See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/266376260

Minimising the impact of resource consumption in the design and

construction of buildings

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

3 1,848

6 authors, including:

Stephen Pullen Keri Chiveralls

University of South Australia Central Queensland University
70 PUBLICATIONS   1,159 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

George Zillante Jasmine Samantha Palmer

University of Adelaide RMIT University
105 PUBLICATIONS   1,462 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   145 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

sustainable development View project

Socio-technical transitions towards sustainable construction in China View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jasmine Samantha Palmer on 03 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Minimising the impact of resource consumption in
the design and construction of buildings

Stephen Pullen1, Keri Chiveralls1, George Zillante2, Jasmine Palmer3,

Lou Wilson4 and Jian Zuo1

1
School of Natural and Built Environments, Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
2
School of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, University of Adelaide, Australia
3
School of Art, Architecture and Design, Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
4
School of Natural and Built Environments, Hawke Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper reports on the preliminary stages of a project entitled Re-considering
sustainable building and design: a cultural change approach. In particular, it focusses on that part of
the project which deals with minimisation of the impact of resource consumption in the design and
construction of buildings. Previous research on the various aspects of resource use in construction is
reviewed. The interrelated factors which are relevant to the project are described including the usage
of raw materials, consumption of energy and water to manufacture building elements, greenhouse gas
emissions and landfill disposal. Some case studies are examined which indicate possible means to
improve performance in this area and a hierarchy of actions for the recycling of construction materials
required is presented. This forms a framework to guide the research project in its aim of developing a
clear pathway to minimise resource usage and waste reduction. It is likely that the comprehensive
adoption of procedures and strategies to minimise the impact of resource construction will necessitate
a change in the attitudes and culture of all stakeholders involved in the construction of buildings.

Conference theme: Architecture and the environment

Keywords: Construction materials, resources, environmental impact

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to describe the preliminary stages of research being carried out at the University of
South Australia within the three year project entitled Re-considering sustainable building and design: a cultural
change approach supported by an ARC Linkage grant. The aim of the project is to develop a clear route to take
building procurement teams (i.e. the client, architects, designers, planners, engineers, building contractors and
facility managers) from current levels of knowledge and practice in the minimisation of resource usage and waste
reduction towards international best practice and total waste elimination. The project has three themes which are: the
cultural shift required to move the industry towards zero waste, the practical and technical aspects of environmental
sustainability and the effects of regulation.

This paper focusses on the practical and technical aspects of environmental sustainability, particularly as they relate
to resource efficiency and waste elimination, and draws together various aspects of minimising resource
consumption. Initially, the adverse environmental effects of constructing buildings are considered with particular
reference to resource usage by reviewing previous research in this area. Some case studies are also described
which feature buildings and infrastructure with a lower environmental impact and which provide pointers in the
development of a comprehensive guide to minimise the use of resources. Reference is made to a hierarchy of
principles for minimising resource consumption in the design and operation of buildings and this provides a
framework to guide subsequent research and contribute to the overall aims of the project.

1. BACKGROUND
Although the construction of buildings normally provides undeniable benefits to the community, there are hidden
costs to be paid in terms of the potentially harmful effects on the physical environment and natural ecosystems. The
processes of erecting, renovating, maintaining and demolishing buildings have various impacts and in recent
decades there have been efforts made to minimise these effects. The manufacture and production of building
materials and components uses raw material resources, consumes energy, produces greenhouse gas emissions and
can consume significant quantities of water. At the end of a building’s life cycle, a substantial proportion of the
demolished materials may add to the environmental burden as landfill.
Concern over the environmental effects of resource consumption has not been confined to the construction industry.
In 1997, Von Weizsacker at the Wuppertal Institute published the Factor 4 book which advocated a 75% increase in
the efficiency of using all resources to minimise their usage and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
water consumption. The concept of drastically reducing consumption for any given purpose or product was the
central focus and more recently, 80% efficiency increases are being targeted in Factor 5 (Von Weizsacker et al,
2009). The concept of decoupling resource consumption from growth by focusing on the services that are provided
rather than the product that supplies them has been explored by various researchers (UNEP, 2002; Ness and Pullen,
2006).

