrients support a rich agricultural economy, but modern sanitary standards of sewage treatment threaten the balance.

In their research proposal, “ The Right to the Sewage: Digesting Mexico City in the Mezquital Valley ,” which recently won a major prize from the SOM Foundation, Montserrat Bonvehi-Rosich , Seth Denizen , and David Moreno Mateos propose to undertake a systems-based multidisciplinary study that includes the whole waste-production cycle, with the goal of better understanding and supporting its productivity. Their 2019-2020 courses on food systems, ecosystem restoration, and soil formation offered a prelude to a future research and design studio that will address the challenges of waste disposal and reuse in Mexico City, and, more broadly, the future of the urban water cycle in cities throughout the world.

In multiple ways GSD faculty and students are challenging fundamental presumptions about waste and the economic models that make it necessary. By incorporating waste deeply into their thinking, and the products they envision, they are questioning design processes, reconceiving consumption, and finding new value in refuse.

• Fabrication
• Infrastructure
• From source material to demolition, Wheelwright-winner Aude-Line Dulière untangles the film industry’s elusive supply chain
• Eulàlia Gómez-Escoda’s “Feeding Boston” addresses the staggering rate of food waste in the US
• The Right to Sewage: Agriculture, climate change, and the growing need for cities to embrace wastewater reuse

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Architecture Books

The Architecture of Waste: Design for a Circular Economy

• Published on October 16, 2021

Global material crises are imminent. In the very near future, recycling will no longer be a choice made by those concerned about the environment, but a necessity for all. This means a paradigm shift in domestic behavior, manufacturing, construction, and design is inevitable. The Architecture of Waste provides a hopeful outlook through examining current recycling practices, rethinking initial manufacturing techniques, and proposing design solutions for second lives of material-objects.

The book touches on a variety of inescapable issues beyond our global waste crisis including cultural psyches, politics, economics, manufacturing, marketing, and material science. A series of crucial perspectives from experts cover these topics and frames the research by providing a past, present, and future look at how we got here and where we go next: the historical, the material, and the design. Twelve design proposals look beyond the simple application of recycled and waste materials in architecture—an admirable endeavor but one that does not engage the urgent reality of a circular economy—by aiming to transform familiar, yet flawed, material-objects into closed-loop resources. 　　

Complete with over 150 color images and written for both professionals and students, The Architecture of Waste　is a necessary reference for rethinking the traditional role of the architect and challenging the discipline to address urgent material issues within the larger design process.

Introduction 1. Global Circularity 2. Waste of Space 3. Case Studies 4. New Deconstruction: The Rebirth of a Circular Architecture 5. Economics for a Circular Environment 6. World of Waste Afterword

Publication year

Image gallery

• Sustainability

世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!

想浏览archdaily中国吗, you've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, digital transition and waste management in architecture, engineering, construction, and operations industry.

• 1 Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering - DABC, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
• 2 Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics - DICATAM, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

The research aims at analyzing the integration of Waste Management (WM) strategies and Information management in the construction procurement process. The application of Building information modelling (BIM) methodologies for a Most Economically Advantageous Tender could address the digital transition in order to adopt environmentally sustainable practices. Despite the wide regulation regarding waste minimization, an overview of which is provided, AECO is still one of the most polluting industrialized sector. Drivers and barriers to the method, and a literature review are provided: BIM approaches to enable WM practices have been analyzed from the designer and constructor’s point of view, but few studies investigated the role of the Client, in particular the Public Client. The goal of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of Most Economically Advantageous Tender and a BIM methodology to promote WM strategies during the tender phase. Design Build (DB) and Design Bid Build (DBB) procurement models are tested through three case studies of Italian schools' calls for proposals: the BIM model enabled to verify the bids in terms of WM strategies implementation. Blockchain and Smart contract future applications are also investigated in order to ensure transparency of the whole process. The Public Client could trigger a change in the construction sector regarding the integration of WM practices, as a central and active actor of the construction process, through the application of Green Public Procurement and BIM methodologies.

Introduction

Increasing global urbanization has resulted in high levels of waste. The built environment consumes more natural resources than necessary. The World Resource Institute study ( Matthews et al. 2000 ) shows that “one half to three quarters of the annual material input was returned to the environment as waste within 1 year in industrialized countries like Austria, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands and United States.” International organizations, likewise European Union (EU) have realized and are claiming that resources are finite and that nature can no longer absorb the vast quantities of waste produced by humankind. However, the famous Earth Overshoot Day, the date when humanity’s demand for resources in a year exceeds what the Earth can regenerate, passed from October to July 29th (in 2019) in just 30 years. In 2019 waste production was still increasing. In order to contrast the waste phenomenon, European initiatives involving municipalities, companies and citizens’ groups are encouraging its members to commit to the elimination of residual waste, thereby ending landfill and incineration as waste management (Waste Managemen) practices. EU targets of zero waste to landfill.

It is estimated that waste produced on a construction site accounts for up to 30% of the total weight of materials delivered ( Fishbein, 1998 ). Data about waste in constructions and demolitions activities and their environmental and economic impacts cannot be further ignored. Construction WM (CWM) processes must be reengineered to reduce construction waste at source. Rethinking WM in construction requires adopting “cyclic” rather than “linear” approach to design and construction ( Osmani, 2011 ). This requires re-engineering current practice to contribute to a cleaner environment through efficient and cost effective sustainable waste minimization strategies. Waste minimization strategies must be adopted during the whole process of design, construction, operation and demolition of a building.

The present work would initially provide a review of the definition of waste and the European regulation framework, in order to introduce the context for the application of sustainable strategies and green procurement based processes, with a specific focus on AECO (Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations) sector. Existing barriers and drivers to waste minimization practices in the construction sector are then presented, that lead to the integration between sustainable strategies and green procurement, and Building information modelling (BIM) methods, as provided in the literature review section. The method proposed implies the integration of these methods and strategies in order to introduce and encourage a change in the construction sector. In particular, both the method presented and the subsequent case studies are part of the Italian context, with the application of an innovative tender process implementing waste minimization strategies. In order to introduce the Italian context, the adoption of the European regulation in the Italian legislation framework is presented, and the proposed innovative tender processes are investigated. Three Italian case studies of tendering and construction processes at different levels of completion are then introduced and analyzed in order to identify advantages and disadvantages of the method proposed. Some future implementation to improve transparency and traceability, such as the application of Blockchain technology and Smart contracts, are finally provided, followed by conclusions and possible further developments.

Waste Definition

Zero waste strategy could be the only solution for a world in an environmental crisis; however, this is really challenging in AECO industry. In order to reach the goal it will be necessary to involve and commit all stakeholders and develop efficient WM strategies taking the industry closer to a “zero waste” vision ( Osmani, 2011 ). The new common sustainable approach involves a redefinition of the concept and the idea of “waste”; various interpretations and definitions of waste can be found in construction waste related literature. From a waste by-product of a process, the concept of waste has been redefined as a factor adding costs but not value ( Koskela, 1992 ). Similarly, waste can be classified as “unavoidable,” when the costs to reduce it are higher than the producible value, “avoidable,” when the investment needed to manage the waste is higher than the costs to prevent or reduce it ( Formoso et al., 1999 ). Otherwise, Ekanayake and Ofori (2000) defined construction waste as “any material, apart from earth materials, which needs to be transported elsewhere from the construction site or used within the construction site itself for the purpose of land filling, incineration, recycling, reusing or composting, other than the intended specific purpose of the project due to material damage, excess, non-use, or non-compliance with the specifications or being a by-product of the construction process.” Mossman (2009) also defined material waste as anything that is not needed to generate value for the end-user.

It is possible to claim that there is no generally accepted definition of waste. As a result, the European Council revised the Waste Framework Directive in October 2008, which should have been fully implemented within all EU member states by December 2010. The European Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC define waste as “any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard” (EU). Reuse and recycling of waste are encouraged, whereas the sorting out measures are aimed at simplifying the fragmented legal frame-work that has regulated the waste sector to date.

European Regulation Framework Developments

In order to analyze the context of WM is necessary to provide a review of the major regulations in terms of WM strategies with a specific focus regarding construction and demolition waste. The main regulation framework in the European context is defined by the European Directives, since the common interest in the context of sustainability and the attempt of the UE to achieve common objectives among the Member States.

In the paragraphs below construction and demolition waste main regulations are presented, focusing on the aspects with major effects and interests for AECO sector. The following paragraphs, then, summarizes the specific regulation framework of packaging waste, and, finally, some considerations and the analysis of Eurostat data regarding the evolution of construction and demolition wastes production are provided.

Construction and Demolition Waste Regulation Framework

The regulation framework in the field of WM, and in particular in the context of AECO sector is presented below. The major evolution of the legislation starts from 1975, with the definition of waste and WM activities, up to the definition of specific categories of construction and demolition wastes in the early 2000s, as shown in Table 1 .

TABLE 1 . Key points of European regulations from 1975 to 2008.

In 2008 Directive 2008/98/EC stressed the attention on the possible uses and treatments of waste, with the definition of the waste treatment hierarchy. Recycling and recovery targets are also introduced for the construction sector. The attention started to focus on the production phases of products, with an increasing responsibility of the producer on wastes.

Around 2015 a significant step forward can be seen in the approach to the phenomenon, as the focus shifts from waste and how to manage it, to the phases in which wastes are produced and how they could be reduced; in 2014 there was a first introduction of sustainability criteria in procurement legislation. Also, major and important integrations to the Directive 2008/98/EC were introduced in 2018, as shown in Table 2 .

TABLE 2 . Key points of European regulations from 2008 to date.

In 2014 the procurement legislation, i.e., Directive 2014/24/EU, highlighted the need of minimize waste generation and increase resource efficiency, thus introducing the possibility to include tender clauses related to WM and minimization. In 2015 with COM (2015) 614 final of December 2, 2015 a real turning point emerged as the focus extended to the whole process, from the design phase to product disposal stage. As a result, the interest changed from the only phase in which waste already exists, to the whole process, with the aim of avoiding or reducing waste production through the definition of environmentally sustainable design processes. Regarding the construction sector, this approach turned the attention from the only phase of construction and demolition to the design phase, with major attention to a responsible choice of construction materials.

The European Commission also pointed out that a large amount of materials resulting from the demolition of buildings could be recycled, but as they are not properly identified and separated they cannot be treated and are landfilled. This leads to considerable environmental damage, both because of the amount of waste that could have been recycled and used as secondary raw materials or energetically recovered, and because the mix of demolition waste materials often contain hazardous substances and can be highly polluting to the environment. As a consequence, the aim would be to maximize the homogeneous portions of valuable materials so that they could be properly recycled.

Finally, one of the most important aspects of this document is a new approach to wastes as resources as “secondary raw materials” in the circular economy cycle. The major consequence is the possible profit of construction companies in selling recycled products, such as metals, and, also, ensure savings with the re-use of demolition wastes into the next building cycle.

Later, in 2018, with Directive 2018/851 the attentions is highly stressed on the design phase, and, as regards AECO sector, the following consequences are expected: conscious choice of materials during the design phase, e.g. avoiding waste strategies, recyclable, recycled, durable materials, using raw materials produced in sustainable ways and use of the least possible quantity of hazardous substances; implying local workforce and materials, reducing transport pollution; focus on the quantity of waste produced during the construction phase, due to the preparation process of the products before they are installed and quantity of packaging wastes; possibility of recovering the building at the end of its life and, when no longer possible, focus on the possibility of re-use, recycling or recovery of materials and debris resulting from the demolition of the building. A clearer definition of selective demolition reflects the need to integrate this phase into standard practice, so as to increase the proportion of materials actually recycled at the end of building life cycle. Also, the introduction of electronic records is a main aspect of the regulation since wastes must be properly treated and consequently they must be traceable, avoiding as much as possible illegal transportation of wastes. The definition of backfilling introduced the possibility of replacing the excavated soil in the same location, ensuring landfilling savings for construction companies.

Packaging Waste Regulation Framework

This paragraph shows a brief summary of the main regulation specifically focused on packaging ( Table 3 ), as this represent a large part of construction wastes.

TABLE 3 . Key points of packaging waste regulations since 1985.

The main objective of the regulation development is the increasing attention to the separation of different types of packaging ensuring to recycle the most part of them. In addition, the increasingly detailed sorting of materials, e.g. the distinction between “ferrous metals” and “aluminum”, ensures high quality recycling, increasing the profit from selling them as secondary raw materials. Therefore, one of the final aims is, once again, to increase the willingness of companies to sort and recycle waste, turning it from a burden to a profit.

Waste Statistics in European Union

EUROSTAT study is presented in order to provide an overview of waste production divided by EU countries and industrial sectors ( Figure 1 ). In 2016, the total waste generated in the EU-28 by all economic activities and households amounted to 2,538 million tons.

FIGURE 1 . Waste generation by economic activities and households, EU-28, 2016. Data source: Eurostat (env_wasgen).

In the EU-28, construction contributed 36.4% of the total in 2016 and was followed by mining and quarrying (25.3%), manufacturing (10.3%), waste and water services (10.0%), and households (8.5%). The data collected underline that AECO sector is responsible of 924 million tons of waste out of the total of 2,539 million tons.

