Design for Adaptability and Disassembly (DfAD): criteria for making buildings a bank of materials
-
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46421/entac.v19i1.1958Keywords:
Circular economy, Construction sector, Deconstruction, DfAD, Building end-of-lifeAbstract
Design for Adaptability and Disassembly (DfAD) is a method to reduce the generation of construction and demolition waste and the use of natural resources in construction. It is an underexplored strategy due to the lack of standardized guidelines to guide the deconstruction of buildings. Through an integrative literature review, this study raised 69 DfAD criteria to guide the deconstruction of buildings, emphasizing the standardization, modularization and prefabrication of building materials and components. The implementation of the DfAD requires greater knowledge, the establishment of public policies and the development of circular tools in the construction sector.
References
AJAYI, Saheed et al. Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: Understanding the impediments and requisites for improvements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 102, p. 101-112, 2015.
ANASTASIADES, Kostas et al. Translating the circular economy to bridge construction: Lessons learnt from a critical literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v. 117, p. 109522, 2020.
DORSTHORST, Bart, KOWALCZYK, Ton. Design for recycling, in: Chini, A.R., Schultmann, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 70–80, 2002.
DURMISEVIC, Elma. Circular economy in construction design strategies for reversible buildings. BAMB, 2019.
ELO, Satu; KYNGÄS, Helvi. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, v. 62, n. 1, p. 107-115, 2008.
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (IEA). Global status report on road safety 2015. World Health Organization, 2015.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (ISO). ISO 20887 Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works — Design for disassembly and adaptability, 2020.
KIBERT, Charles. Deconstruction: the start of a sustainable materials strategy for the built environment. Industry and environment, v. 26, n. 2, p. 84-88, 2003.
KIRCHHERR, Julian; REIKE, Denise; HEKKERT, Marko. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, conservation and recycling, v. 127, p. 221-232, 2017.
MACOZOMA, Dennis. Understanding the concept of flexibility in design for deconstruction. Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. University of Karlsruhe Karlsruhe, Germany: CIB Publication, v. 272, 2002.
MUNARO, Mayara Regina; TAVARES, Sérgio Fernando; BRAGANÇA, Luís. Towards circular and more sustainable buildings: A systematic literature review on the circular economy in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 260, p. 121134, 2020.
MUNARO, Mayara Regina; TAVARES, Sergio Fernando; BRAGANÇA, Luís. The ecodesign methodologies to achieve buildings’ deconstruction: A review and framework. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2022.
TORRACO, Richard. Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human resource development review, v. 4, n. 3, p. 356-367, 2005.
TRANFIELD, David; DENYER, David; SMART, Palminder. Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, v. 14, n. 3, p. 207-222, 2003.
WHITTEMORE, Robin; KNAFL, Kathleen. The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of advanced nursing, v. 52, n. 5, p. 546-553, 2005.
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (EMF). Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains, Geneva, 2014.