The ratio of material input per service (MIPS) has been developed by Schmidt-Bleek (1993) and promoted as a
concept to measure the usage of materials needed to provide services in the community. In the case of buildings,
and at its most basic, MIPS would equate to the quantity of materials used to provide shelter, function and comfort.
The methods for calculating MIPS can be complex and are described by Ritthoff et al (2002). In general, those
services which can be provided with lower material inputs will have less effect on resources, energy and water
consumption and a reduced impact on the natural environment. Life cycle analysis of materials and products
provides a further method of assessing environmental effects and this has the advantage of including end-of life and
re-use/disposal scenarios as well as biodiversity impacts.

Of the various sectors of national economic activity such as mining, manufacturing and transport, construction
constitutes a significant proportion and is, therefore, responsible for a sizable share of overall environmental impact.
The following section describes these impacts with particular reference to construction materials.

2. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
2.1 Material resources
Traditionally, construction materials have been supplied from raw material resources that are in relatively plentiful
supply and are unlikely to be exhausted in the short term (DEH, 2006). However, the mining and quarrying of raw
materials can have environmental impacts such as land and riparian disturbance as well as pollution effects
(Carpenter, 2011). Furthermore, there are particular materials that require special consideration. For example, the
exploitation of non-sustainably harvested timber, particularly in tropical regions, may threaten the viability of local
flora and fauna and render landscapes susceptible to instability. More modern construction materials such as steel,
aluminium and polymeric materials involve substantial extraction and manufacturing processes with associated
environmental effects. Building materials account for approximately half of all materials used and a similar proportion
of all of the waste generated globally (Edge Environment, 2011).

The avoidance of manufacturing and supplying new construction materials can be assisted by maximising the re-use
and recycling of demolition materials. In fact, the urban environment represents a vast store of resources that has
been inherited from previous generations and which may be used so as to avoid some of the environmental
disadvantages of new construction developments. In a very broad sense, the World Bank (2001) commented on
these resources as an inheritance from previous generations. Expressed simply, previous communities have paid the
price for erecting built assets in terms of cost, time, resources and energy, and subsequent generations can benefit
from this.

In fact, the utilisation of such assets in the form of re-using construction components or the recycling of demolition
materials from older buildings and structures has occurred ever since building began. There are many examples
including the re-use of masonry from the constructions of previous pharaohs in ancient Egypt (Sullivan, 2008), the
sourcing of materials from the Great Wall of China (National Geographic, 2011) and the use of stone from Hadrian’s
Wall in the UK by local dignitaries after the departure of the Romans (ICONS, 2006). Although the dismantling of
ancient structures would not be considered appropriate in modern times, the principle of re-using materials from less
notable buildings has definite environmental advantages by avoiding the further exploitation of natural resources.

2.2 Energy consumption and associated emissions

The manufacture and supply of construction materials consumes large amounts of fossil fuel based energy, produces
significant quantities of greenhouse gases and contributes to climate change. The quantification of energy consumed
by buildings has normally been referred to as operational energy i.e. the energy used for heating, cooling, lighting,
appliances and services. However, this does not consider the energy consumed in the manufacture and transport of
building materials which is known as embodied energy. Embodied energy can amount to a substantial proportion of
the life cycle energy usage of buildings when both the initial (as built) and recurrent (refurbishment and maintenance)
embodied energy are considered (Pullen, 2010a). The embodied energy of 20 education institutions in New South
Wales was estimated by Ding (2007) using life cycle analysis and was found to be approximately 38% of the energy
usage (combined embodied and operational). Roughly the same proportion was found by Langston and Langston
(2007) in an analysis of 30 medical, public, education and residential buildings in Melbourne. Jiao et al (2012)
reviewed the significance of embodied energy and found it varied comprising between 15% to 45% of lifetime energy
consumption, and was dependent on the length of the life cycle. An analysis of conventional and passive houses in
three locations in Sweden was carried out by Brunklaus et al (2010) and the emissions arising from embodied energy
expenditure were found to vary between 20% and just over 50% of the total life time emissions based on a 50 year
lifecycle.