Figure 2 shows the data for Construction, Mining and quarrying, and Manufacturing sectors in the period 2004–2016 for EU-28 countries. The three sectors produce 72% of total waste in EU ( Figure 1 ). Figure 2 excludes major mineral wastes that are more easily reused and recycled, and shows how Mining and quarrying and Manufacturing sectors have reported a decreasing trend in waste generation equal to −31.4 and −29.6% respectively since the introduction of Directive 2008/98/EC. On the contrary, AECO sector shows an increasing trend in waste production in the period 2004–2016 equal to +3.9%.

FIGURE 2 . Waste generation graph and current trends for waste production in industrialized sectors, excluding major mineral wastes, EU-28, 2004–2016 (million tons). Data source: Eurostat (env_wasgen).

Given the annual amount of waste produced by AECO sector more effort seems to be needed. In order to analyze the possible factors that prevent proper WM in the Construction sector, barriers and possible drivers for waste minimization are presented in the following section.

Construction Waste Minimization Drivers and Barriers

Socio-economical barriers.

As stated, despite the adoption of several WM strategies, and the introduction of various legislative measures reducing waste generated by AECO industry remains challenging. In fact, increasing waste intensiveness of the industry is not only as a result of ineffectiveness of the existing WM strategies; waste intensiveness of the industry is enhanced by certain cultural and socio-economical values that support construction waste generation ( Teo and Loosemore, 2001 ). In their study Ajayi et al. (2016) examine cultural profile of United Kingdom AECO sector in order to understand cultural factors contributing to waste intensiveness. Five waste inducing cultural factors have been identified:

• “Make-do understanding” that usually result in “make-do waste”:

most error and rework at construction stage is usually due to incomplete design document or contractors’ poor knowledge of the design and its documentation ( Dainty et al., 2007 ). The process which generates this kind of waste is called make-do waste ( Koskela, 2004 ). The whole process and provisions that allows construction activities with incomplete documentation is termed make-do understanding ( Ajayi et al., 2016 ). Documents and design specifications uncompleted or with unresolved design issues are cause of reworks and subsequent waste generation increasing the risks of cost and time projects overrun.

• Non-collaborative culture, which results in reworks and wasteful activities:

inadequate collaboration between designers, procurement team and contractors is a key feature that compromises profitability and effectiveness of AECO industry ( Deborah et al., 2012 ). It has been proved that the major causes of construction waste are ineffective communication and coordination, inconsistent procurement documentation, unclear allocation of responsibilities ( Osmani, 2012 ), document delay, and non-involvement of contractors in design decisions ( Arain et al., 2004 ).

• Blame culture, which encourages shifting of waste preventive responsibilities between designers and contractors:

AECO industry is known for its inadequate interdisciplinary communication. Specialists deal with their own discipline and are not interested and prepared to take responsibility for choices that affect other disciplines or which have impacts during a different phase of the construction process. The whole design and construction process is interested in passing blame to another party ( Fewings and Henjewele, 2019 ). This shifting of blame is one of the major cause contributing to waste production and inefficiencies in terms of WM strategies; contractors believe that designers contribute to waste generation and designers posit that their activities have nothing to do with waste ( Osmani et al., 2008 ).

• Culture of waste behavior, which encourages belief in waste inevitability:

waste inevitability is evident in the concept of waste allowance, which is the potential proportion of waste that is added to the required quantity of materials. The allowance is usually in the range of 2.5–10% of the quantity of materials ( Buchan et al., 1991 ). It is a belief that a certain proportion of waste is inevitable in construction. As a result, optimization strategies to reduce the amount of scrap materials are not applied in the design phase. Off-site construction processes and the use of products with a wide dimensional range, that would help overcoming the waste issue, have not been implemented as standard practice yet.

In addition, this is a common approach since in the standard practice the owners and the construction company have already paid for packaging, construction and demolition wastes, and landfilling, so they are not encouraged to recycle, and selective demolition and waste separation are seen as a burden. In order to change this way of thinking and acting, the European regulation introduced the concept of waste as a resource and possible source of income with the COM (2015) 614 final of December 2, 2015 and related European packaging regulation. This enables to change owners and construction companies’ view of wastes as a resources and ensuring that sustainable practices become part of the standard practice.

• Conservatism, which hinders diffusion of innovation across the industry:

the project-based nature of AECO industry and its temporary relationship among parties makes it difficult to get innovation across to the industry. Although, it is usually claimed that little innovation occurs within the construction industry ( Blayse and Manley, 2004 ), it is clear that innovation occurs within projects but there are problems with institutional learning required to capture them for future projects ( Tatum, 1989 , Fairclough, 2002 ). The temporary work relationship among parties hinders further exploration or repetition of innovative approach in other projects ( Fairclough, 2002 ).

A similar study conducted by Osmani (2011) has identified and highlighted the vision of designers and construction companies on the main barriers to the introduction of WM in the UK construction sector. Some considerations are made by the author ( Osmani, 2011 ):

• Architects consider “lack of interest from clients” as the major constraint, followed by “waste accepted as inevitable” shared by contractors’ vision; it underlines the pervasive culture of waste behavior, which encourages belief in waste inevitability.

• “Poor defined individual responsibilities” underlines the non-collaborative culture of AECO sector.

• Contractors see in “waste accepted as inevitable” the major barrier to waste minimization, followed by “lack of training” highlighting the need of more efficient tools and method of WM.

The public Client introducing incentives that promote the adoption of waste minimization methods could trigger a change in AECO industry. As a result, companies would be encouraged to implement sustainable strategies to maintain competitiveness.

Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations Waste Minimization Drivers

Considerable efforts have been made over the last years to understand the factors driving the sustainability of AECO sector in terms of WM. Government legislation is one of the most critical success factors for ensuring the sustainability of the sector ( Osmani et al., 2008 ). A study conducted on the critical success factors for WM in construction projects highlights that WM legislation; WM system, low-waste building technologies, fewer design changes and research and development in WM process are the most critical in ensuring waste is sustainably managed ( Adjei et al., 2018 ). The key drivers for waste reduction strategy in AECO industry could be categorized into three main groups which are:

• Legislative drivers;

• Business drivers;

• Managerial and technological drivers.

Legislative Drivers: Green Procurement

Previous paragraph Socio-Economical Barriers identified the socio-economic barriers of AECO sector, ranging from the culture of waste to the idea of its inevitability, and the sector’s reluctance to integrate sustainable strategies into common practice. In order to trigger a change in the current way of thinking, the Client can encourage its implementation during the tendering phase through clauses in the tender contract. As regards the public construction sector, it is possible to introduce contract clauses in the tendering phase requiring the implementation of sustainable design and construction strategies and waste minimization. Therefore, the public sector can lead the construction market towards environmentally sustainable practices. This aspect has been introduced by the procurement legislation with the European Directive 2014/24/EU, stating that public purchasers must allow public procurement to be opened up to competition as well as the achievement of sustainability objectives. As a matter of fact, by using their purchasing power to opt for environmentally friendly goods, services and works, public Clients can significantly contribute to sustainable consumption and production, which is the idea behind the concept of Green Public Procurement (GPP). Furthermore, the European Commission, through the COM (2015) 614 final of December 2, 2015, attempted to change the concept of waste, from items to be disposed of, to resources in the broader context of circular economy. This paradigm shift aimed to highlight the potential income from proper separation of construction and demolition wastes, in particular by identifying materials for high quality recycling, such as aluminum. As a result, wastes could become secondary raw materials for the construction sector or other sectors and, at the same time, not resulting in costs, such as landfill costs, but in an economic benefit, as well as for the environment.

Business Drivers: Sector Performance

In the previous paragraph the legislative pressure on the implementation of sustainable practices has been presented, and public Clients are placing ever increasing attention on environmentally sustainable practices to be implemented in their tender and construction processes. In addition, both private and public clients are increasingly demanding for enhanced sustainable project performances and are exerting more influence on the industry to reduce onsite waste and cut costs. As a consequence, a direct effect on construction companies is the need to adopt sustainable practices, including waste minimization, in order to improve their performances and remain competitive. Thus, in response to such pressures, businesses are abandoning their narrow theory of value in favor of a broader approach, which not only seeks increased economic value but also considers corporate social responsibilities and stakeholders’ engagement and commitment ( Osmani, 2011 ).

Managerial and Technological Drivers: Information Modelling and Management

Waste minimization practices have for years focused on physical minimization of construction waste and identification of site waste streams. Tools, models and techniques have been developed to manage waste on site. Although these tools facilitate auditing, assessment and benchmarking, their approach to the assessment of waste sources is limited and fragmented, as it fails to effectively address the causal issues of waste generation at all stages of a construction project. As stated in paragraph Socio-Economical Barriers a barrier pointed out by contractors is the lack of training and methods to handle the waste stream during the whole construction process. In addition, in EU regulation the attentions in WM is highly stressed on the design phase; the main objective of the standard is to implement waste minimization strategies in the early design phases in accordance with the waste hierarchy pyramid.

The waste hierarchy pyramid ( Figure 3 ) is divided into different level of WM strategy (EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency):

• Avoidance: the highest priority strategy to adopt in the design phase in order to reduce the amount of waste generated, in a construction project waste generation must be avoided or reduced during the preliminary phases of planning and design.

• Reducing source use, reuse, recovery: reuse, recycling, reprocessing and energy recovery strategies must be the second priority in the design phase. Designers should consider the use of construction technologies with a high level of reusability such as prefabricated and off-site products and the use of materials with a high percentage of recycled materials.

• Disposal: waste hierarchy recognizes that some types of waste, such as hazardous chemicals or asbestos, cannot be safely recycled and direct treatment or disposal is the most appropriate management option.

FIGURE 3 . Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy. Information source: EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency.

Regarding previous statements the current challenge is to provide methods, tools and techniques to identify and solve the root causes and origins of construction waste ( Osmani, 2011 ). The basis for such an approach could be BIM and related technologies.

In addition, BIM methodology could overcome the barriers stated in paragraph Socio-Economical Barriers ( Ajayi et al., 2016 ) by:

• Reducing design errors and lack of information resulting from incomplete and incoherent documentation;

• Improving collaboration among actors and anticipating the involvement of key stakeholders in the process;

• Enabling the shift from a traditional procurement route to a more collaborative system;

• Overcoming the waste inevitability culture since the possibility of computing actual quantities of wastes in a rapid and efficient way.

In order to investigate the state of art of Information Modelling and Management method in AECO sector a concise literature review about applications and case studies of combined Information Modelling and WM is provided.

Literature Review

Information modelling and waste management.

As introduced, BIM could help to minimize the amount of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste. Therefore, several previous studies have proposed BIM-based systems to handle C&D waste ( Cheng and Ma, 2013 ; Hamidi et al., 2014 ) and have introduced potential use of BIM to minimize waste in AECO sector ( Liu et al., 2011 ; Ahankoob et al., 2012 ; Porwal and Hewage, 2012 ; Rajendran and Pathrose, 2012 ). In the following paragraphs, several applications and methodologies of information modeling for WM are presented.

BIM-Based Planning and Estimating System of Construction and Demolition Waste

Several studies have stressed that the lack of benchmarking is an obstacle to the implementation of sustainable practices in AECO industry and that decision making should be based on the most accurate data, information and estimations possible ( Yuan and Shen, 2011 ). Therefore, the quantification of C&D waste is essential for effective WM. The results of the estimations can provide key data to assess the real waste dimension and support decision making for minimization and sustainable WM ( Jalali, 2007 ). The authors Cheng and Ma (2013) propose a BIM-based system for estimating and planning Demolition and Reconstruction waste. Existing tools and methods are not convenient for contractors, too much time and effort are needed since information such as material volume needs to be either measured or retrieved from available documents manually. The BIM-based approach proposed by the authors aims to fill this gap. Authors claim that their system “could extract and process the component information of each building element in a digital virtual BIM model for waste estimation,” providing an automated, fast and accurate waste estimation trough a BIM-model.

A similar and subsequent study proposed by Cheng et al. (2015) investigates how BIM can be implemented to minimize and manage C&D waste on a construction site. Typical BIM uses that can be implemented in planning, design, and construction phases have been identified by the authors through literature review. The study also investigates BIM-based approaches to manage C&D waste in design, construction, and demolition phases, linking BIM uses with hierarchy of WM strategy. The study highlights the potential of information modelling to support integrated building design and construction processes to eliminate the main causes of C&D waste generation and manage waste production. Specifically, the study explores the possibility to reduce and manage waste during the design phase performing design reviews, clash detection, quantity take-off, phase planning, site utilization, and digital prefabrication trough a BIM approach. Considering that C&D waste can be reused and easily recycled if divided into homogeneous fractions, information modelling could help designers and contractors to maximize mono-material fractions minimizing heterogeneous waste. Moreover, authors conclude that the minimized and disposed wastes could be monitored by BIM-based WM planning and execution system ( Cheng et al., 2015 ).

