THE CE METER; AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS THE
CIRCULAR ECONOMY CAPACITY OF BUILDINGS
PAPER REFERENCE NO: A014
A direct connection can be made between adaptive building and sustainability (Wilkinson 2011). Market developments show increased demands by for flexibility and sustainability by users and owners as well as a growing understanding of the importance of a circular economy (Eichholtz 2009). Circular Economy (CE) is a rather recent way of looking at sustainability, based on thinking in circular supply chains, maximizing the value of materials in which products can be used, re-manufactured or/and re-cycled (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012). In 2014 a paper was presented at the International Union of Architects World Congress UIA2014 in Durban SA, titled Adaptive Capacity of Buildings (Geraedts 2014). A report was given of an extensive international literature survey and the development of a method to determine the adaptive capacity of Buildings. In total 147 indicators were described with accompanying assessment values. The most important recommendation for the next step was the development of an easy to use assessment method with a limited number of important flexibility performance indicators (FPI). This paper will explore the further development of this easy to use instrument with a limited number of important assessment criteria. These criteria will also be related to the concept of circular economy. The final result is an easy tool to assess the adaptive capacity of a building, and will also be the first tool to assess the circular economy level of a building as well.
Keywords: adaptable, flexible, assessment instrument, circular economy, sustainable, open building.
INTRODUCTION
Wilkinson states that a direct connection can be made between adaptive building and sustainability (Wilkinson 2011). Local authorities worldwide are encouraging
adaptation as a means of reducing building related urban energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Melbourne for instance is promoting the retrofit of 1,200 CBD properties before 2020 with sustainability measures as part of their policy to become a carbon neutral city. Australian cities date from 1837 to the present day whereas some European cities have been inhabited for over two millennia. The concepts of adaptation and evolution of buildings and suburbs is well developed in Europe, though the scale of some of the post war developments has created different forms of building perhaps less adaptable or suited to change. The need to adapt buildings and to reduce environmental footprints becomes more pressing over time as global concentrations of carbon dioxide increase.
Market developments show increased demands by for flexibility and sustainability by users and owners as well as a growing understanding of the importance of a circular economy (Eichholtz 2009). Circular Economy (CE) is a rather recent way of looking at sustainability, based on thinking in circular supply chains, maximizing the value of materials in which products can be re-used, re-manufactured or/and re-cycled (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012).
This paper will explore the relation between the adaptability of a building on the one hand and at the same time the level of circular economy of that building on the other hand. What do we mean by circular economy and adaptability, and which criteria or indicators can be used to assess the quality of buildings? What are the priorities and can we weight the different indicators? As a final result an easy to use tool will be presented to assess the adaptive capacity of a building, and therefore also the first tool to assess the circular economy level of a building as well: the CE Meter.
CIRCULAR ECONOMY From linear to circular
Since 150 years industrialization created a linear production and consumption model. This linear model assumes a take-make-waste pattern in which with energy, labour and capital produce products out of natural resources with a single life cycle.
Resources are withdrawn from the earth (take), processed to components (make) and after the use phase thrown away (waste). This is called the cradle-to-grave principle (Braungart 2002). This linear consumption pattern in which the end user is responsible for the removal of the product, seemed to be successful to provide affordable products and global welfare, but was totally based on waste of resources and the creation of garbage (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013).
The circular economy concept stems from the believe that linear consumption will reach its limits in the foreseeable future, and builds upon different earlier concepts like for instance cradle-to-cradle theory (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012, Van Dijk 2014). The believe that linear consumption is reaching its limits originates for instance from the fact that the amount of resources that are available for use will decline
steadily over the next years and decades leaving little to play with for future use. Especially since the rate of recycling is low for most resources (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2014, Mentink 2014). The reason that the rate of recycling is low under a linear consumption pattern is that there in general is no premium or gain on re-using materials, this leads to the take-make- dispose model that is used by most
manufacturers nowadays (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012). In this research, their circular system diagram by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation is used to show how the circular economy works by closed-loop thinking. Circular economy attempts to create value by letting products ‘ride the cycle’, or in other words by adapting products when they no longer deliver the requested performance instead of disposing of them. An important driver behind this thinking is that in the future this would be a cheaper alternative than starting with fresh new products as the commodity prices would be a lot higher given their finiteness (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2014). The construction sector has a high level of raw material consumption. In the Netherlands 50% of the national raw material consumption is caused by the construction industry and 40% refers to demolition waste. The dynamic and worldwide process of unlimited growth, characterized by rapid urbanization and fast consuming economies, will lead in the
next decades to an explosive demand of construction materials (Van Timmeren 2013, Schoolderman 2014).