An alternative method of assessing the significance of embodied energy is by analysing national energy flows.
Focusing on the housing sector of the national economy, it is possible to compare the total annual energy expended
in the construction of new dwellings (embodied energy) with the energy used to operate all existing dwellings
(operational energy). The primary energy flows into the Australian residential construction sector have been
calculated by Foran et al (2005) based on national economic statistics available at the time and amount to 149
petajoules. A major contributor is the energy consumed in the manufacture and supply of building materials i.e.
embodied energy. This compares with the primary energy consumed in the operation of the existing residential
dwelling stock for the same annual period of 360 petajoules estimated by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and
Research Economics (Bush et al, 1997). Hence, embodied energy is approximately 30% of total annual energy
expended in the Australian building sector confirming the significance of this component of energy consumption.

Since the manufacture and supply of building materials involves the direct and indirect usage of fossil fuels with
associated production of greenhouse gas emissions (often known as embodied emissions), embodied energy
consumption will play its part in contributing to climate change (IPCC, 2007). Hence, the importance of embodied
energy and embodied emissions has been recognised in voluntary building rating schemes such as LEED (US),
BREEAM (UK) and Green Star (Australia) whereby the use of low embodied materials are rewarded in construction
projects by scoring more ‘points’.

2.3 Embodied water

The realisation that the embodied energy of construction materials is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas
emissions produced by the building sector has resulted in attention being paid to environmental impacts of the sector
through consumption of other resources. Considering that many parts of the world are faced with periodic or
continuous water shortages, the use of this commodity for constructing and operating buildings is worthy of analysis
to determine the extent of its impact on the environment (Crawford and Treloar, 2005). Water efficient services are
specified and installed during the construction of new buildings and during the renovation of existing buildings and
have been included in many voluntary building rating schemes.

However, little consideration has been given to the water consumed during the manufacture and supply of
construction materials. This can include both direct water as supplied to the manufacturing facility and indirect water
as consumed by upstream activities and processes. The comparison of water used by a household and that
consumed during the manufacture of the building materials in a dwelling has been carried out by Crawford and
Pullen (2011). A case study of a household in Melbourne was subject to a comprehensive life cycle analysis to
determine the water consumption over a period of 50 years. Not only was direct water usage calculated but also
embodied water consumption of the building materials, consumable goods, household activities, travel and food. Of
the total water consumed, direct water usage amounted to just 6.4% whereas building materials used 9.7%.
Embodied water analysis can be extended to the scale of national economic sectors (Foran et al 2005). Over the
next 50 years, water usage for the provision of building materials in Australia has been projected to increase by 63%
(DEH 2006) so that the selection of materials with minimal water consumption will favour a lower environmental
impact.

2.4 Landfill
Construction activities have the potential for generating landfill at three or more points in a building’s lifecycle. During
the initial construction of a building, earthworks may render excess fill and there will be miscellaneous offcuts from
new building materials. Renovation and maintenance will result in the removal of a variety of non-structural
components and materials. Finally, demolition will generate large quantities of materials, some of which will be re-
used and recycled and some disposed of as landfill. Taking all waste materials as a whole, many European countries
have high recycling rates at around 55 – 60 % whereas Australia is lower at 35% (Productivity Commission, 2006).
Construction and demolition materials accounted for 38% of the 43.8 million tonnes of waste generated in Australia in
2007 (ABS, 2010). The range of materials will vary according to the location but soil, timber, concrete and bricks
constitute a large part of this with other materials making up the rest including plastics, metals and glass. Table 1
shows the top ten waste construction materials in South Australia for the last audit in 2007 which highlights the larger
waste streams from construction and demolition activities.