BIM and Design for Deconstruction

The study conducted by Akinade et al. (2015) aims to develop a BIM-based Deconstructability Assessment Score (BIM-DAS) to predict if and how difficult a building can be deconstructed from the early design phase. Critical design principles influencing effectual building deconstruction and key features for assessing the performance of Design for Deconstruction (DfD) have been found to develop BIM-DAS using mathematical modelling approach based on efficient material requirement planning ( Akinade et al., 2015 ). Deconstruction is defined as the whole or partial disassembly of buildings to facilitate component reuse and recycling ( Kibert, 2016 ), DfD could lead the sector to reach the long-term aim of attaining a zero-waste economy ( Addis and Jenkins, 2008 ). Despite the disagreement on the possibility of completely avoiding construction, demolition and excavation waste ( Yuan and Shen, 2011 ; Zaman and Lehmann, 2013 ), studies show that the application of DfD could lead AECO industry towards a zero waste strategy ( Guy et al., 2002 ; Tingley and Davison, 2012 ; Akbarnezhad et al., 2014 ). The study highlights the role and potential of BIM systems for assessing the deconstruction of buildings during the design phase ( Akinade et al., 2015 ). Authors also claim that the results help to understand how BIM functionalities could be employed to improve the effectiveness of existing Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste management tools and BIM software.

Computational BIM for Construction and Demolition Waste Management

As said, BIM systems could be used to support designers to compare different design options, or contractors to evaluate different construction schemes, both with the objective to avoid or minimize construction waste. The management of a construction project involves the use of available data, information and knowledge to make a series of highly interdisciplinary decisions ( Flanagan and Lu, 2008 ). Considering that the main objective of Information modelling and management is to support decision making by ensuring accurate and available information ( Chen et al., 2015 ), BIM can provide this decision support information for Construction WM (CWM). However, Lu et al. (2017) conducted a study that demonstrates how the digital representation of a building itself cannot manipulate information to enable informed decision making for CWM; BIM systems and models must be based on algorithms tailored for this purpose; in order to achieve an efficient use of BIM for CWM authors identify two necessary pre-requisites ( Lu et al., 2017 ):

• Information readiness;

• Computational algorithms.

Lu et al. (2017) aim to demonstrate the importance of organizing data, information and knowledge in a structured form to efficiently apply Information modeling to C&D management. The study explores computational algorithms that can process data and product information and knowledge to assist decision-making process for CWM. In addition, the authors propose a framework for computational BIM by linking it to prevalent procurement models, e.g., Design Bid Build (DBB) and Design Build (DB) ( Lu et al., 2017 ).

The literature review highlighted the wide use of BIM methodologies to handle the waste related data and information and to manage a waste minimization process. Also, the case studies presented in the literature showed positive results from the application of such methods during the design and construction phase. However, the studies mainly focused on the promising use of BIM approaches for process optimization from the designer and constructor’s point of view. The application of BIM methodology in the preliminary stages of the design and construction process could be more efficient, as the strategies are anticipated at a preliminary stage ( Di Giuda et al., 2020a ). Therefore, the case studies presented in this work, and described in the next section, focus on the implementation of BIM methodologies for Green procurement. The aim is to anticipate sustainable WM strategies during the design and procurement phases and, at the same time, manage the information flow throughout the whole process.

Methodology: Digitalization for Waste Management and Green Procurement

The main drivers defined in the previous section, legislative and information technology’s once, can direct the contractors’ bid towards a more sustainable WM process. Green procurement and BIM methodology seem to be the key factors to implement sustainable practices in the Construction industry. In this section, the authors present the method developed for the evaluation and comparison of bids submitted in tender phase for public school projects in the Italian context from 2015 to date. A focus is kept on aspects concerning environmental impact and WM. A first part is dedicated to the Italian regulatory framework. Then, the method of evaluation of the bids in tender phase is presented, with specific criteria following the best practices and indications of the EU. Also, the use of BIM methodology for the information management process, promotes the collaboration among stakeholders.

The Italian Regulation Framework

Within the Italian regulatory framework concerning the environment protection and sustainability, the main legislation until 2016 was the Decreto Ministeriale (D.M.) (Ministerial Decree) 203/2003, defined as the “30% Decree.” On the basis of the D.M., Public Clients were required to purchase recycled products for at least 30% of their annual needs in the provision of goods and services. The decree, however, had various rigidities, especially with respect to its application in the construction sector.

In 2016, the Decreto Legislativo (D.Lgs.) (Legislative Decree) 50/2016 on procurement marked a turning point through the requirement of applying GPP in public tenders, according to European indications. Article 34 of the D.Lgs. requires all Public Clients to purchase products that comply with the Criteri Ambientali Minimi (CAM) (Minimum Environmental Criteria) issued by the Ministero dell’Ambiente (Ministry of Environment), for all classes of products and services and for the total amount of the tender (with exceptions only for construction, that has specific criteria for different construction waste types). In addition, the D.Lgs. 50/2016 includes an invalidation clause for a contract concluded between a Public Client and a company based on a “GPP non-compliant” tender. As a result, the GPP requirement caught the attention of both Public Clients and companies; the process needs, indeed, guarantees at all levels. This aspect is mostly important regarding the quality of “green” products and services offered during the tendering phase and awarded “forcibly.” The aim would be to ensure that the objectives of GPP application, i.e., environment care and “green” products diffusion and promotion, are not only a possibility on paper.

The case studies tried to apply the criteria according to Italian and European regulations in order to promote sustainable processes and introduce waste minimization strategies in Italian AECO industry.

An Innovative Tender Process Implementing Sustainable Waste Strategies

This section regards the types of tenders mainly used in Italian context, with their features and peculiarities. A focus is kept on the evaluation systems of Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) used during the tender phase in the case studies, and in particular on the criteria related to environmental impact and WM. The potential integration of this information in BIM models is presented.

Tender Process Types

Contract management models currently present in the construction market are: Design Bid Build (DBB), Design Build (DB), Construction Management at Risk and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). The latter two models represent the most integrated and virtuous forms of design, but they are rarely applied in Italy and are not taken into account. The most common models and their peculiarities are here presented, also in relation to BIM methodology.

The DBB approach is used for almost 90% of public buildings and 40% of private buildings ( Di Giuda and Villa, 2016 ). In this procurement model, two sequential phases are identified without direct reciprocal influences: a design tender to realize all levels of the project until the construction design, and a construction tender to identify the construction company with the best bid for the realization of the building. In the context of Building information modelling, this method generates slowdowns and limited exchanges of information due to the proprietary know-how of each company that causes re-processing of information.

The Design Build (DB), increasingly adopted to replace the Design Bid Build (DBB), stands out thanks to the merging of design and construction in a single operator. In this way, the Client dialogues with a single actor, increasing the efficiency of information transfer. Thanks to the presence of a unique actor in the building construction process management, this approach represents an excellent scenario in which to exploit BIM methodology and carry out a coordinated management of information, also considering the entire life cycle.

Given the current possibilities in terms of collaboration made by cloud services and Common Data Environments, along with the diffusion of Information modeling methods, the efficiency gap between the two procurement models is reducing. In order to evaluate the actual efficiency of the procurement models for waste minimization strategies, the two models were tested with real case studies, presented in Application on Three Case Studies . A deep explanation of the waste minimization strategies implemented in a DB procurement model is provided in the following paragraphs, since the DB model has proved to be the most promising in terms of collaboration and efficiency.

Method and Criteria for Bid Evaluation

One of the main innovations introduced by D.Lgs. 50/2016 is the introduction of the reward criterion with Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT), based on the quality/price ratio calculated on the life cycle of the building (Art. 95, c. 2, D.Lgs. 50/2016). In order to properly implement this evaluation system, a breakdown of the building’s elements and of the phases involved in the building life cycle, and a detailed definition of their evaluation must be carried out. This process leads to the definition of guidelines, schemes and annexes to be shared with the participants in the call for proposals. These documents identify criteria, sub-criteria, methods and specific formulas for the evaluation of the MEAT. Defining a detailed set of objective criteria and their evaluation systems allows an objective, non-discriminatory and transparent comparison between all the bids received during the tender process.

Table 4 shows the scheme used for the evaluation of the case study set out below. A number of aspects that could be improved were identified at a general level: building envelope performance, building services performance, management and safety in construction phase, and maintenance. The evaluation of the bids is based on the definition of quantitative and qualitative criteria, that can be linked to quantitative classes, or to qualitative classes (when requiring a subjective assessment, e.g., in the case of aesthetical features). In such a way, the evaluation system is based on objective alpha-numerical criteria to define the quality of the bids. In conclusion, the rankings are determined based on linear interpolations for the quantitative criteria and on the compensatory aggregative method on the whole bid. This method also allows an automation of the evaluation process.

TABLE 4 . Scheme of criteria and sub-criteria for the bid evaluation process.

Table 4 highlights all the criteria and sub-criteria that contribute to the general assessment of the environmental impact of WM. It should be noted that C&D WM is evaluated directly through the individual criterion C.2.3 within the management phases of the building site, but also indirectly by considering construction materials, their degree of maintenance, distance of production site and process certifications for contractors and manufacturing companies. Among others, the contractor’s EMS (Environmental Management Systems) certifications (UNI EN ISO 14001) are rewarded, in order to promote the adoption of voluntary performance targets, and environmental certifications of the building construction products. Considering the goal of this research, indirect aspects have been omitted to focus on those strictly related to WM. As presented in the previous sections, GPP tenders are stressing the attention on the minimization of the environmental impacts throughout the entire building life cycle, as introduced by European and Italian regulations. The fulfilment of the environmental criteria can increase the ranking of the participant to the tender. As a matter of fact, regulatory imposition and, above all, reward criteria are a valuable method of promoting the implementation of environmental aspects in AECO sector.

Regarding the category C–Construction site, the construction phase focuses on technical solutions that guarantee an increased in durability, maintenance, construction ease, safety, and WM. The sub-criterion C.2.3–WM is used for detailed forward-looking analyses of qualitative and quantitative waste production during the building construction.

The measures outlined in C&D WM planning consists in reducing, reusing, and recycling the waste, where the reduction and, if possible, avoidance, of waste production is the most effective solution. C&D waste that can not be reused or recycled can only be landfilled. According to this approach, some priorities are defined among waste categories, used to provide compensations and assign additional points during the competition phase: reduction waste strategies are promoted with higher rankings. On the other hand, to evaluate qualitative aspects, the competitors are asked to provide a report that describes processes and methods adopted to manage waste on site. The presence of a quantitative definition of WM combined with a technical report makes it possible to carry out detailed controls during the execution phase, verifying the application of the methods proposed by the contractor and comparing them with site and transport documents. The linear interpolation used to obtain the final score on this specific sub-criterion is described in detail below, using an extract from the guidelines of the tender.

Extract From Guidelines for Tenders’ Preparation: Sub-Criterion C.2.3 - Waste Management

What was evaluated.

It is requested to formulate an offer to define the amount of waste that will be produced. It is necessary to underline the amount of non-hazardous waste from construction activities (excluding excavated soil and debris) that will not be sent to landfills or incinerators, reusing the recyclable resources recovered in the production process and redirecting the materials to specific collection sites, according to one of the following alternatives:

• Re-use of waste materials on site: indicate the quantities of waste expected to be reused on the same site, the methods of use and any necessary treatment for reuse.

• Recycling of waste materials: indicate the methods of separation of the waste on site in a differentiated manner to be collected by an authorized company, which will carry out the differentiated storage and recycling directly and/or transfer the differentiated waste to third parties.

• Disposal: indicate the quantity and type of special hazardous waste (EWC code) that will be produced on site and the disposal methods envisaged with an indication of the companies and sites envisaged for treatment and controlled disposal.

A technical report must therefore be produced, indicating: the quantity of waste (with suitable units of measurement) for each material and divided by processing ( Table 5 ); the methods and checks that will be carried out for the reuse of the materials.

TABLE 5 . Example of table to define percentages of wastes to be reused, recycled, or landfilled, with the proper EWC code.

In addition, for each waste material, it is necessary to fill:

• EWC codes;

• A description of construction activities involving those materials;

• Total quantity Q R i f ,   m i of mth waste material (expressed in kg);

• Percentage of non-hazardous waste material that will be re-used in the construction site;

• Percentage of non-hazardous waste material, excluding excavated land and tillage waste ( % R i u ,   m i ) that will be re-cycled in authorized sites;

• Percentage of non-hazardous waste material, excluding excavated land and tillage waste, that will be sent to landfills or incinerators ( % S m a ,   m i ) ;

• Percentage of hazardous waste material, as defined by directive 2008/98/CE, that will be disposed of in authorized landfills ( % S m a ,   p i )

For each EWC code, the following verification will be done: for non-hazardous materials the sum of percentages ( % R i u ,   m i , % R i c ,   m i , % S m a ,   m i ) shall be equal to 100% of declared scrap quantity; for hazardous materials, the percentage ( % S m a ,   p i ) is equal to 100% of declared scrap quantity.

The evaluation will be performed on the percentage, related to the quantity, of recycled, reused, and disposed of waste material. The score will be based on the following formulas:

Where Q R i u ,   m i indicates the amount of mth material to be reused, related to the ith offer, Q R i c , m i   indicates the quantity of mth material to be recycled for the ith offer, Q S m a , m i indicate the quantity of mth material to be disposed for the ith offer, and Q S m a , p i indicates the quantity of pth material to be disposed of for the ith offer.