Circular building: building in layers
To structure and cluster the large number of different construction components with different functional life cycles, several possible arrangements were developed in the past. According to Habraken a certain level of wanted flexibility has impact on a building or at least on a part of a building. That’s why it is good to know on which level in the building a certain adaptation takes place and how far its influence reaches. He already proposed in 1961 a subdivision of a building in different layers or levels: the support level with construction components with a long lifespan and the infill level with construction components with a short life span. A distinction between collective components for the community to decide (support level) and individual components for the individual user to decide (infill level) (Habraken 1961, Habraken 1998). To be able to disconnect these two levels and to make changes very easy for the individual users, Habraken also introduced together with Van Randen a preliminary form of modular coordination with agreements about the position, connection and
measurements of the different construction components (Van Randen 1976). This was also an initiative to a more standardized and industrialized construction industry with the manufacturing of flexible and project independent (infill) construction
components.
Duffy (Duffy 1998) and Brand (Brand 1994) defined six functional levels within a building in order to identify functions with different changing life cycles in a building. Each layer and the components within have their own technical, functional and
economic lifespan. In order to comprehend to circularity, only construction
components that are well suited to be reused using the six loops should be selected: site, structure, skin, services, space plan, and stuff.
1. Site: the urban location; the legally defined lot whose context lives longer than buildings. According to Brand and Duffy, the site is eternal.
2. Structure: the foundation and load-bearing elements, which last between 30-300 years. However, few buildings last longer than 50 years.
3. Skin: the exterior finishing, including roofs and façades. These are upgraded or changed approximately every 20 years.
4. Services: the HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning), communication, and electrical wiring. They wear out after 7-15 years.
5. Space plan: the interior layout including vertical partitions, doors, ceiling, and floors. According to Brand, commercial space can change every 3 years.
6. Stuff: the furniture that is moved daily, weekly or monthly. Furniture, in Italian is called mobilia, for good reason.
Within a circular economy it is important to maximize the conservation of the
different value resources. Therefore with circular building it is necessary to reflect on which resources and components are most suitable for this objective and for which life cycle. This distinction of a building in different layers with different life cycles will be used for the development of an instrument to assess the circular economy capacity of a building.
Adaptability and flexibility
Adaptive building or the adaptive capacity of a building is relatively new concept and can hardly be found in a large-scale international literature survey to similar concepts like flexible, extendible, multifunctional, reusable or removable. These concepts often have strongly overlapping meanings (Geraedts 2013). Schuetze defines the concept as easily adaptable to different functions or changing requirements, constructed with components and products, which allow re-use and recycle with a minimum of effort and loss of quality. It mainly concerns function neutral buildings, which have user related transformation potency. Use has been made of reusable construction
components, based on the different life cycle of the different components (Schuetze 2009). Richard states the following: nobody can predict the demands, wishes or different tastes of the current and the future users of a building during its lifespan. Adaptable systems are necessary to taking up this challenge, to develop user friendly buildings open to change with freedom of choice for the first generation of users and possibilities to adapt for next generations of users (Richard 2010).
Sustainability depending of the long-term utility value of buildings
A building that can accommodate different types of users during its whole life cycle has a long-term utility value. The long-term utility value is a crucial precondition for sustainability. The adaptive capacity of a building represents this utility value, the future attractiveness of the building. The adaptive capacity is not the goal itself, but the means to ensure the future use of the building. To consider the adaptive capacity of a building the main focus is its future value. From this perspective not only the present user or owner of the building is important, but also to a large extent the attractive force of the building for next generations of users (Geraedts 2014). In this paper the following definition is used for adaptability or the adaptive capacity of a building: the adaptive capacity of a building includes all characteristics that enable it to keep its functionality during the technical life cycle in a sustainable and economic profitable way withstanding changing requirements and circumstances. The adaptive capacity is considered a crucial component when scrutinizing the circular economy value of the real estate stock (Hermans 2014).
The adaptive capacity can be split into three different appearances (Geraedts 2014): 1. Organizational flexibility. The capacity of an organization or user to respond adequately to changing demands of the built environment;
2. Process flexibility. The capacity to react to changing circumstances, wishes or demands during the initiative, the design and the construction phase.
3. Product flexibility. The capacity of a building (the product) to respond to changing circumstances, wishes or demands during the use phase of the building.