Table 1. Total construction and demolition waste stream in

South Australia in 2007 (Govt of SA, 2007)

Waste category Tonnes %

Cleanfill/Soil 709.6 46.1
Low Level Contaminated Soil 195.7 12.7
Wood / Timber (all) 118.1 7.67
Rubble 105.1 6.8
Listed Waste - Asbestos 98.3 6.4
Concrete 95.2 6.2
Bricks 73.8 4.8
Plasterboard 32.3 2.1
Vegetation / Garden 28.3 1.8
Metal - Ferrous 14.92 1.0

Although landfill audits provide information on the amounts of materials going to waste (Oke et al, 2008), there are
few studies of demolition sites which provide inventories of each material destined for re-use or recycling. Some
work has been carried out by RMIT (2006a; 2006b) and this includes predictions for advanced and future recycling
scenarios for materials. To lower the amount of construction materials destined for landfill, a greater reduction of on-
site wastage and recycling of demolition materials is required. A number of factors which act as barriers to increased
recovery of resources have been suggested including: the pricing of resources, cost of disposal, community
awareness, policy, availability of infrastructure and gaps in information (Oke at al, 2008).

3. CASE STUDIES
The following case studies provide some examples of how the impact of using resources for buildings and
infrastructure can be reduced.

3.1 Radcot Weir, UK

The Radcot Weir project in Oxfordshire. England in 2010 involved removal of the existing structure and replacement
with a dipping radial gated weir constructed in reinforced concrete. According to the Construction Carbon Calculator
devised by the Environment Agency of the UK Government (Environment Agency, 2012), the total carbon footprint
for this project was approximately 600 tonnes, which was reduced by about 50 tonnes by careful selection of
materials. Substantial replacement of portland cement by granular ground blast furnace slag in the concrete saved
approximately 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The basecourse used under the structure was
obtained by on-site crushing of the old structure and recycling this material. The coping stones for the structure were
formed from the excess concrete left over from the main pours thereby eliminating the ordering of more material.

3.2 Burrowbridge Bank, UK

The banks of the Parrett river in the West Country of England required repairing around the river’s tidal reaches and
the estimated carbon footprint for this project was 140 tonnes (Environment Agency, 2012). In 2010, around one
tenth of the emissions were avoided by re-using soil and clay trimmed from the riverside on the land side of the
banks eliminating the import of new clay fill. A temporary trackway was used for access to the site avoiding the
importation of 1500 tonnes of quarried stone and reducing the emissions by one fifth. The timber piles were recycled
hardwood from a nearby wharf saving a little over a further fifth of the total emissions.

3.3 The Pixel Building, Melbourne, Australia

The Pixel building recently constructed by Grocon in Melbourne is claimed to be Australia’s first carbon neutral
commercial building. Two main strategies have been adopted to achieve this aim. The first involves the lowering of
the total embodied energy of the construction materials. Low embodied concrete was used (known as Pixelcrete)
which gives rise to approximately half of the greenhouse gas emissions compared with normal concrete. The
concrete mix also makes use of reclaimed and recycled aggregates. Various re-used and recycled materials were
also used including second hand access flooring, carpet tiles and timber. Secondly, those emissions caused by the
materials that are used in the construction are offset by the use of tracking photovoltaic panels and wind turbines on
the roof which also provide renewable energy for operating the building (Zuo et al, 2012).

3.4 Built Environs office refurbishment, Adelaide, Australia

The commercial head office of the Built Environs company at 100 Hutt Street, Adelaide was refurbished in
2007/2008. This received a Green Building Council of Australia five star rating and showcased the company’s
sustainability credentials. The amount of re-used and recycled materials was exemplary at 95.1% and this far
exceeded the Green Star rating requirements The re-used materials included recycled timber used for noggins in
new partition walls, surplus concrete reinforcing mesh which was used in the reception area after a powder coating
treatment, black ceasar stone (which had originally been reclaimed from a prominent South Australian public
building), recycled mechanical spiral ductwork and re-used wire mesh from surplus stock on previous projects used
in the stair balustrades. The company considers that the refurbishment process has increased the experience and
knowledge of employees in leading practice and this will have economic benefits when working with clients on new
projects (Edge Environment, 2011).