The total amount (in kg) of waste materials to be reused ( Q R i u i ) , recycled ( Q R i c i ) , disposed of ( Q S m a − N p e r i e Q S m a − p e r i ) will be calculated:

Where N is the number of materials of Table 5 .

The total amount of waste/scrap material is equal to the sum of the quantities related to recycle, reuse, dispose of, both for non-hazardous (with subscript Nper) and for hazardous materials (subscript per).

This value allows calculating the percentage of materials to reuse, recycle, and dispose of:

It is necessary to define a WM coefficient, as shown in Table 6 .

TABLE 6 . Waste management coefficients for non-hazardous and hazardous waste materials related to waste treatments.

For each offer (i), it will be necessary to calculate the value of D % C .2.3 i , with the following formula:

For each offer (i), it will be necessary to evaluate the score with the following formula:

Where P C .2.3 i   is the score of the ith offer, refered to the criterion C.2.3, and P C .2.3   is the maximum score that sub-criterion C.2.3 can reach.

The score of the sub-criterion will be adjusted following the methodology provided in the Determinazione AVCP n. 7 del 24 Novembre 2011, “Linee guida per l’applicazione dell’offerta economicamente più vantaggiosa nell’ambito dei contratti di servizi e forniture”.»

Once the evaluation is described, the following paragraph will underline how BIM methods and BIM authoring software provide quantitative evaluations based on the use of parameters, resulting in faster and more efficient processes, and guaranteeing the consistency of the information flow during the whole building life-cycle.

The Information Modelling Method and the Implementation of Waste Management Strategies

One of the main problems of MEAT tenders is the lack of consistency among project drawings and, in general, among the tender-based documentation. In this sense, Guidelines of the Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione for contracting authority, that are administrative law documents drawn up by the Italian national anti-corruption authority, suggest “to develop templates, also in electronic format, which facilitate the preparation and submission of bids, both technical and economic, by competitors.”

The adoption of BIM methodology is highly suitable to meet this indication and to partially overcome the above-mentioned problems. The Building information model represents, in fact, a single source of all the drawings and information, both graphic and non-graphic, of all the disciplines involved in a construction project, allowing to maintain consistency throughout the preparation of the tender and consequently in the preparation of bids. It is therefore possible to extract all the project outputs - such as building plans, sections, documents like quantity take-off or also performance specifications - as well as the bid sheets, directly from the BIM model. To make efficient use of Information modelling methods, it is essential to organize data, information and knowledge in a structured form. Parameters are set for each object and organized in easily recognizable homogeneous sections, so that they are also ordered and easily manageable for the creation of tables and the extraction/import operations.

As introduced earlier in the literature review, BIM could help to manage and minimize the amount of Construction and Demolition waste. It could enable the management, the reduction and, in the best situations, avoidance of waste by means of design reviews, clash detection, quantity take-off, phase planning, site utilization, and digital prefabrication. Some relevant example of these activities are presented in the case studies.

These applications are possible when the BIM model is properly set with the goal of quantity and WM, both in the design phase and in the construction phase. The proposed method implies that each type of material in the BIM library is identified with a parameter that specifies the EWC code of the waste material related ( Figure 4 ). This approach allows the evaluation of C&D WM based on quantities of waste materials. During the tender, it could be possible to identify materials producing the higher quantity of waste, and therefore structure criteria for the evaluation of bids that will promote a better second-life management of these materials.

FIGURE 4 . Information regarding EWC (Italian CER) codes assigned to building materials in the BIM model.

As previously stated, considering the current state of art regarding BIM-based software, an interaction between different tools is required to provide detailed analysis on waste information management. Waste generated by the packaging of building construction materials, and scraps deriving from construction activities, are difficult to manage and quantify within the BIM model. To overcome these issues, the proposed framework combines the use of BIM models with external data sheets to support the elaboration and analysis of the bids during the tender phase. These spreadsheets allow comparisons among data, and the customization of criteria and calculation methods. The information contained in the spreadsheets can be linked with the BIM models helping information management and storage during the entire building life cycle. This information could be valuable also to manage tender processes of building disposal and demolition.

Application on Three Case Studies

Three case studies of Design Build and DBB tenders are presented. All projects are related to public schools in Italy designed using BIM methodology. The first project is a DB tender process for a primary school in Melzo (MI). The construction was completed in 2017; the tender process implied the criteria of the MEAT method set out above, before the introduction of C&D WM EU directives and the Italian regulations. The second case study presented is a DBB tender process regarding the project of a secondary school in Liscate (MI). A comparison with the DB tender is also provided. Finally, the ongoing DB tender process for a primary and secondary school in Inveruno (MI) is introduced focusing on the evolution of the environmental management system of the construction site. This represents a work in progress that will be implemented and monitored throughout the design and construction process, in order to analyze further advantages and disadvantages of the method. This project is based on current legislation, and especially on the CAM (Minimum Environmental Criteria), which integrate many aspects of environmental management of the building process illustrated so far.

Primary School in Melzo: Design Build

This case study concerns the detailed design and construction of the new primary school for 500 students in Melzo (MI) and has a €5 M construction budget. This project was developed in 2015 therefore the CAM are not applied. The Italian legislation related to environmental sustainability was defined by D.M. 152/2006 “Norme in materia ambientale (Environmental standards),” which also regulates WM, and by D.M. 203/2003, which defines the minimum quantities of recycled materials to be guaranteed in public contracts. This regulatory framework demanded only a control on hazardous waste. This control was carried-out by means of site-specific instructions and loading register for transport to other sites. For all other materials, it was not mandatory to draw up documents for WM on site and, above all, the selection of materials with recycling rates was not required.

To improve the environmental impact value, BIM methodology framework was used in this case both in the project design phase and in the tender process drafting. Considering the design phase, the main advantages resulting from the application of the proposed methodology are the possibility to avoid and reduce waste production during design reviews and clash detection between disciplines, processing of quantity take-off and digital prefabrication for walls and facade systems. For instance, the finishing panels of the main facade of the building were optimized in terms of size, quantity and colors of each individual panels in relation to the client’s requirements, to reduce the amount of waste on site. During the tendering phase, the possibility of making further improvements in site management and C&D WM was promoted. Each company illustrated in the offer how it could manage environmental factors affecting the construction also in relation to other aspects.

The drafting of the tender documents was carried out as previously described in An Innovative Tender Process Implementing Sustainable Waste Strategies , but the use of the BIM model was not mandatory for the submission of tenders. The procurement systems used in Melzo process is detailed in Di Giuda et al. (2016) ; data reported in the received bids are congruent, complete and unequivocal. The analyses provided can therefore count on valid and unambiguous proposals.

Since the use of BIM in the tender phase was not required, the entire process was conducted in parallel with the traditional management of documentation both in the tender phase and in the construction phase. The model was a verification tool for companies and designers to verify and validate their project and documentations. Also, it allowed to test the defined method from the research point of view. Since the use of an information exchange platform has not been contractually agreed upon, the procedure for acceptance and approval of materials by the Works Management was carried out in a traditional way. In parallel, the same documents are placed on an experimental platform connected to the modelled elements, in order to deliver to the client an as-built BIM model, containing all the information and documents regarding the construction.

Data Analysis and Discussion

Regarding the first case study, environmental criteria regarded more than 40 points and, within these, WM criteria involved directly and indirectly 15 of the 100 total points. In particular, the previously illustrated sub-criterion C.2.3–WM ( Extract From Guidelines for Tenders’ Preparation: Sub-Criterion C.2.3 - Waste Management ) allowed to collect a maximum score of 3 points.

Considering the nine technical bids admitted to tender, all the construction companies filled the quantitative table and attached the specific report for WM, as required in the sub-criterion “C.2.3–WM”. This result shows that the presence of WM among the improvement criteria has succeeded in stimulating interest on this subject ( Figure 5 ). Most of the proposals developed a good degree of detail on the issue, but only half of the proposals described how the most virtuous waste reduction and reuse activities are carried out on site. Moreover, compared to the average 2.35 of the points obtained, only two offers showed significantly lower results, due to the high quantity of material classified as general mixed waste. In general, the bids with the highest scores appear to be directly related to the detail in analyzing and separating at the highest level the types of waste in relation to the planned site operations. Both these observations show that the majority of the companies have interest in proper WM. Due to their own technical background and thanks to the requests of the call for tenders, the companies have integrated the organizational and technical skills for a proper WM.

FIGURE 5 . Comparison between percentages of waste management strategies and rankings in sub-criterion C.2.3.

All seven offers performing above average included high quantities of material for reuse and recycling. Based on these two types of treatments, it is also possible to identify a second important split linked to the quality of WM and selective demolition. These offers show percentages that exceed 75% on one of these two possible activities related to waste (reuse and recycling). Companies that manage to obtain a greater quantity of material to be reused -compared to that to be sent for recycling-, that results in a lower environmental impact, can be distinguished.

Considering EWC codes (Italian CER) used in the four bids with reuse percentages of waste materials around 80%, including the winning bid, the prevailing materials to be reused are cement, bricks, tiles and ceramics ( Figure 6 ). These materials are used for the construction of the sub-bases of the pitches and roadways on site, or as filler for the planned embankments, or as recovered aggregates for concrete mixes. In the background, partial reuses of wood-based and gypsum-based materials, bituminous mixtures or insulating materials can be highlighted: in these cases, it is certainly necessary to investigate the procedures of reuse adopted by the contractor. In fact, for these materials there is a lack of homogeneity in the methods of waste treatment implemented in the four offers. Finally, considering recycling, materials deriving from packaging and metal alloys play a predominant role.

FIGURE 6 . Percentages of reused, recycled and landfilled materials of the four bids with higher rankings.

It is generally observed how the Design Build (DB) contract allows the contractor to obtain greater awareness and integration of WM strategies. The possibility for the constructor to manage the information, documentation and the process flow since the final design phase, minimizes the production of wastes, that in a traditional process would have been linked to project incompleteness or rework. Moreover, thanks to all these aspects, the waste produced in the operational phase can be better managed guaranteeing high reuse and recycling percentages.

Secondary School in Liscate: Design Bid Build

The project concerns the construction of a secondary school in Liscate (MI) for 150 students and €5 M of construction costs. The school was developed in 2017 through a BIM approach and applies the Framework Alliance Contract (FAC-1) as part of the project, showing a high level of complexity. The project development was carried out through a Document Management System (DMS) linked to a BIM-based data management, as detailed in Di Giuda et al. (2020b) .

This second case study, only related to construction tender, was carried out in an advanced scenario due to the introduction of the CAM. For the DBB tendering phase, the CAM legislative framework only provide for the application of the contractual clauses according to point “2.7 Conditions of execution.” The design requirements imposed by CAM, previously defined by the appointing party during the design tender, should in this phase only be applied and guaranteed by the Contractor. The use of a bid evaluation system based on reward criteria is suggested, but still optional.

For the project tender, the contractor has requested the total application of CAM without specific prescriptions. Therefore, quantitative criteria for the evaluation of participants regarding environmental aspects, including WM, were not integrated. In the second phase of the construction contract, a variant of the MEAT evaluation system set out in this paper was applied and adapted to the needs of a DBB contract.

Compared to the first case study of Melzo, a relevant difference can be underlined, regarding the role of the contractor and of the appointing party. In this case, the evaluation of WM was based only on certifications concerning the production of prevailing products, and on the management of the building site and its impact on the surrounding area. In general, the entire bid evaluation system reflected the greater attention on the construction phase, since the Contractor could not intervene on the purely design aspects. As a result of the separation of the two phases of the design and construction tender processes, data on quantities of reused, recycled, and landfilled materials are not available, since the Contractor could not intervene in the design phase.

Primary and Secondary School in Inveruno: Design Build

This third case study concerns the construction of a school complex in the municipality of Inveruno (MI) by means of a DB call for design and construction for a total amount of €15 M. The setting of the call for tenders is currently under development. The appointing party is proceeding with the application of CAM on the whole process, realizing a total integration of their requirements in the tender documentation. Unlike the DBB process, the DB tender involves the mandatory compliance with all the technical specifications of CAM and all the related methods. The reward criteria required by CAM will be integrated with additional ones, including the quantitative criteria related to WM exposed in this paper.

Within this project, WM plays a fundamental role. The project includes selective demolition of old school buildings. In addition, the building site hosted parts of a disused industrial building, not yet demolished. Detailed plans regarding the management of materials, and of excavated soils will be required to encourage the processing of waste for local reuse or the regeneration of by-products. Both the Client, and the Contractor aim at developing with the best methods these regeneration activities of materials included in the DB tender. The Client will obtain a correct environmental management of the common good and can exploit in advance the economic value of the waste to be reconverted to resources, by compensating other economic items of the initial investment. At the same time, as the Contractor owns excavated soil and regenerated products resulting by the selective demolition activities, an important form of incentive for the correct management of the waste is created. This approach represents in a clear way the shift from waste to resource to be applied to materials derived from demolition and excavation, as promoted by the European Directives.