Adaptability and sustainability (circular economy) are considered to be values. An adaptable building includes all characteristics that enable it to keep its functional value during the technical life cycle in a sustainable and circular economic way
withstanding changing requirements and circumstances. Flexibility is considered to be a set of possible measures that could be taken to create these values. Flexibility
measures are characteristics of a building that enable the building to be adaptable. The demand: use dynamics and transformation dynamics
The focus of this paper to relate adaptability and circular economy is exclusively the product flexibility during the use phase of buildings. Target here is the translation of
the demand into so-called transformation dynamics and use dynamics on three different levels: location, building and unit (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Framework to position the demand (for use and transformation dynamics), and the supply (of rearrange, extension and rejection flexibility) on three different levels
The demands for a building can be formulated by the demands of the users. The building must be able to move along in time with these (changing) demands. This may lead for instance to the demand that the building must be parcelled into smaller or bigger units or that specific facilities can be added to the units or building. This is called use dynamics. This concerns the demands for a building that should be able to accommodate totally different user groups or different functions in the near future. This may lead to specific demands for rearranging the building for different user groups. This is called transformation dynamics.
The supply: rearrange, extension and rejection flexibility
Within the framework the flexibility of the supply is translated into three
spatial/functional and construction/technical characteristics. They determine if a building can meet the requirements: rearrange flexibility, extension flexibility and rejection flexibility.
• Rearrange flexibility: to which degree the location, the building or the unit can be rearranged or redesigned.
• Extension flexibility: to which degree the location, the building or the unit can be extended.
• Rejection flexibility: to which degree (part of) the location, the building or the unit can be rejected.
Supplied by spatial/functional and construction/technical characteristics
Two types of characteristics influence the three possible flexibilities of a building as described: spatial/functional and construction/technical characteristics. Furthermore three different levels of scale will be taken into account: the whole building as the collection of all user units, the units within the building and the location of the
building as far as it influences the use and the adaptability of the building. On top (see figure 1), the demand for change is shown and at the bottom the supply with the characteristics of the building, which determine if the building can meet the flexibility demands.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CE METER LIGHT
The lack of a widely accepted method with assessment criteria for measuring the potential for adaptation into other possible functions during the life cycle of a building lead to an extensive international literature survey, resulting in totally many indicators more or less connected to the flexibility of buildings. In 2014 a paper was presented at the International Union of Architects World Congress UIA2014 in Durban SA, titled Adaptive Capacity of Buildings (Geraedts 2014). A report was given of this literature survey and the development of a method to determine the adaptive capacity of
Buildings. In total 143 indicators were described with accompanying assessment values. The steering group behind this research project and the two already engaged expert panels - one with representatives of the clients (demand side) and one panel with representatives of construction companies and suppliers (supply side) – asked for the further development of this instrument to a more practical usable instrument in construction practice. This resulted in a renewed condensed method called Flex 2.0 that will be briefly described in the next paragraphs.
Layers
To structure and cluster the large number of possible indicators, use has been made of the distinction in different layers of the building and its environment according to Brand (Brand 1994).
Structure of FLEX 2.0 General requirements
To be able to actually use the adaptive capacity of a building to change the use of a building is it necessary to recognize a number of common important preconditions. Especially some legal, organizational and common constructional preconditions have to be mapped before further actions can take place. Is it possible to change the
function of the building or to extend the building according to the actual development plan of the local government? What is the general technical condition of the building, what is the age, when was the last renovation of the building, what type of user utilized the building?
Specific requirements, structured in 5 Layers
By analogy with the model of Brand, five different levels were created in FLEX 2.0 to structure, locate and cluster all possible flexibility indicators that were previously found. The last page shows an overview (figure 4) of the 83 flexibility performance indicators that influence the adaptive capacity of buildings. Next to this a column is shown to give a personal weight to the various indicators (varies from 1 = not important to 3 = very important) and a column to mark the score or level of the specific indicator concerned.
Scores or assessment level
In this method values are given for each assessment aspect of flexibility performance indicators. There are four possible values for the score: 1 = Bad, 2 = Normal, 3 = Better, 4 = Best. Figure 2 shows an example of the four assessment values of indicator nr.11: Surplus of free floor height. The final score is calculated by multiplying the assessment value and the weighting factor for that indicator.
Figure 2: example of the four assessment values of the indicator nr.11: Surplus of free floor height
FLEX 2.0 Light: the 17 most important indicators
After the clustering of 143 indicators to 83 indicators, in the next step a second
clustering was carried out to find a limited number of the most crucial indicators. This lead to FLEX 2.0 Light with 17 indicators in total, a very easy and fast to use
instrument to assess the adaptive capacity of buildings (see figure 3).