3.5 Canadian case studies

The following two case studies provide some insight into the issues arising when using recycled materials. A more
flexible and innovative approach is required on the part of the design and construction team to overcome the
complexities that can arise when materials and components from older buildings are used in new buildings.
Gorgolewski (2008) has studied these complexities by analysing two Canadian case studies consisting of the
Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) store in Ottawa and the 740 Rue Bel-Air government building in Montreal. For the
demolition of the MEC building, the re-use and recycling of materials amounted to some 56 per cent (by weight). For
the Montreal building, a different measurement system was used during the demolition but 9000 cubic metres of
materials were diverted from landfill. Both case studies provided exemplary recycling rates which are greater than
that normally realised. The use of materials from disassembly and demolition activities requires a different approach
from the designers of buildings to accommodate available construction components rather than specify and procure
the required building elements. In practical terms, this has the potential to increase the risks in design and project
costs since the exact specifications of available re-used materials are not always known. In addition, the availability
of the re-used materials may not coincide with the scheduling of the construction activities and this further reinforces
the need for flexible solutions. An area for further research deriving from the case studies is that regulations and
standards must be developed which specify good industry practice for the re-use of materials and components in
construction. The use of re-used and recycled materials in structural situations may be inhibited by current building
regulations and this represents a barrier in minimising landfill waste due to demolition materials.
Compared with the Factor 5 improvements referred to at the beginning of this paper, the case studies described can
be seen as displaying quite modest improvements in lowering environmental impact but they do offer insights to the
way forward in the construction industry.

4. DISCUSSION
Minimising the impact of resource consumption in the construction industry can be considered on two quite different
scales in the built environment. The first is on the larger scale of urban areas and this links with the Factor 4 and
MIPS concepts of reducing overall resource usage mentioned earlier in this paper. The second is on the smaller
scale of individual buildings and this is operationalised by some of the practical strategies identified in the case
studies.

On the scale of urban areas, some researchers have modelled the material and energy flows associated with
changing urban environments over a period of time. This is part of the cradle to cradle or cyclical flow concept and
implies a stewardship approach to the management of building and infrastructure stock. Various researchers have
undertaken surveys of urban areas to predict the availability of materials in the future based on current age and
estimates of the life expectancy of buildings and infrastructure up to demolition (Bringezu, 2003; Kohler and Chini,
2005, Schiller, 2007).

As an example, the stock of materials in buildings and engineering infrastructure in areas of Salford, UK and
Wakayama city centre, Japan were analysed by Tanikawa and Hashimoto (2009) using a 4 dimensional
geographical information systems (GIS) database. Based on a time period of 150 years, the alterations to the urban
form arising from development were detected and this provided a basis for understanding the changes to the urban
morphology and utilisation of building materials. With sufficient detail, this method can be used to create a database
predicting the availability of recycled materials in the future. Such information can form part of future energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions modelling as the use of recycled materials eliminates the need for some
embodied energy expenditure of new materials. Another example arises from the rapid development of China’s
urban environment and the recognition that the vast quantities of materials used in the towns and cities will become
available for re-use and recycling in the future. The modelling of this process has been carried out by Yang and
Kohler (2008) using the two approaches of top-down and bottom-up analysis.

The development of models of energy flows and building stocks at the scale of urban districts and cities has been
reviewed by Bourdic and Salat (2012). The models have been found to be extremely diverse in their design and
approach and this is due to the infancy of this field of research. A further complication is that the potential for
recycling materials which currently form part of the built environment will vary in different countries according to
specific building techniques, levels of economic development and factors relating to the local culture (Thomsen et al,
2011; Kohler et al, 2009).

An advantage of analysing energy and material flows at the scale of urban areas is that it provides a perspective on
whether progress towards greater sustainability is actually being achieved. As an example, the modelling of the
redevelopment of an established Adelaide, South Australia suburb has been undertaken where older houses were
gradually replaced with modern energy efficient dwellings (Pullen, 2010a). At higher rates of demolition and
replacement, it was found that the savings made in energy consumed by the new energy efficient dwellings were
outstripped by the extra energy required in the manufacture of the new building materials. One way to overcome this
phenomenon is the greater use of re-used and recycled materials to lower the embodied energy and emissions of the
new dwellings. Some preliminary estimates indicate that this is effective for low to moderate demolition and
redevelopment rates (Pullen, 2010b). The extent of the system boundary and the chosen life cycle are variables that
would affect these results but the analysis indicated the value in undertaking larger scale modelling.