As previously stated, this project is still under development; the whole project is being carried out through a BIM approach. Design review, quantity take-off, phase planning, site utilization, and digital prefabrication options will be detailed and developed through the BIM model. These will be joined by other aspects that participate in improving the environmental impact of design and execution development. Given the importance of collaboration, BIM methodology will be applied and combined with a Common Data Environment platform. This platform will facilitate the verification phases of the on-site WM. Dashboards would be set for the graphical visualization and comparison of the quantitative results expected during the tender phase and those achieved during the construction. The commitment to environmental protection will be guaranteed by a specific criterion to be included in the tender phase, requiring LEED certification. As a result, a guarantee method for the Client developed by a third party will be applied.

Blockchain for Green Procurement: A Theoretical Analysis of the Benefits

In Construction and Demolition Waste Regulation Framework , the introduction by the European Directive 2018/851 of electronic registers for the homogeneous collection of data on waste has been highlighted. The use of electronic register aims at guaranteeing the reliability and accuracy of data on recycled materials. The creation, maintenance and sharing of such register improves both the clarity on products or components designed and prepared for re-use and the understanding of what has actually been recycled as a result. The electronic register therefore makes it possible to set recycling targets for all components used in the process, bearing the final WM and subsequent treatment in accordance with the principles of circular economics.

The presence of an electronic database created and enriched from the design phase enhances the activities of recording, collection and traceability of data, promoting a lean development of the life cycle of materials. In addition, the electronic sharing of information relating to waste makes it easier for designers, companies and suppliers to record all data relating to the life cycle of materials and products, improving the related control activities and, consequently, increasing collaboration among them.

The process based on the creation of the electronic registers becomes truly beneficial when the data it contains are reliable, transparent and immutable. For these reasons, this section introduces Blockchain technology to support the WM process in the construction industry. Thanks to the immutability and transparency offered, the development of sustainable processes and green procurements can benefit from the use of the technology. The potential benefits and the theoretical implementation of the technology in the construction process are presented in order to encourage further researches and real case studies of green supply chains development through the use of Blockchain platforms.

Reliability of Waste Information Issue

As in many other industries, the research shows that also in the construction sector the WM represents a relevant challenge that affects the environment and the pursuit of a sustainable and green supply chain. The possibility to pursuit a green procurement addressed issues such as WM, carbon footprint, packaging and transportation and in this way guarantees a high efficiency of the process and low pollution levels ( Rane and Thakker, 2019 ). For these reasons, in the recent years many regulations have been laid down to manage these procedures. The main goal is to close the circle that characterizes the life cycle of the product, from its production to the management of waste or secondary raw materials.

In order to be able to close, i.e., make circular, the life cycle of a product, its correct design becomes fundamental. Since buildings in the built environment have a long-life span, improving the design of materials, products and components is essential to reduce the building environmental impact and improve the durability and recyclability of its parts, with consequent reduction of waste production.

There is no doubt that technological advancements have caused a revisiting of sustainability practices inside the construction sector. Thanks to its nature as an integrated design system that allows all participants, such as designers, contractors and suppliers, to operate in a concerted manner by managing all information on the same platform, Building Information Modeling contributes directly to the implementation of the circular economy. Unfortunately, due to the large number of participants and the information created and exchanged, the platform used in the BIM process does not always ensure the reliability, traceability, origin and ownership of the information, hindering the effective pursuit of sustainable procedures due to the scarcity or lack of data. These BIM issues could be resolved through the vertical and horizontal integration of Blockchain inside the circular and sustainable construction processes ( Di Giuda et al., 2020c ).

Blockchain as an Enabler for Waste Management Optimization

Despite first uses of Blockchain lies in banking and finance sectors, recently other industries such as energy and supply chains have realized its potential. Indeed, Blockchain technology, thanks to its structure, is consider as a technology that could disrupt every industry in the world. Since it belongs to Distributed Ledger Technologies, the distributed nature of Blockchain guarantees the shift form a centralized storage database to a distributed ledger shared among all the process participants. The procedures used by Blockchain to store, link and transact data assure the information of avoiding any attempt of manipulation or counterfeiting. In addition, the programmable nature of Blockchain enables some applications such as Smart Contracts that represent self-executing computer codes that perform specified actions (releases funds, sends information, makes purchase, etc.) when certain conditions are met, in the real world (a payment is received, the outcome of an event is determined, etc.) ( Kouhizadeh and Sarkis, 2018 ). Due to their structure and functioning these contracts reduce the amount of human involvement required to create, execute and enforce a contract, thereby lowering its cost while raising the assurance of execution and enforcement processes. The European Regulation EIDaS–Electronic Identification, Authentication and Trust Services Regulation (EU Regulation no. 910/2014) recognizes the Blockchain validity and functions, based on distributed ledger that legally guarantees the identity, as well as the electronic time validation of document stored on the platform.

In view of the legal recognition of Blockchain, it can improve and be integrated with the BIM platform in two ways. A vertical integration would allow the creation of a combined platform for the digitalization of the entire process, with a guarantee about the identity of participants, the immutability of the documents entered and the consequent possibility to provide for the adoption of Smart Contracts. A horizontal integration would allow to trace the entire life cycle of the product used during construction until its reduction to the state of waste would extend the radius of the circular economy, ensuring evidence from the design phase until the waste of construction and demolition. The latter integration is fundamental to support an efficient development of a green procurement based on a Blockchain-based BIM process through which is possible to track the product right from its raw material phase to the end of its life, such as recycle or reuse ( Figure 7 ). The tracking of items from supplier to customer is characterized by all the information about the processing, the location and the quality of the items, giving a transparent development of the process and improving its control.

FIGURE 7 . Waste management process based on Blockchain technology.

The distributed system provides the needed trust and transparency within the information exchange among all the participants of the construction process. Blockchain technology can potentially improve the transparency and traceability issues within the supply chain through the use of immutable record of data, distributed storage, and controlled user accesses. Blockchain can overcome BIM barriers related to lack of data, lack of trust in data and the gap in regulatory framework supporting the implementation of circular economy principles ( Bolier, 2018 ). Blockchain indeed promises tamper-proof recording of data related to materials, products or component supporting the improvement of information management for the entire supply chain enabling the development of sustainable business ( Vogel et al., 2019 ).

Smart Contracts Supporting the Green Procurement Process

In order boost the WM and the circular economy principles inside the construction industry, a novel approach based on Blockchain is proposed as a further development. The presence of a distributed ledger that stores information in an immutable and transparent manner is beneficial to all participants in the process. In addition, the ability to define and execute the various contractual tasks through Smart Contracts not only streamlines procedures but also provides incentives for the contracting parties to perform their tasks in accordance with the contractual terms. All information produced and exchanged during the design phase of the building, including the life cycle planning of materials, products and components and the prediction of their reuse, recycling and disposal, are recorded on the Blockchain. This data is accessible at all times in order to understand the correct pre-design of the construction waste and its impact on the environment.

On the basis of the design, the client may request in the invitation to tender specific WM methods and include reward clauses for the choice of reusable or recyclable materials. The reward clauses can be translated in computer codes of a Smart Contract that releases automatically the reward when the request is satisfied. All communication between companies and suppliers is recorded on Blockchain and allows transparent observation and access to the complete life cycle of materials and products chosen and used in construction. The ability to have this information recorded on Blockchain allows to create a truthful identity card of the materials used, useful not only for those involved in the construction of the building, but also for those who will use the building and especially for those who will have to demolish or break it down. Thanks to the registration of the entire life cycle of the product and the planning of its reuse, recycling or disposal, it is easy to guarantee the circularity of all components of the building.

For these reasons, the distributed database offered by Blockchain can transform the traditional supply chain in a green one, supporting the reduction of energy usage and efficient waste disposal. The development and management of product life cycle based on Blockchain could result in a positive impact on construction resources and materials utilization and recycle. Since that Blockchain archived the identity card of every material from the design phase to the demolition one, the information flow could be more effective and it could maintain the value of products and services during its whole life.

In conclusion, Blockchain can be considered as a useful technology, able to offer ecological and economic benefits. The distributed ledger promotes both a better integration among the participants network and a suitable monitor of the materials and waste cycle, by recording all information or actions ( Abeyratne and Monfared, 2016 ).

Conclusions

Increasing global urbanization has resulted in high levels of waste. The construction sector is one of the most polluting industrial sector, with an estimated waste production of about 36%. Also, AECO sector shows a still increasing trend in waste production, especially in comparison with other industries. An overview regarding European and Italian regulations showed the attention on the need to reduce the production of wastes and to perform environmentally sustainable processes. In this sense regulations promote the adoption of waste minimization strategies. In addition, waste is no longer seen as a burden but as a resource and a profit for all actors and stakeholders involved in the whole construction process.

Several drivers for the implementation of waste minimization strategies in AECO industry and to overcome the barriers identified, can be summarized as follows:

• Promotion by regulations and public Clients’ requirements of sustainable strategies;

• Competitiveness for construction companies is strongly intertwined with the implementation of sustainable strategies into their own business models;

• Information modelling methods could allow the avoidance of waste production since the preliminary phases of the construction process, enabling the collaboration among parties, the integration of WM strategies and an easier definition of waste quantities to be reused and recycled.

Previous applications in the literature investigated efficiency of BIM methodology for waste minimization strategies from the designer and constructor’s point of view.

The present work analyzed by means of three case studies the integration of waste minimization and management strategies during the tender phase. The application of BIM methodology to handle the tender phase is also tested from the public Client’s point of view. Two types of procurement models, i.e. DB and DBB, have been applied in order to identify the related feasibility to promote sustainable practices in the construction sector. The collaboration between Client and constructor and a less fragmented information flow, enabled by the DB procurement model, allow a better implementation of waste minimization and management strategies. The DB model seems to be the most promising in terms of collaboration and efficiency. In particular:

• Environmental reward criteria led the participants at the tender phase to integrate sustainable practices in their procedures;

• Sustainable requirements as reward criteria in the tender phase promoted the participants to apply and extend their know-how in the field of waste management;

• BIM approaches in a MEAT framework allowed the Client to verify the compliance of the bids with the requirements in terms of sustainability, and the participants to more easily apply waste minimization strategies.

• Almost a half of the participants, including the winning one, proposed a reuse strategy for about the 80% of wastes.

The case studies showed the possibility for the public Clients to trigger a change in the construction sector regarding the integration of waste minimization and management practices, through the application of GPP and BIM methodologies.

Furthermore, a distributed ledger technology, i.e. the application of Blockchain for the implementation of Smart contracts, could promote both a better integration among the participants’ network and a suitable monitor of the materials and waste cycle. The information recorded on the Blockchain can be accessed at any time in order to monitor the correct planning of the construction waste and its impact on the environment, recording all information or actions in a full transparent way.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

LT: ideation, management, editing. LP: workflow definition and organization. SC: data analysis and investigation. ML: data collection and preparation. GP: regulation and introduction. GD: methodology and conclusions.

This work was supported by the BIM Group, a research unit of ABC Lab for the Digital Transition in AECO sector, of the Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering, Politecnico di Milano.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Francesco Paleari, Marco Schievano, and Elena Seghezzi for the development of the three case studies and for the support to this research project.

Abeyratne, S., and Monfared, R. (2016). Blockchain ready manufacturing supply chain using distributed ledger. Int. J. Renew. Energy Technol. 5 (9), 1–10. doi:10.15623/ijret.2016.0509001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Addis, B., and Jenkins, O. (2008). Briefing: design for deconstruction. Waste Resource Manag. 161, 9–12. doi:10.1680/warm.2008.161.1.9

Adjei, S. D., Ankrah, N. A., Ndekugri, I., and Searle, D. (2018). “Sustainable construction and demolition waste management: comparison of corporate and project level drivers,” in Proceeding of the 34th annual ARCOM conference, ARCOM , Belfast, UK , September 3–5, 2018 , 99–108.

Google Scholar

Ahankoob, A., Khoshnava, S. M., Rostami, R., and Preece, C. (2012). “BIM perspectives on construction waste reduction,” in Management in construction research association , Malaysia , January , 195–199.

Ajayi, S. O., Oyedele, L. O., Akinade, O. O., Bilal, M., Owolabi, H. A., Alaka, H. A., et al. (2016). Reducing waste to landfill: a need for cultural change in the UK construction industry. J. Build. Eng. 5, 185–193. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2015.12.007

Akbarnezhad, A., Ong, K. C. G., and Chandra, L. R. (2014). Economic and environmental assessment of deconstruction strategies using building information modeling. Autom. ConStruct. 37, 131–144. doi:10.22260/isarc2014/0051

Akinade, O. O., Oyedele, L. O., Bilal, M., Ajayi, S. O., Owolabi, H. A., Alaka, H. A., et al. (2015). Waste minimisation through deconstruction: a BIM based deconstructability assessment score (BIM-DAS). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 105, 167–176. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.018

Arain, F. M., Assaf, S., and Pheng, L. S. (2004). Causes of discrepancies between design and construction. Architect. Sci. Rev. 47 (3), 237–249. doi:10.1080/00038628.2000.9697530

Blayse, A. M., and Manley, K. (2004). Key influences on construction innovation. Construct. Innovat. 4 (3), 143–154. doi:10.1108/14714170410815060

Bolier, M. (2018). Blockchain technology to accelerate the transition towards a circular economy. Delft University of Technology.

