SavedAdd your journal

Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 1

Exploring the ‘R’s and constructing the big picture of ‘recycling’ in architecture and construction industry

Arulmalar RAMARAJ
Jothilakshmy NAGAMMAL
Pages
153–169
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is in this context, thematic analysis has been adopted to construct an overall picture of recycling with a thrust on architecture and construction industry.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the current scenario, the three ‘R’s ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ have been extended to fourteen ‘R’s due to the increasing awareness to the impacts generated by the extraction of natural resources, manufacturing of goods as well the disposal of the post consumer goods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Even though the meanings associated with ‘R’s have been increasing, studies have revealed a gap in distinguishing the various degrees of recycling.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is in this context, thematic analysis has been adopted to construct an overall picture of recycling with a thrust on architecture and construction industry.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the current scenario, the three ‘R’s ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ have been extended to fourteen ‘R’s due to the increasing awareness to the impacts generated by the extraction of natural resources, manufacturing of goods as well the disposal of the post consumer goods. Even though the meanings associated with ‘R’s have been increasing, studies have revealed a gap in distinguishing the various degrees of recycling. It is in this context, thematic analysis has been adopted to construct an overall picture of recycling with a thrust on architecture and construction industry. This paper has attempted to explore the ‘R’s, the definitions and classification of recycling by authors in diverse domains and have been consolidated and synthesized. Findings reveal that ‘upcycling’ and ‘upgrading’ are the subsets of recycling. Six degrees of upcycling have been recognized in architecture and the construction sector that revolve around existing building stocks, salvaged building components and building materials with recycled content. In addition, this paper reinstates the need for a ‘pre-process’ phase specific to developing engineered building materials with recycled content especially with secondary resources from domains other than the construction domain.

🔖

Cite This Article

RAMARAJ, A., NAGAMMAL, J. (2022). Exploring the ‘R’s and constructing the big picture of ‘recycling’ in architecture and construction industry. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 1, 153–169. https://ajindex.com/articles/426353

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Abella, T. A. (2013). Follow the Rs: Reduce, Replace, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, Refuse and Reject, Rethink, Retrieved from http://en. envirocitiesmag. com/articles/pdf/waste management eng art2.pdf Alatervo, S. J. (2013). The 6 Rs: making a sustainable impact, Retrieved from https://prosperouswaydown. com/6rs-making-sustainable-impact/ Alhojailan, M. I. (2012). Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 39-47.
  2. Ali, N. S., Khairuddin, N. F., & ZainalAbidin, S. (2013). Upcycling: Re-use and recreate functional interior space using waste materials. In DS 76: Proceedings of E&PDE 2013, the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Dublin, Ireland. Allwood, J. M., Ashby, M. F., Gutowski, T. G., & Worrell, E. (2011). Material efficiency: A white paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(3), 362-381.
  3. Altamura, P., & Baiani, S. (2019, January). Superuse and upcycling through design: approaches and tools. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 225 (1), IOP Publishing. Amick, D. S. (2015). The recycling of material culture today and during the Paleolithic. Quaternary international, 361, 4-20.
  4. Benjamin, D. K (2011).
  5. Recycling myths revisited, Retrieved fromhttps:// www.perc.org/wp-content/uploads/ old/ps47.pdf Björkvall, A., & Archer, A. (2016). Ecologies of ‘upcycling’ as design for learning in Higher Education. In Designs for Learning, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7-12.
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  7. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2012).
  8. Thematic analysis, In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological, 57–71. American Psychological Association. https://doi. org/10.1037/13620-004
  9. Braungart. M (2007).
  10. The wisdom of a cherry tree, International Commerce Review Vol.7, pp. 152-156, https://doi.org/10.1007/s 12146-007- 0020-2.
  11. Bullen, P. A., & Love, P. E. (2011). Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Structural Survey, 29(5), 411-421.
  12. Chan.Y (2007).
  13. Sustainable Environments, USA: Rockport Publishers,
  14. Inc. Claridge, A., Toms, J., &Cubberley, T. (2010). Rome: an Oxford archaeological guide. Oxford University Press.
  15. Belfer-Cohen, A., & Bar-Yosef, O. (2015). Paleolith