To achieve zero waste as far as life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are concerned, it is likely that offsetting by the
use of electricity generated from photovoltaic panels will be one strategy adopted by the research program. The use
of residential, commercial and industrial roofs across urban areas could be modelled.

On the scale of individual buildings, there are many strategies which can be adopted to minimise the impact of
resource consumption. These can affect the interrelated factors of material usage, embodied energy and emissions,
embodied water and landfill. Clearly, the utilisation and renovation of existing buildings and infrastructure resulting in
the avoidance of demolition and construction of new buildings should be considered. The age, condition and
suitability of the buildings and infrastructure will determine the course of action with least impact. As an alternative,
the re-use of parts of existing building structure (eg structural frame and facades) will reduce material usage and
embodied energy consumption. Where new buildings are necessary, design and construct buildings which are
durable, have a long life and are flexible in design and usage (with minimal maintenance and refurbishment) is
recommended. This can involve generous floor to ceiling heights and larger spans between load bearing walls and
columns. The use of prefabricated components for on-site assembly should be maximised as this can avoid on-site
wastage associated with forming in situ building elements. Buildings should be designed with disassembly in mind
enabling materials and components to be re-used at the end of the life cycle rather than create more landfill. Where
possible, materials resulting from demolition activities should be re-used or recycled by further processing and used
on site. Certain materials such as concrete or other masonry may require transportation to recycling facilities for
further processing and downgrading into aggregate (for concrete) or roadbase, which can be returned for use on the
construction site in question or other building developments. Finally, where re-use or recycling is not possible, the
materials should be disposed of as landfill. A summary of the hierarchy described is shown in Figure 1. This
hierarchy follows that described by the reduce, re-use and recycle waste principles (now widely accepted in the
community) although there are various interpretations of this including that of prevention, reuse and preparation for
reuse, recycle and disposal (European Union, 2008) with other versions including re-think as the last step.

The research project Re-considering sustainable building and design: a cultural change approach, is intended to
provide a best practice model to minimise waste and promote the sustainability of construction developments. This
will take place in four stages which are 1) conceptual design to establish a working guide, 2) consultation with the
industry to develop the model, 3) field testing and 4) data triangulation to complete a zero waste best practice model.
It is intended to analyse a completed construction project to determine where a change in the practices of the various
stakeholders in the construction industry can improve environmentally sustainable outcomes.

Use existing buildings/infrastructure

Use parts of existing

buildingbuildings/infrastructure

Use durable, long life, flexible designs

uildingbuildings/infrastructure

Use prefabricated components

uildingbuildings/infrastructure

Design for disassembly

uildingbuildings/infrastructure

Re-use and recycle materials on-site

Re-use and recycle materials off-site

Dispose of materials as landfill

Figure 1. Hierarchy for minimising the impact of resources in construction

The methodology will employ intense consultation with representatives of the construction industry including client
organizations, planners and designers, architects and engineers, contractors, representatives of regulatory bodies,
public and private developers, land owners and end users. The consultations will take place by means of a series of
charrettes which will field test the model by the back-engineering and redesign of a major construction project. This
will involve consideration of the drivers of recycling including legislation, self-regulation, voluntary initiatives,
economics as well as behaviour change (Edge Environment, 2011). The aims of minimising materials usage,
embodied energy and emissions, embodied water and landfill which constitute the environmental sustainability theme
will be a critical parts of the research and the compatibility of current cultural attitudes with the waste hierarchy
described in this paper will be closely examined. The identification of the degree of cultural shift required by industry
representatives to achieve commitment to minimum resource usage and waste elimination will inform the best
practice model.