Buchan, R. D., Kelly, J. R., and Fleming, F. W. (1991). Estimating for builders and quantity surveyors . London, UK: Newnes .

Chen, K., Lu, W., Peng, Y., Rowlinson, S., and Huang, G. Q. (2015). Bridging BIM and building: from a literature review to an integrated conceptual framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (6), 1405–1416. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.006

Cheng, J. C. P., and Ma, L. Y. H. (2013). A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estimation and planning. Waste Manag. 33 (6), 1539–1551. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.001

Cheng, J. C. P., Won, J., and Das, M. (2015). “Construction and demolition waste management using BIM technology,” in Proceedings of IGLC 23 - 23rd annual conference of the international group for lean construction: global knowledge - global solutions , Perth, Australia , January 2015 , 381–390.

Dainty, A., Green, S., and Bagilhole, B. (2007). People and culture in construction: a reader . Abingdon, UK: Routledge .

Deborah, H., Trefor, W., and Zhaomin, R. (2012). Differing perspectives on collaboration in construction. Construct. Innovat. 12 (3), 355–368. doi:10.1108/14714171211244613

Di Giuda, G. M., Giana, P. E., Paleari, F., Schievano, M., Seghezzi, E., and Villa, V. (2020a). “A BIM-based process from building design to construction: a case study, the school of Melzo,” in Research for development . Berlin, Germany, Springer International Publishing , 163–173.

Di Giuda, G. M., Giana, P. E., Schievano, M., and Paleari, F. (2020b). “A collaborative approach for AEC industry digital transformation: a case study, the school of liscate,” in Research for development . Berlin, Germany, Springer International Publishing , 175–184.

Di Giuda, G. M., Pattini, G., Seghezzi, E., Schievano, M., and Paleari, F. (2020c). “The construction contract execution through the integration of blockchain technology,” in Digital transformation of the design, construction and management processes of the built environment . Berlin, Germany, Springer International Publishing , 309–318.

Di Giuda, G. M., and Villa, V. (2016). Il BIM. Guida completa al Building Information Modeling per committenti, architetti, ingegneri, gestori immobiliari e imprese . Milano, Italy: Hoepli .

Di Giuda, G. M., Villa, V., Tagliabue, L. C., and Ciribini, A. L. C. (2016). Process innovation: the use of BIM-oriented model for most economically advantageous tender . Matera, Italy: Colloqui.AT.e .

Ekanayake, L., and Ofori, G. (2000). “Construction material waste source evaluation,” in Proceedings of the strategies for a sustainable built environment , Pretoria, South Africa, August 23-25, 2000 .

Fairclough, J. (2002). Rethinking construction innovation and research-a review of the government’s R&D policies and practices . London, UK: DTI .

Fewings, P., and Henjewele, C. (2019). Construction project management: an integrated approach . Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis .

Fishbein, B. K. (1998). Building for the future: strategies to reduce construction and demolition waste in municipal projects . New York, NY: INFORM, Inc .

Flanagan, R., and Lu, W. (2008). “Making informed decisions in product-service systems,” in IMechE conference, knowledge and information management through-life , London, UK, June 24, 2008 .

Formoso, C. T., Luís Isatto, E., and Hitomi Hirota, E. (1999). “Method for waste control in the building industry,” in 7th annual conference of the international group for lean construction , Berkeley, CA , July 26–28, 1999 , 325–334.

Guy, B., Shell, S., and Homsey, E. (2002). “Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse”, in Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse . Rotterdam, Netherlands , Inhouse publishing, 21 .

Hamidi, B., Bulbul, T., Perace, A., and Thabet, W. (2014). “Potential application of BIM in cost-benefit analysis of demolition waste management,” in Construction research congress, 2014 , Atlanta, GA , May 19–21, 2014 , 140–149.

Jalali, S. (2007). Quantification of construction waste amount. Wastetool handbook.

Kibert, C. J. (2016). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons .

Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction. CIFE Technical Report No. 72.

Koskela, L. (2004). “Making-do the eighth category of waste,” in 12th annual conference of the international group for lean construction , Helsingor, Denmark , August 3–5, 2004 .

Kouhizadeh, M., and Sarkis, J. (2018). Blockchain practices, potentials, and perspectives in greening supply chains. Sustainability 10, 1–16. doi:10.3390/su10103652

Liu, Z., Osmani, M., Demian, P., and Baldwin, A. N. (2011). “The potential use of BIM to aid construction waste minimalisation,” in Proceedings of the CIB W78-W102 2011: international conference , Sophia Antipolis, France , 26–28 October .

Lu, W., Webster, C., Chen, K., Zhang, X., and Chen, X. (2017). Computational Building Information Modelling for construction waste management: moving from rhetoric to reality, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 587–595. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.029

Matthews, E., Amann, C., Bringezu, S., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Huttler, W., Kleijn, R., et al. (2000). The weight of nations. Material outflows from industrial economies . Washington, DC: World Resources Institute .

Mossman, A. (2009). Creating value: a sufficient way to eliminate waste in lean design and lean production. Lean Constr. J. 13–23.

Osmani, M. (2011). Construction waste . Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier .

Osmani, M. (2012). Construction waste minimization in the UK: current pressures for change and approaches. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 40, 37–40. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.158

Osmani, M., Glass, J., and Price, A. D. F. (2008). Architects' perspectives on construction waste reduction by design. Waste Manag. 28 (7), 1147–1158. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.011

Porwal, A., and Hewage, K. N. (2012). Building information modeling–based analysis to minimize waste rate of structural reinforcement. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 138 (8), 943–954. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000508

Rajendran, P., and Pathrose, C. P. (2012). “Implementing BIM for waste minimisation in the construction industry,” in Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on management , Malaysia , June 11–12, 2012 , 557–570.

Rane, S. B., and Thakker, S. V. (2019). Green procurement process model based on blockchain–IoT integrated architecture for a sustainable business. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 31 (3), 741–763. doi:10.1108/MEQ-06-2019-0136

Tatum, C. B. (1989). Organizing to increase innovation in construction firms. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 115 (4), 602–617. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1989)115:4(602)

Teo, M. M. M., and Loosemore, M. (2001). A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry. Construct. Manag. Econ. 19 (7), 741–751. doi:10.1080/01446190110067037

Tingley, D. D, and Davison, B. (2012). Developing an LCA methodology to account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction. Build Environ. 57, 387–395. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.005

Vogel, J., Hagen, S., and Thomas, O. (2019). “Discovering blockchain for sustainable product-service systems to enhance the circular economy,” in 14th international conference on wirtschaftsinformatik, February 24-27, 2019 , 1493–1507.

Yuan, H., and Shen, L. (2011). Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 31 (4), 670–679. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.10.030

Zaman, A. U., and Lehmann, S. (2013). The zero waste index: a performance measurement tool for waste management systems in a 'zero waste city'. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.041

Keywords: Waste minimization strategies, Construction Waste Management (CWM), Building Information Management (BIM), Green Public Procurement (GPP), Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT), Blockchain, Smart Contract

Citation: Pellegrini L, Campi S, Locatelli M, Pattini G, Di Giuda GM and Tagliabue LC (2020) Digital Transition and Waste Management in Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations Industry. Front. Energy Res. 8:576462. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2020.576462

Received: 26 June 2020; Accepted: 29 September 2020; Published: 20 November 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Pellegrini, Campi, Locatelli, Pattini, Di Giuda and Tagliabue. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lavinia Chiara Tagliabue, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Energy Analytics and Informatics for Multi-Scale Applications in the Built Environment: Current Challenges and Future Prospects

The Missing Link: Architecture and Waste Management

Andreas Georgoulias, Hanif Kara, Leire Asensio Villoria

Featured in:

40: Well, Well, Well

Puente Hills, California, is an unhealthy place. Home to one of the largest landfills in the United States, it was the main repository for all of Los Angeles County’s waste until the landfill closed in 2013. Over a period of more than 50 years, Puente Hills Landfill had expanded to cover an area of almost 1,400 acres, accommodating compacted waste stacks as high as 500 feet.

It is hard to visualize such an eyesore, but according to Edward Humes, author of Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair with Trash , the landfill could hold all the cars produced in the United States over the past 15 years while its height exceeded that of many skyscrapers. Because regulations require waste to be covered with soil as soon it enters the landfill, these “towers” were invisible—the problem was sealed from sight. 1 Mesquite Regional Landfill, a much larger and more remote mega-landfill, now serves as the county’s main waste repository. Located 200 miles southeast of Puente Hills and just over 10 miles from the US-Mexico border, it is expected to remain operational for the next 100 years.

Like many affluent societies, the United States is a land of insatiable, resource-intensive consumption, and has built these mega-landfills to accommodate the products of our vicious, and increasingly detrimental, resource-to-waste conversion cycle. In 2012, Americans generated approximately 251 million tons of waste, of which 135 million tons headed to landfills. Given the average landfill gate fee of $48 per ton, the simple act of throwing waste into landfills amounts to nearly $6.5 billion per year.

Often situated in remote locations next to forests, on land that could otherwise be used for recreational purposes, the roughly 2,000 operational landfills in the United States occupy more than 6,000 acres. They emit greenhouse gases that account for 2 to 5 percent of the country’s total emissions, pose significant health risks, and cause long term disruptions to their surrounding environments. 2 Why, then, are landfills still the most prominent means of waste management in the United States?

Money, not surprisingly, lies at the heart of the problem: the most polluting method of waste management is also the cheapest. Although the total number of landfills has decreased since the early 1970s, the vast areas of available land throughout the United States enable the development of mega-landfills. These sites accept waste at very low costs and pose significant roadblocks to the transition toward alternative waste management methods. 3 For many states, transporting waste to out-of-state landfills is the most financially feasible solution. Taxpayers in New York, for instance, paid $2.2 billion to cover the state’s waste management needs in 2012; $300 million were operational costs for railroad and truck transportation for the disposal of waste in out-of-state landfills. The trucks travel 40 million miles annually, the equivalent of approximately 16,000 trips from New York City to Los Angeles. The latest Congressional Research Service report estimates that in 2005 Pennsylvania received seven million tons of waste from New York and New Jersey, while Ohio received 500,000 tons of waste from New Jersey and 132,000 tons from Connecticut, both of which are located more than 500 miles away. According to the report, from 1995 to 2005, state waste imports increased by 147 percent.

All states relied heavily on landfilling until the late 1970s and early 1980s. As a result, they faced problems arising from groundwater contamination and pollution, especially in populous northeastern coastal states and Florida. 4 Today, communities increasingly endeavor to introduce recycling, composting, and thermal treatment programs, among others, to facilitate resource recovery and help revitalize surrounding environments. But while such alternative methods are safer and more efficient, they are not necessarily regarded by the public as healthier. With NIMBYism rampant, residents object precipitously to plans that site waste facilities—whether alternative systems or landfills—in their immediate surroundings. And why wouldn’t they object? How can you trust something that you cannot see?

Drastic efficiency leaps, environmental impact improvements, and technological innovations all happen far from the public eye. It’s nearly impossible to observe and understand what takes place in an incinerator or a recycling plant. Outsiders are rarely allowed on-site. The design of the plants, which seldom involves architects, only increases this sense of alienation. These strange edifices seem to be remnants of a not-so-distant past of exhaust fumes and industrial pollution. Their bleak, unwelcoming architecture makes no gesture to connect with the public, visually or socially; they offer no amenities beyond their core function, no opportunities for visitors or communities to engage, and only minimal integration with their built and natural surroundings.

Architecture can help remedy these problems, and better yet, can create new opportunities. In limited but increasing instances, architects are being employed to transform the persistent unhealthy prerogatives that surround these facilities, and to create community beacons—novel landmarks of local pride. Recent experiments in hybrid architecture—from ski slopes on top of waste incinerators in Copenhagen to educational centers in recycling facilities in Brooklyn—integrate recreational activities into the heart of previously uninhabited and largely forbidden public space.

These facilities spotlight how architects can create value in otherwise dull and alienated industrial environments, infusing them with a sense of community and purpose. Beyond their aesthetic qualities, these buildings also exceed established standards of environmental performance. In most cases, the core waste-treatment technology itself remains unchanged, but the design methodologies, operations, and waste processes integrate uniquely to increase efficiency and minimize environmental drawbacks. For instance, waste transferal stations accommodate several different waste streams and facilities in a way that significantly increases energy efficiency and minimizes delivery, processing, and transportation burdens. Similarly, new recycling centers are being designed with efficiencies that minimize energy needs, optimize operations, and reduce handling costs and transportation times.

With their innovative programming, and welcoming and transparent architecture, these buildings help to promote healthier communities. Some even confront surrounding neighborhoods with evidence of their waste production: when complete in 2017, Copenhagen’s Amager Resource Center will emit a smoke ring when one ton of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, illuminated by lasers.

But we should pause before concluding that these buildings—as innovative as they are—have only positive impacts. Are new, unintended problems on the horizon? Maybe, but we won’t know until they have operated for a number of years; many were only recently completed or are still under construction. Though they provide healthier alternatives than conventional plants, there is room for improvement. So, what will it take for these remedies to manifest—by, for instance, generating hybrid plant typologies for the betterment of environments? Can we reintroduce society’s pride in such facilities, as was the case with industrial buildings at the beginning of the 20th century? The untapped potential to enrich the design of waste-management plants is vast, and the missing link is architecture.