Figure 3: FLEX 2.0 Light, a practical and easy to use light version of the assessment method with a limited number (17) of the most important indicators
Figure 3 shows an example of a fictive assessment of a certain building with FLEX 2.0 LIGHT. Each of the 17 indicators has been given a weight relative to the other indicators (weighting 1 - 3). Also each indicator is assessed (assessment level 1 - 4). This leads to a score per indicator and summed up to a total Adaptivity Score. At the same way a theoretical minimum score can be found of 17 and a maximum score of 204. With these two borders a class table can be made with five different classes of adaptivity with the total range from 17 to 204. In the example of figure 2 the total Adaptivity Score is 95. When looking up this number in the Class Table one finds the related Class 3: the building is Limited Adaptive.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As shown in the previous examples, the Flex adaptive capacity method is a first important step in the development of an instrument to formulate adaptive demands
and to assess adaptive supplies of buildings, as part of the circular economy
assessment of buildings. In the next steps this method has to be evaluated in practice with building owners, users and construction companies.
Further research will be needed to answer questions as: does the assessment method need to be specified for different sectors within construction? Different building types like hospitals, schools, office buildings or residential housing may lead to the use of a selected and specific group of assessment aspects.
Finally it is not unlikely that professional owners and clients in construction feel the urge for a standard describing the adaptive capacity of buildings, very much like the energy labels and sustainability certificates of BREEAM and Greenstar that are currently in use. Can we develop one similar standard on circular economy or circular buildings?
REFERENCES
BRAND, S. (1994). How buildings learn; what happens after they're built. New York, Viking.
BRAUNGART, M., McDONOUGH, W. (2002). Cradle to cradle remaking the way we make things. New York.
DUFFY, F. (1998). Design for change, The Architecture of DEGW. Basel, Birkhauser EICHHOLTZ, P., KOK, N., QUIGLEY, J. M. (2009). "Doing Well by Doing Good?" Green Office Buildings; Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy: W08. ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION (2012). Towards the Circular Economy; Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition., Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION (2013). Towards the circular economy, opportunities for the consumer goods sector.
ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION (2014). Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains.
GERAEDTS, R. (2013). Adaptief Vermogen; brononderzoek - literatuurinventarisatie. Delft, Centre for Process Innovation in Building & Construction: 62.
GERAEDTS, R., REMOY, H., HERMANS, M., Van Rijn, E. (2014). Adaptive Capacity of Buildings; a determination method to promote flexible and sustainable construction. UIA 2014 Architecture Otherwhere. A. Osman, Bruyns, G., Aigbavboa, C. Durban, UIA 2014 Durban: 1054.
HABRAKEN, N. (1961). De dragers en de mensen, het einde van de massawoningbouw. Eindhoven, Stichting Architecten research.
HABRAKEN, N. (1998). The Structure of the Ordinary. Boston, First MIT Press. HERMANS, M., GERAEDTS, R., VAN RIJN, E., REMOY, H. (2014).
Bepalingsmethode Adaptief Vermogen van gebouwen ter bevordering van flexibel bouwen. Leidschendam, Brink Groep.
MENTINK, B. (2014). Circular business model innovation: a process framework and a tool for business model innovation in a circular economy. Delft, Delft University of Technology.
RICHARD, R. B. (2010). Four Strategies to Generate Individualised Buildings with Mass Customisation New Perspective in Industrialisation in Construction; A state of the art report. S. F. Girmscheid Gerhard. Zürich, IBB Institut für Bauplanung und Baubetrieb: 10.
SCHOOLDERMAN, H., VAN DEN DUNGEN, P., VAN DEN BEUKEL, J., VAN RAAK, R., LOORBACH, D., VAN EIJK, F., JOUSTRA, D.J. (2014). Ondernemen in de circulaire economie, nieuwe verdienmodellen voor bedrijven en ondernemers. Amsterdam.
SCHUETZE, T. (2009). Designing Extended Lifecycles. 3rd CIB International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environment. A. v. d. Dobbelsteen. Delft, The Netherlands, Delft University of Technology.
VAN DIJK, S., TENPIERIK, M., VAN DEN DOBBELSTEEN, A. (2014).
"Continuing the building’s cycles: a literature review and analysis of current systems theories in comparison with the theory of cradle to cradle." Resources, conservation, and recycling 82: 21-34.
VAN RANDEN, A. (1976). Nodes and Noodles. Delft, Delft University of Technology.
VAN TIMMEREN, A. (2013). Reciprocities, a dynamic equilibrium. Delft, Delft University of Technology (TUD).
WILKINSON, S. J., REMOY, H. (2011). Sustainability and within use office building adaptations: A comparison of Dutch and Australian practices. Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Pacific Rim Real Estate Society; Bond University AUS.