5. CONCLUSION
There are interrelated factors which influence the impact of construction activities on the natural environment
including the usage of material resources, consumption of energy and water to manufacture building elements,
greenhouse gas emissions and landfill disposal. Reducing the impact of these factors is desirable to achieve more
sustainable buildings and infrastructure. The hierarchy of actions to achieve this aim has been broadly defined for
minimising resource usage in the community in general but there is substantial scope for applying this to the
construction and renovation of buildings. Some case studies have been examined and show a strong interest by the
stakeholders to engage in reuse, recycling and low embodied energy materials. However, these do not come close
to achieving the large reduction in resources suggested by the work of Von Weizsacker at the Wuppertal Institute.
This is due to barriers to change and innovation at a product level but the case studies do provide pointers as to how
this might be achieved given a willingness by the design and construction team. The comprehensive adoption of
procedures and strategies to minimise the impact of resource construction will necessitate a change in attitudes and
culture of all stakeholders in the construction of buildings. This will be the focus of the research project mentioned in
this paper with the objective of providing a best practice model.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research project referred to in this paper is supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage grant and the
following partners: Zero Waste SA; Australian Institute of Building Surveyors; Australian Institute of Building;
Campbelltown City Council; Hodgkinson Architects; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; Shenzhen Jianyi
International Engineering Consultants Ltd; Shenzhen University and the University of Karlsruhe.

REFERENCES

ABS. (2010) Australia's Environment: Issues and Trends. No. 4613.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics, January.

Bourdic L and Salat S (2012) Building energy models and assessment systems at the district and city scales:a review. Building
Research and Information. Vol 40. No 4, 518-526.

Bringezu S. (2003). Industrial Ecology and Material Flow Analysis: Basic Concepts, Policy Relevance and Some Case Studies.
Wuppertal Institute Germany. Perspectives on Industrial Ecology. Bourg D and Erkman S (Eds) Greenleaf Publishing. pp 20-34.

Brunklaus B., Thormark C and Baumann H. (2010). Illustrating limitations of energy studies of buildings with LCA and actor
analysis. Building Research and Information. Vol. 38. No. 3, 265-279. April.

Bush S., Harris J. and Trieu L. (1997). Australian energy consumption and production. Historical trends and projections to 2009-10.
ABARE Research Report 97.2. Commonwealth of Australia.

Carpenter A. (2011). Handbook for Civil Engineering to Conserve Global Land Resources. ISBN 9781844079230 Earthscan, UK.

Crawford R and Pullen S. (2011). Life cycle water analysis of a residential building and its occupants. Building Research and
Information. Vol. 39. No. 6, 589-602. October.

Crawford R and Treloar G. (2005). An assessment of the Embodied Energy and Embodied Water associated with Commercial
Building Construction. Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability Measures for
Decision Support. Sydney, Australia. February.

DEH (2006). Scoping study to investigate measures for improving the environmental sustainability of building material. Department
of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia. Prepared by the Centre for Design at RMIT, BIS Shrapnel, CSIRO,
Deni Greene Consulting and Synec Consulting. December.

Ding G. (2007). Life Cycle Energy Assessment of Australian Schools Building Research & Information 35(5), 487-500.

Edge Environment (2011). Construction and Demolition Waste Guide – Recycling and Re-use across the Supply Chain. Prepared
by Edge Environment Pty Ltd for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Environment Agency (2012). Carbon Calculator for Construction Activities. UK Government. Accessed 9 May 2012 and available at
URL:
[Link]

European Union (2008). Waste Framework Directive. Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Accessed 10th May 2012 and available at
URL: [Link]

Foran B., Lenzen M. and Dey C. (2005). Balancing Act - A triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy. Volume 1.
University of Sydney and CSIRO.

Gorgolewski M. (2008). Designing with reused building components: some challenges. Building Research & Information. 36(2) pp
175-188.

Govt of SA. (2007). Disposal based survey. Zero Waste SA. Government of South Australia. Report compiled by Waste Audit and
Consultancy Services (Aust) Pty Ltd. October/November.

ICONS (2006). Hadrian’s Wall. ICONS: a Portrait of England. Accessed on 2/7/2011 at URL:
[Link]

IPCC (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, [Link] and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA.

Jiao Y, Lloyd C and Wakes S. (2012) The relationship between total embodied energy and cost of commercial buildings. Energy
and Buildings. Vol. 52. 20-27.
 Kohler, N and Chini A. (2005). Resource-productive Materials Use. Issues Paper. Proceedings of the 2005 World Sustainable
Building Conference (SB05). Tokyo. 27-19 September.