Architecture can’t operate in a vacuum though; waste management is an interdisciplinary problem. Many experts contribute to the design of a “conventional” plant: structural, mechanical, and electrical engineers and waste specialists take part, as do environmental and transportation experts. In contrast with landfills, which are better off far away from the city, there are benefits to positioning waste-treatment plants within urban environments. And architects hold the key to making them more appealing, and thus welcome within communities. They possess the tools to introduce technological and social dimensions that other engineering disciplines cannot or will not do.

By being part of the project team from the start, architects can engage with project stakeholders and point out key social concerns. Such qualitative aspects of a project are typically neglected, but can lead to new opportunities or help avoid problems that may manifest later on. Throughout the process, solid design can address social and environmental dimensions, mending them with proven solutions and innovative design. As such, architects’ contributions enhance or merge efficient waste-processing technologies with landscape design, housing, recreation, and leisure. Not all architects will succeed in this integrative approach, and not all projects are suited for it. But for those projects that have such potential, architecture embodies opportunity.

However, for such an interdisciplinary approach to manifest, policy and regulations must change. As long as landfilling waste is the cheapest option, and environmental and social externalities are excluded from the pricing of waste treatment, fewer facilities will be built, and, of those that are, innovation will be constrained by project finances. Successful examples of countries with innovative waste-management systems indicate that policy, design, and planning need to go hand in hand. In Sweden, where almost 100 percent of waste is diverted from landfills, a novel regulatory environment has been fundamental in fostering the transition toward alternative waste-management methods. 5

More specifically, landfill charges need to be high enough to make landfilling economically and socially unsustainable and render alternative methods financially viable. Cities and towns need to accept waste as a resource—even as we collectively work to reduce it. The utilization of economically recoverable waste streams—combustible and organic waste—can lead to new ways of powering and heating our homes using waste as a resource. Furthermore, long-term strategic plans need to set overarching environmental and waste-management goals, promoting cooperation and communication as foundations to educate and engage the public in the decision-making process. Through outreach and education, the public can become aware that their participation is crucial. This in turn perpetuates a tradition of environmental consciousness and waste reuse, as well as public responsibility.

A few quick calculations demonstrate the opportunity that lies before us, and what we stand to lose if we don’t act now. If the United States converted all its waste into energy, every year it would be able to heat 10 million homes, power 14 million homes, reduce coal extraction by 100 million tons, and reduce carbon emissions at a rate equivalent to removing 23 million cars from its roads. On the other hand, if the current trajectory holds, the country will continue losing precious resources, as well as perpetuate environmental and health risks. States with higher population densities face the biggest problems. They produce the largest amounts of waste per capita but lack adequate space for landfills. Even states that have traditionally been significant waste importers will soon lose precious landfill space. For example, Pennsylvania imported eight million tons of municipal solid waste and substantial amounts of industrial, construction/demolition, and other hazardous waste in 2005, but will face a significant waste disposal crisis by 2020 if landfill capacity is not expanded or new facilities are not permitted.

Today, there are 84 waste-to-energy plants in the United States. However, if the country used its waste for energy production in a proportion equal to that of Sweden, 6 it would need 370 plants in the entire country—and waste-to-energy represents just one part of an overall waste-management portfolio. In other words, if policy allowed, the United States could realize its need for thousands of new facilities. Within this space of opportunity, new design concepts can offer hybrid solutions to generate clean energy, contribute to cities’ social and cultural activities, and protect wider urban atmospheres and microclimates.

This essay is largely based on the research of the “Waste Design Lab,” a Harvard University Graduate School of Design sponsored research project launched in June 2014 by Hanif Kara, Leire Asensio Villoria, and Andreas Georgoulias. The research will conclude with a seminar and studio in 2016.

Andreas Georgoulias teaches interdisciplinary design and sustainable development, and is Research Director of the Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. His recent books include Sustainable Infrastructure in Latin America: Infrastructure 360 Awards (2015), coauthored with Ana-Maria Vidaurre-Roche and Judith Rodriguez; Interdisciplinary Design (2013), coauthored with Hanif Kara; and Infrastructure Sustainability and Design (2012), coedited with Spiro Pollalis, Stephen Ramos, and Daniel Schodek.

Hanif Kara is a structural engineer and Professor in Practice of Architectural Technology at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. He is Design Director and cofounder of AKTII, a structural and civil engineering firm, where he has worked on pioneering projects such as Phaeno Science Centre, Peckham Library, and the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology.

Leire Asensio Villoria is Lecturer in Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design and a registered architect in Spain. Together with David Mah, she is the cofounder of asensio_mah, a multidisciplinary design collaborative active in the design of architecture, landscape design, and masterplanning.

The Architecture of Waste: Creating New Avenues for Public Engagement with Trash

Publication or External Link

The relationship between industry, waste, and urbanism is one fraught with problems across the United States and in particular American cities. The interrelated nature of these systems of flows is in critical need of re-evaluation.

This thesis critiques the system of Municipal Solid Waste Management as it currently exists in American cities as a necessary yet undesirable ‘invisible infrastructure’. Industry and waste environments have been pushed to the periphery of urban environments, severing the relationship between the urban environment we inhabit and the one that is required to support the way we live. The flow of garbage from cities of high density to landscapes of waste has created a model of valuing waste as a linear system that separates input from output.

This thesis aims to investigate ways that industry, waste, and urban ecologies can work to reinforce one another. The goal of this thesis is to repair the physical and mental separation of waste and public activity through architecture. This thesis will propose ways to tie urban waste infrastructure and public amenities together through the merging of architecture and landscape to create new avenues for public engagement with waste processes.

URI (handle)

Collections.

List of architecture dissertation topics

The architecture dissertation takes you on a ride where you are questioning what exists, and you are the one to address and answer what you want to change or architecturally contribute to. While brainstorming the architectural topic, you need to be very composed about your interests and aspirations. In this process, being integral with ongoing living trends and contextual issues will lead you towards making your architecture dissertation relevant and impactful. Here are a few categories to help you choose your design forte and then sink into the hustle and celebrate the phase of your architecture dissertation.

Categories:

• Urban Architecture
• Industrial Architecture
• Public Architecture
• Hospitality Architecture
• Religious Architecture
• Cultural Architecture
• Commercial Architecture
• Healthcare Architecture
• Educational Architecture
• Residential Architecture

As per the categories below is the list of architecture dissertation topics:  

1. Co-living Housing ( Residential Architecture )

In the age where earning a living is of more priority than living in families, co-living spaces are here to stay. Co-living housing schemes, not only encourage sharing space, but also sharing culture, social life, and philosophy even across generations. This design topic has the scope of uplifting the work from home culture and offering affordable ideas which respond to the collective lifestyle.  

2. Multi-functional Urban Squares ( Urban Architecture )

With the increasing population, the world faces land scarcity and a rise in concrete jungles. But some places have been solving this problem by introducing multi-functional urban squares. Thus, while accommodating urban facilities, this concept also offers recreational facilities. The topic allows fulfilling the urban requirement with shades of green in the cityscape.  

3. Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) Design (Transportation Architecture)

Urban cities with efficient transit systems develop quickly in terms of technology and economy. Architecture dissertation for mass transit challenges one to dictate movements of city residents through designing it to be less chaotic and more engaging. Along with technological aspects, one can instigate environment-friendly public transport proposals.

4. Waste Management Center ( Industrial Architecture )

An increase in urban population led to an increase in urban waste, which is not treated well in cities. An architecture dissertation in waste management could be a game-changer for rethinking urban environments to be sustainable. It grants exposure to materials that can be recycled or reused and also towards the scale, acoustics, and circulation around the machines installed for waste management.

5. Community Center ( Public Architecture )

Community centers often are the result of the empathetic need in society. Architecture has always amazed society with its contribution to community development. Not only in rural areas but also in the urban vicinity we live requires such centers to address the mental health of urban dwellers. It is a context-driven topic where one can showcase their sensibility towards neglected social issues of any observed region.

6. Redefining Hotels and Resorts (Hospitality Architecture)

Hotel Architecture has been initiated to become the face of the city and reflects nuances of the city culture, history, and style. Hospitality has always been a diverse concept, from greeting to offering meals, and architecture has magnificently contributed to constantly adapting this diversity. This kind of architecture dissertation topic confronts one to be pitch-perfect in the functional planning and circulation of spaces and at the same time create a statement design.

7. Temple Complex of the Future (Religious Architecture)

The temple architecture involves ample customs and traditional beliefs while considering the hierarchy of spaces. Such topics evoke a sense of narration to remodel the temples that will be as captivating in the future as they are today. Hence, to design for the religious activities performed today and fathom the design response of future cohorts is the gap to be bridged.

8. Retracing the Identity of Crematorium (Public Architecture)

The death phenomenon has always been dark and desolate, and crematoriums reflect this with utmost peculiarity. Although, along with time, the idea of death has transformed quite spiritually, and there is a rising need to imprint that intangibility in the tangible space of cremations. This topic challenges to mold human perspectives towards life and death by attempting to retrace them.   

9.  Eco-Museum (Cultural Architecture)

Lately, museums have evolved in varied typologies from general science-art-history museums to an intervention of Virtual Reality in the museums. However, eco-museums encourage observation and learning of the social, cultural, and natural ties of the place and the people and highlight sensitivity towards the welfare of the ecosystem. This typology of architecture dissertation attempts to connect with the visitors through awareness activities expanding the community distantly.

10. Revitalizing Local Markets (Commercial Architecture) 

Markets are a place of constant engagement and community encounters. Analyzing markets post-pandemic, one can sense the need to organize these congestions. Thus, while designing a market, it is essential to adapt to the current needs, achieve a sustainable design, and recreate engagement. 

11. Animal Shelter and Veterinary Care ( Healthcare Architecture )

While we are busy designing for our needs, being thoughtful for the ecosystem is equally crucial. The architecture dissertation dedicated to natural life around us apart from fulfilling the never-ending demands of humans’ could direct towards eco-sensitive design. The animal habitats are not something they can compromise on, and when they need to be treated by veterans, they face difficulties with the environment around them.

12. Urban Campus (Educational Architecture)

Urban campus weaves itself into the urban fabric such that the students coming from distant places feel a part of the city. They aim to offer distinctive curricular experiences through providing spaces to learn, work, play, and integrate themselves into fun learning. This topic liberates you to plan a wide range of functional spaces like R&D labs, libraries, cultural areas, cafes, canteens, etc., and integrate themselves to create a vibrant and energetic environment.

13. Reinventing Villages (Residential Architecture)

Rural development scouts to create affordable and sustainable living conditions for the residents. They lead a simple life with contentment and vulnerability towards nature. In response, recreating vernacular housing and providing them with basic amenities like health and sanitation, educational and communal facilities, electricity, and gas supply with proper maintenance could fulfill Gandhiji’s ideal village initiative. 

14. Disaster Relief Housing (Residential Architecture)

Disaster Relief calls for emergent architecture during natural calamities or even wars or terror attacks. Such a dissertation topic requires crisp research on building materials that can be prefabricated, recyclable, easily available, and assembled at such times. This topic is not limited to modular buildings and can innovate for concentration camps to resolve the issue. 

References: 

Online sources:

• Arkitecture & design.   100+ latest unusual architecture thesis topics list for dissertation research proposal . [online]. Available at: https://www.arkitecture.org/unusual-architecture-thesis-topics-list.html [Accessed 25 February 2022].
• ArchDaily.   Architecture Projects [online]. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/search/projects?ad_source=jv-header&ad_name=main-menu [Accessed 25 February 2022].

Images/visual mediums:

• BlessedArch. (2018).  68 Thesis topics in 5 minutes . [YouTube video]. Available at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczdOK7oe98. [Accessed: 25 February 2022].

Trishla Doshi is a philomath designer and an architect in Mumbai. She aspires to foster cultural resurgence among people through reaching out to them sometimes in the form of words and sometimes design. She is in the constant exploration of the space between herself and her illustrative narratives breathing history.

Why is it essential for architects to build a brand for their practice?

School of Architecture by Bernard Tschumi Architects: Learning creativity with a creative space

Related posts.

Profiles of magazine editors: William Menking

Samskara’s Atelier: Crafting Timeless Stories Through Design

Colouring the Built Environment

15 Minute Cities and The Economy

Unveiling Lavani: The Art, The Essence, The Story

What are the social and economic impacts of different architectural styles on communities?

• Architectural Community
• Architectural Facts
• RTF Architectural Reviews
• Architectural styles
• City and Architecture
• Fun & Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Design Studio Portfolios
• Designing for typologies
• RTF Design Inspiration
• Architecture News
• Career Advice
• Case Studies
• Construction & Materials
• Covid and Architecture
• Interior Design
• Know Your Architects
• Landscape Architecture
• Materials & Construction
• Product Design
• RTF Fresh Perspectives
• Sustainable Architecture
• Top Architects
• Travel and Architecture
• Rethinking The Future Awards 2022
• RTF Awards 2021 | Results
• GADA 2021 | Results
• RTF Awards 2020 | Results
• ACD Awards 2020 | Results
• GADA 2019 | Results
• ACD Awards 2018 | Results
• GADA 2018 | Results
• RTF Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2016 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2015 | Results
• RTF Awards 2014 | Results
• RTF Architectural Visualization Competition 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2020 – Results
• Designer’s Days of Quarantine Contest – Results
• Urban Sketching Competition May 2020 – Results
• RTF Essay Writing Competition April 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2019 – Finalists
• The Ultimate Thesis Guide
• Introduction to Landscape Architecture
• Perfect Guide to Architecting Your Career
• How to Design Architecture Portfolio
• How to Design Streets
• Introduction to Urban Design
• Introduction to Product Design
• Complete Guide to Dissertation Writing
• Introduction to Skyscraper Design
• Educational
• Hospitality
• Institutional
• Office Buildings
• Public Building
• Residential
• Sports & Recreation
• Temporary Structure
• Commercial Interior Design
• Corporate Interior Design
• Healthcare Interior Design
• Hospitality Interior Design
• Residential Interior Design
• Sustainability
• Transportation
• Urban Design
• Host your Course with RTF
• Architectural Writing Training Programme | WFH
• Editorial Internship | In-office
• Graphic Design Internship
• Research Internship | WFH
• Research Internship | New Delhi
• RTF | About RTF
• Submit Your Story

Looking for Job/ Internship?

Rtf will connect you with right design studios.

Illustrator

• Autodesk Revit

Architectural Thesis 2022 | E-Waste Management Eco-Park

Creative Fields

Graphic Design

Architecture

Product Design

• 2022 design
• architecture
• hedonistic sustainability
• Sustainability
• Urban Design
• urban planning
• waste management

No use is allowed without explicit permission from owner

Persistent organic pollutants in the natural environments of the city of Bratsk (Irkutsk Oblast): Levels and risk assessment

• Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils
• Published: 06 November 2014
• Volume 47 , pages 1144–1151, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• E. A. Mamontova 1 ,
• E. N. Tarasova 1 &
• A. A. Mamontov 1  

74 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

The contents of persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs)—in the natural environments of an industrial city (Bratsk) of Irkutsk oblast have been studied. Features of the spatial and seasonal distribution of the PCBs and OCPs in the soils and the atmospheric air have been revealed. The structure of the homological and congeneric composition of the PCBs in the soils and the atmospheric air has been shown. Parameters of the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks for human health from the impact of the PCBs and OCPs present in the soils and the atmospheric air have been determined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in the air-soil system in the South of the Russian Far East

The effect of long-range atmospheric transport of organochlorine compounds by soil studies from mongolia to the arctic.

Occurrence of dioxin-like POPs in soils from urban green space in a metropolis, North China: implication to human exposure

Atlas. The Irkutsk Region: Ecological Conditions of the Development (Moscow, Irkutsk, 2004) [in Russian].

Ts. I. Bobovnikova, F. I. Khakimov, A. Yu. Popova, D. B. Orlinskii, A. S. Kerzhentsev, N. R. Deeva, I. V. Priputina, L. B. Alekseeva, G. V. Chernik, G. A. Pleskatchevskaya, A. V. Shalanda, “The impact of the condenser plant on the environmental contamination of Serpukhov with polychlorinated biphenyls,” in Polychlorinated Byphenyls. Supertoxicants of the XXI Century , No. 5 (VINITI, Moscow, 2000), pp. 87–103 [in Russian].

Google Scholar  

E. S. Brodskii, A. A. Shelepchikov, D. B. Feshin, E. S. Efimenko, G. I. Agapkina, “Distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls’ congeners in soils of Moscow,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 17: Pochvoved., No 2, 35–40 (2012).

R. V. Galiulin and R. A. Galiulina, “Ecogeochemical assessment of the “reprints” of persistent organochlorine pesticides in the soil-surface water system,” Agrokhimiya, No. 1, 52–56 (2008).

M. I. Gerasimova, M. N. Stroganova, N. V. Mozharova, and T. V. Prokof’eva, Anthropogenic Soils: Genesis, Geography, and Reclamation (Oikumena, Smolensk, 2003) [in Russian].

Hygienic Norms for Concentrations of Pesticides in the Environmental Objects (Fed. Ts. Gosprirodnadzor, Minzdrav RF, Moscow, 2003) [in Russian].

State Report on the Environmental Protection and State of the Environment of Irkutsk Oblast in 2003 (Oblmashinform, Irkutsk, 2004) [in Russian].

State Report on the Environmental Protection in Irkutsk Oblast in 2011 (Forvard, Irkutsk, 2012) [in Russian].

State Report on the Environmental Protection and State of the Environment of Irkutsk Oblast in 2011 (Min. prirod. resurs. RF, Moscow, 2012) [in Russian].

State Report on the Ecological Situation in Irkutsk Oblast in 1993 (VS AGP, Irkutsk, 1994) [in Russian].

L. P. Ignat’eva, Extended Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation in Biology (Irkutsk, 1997).

Climate of Bratsk , Ed. by Ts. A. Shver and V. N. Babichenko (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1985) [in Russian].

A. V. Konoplev, V. A. Nikitin, D. P. Samsonov, G. V. Chernik, A. M. Rychkov, “Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in the atmosphere of Russian Arctic in the Far East,” Meteorol. Gidrol., No. 7, 38–44 (2005).

Control of the Chemical and Biological Parameters of the Environment (Ekol. Ts. Soyuz, St. Petersburg, 1998) [in Russian].

T. I. Kukharchyk, S. V. Kakareka, V. S. Khomich, P. V. Kurman, E. N. Voropai, “Polychlorinated biphenyls in soils of Belarus: sources, contamination levels, and problems of study,” Eur. Soil Sci. 40 (5), 485–492 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

E. A. Mamontova, E. N. Tarasova, M. I. Kuz’min, B. Z. Borisov, A. P. Bul’ban, S. I. Levshina, E. V. Lepskaya, O. D. Tregubov, S. G. Yurchenko, A. A. Mamontov, “Distribution of persistent organic pollutants in the soil-atmosphere system of Siberia and the Far East,” Geoekologiya, No. 4, 328–338 (2014).

E. A. Mamontova, E. N. Tarasova, A. A. Mamontov, M. I. Kuz’min, B. Z. Borisov, A. P. Bul’ban, S. G. Yurchenko, E. V. Lepskaya, S. I. Levshina, O. D. Tregubov, “Persistent organic pollutants in atmospheric air of some territories of Siberia and the Far East of Russia,” Geogr. Prir. Resur., No. 4, 40–47 (2012).

State of the Environment and Environmental Pollution in the Russian Federation in 2008 , Ed. by Yu. A. Izrael (Rosgidromet, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].

State of the Environment and Environmental Pollution in the Russian Federation in 2009 , Ed. by Yu. A. Izrael, G. M. Chernogaeva, V. I. Egorov, A. S. Zelenov, and Yu. V. Peshkov (Rosgidromet, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].

Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Baikal Region: Sources, Distant Transfer, and Risk Assessment (Izd. Inst. Geogr. SO RAN, Irkutsk, 2005) [in Russian].

Guidelines for Human Health Risk Assessment upon the Impact of Chemical Contaminants (Minzdrav Rossii, Moscow, 2004) [in Russian].

M. F. Savchenkov and L. P. Ignat’eva, Hygiene of the Application of Pesticides in Siberia (Izd. Irkutsk Gos. Univ., Irkutsk, 1994) [in Russian].

http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/tabid/3351/Default.aspx .

N. N. Surnina, Yu. A. Anokhin, V. P. Kiryukhin, and A. V. Mitroshkov, “Atmospheric contamination in the Angara and Baikal regions with polychlorinated biphenyls,” in Monitoring of Lake Baikal (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1991), pp. 54–59 [in Russian].

E. N. Tarasova, E. A. Mamontova, A. V. Goreglyad, L. L. Tkachenko, A. A. Mamontov, “Persistent organic pollutants in atmospheric air of the northern Khubsugul region,” in Lake Ecosystems: Biological Processes, Anthropogenic Transformation, and Water Quality (Izd. Ts. BGU, Minsk, 2011), pp. 186–187 [in Russian].

Yu. A. Treger, “Persistent organic pollutants. problems and solutions,” Vestn. MITKhT 6 (5), 87–97 (2011).

http://irkutskstat.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_ts/irkutskstat/ru/statistics/population/ .

I. Ya. Shakhtamirov and Z. K. Amirova, “Atmospheric air and soil cover contamination with persistent organic pollutants in the residential zone of Groznyi,” Ekolog. Urbanizir. Territ., No. 4, 88–93 (2011).

A. A. Shelepchikov, E. S. Brodskii, D. B. Feshin, V. G. Zhil’nikov, E. Ya. Mir-Kadyrova, S. P. Balashova, “Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls in soils of Moscow,” Eur. Soil Sci. 44 (3), 286–296 (2011).

R. E. Bailey, “Global hexachlorobenzen emissions,” Chemosphere 43 , 167–182 (2001).

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (Winnipeg, 1999).

L. Dusek and M. Tesarova, “Influence of polychlorinated biphenyls on microbial biomass and its activity in grassland soil,” Biol. Fertil. Soil, No. 22, 243–247 (1996).

J. N. Hogarh, N. Seike, Y. Kobara, A. Habib, J.-J. Nam, J. -S. Lee, Q. Li, X. Liu, J. Li, G. Zhang, S. Masunaga, “Passive air monitoring of PCBs and PCNs across East Asia: A comprehensive congener evaluation for source characterization,” Chemosphere 86 , 718–726 (2012).

V. Ivanov and E. Sandell, “Characterization of polychlorinated biphenyl isomers in sovol and trichlorodiphenyl formulations by high-resolution gas chromatography with electron capture detection and high-resolution gas chromatography — mass spectrometry techniques,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 26 , 2012–2017 (1992).

A. A. Mamontov, E. A. Mamontova, E. N. Tarasova, M. I. Kuzmin, M. S. McLachlan, “Persistent organic pollutants in soil and snow from the Lake Baikal region,” Organohalog. Compounds 66 , 1327–1332 (2004).

E. A. Mamontova, E. N. Tarasova, and M. S. McLachlan, “Tracing the sources of PCDD/Fs and PCBs to Lake Baikal,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (5), 741–747 (2000).

E. A. Mamontova, M. I. Kuzmin, E. N. Tarasova, and M. Yu. Khomutova, “The investigation of PCBs and OCPs in air in the Irkutsk region (Russia) using passive air sampling,” Vestn. KazNU. Ser. Khimich., No. 4, 209–213 (2010).

E. A. Mamontova, A. A. Mamontov, E. N. Tarasova, M. I. Kuzmin, D. Ganchimeg, M. Yu. Khomutova, O. Gombosuren, and E. Ganjuurjav, “Polychlorinated biphenyls in surface soil in urban and background areas of Mongolia,” Environ. Pollut. 182 , 424–429 (2013).

S. N. Meijer, W. A. Ockenden, A. Sweetman, K. Brei- vik, J. O. Grimalt, K. C. Jones, “Global distribution and budget of PCBs and HCBs in background surface soils: implication for sources and environmental processes,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 , 667–672 (2003).

K. Pozo, T. Harner, S. Lee, F. Wania, D. C. G. Muir, K. C. Jones, “Seasonally resolved concentrations of persistent organic pollutants in the global atmosphere from the first year of the GAPS study,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 , 796–803 (2009).

M. Shoeib and T. Harner, “Characterization and comparison of three passive air samplers for persistent organic pollutants,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 , 4142–4151 (2002).

T. Takasuga, K. Senthilkumar, T. Matsumura, K. Shiozaki, S. Sakai, “Isotope dilution analysis of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in transformer oil and global commercial PCB formulations by high resolution gas chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry,” Chemosphere, No. 62, 469–484 (2006).

S. Tao, W. Liu, Y. Li, Y. Yang, Q. Zuo, B. Li, J. Cao, “Organochlorine pesticides contaminated surface soil as reemission source in the Haihe Plain, China,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 , 8395–8400 (2008).

X. Zhao, M. Zheng, B. Zhang, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, “Evidence for the transfer of polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and polychlorinated dibenzofurans from soil into biota,” Sci. Total Environ. 368 (2–3), 744–752 (2006).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Vinogradov Institute of Geochemistry, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Favorskogo 1a, Irkutsk, 664033, Russia

E. A. Mamontova, E. N. Tarasova & A. A. Mamontov

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. A. Mamontova .

Additional information

Original Russian Text © E.A. Mamontova, E.N. Tarasova, A.A. Mamontov, 2014, published in Pochvovedenie, 2014, No. 11, pp. 1356–1364.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mamontova, E.A., Tarasova, E.N. & Mamontov, A.A. Persistent organic pollutants in the natural environments of the city of Bratsk (Irkutsk Oblast): Levels and risk assessment. Eurasian Soil Sc. 47 , 1144–1151 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229314110076

Download citation

Received : 09 January 2014

Published : 06 November 2014

Issue Date : November 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229314110076

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• polychlorinated biphenyls
• organochlorine pesticides
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research