Kohler N, Steadman P and Hassler U. (2009) Research on the Building Stock and its Application. Building Research and
Information. 37(5-6), 449–454.

Langston Y and Langston C. (2007). Building Energy and Cost Performance: and Analysis of Thirty Melbourne Case Studies The
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building Vol 7 No 1 pp1-18.

National Geographic (2011). The Great Wall. Accessed on 2/7/2011 at URL: [Link]
heritage/great-wall-china/

Ness D & Pullen S. (2006). Decoupling Resource Consumption from Growth: a New Business Model towards a Sustainable Built
Environment in China. Proceedings of2nd International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments SASBE 2006, 15-
17 Nov. Shanghai.

Oke, M., Allan, P., Goldsworthy, K. and Pickin, J. (2008) Waste and Recycling in Australia. Hyder Consulting for the Department of
Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. Commonwealth of Australia. Final Report. November. (Now called Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities).

Productivity Commission. 2006. Inquiry into Waste Generation and Resource Efficiency. Submission by the Department of the
Environment and Heritage. February.

Pullen S. (2010a). An analysis of energy consumption in an Adelaide suburb with different retrofitting and redevelopment scenarios.
Urban Policy and Research. Vol. 28, No. 2, 161–180, June.

Pullen S. (2010b) Recycling of materials to reduce embodied energy consumption in the redevelopment of urban areas.
Proceedings of the 44thAnnual Conference of the Australian & New Zealand Architectural Scicen Association (ANZAScA) Auckland.
November 2010.

Ritthoff M, Holger R. Liedtke C and Merten T. (2002). Calculating MIPS: Resource productivity of products and services. Wuppertal
Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Germany.

RMIT. (2006a). Scoping Study into Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Building Materials. Workshop Discussion Paper.
Prepared for The Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia by the Centre for Design, RMIT
University, Melbourne in association with BIS Shrapnel, CSIRO, Deni Greene Consulting Services and Syneca Consulting. August.

RMIT. (2006b). Scoping Study to Investigate Measures for Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Building Materials.
Prepared for The Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Greenhouse Office, Australian Government by the
Centre for Design, RMIT University, Melbourne in association with BIS Shrapnel, CSIRO, Deni Greene Consulting Services and
Syneca Consulting. December. Accessed on 23rd February 2010
[Link]

Schiller G. (2007). Urban Infrastructure: Challenges for Resource Efficiency in the Building Stock. Building Research & Information.
35(4), 399-411.

Schmidt-Bleek F. 1993. MIPS – a universal ecological measure? Fresenius Environmental Bulletin (2) 306-11.

Sullivan E. (2008) Construction Methods. Digital Karnak. UCLA. Los Angeles. URL:
[Link] and accessed
on 2/7/2011.

Tanikawa, H and Hashimoto, S. (2009). Urban stock over time: spatial material stock analysis using 4d-GIS, Building Research &
Information, 37(5), 483 — 502.

Thomsen A, Schultmann F and Kohler N. (2011) Deconstruction, Demolition and Destruction. Building Research and Information.
39(4), 327–332.

UNEP (2002). Product Service Systems and Sustainability: Opportunities for Sustainable Solutions. UN Environment Programme,
Paris, July.

Von Weizsacker E, Lovins A and Lovins L. (1997). Factor 4: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use. Earthscan, London.

Von Weizsacker E, Hargroves K, Smith M, Desha C and Stasinopoulos P. (2009). Factor 5; transforming the Global Economy
through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity. Earthscan. London.

World Bank (2001) Cultural Heritage and Development. A Framework for Action in the Middle East and North Africa. Orientations
in Development Series. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. ISBN 0-8213-4938-4. June.

Yang W and Kohler N (2008) Simulation of the evolution of Chinese building and infrastructure stock. Building Research &
Information. 36(1) pp 1-19.

Thomsen A, Schultmann F and Kohler N. (2011) Deconstruction, Demolition and Destruction. Building Research and Information.
39(4), 327–332.

Zuo J,Read B, Pullen S and Shi Q. 2012. Carbon neutral commercial building development - a case study. Journal of Management
in Engineering. Accepted for publication on 18th February 2012. Available at: [Link]

View publication stats